fossil fuels

TRCS, The Right Climate Stuff. Retired NASA Apollo Moon Program Physicists, Chemists, Engineers, Astrophysicists, Physicians, Mathematicians, Geologists and Meteorologist's; An Unusually Objective, Interdisciplinary Team. Retired, So Not Beholden To NASA or The Administration. All Non Paid Volunteers & Not Working For “Big Oil”, Big Anything. Willing To Risk Impeccable Reputations. Non Political. A Team That Invites Input From Experts On All Sides Of The Issues. CONCLUSION: Human produced CO2 is not leading to Catastrophic Global Warming (CAGW)

Sebastian Luening, paleogeologist: In the Baltic Sea region, there have been demonstrable major climatic fluctuations over the last 1000 years. Warm and colder periods alternated, with major consequences for the lives of plants, animals and humans. During the "medieval warm period" between 950 and 1250 AD, the northern hemisphere, including the Baltic Sea region, had higher-than-average temperatures compared to the periods before and after. The summer of 2018 experienced warmer than normal temperatures in the Baltic region, making it difficult for those used to air conditioning in the United States to sleep without this convenience after a day of bicycling in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Is this due to man's use of fossil fuels? This paleogeologist shows similar warm periods over the last 1000 years.

No global problem has ever been more exaggerated than climate change. As it has gone from being an obscure scientific question to a theme in popular culture, we’ve lost all sense of perspective.

Michael Shellenberger, Environmental Progress: He has proven his dedication to truth about carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, commitment to humanitarian needs and protecting the environment. For all practical purposes, he has abandoned the extreme global warming alarmism of his advisor, James Hansen. Hansen has dedicated years to supporting a lawsuit to stop use of fossil fuels and force these energy companies to pay vast sums to the public treasury for having produced carbon dioxide, an essential molecule in the cycle of life. God bless Shellenberger. God.... Hansen.

David Henderson, John Cochrane, Wall Street Journal: Climate change is often misunderstood as a package deal: If global warming is “real,” both sides of the debate seem to assume, the climate lobby’s policy agenda follows inexorably. It does not. Climate policy advocates need to do a much better job of quantitatively analyzing economic costs and the actual, rather than symbolic, benefits of their policies. Skeptics would also do well to focus more attention on economic and policy analysis. To arrive at a wise policy response, we first need to consider how much economic damage climate change will do. Current models struggle to come up with economic costs consummate with apocalyptic political rhetoric. Typical costs are well below 10% of gross domestic product in the year 2100 and beyond.

Jones and Company in South Africa presents an excellent interview exposing lies of man-made climate change alarmists.

Armstrong Economics: In your view will the next decade be a minor cold blip or “OMG we’re all going to freeze to death and run out of food ?” The answer is yes, we may be facing below normal temperatures leading to food shortages, health issues, and more unrest! The worst may come during the 2020-2024 period.

Scott Denning, Director of Education, ESMEI, Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: The science of Man-made Climate Change is simple to explain, serious to our way of life and solvable. We don't have to choose between progress and prosperity. Many people think: "Our well-being is based on stuff we extract from the ground." When we stop burning coal, will our descendants shiver in the dark? "We create our well-being through crativity, ingenuity, and hard work." The future is bright.

For at least 114 years, climate “scientists” have been claiming that the climate was going to kill us…but they have kept switching whether it was a coming ice age, or global warming.

William Happer, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Steven Koonin, New York University, Center for Urban Science and Progress, Under Secretary for Science at U.S. Depart. of Energy in President Obama's administration, Richard Lindzen Emeritus Professor, MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences: This is a tutorial on man-made global warming, man-made climate change for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. 1) The climate is always changing. 2) Human influences on the climate are a small (1%) perturbation to natural energy flows. 3) It is not possible to tell how much of the modest recent warming can be ascribed to human influences. 4) There have been no detrimental changes observed in the most salient climate variables and today's projections of future changes are highly uncertain.

Tom Tamarkin: AGW or climate change is not the big problem many claim. Only fossil hydrocarbon fuels and nuclear energy can supply material amounts of energy due to their many orders of magnitude higher energy flux densities than so called renewables. Once fossil fuels are depleted beyond the point of economically viable production there is only one energy source available to provide the Earth’s energy needs. That is the conversion of matter into energy as formulated in the equation E=mc2.

Calvin Beisner, Cornwall Alliance, Gregory Wrightstone, geologist who has been investigating the Earth’s processes for more than 35 years. He is author of the newly published book Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know. European witch hunts of the 15th to 17th centuries targeted "witches" who were thought to be responsible for epidemics and crop failures related to declining temperatures of the Little Ice Age. A belief that evil humans were negatively affecting the climate and weather patterns was the “consensus” opinion of that time. How eerily similar is that notion to the current oft-repeated mantra that Man’s actions are controlling the climate and leading to catastrophic consequences?

John Shanahan, civil engineer, Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA: Some questions and recommendations about man-made climate change, fossil fuels and nuclear power.

A half trillion dollars to subsidize renewables would have raised energy prices, worsened inflation, and undermined decarbonization. But what do we do now?

The centerpiece of President Joe Biden’s legislative agenda is dead. The largest component of spending, $570 billion, was for renewables, electric cars, and other climate change investments.

Most dangerously, Build Back Better would have undermined electricity reliability, raised energy prices, and made the U.S. more dependent on foreign energy imports.

_

C3 Headlines is an anonymous American website providing information skeptical of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and supporting moderation and efficiency in using the blessings of fossil fuels. Fully supports nuclear power: All that past warming was due to normal climatic oscillations and fluctuations within various cycles. This recent warming had nothing to do with CO2 and other emitted greenhouse gases. Just as occurred in the past, it is highly likely that a major portion of the warming since the Little Ice Age is also natural.

I DON’T have opinions. I have facts. They are repeatable and validated.

Fact #1: No one has ever proven that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. For more than two decades I have been asking scientists for this proof. If proven, it would also have to be shown that natural carbon dioxide emissions, 97 per cent of the annual total, don’t drive global warming. This also has never been done.

Howard Cork Hayden, Emeritus Physics Professor, University of Connecticut: This website provides many different explanations on the pros and cons of climate change from use of fossil fuels. It is essential to get this right because fossil fuels are so important. Most man-made global warming alarmists essentially reject and ridicule all explanations from global warming skeptics, going so far as to call them "CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS." The horrors of the New England Witchcraft Trials and the Inquistion of the Catholic Church weren't as bad as being called a "CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER." This article is more technical than we normally post, but it is essential to search for the truth and give the alarmists a chance to deny this science also. The conclusion is still that fossil fuels are not causing catastrophic man-made global warming like Al Gore, Barack Obama and many other politicians and climate alarmist "scientists" claim. It is necessary for nuclear energy advocates to correctly understand all aspects of fossil fuels. Otherwise, what kind of nuclear energy advocates are they?

Paul Driessen, senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow: On and on it goes – with more scare stories daily, more attempts to blame humans and fossil fuels for nearly every interesting or as-yet-unexplained natural phenomenon, weather event or climate fluctuation. And yet countering the manmade climate apocalypse narrative is increasingly difficult – in large part because the $2-trillion-per-year climate “science” and “renewable” energy industry works vigorously to suppress such evidence and discussion … and is aided and abetted by its media and political allies.