climate change

Ed Berry, PhD in Physics with a focus on atmospheric physics. Dr. Berry’s theoretical PhD thesis is recognized as a breakthrough in the science of rain formation and in the use of computer-based numerical models: IPCC claims human emissions have caused ALL the increase in CO2 since 1750. They say it was 280 ppm in 1750 and human emissions alone caused it to rise to 410 ppm today. My preprint shows natural CO2 causes 392 ppm of today’s CO2 level and human CO2 causes only 18 ppm, for today’s total of 410 ppm.

William Happer, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Princeton University - Interview about the topic of man-made global warming. Great damage has been done to the reputation of all of science by the global-warming frenzy of the past few decades. Twenty years ago, supposedly expert scientists solemnly declared that our children and grandchildren would not know what snow is. A few weeks ago, Washington, DC, struggled to dig out of three feet of snow, a record in many locales.

John Holdren, Science Advisor to President Barack Obama claims to be pro-nuclear power but says existing technology isn't safe enough and we must not use key advanced nuclear technology, which is essential in the long-term, Thomas Cochran worked with the Natural Resources Defense Council since the 1970s particularly to impede use of nuclear power, especially the kind that uses most of the potential energy and produces the lease amount of radioactive waste, Stewart Brand is the Founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, initially anti-nuclear power turned pro-nuclear power, He also has become a realist about man-made global warming. He is on the right track in all areas. Ernest Moniz was an Undersecretary for the Department of Energy and Physics Professor at MIT. Cochran and Holdren contributed little to actual development of nuclear power in the United States, mainly criticized it.: This NPR interview addresses a topic that is faulty from the beginning. Can nuclear power contribute to saving the world from catastrophic man-made global warming? Nuclear power can not and will not be expanded far enough to displace fossil fuels significantly for many decades. Whatever nuclear construction is accomplished will hardly impact climate change since it is mostly natural. Nuclear power has its own reasons to be promoted, namely lots of energy for a very long time and better for the environment.

William Happer, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Princeton University - I often hear that since I am not a card-carrying climate scientist — that I, and many other scientists with views similar to mine, have no right to criticize the climate establishment. Few have a deeper understanding of the basic science of climate than I. Greenpeace is one of the many organizations that have made a very good living from alarmism.

Michael Shellenberger, Founder - President of Environmental Progress: Bernie Sanders is determined to have his state, Vermont, and all of America stop using nuclear. He uses his own facts about wind and solar energy and biomass fuels. Michael Shellenberger does an excellent job of presenting the facts and the truth about energy and the environment.

America is in a fast pursuit toward achieving President Biden’s stated goal that “we are going to get rid of fossil fuels” to achieve the Green New Deal’s (GND) pursuit of wind turbines and solar panels to provide electricity to run the world, but WAIT, everything in our materialistic lives and economies cannot exist without crude oil, coal, and natural gas.

The need for electricity will decrease over time without crude oil. With no new things to power, and the deterioration of current things made with oil derivatives over the next few decades and centuries, the existing items that need electricity will not have replacement parts and will ultimately become obsolete in the future and the need for electricity will diminish accordingly

The 20th Century brought horrendous suffering and death. The covid pandemic of 2019 - 2021 caused several million deaths but much less than other pandemics and acts of man. Politicians triggered a global economic downturn that led to a reduction in man-made carbon dioxide emissions. But this did not change the increasing atmospheric CO2 trajectory. The increase in atmospheric CO2 must be from another source, like release of CO2 from the oceans from a naturally warming world. Leaders of the free world are forcing very questionable energy policies (abandon fossil fuels and nuclear power - go with wind and solar). That is unjustified and scientifically baseless. The decisions of alarmist politicians and their backers will cause tremendous suffering and death. Our worst enemies are among us.

Eric Jelinski, past president of Environmentalists for Nuclear - Canada, farmer, environmentalist, university lecturer with degrees in mechanical, chemical and nuclear engineering: Depletion of soil fertility is happening just about everywhere. The UN recently reported that in about 60 harvests soil depletion will be at the point where there are not enough nutrients in the soil to feed ourselves. Shortages of food is already happening in various parts of the world. Those shortages are a threat to national security of Canada, and in fact all western countries. Sustainable development under the guidance of the UN has been a failure. That is why people cannot feed themselves, and have not built themselves the technical, social, and economic infrastructure that we have in the west. Feed somebody for forever is not a solution. Show people how to grow food so they can feed themselves is the solution. The UN represents the ‘failed nations.’ It has concocted the solution to migrate to where there is food.

Roy W. Spencer is Principal Research Scientist in Climatology in the University of Alabama’s National Space Science & Technology Center. Approximately 200,000 people have died due to global terrorism in the last 10 years.During the same time, many millions of people (mostly women and children) have died due to policies promoted by Greenpeace and other “green” organizations (e.g. anti-DDT, anti-golden rice, anti-fossil fuel).

After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase. Claims that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.”

We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.

David Wallace-Wells, New York Magazine, Aiko Stevenson, Huffington Post: Although climate change may now rank alongside ISIS as the world’s most feared security threat according to a new Pew report, the horrors that global warming will unleash in the future, are far “worse than you think” warns David Wallace-Wells. In his sobering piece in New York Magazine, he says that “even within the lifetime of a teenager today .. parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable.”

John Holdren, Science Advisor to President Barack Obama: “The world needs ultimately to completely decarbonize,” We know without any doubt that the climate is already changing in ways that are not explainable by natural influences and that are precisely explainable as a consequence of the heat trapping gases that we have added to the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning and deforestation. We know that damaging impacts are already occurring all around the world. John Holdren, Think about what Holdren says: "World Must Act Now to Reverse Climate Change" If the climate gets colder, we must heat up the planet. If the climate gets warmer, we must cool down the planet. Is this sensible, feasible????

William Happer, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Princeton University: Albert Einstein would almost certainly have been a global warming skeptic if he were alive today. Many distinguished, contemporary scientists are skeptics too. Most importantly, Einstein would have paid close attention to how well the establishment theory of global warming agreed with experiment. He famously stated: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong.” The earth has done the kind of experiment Einstein had in mind. It has warmed at a much slower rate, two or three times slower, than models have predicted. To make matters worse for alarmists, no one knows how much of the relatively small warming is due to increased carbon dioxide.