fossil fuels

It has been a little more than a month since the United Nations climate meeting at Glasgow, yet global use of fossil fuels has increased rapidly.

Within a span of a few months, the U.S. president went from being a climate savior to climate villain. Though many may classify his actions as temporary solutions (to a non-existent problem), the rest of the world sees through the veneer of climate politics and the hypocrisy within.

Judith Curry,Ph.D. Geophysical Sciences. President (co-owner) of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN). Previously, Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology: There is considerable debate over the fidelity and utility of global climate models (GCMs). GCM outputs are used by economists, regulatory agencies and policymakers, so GCMs have received considerable scrutiny from a broader community of scientists, engineers, software experts, and philosophers of science. This report attempts to describe the debate surrounding GCMs to an educated but non-technical audience.

Don Bogard, radio-geochemistry, nuclear geochemistry, planetary science: The recent release of part 2 of the US National Climate Assessment report, November 2018, prompted all sorts of press reports and similar activity which predicted future calamity and destruction if the world did not take drastic action now. Two points the report did not make -- 1) the UN-IPCC gives a broad range of possible future temperatures of varying probability and the possibility used for this report is at the improbable high end; and 2) it exaggerated any effects from such an unlikely warming. If these future warming predictions have any reality, an increase in global temperature of 2 degrees Celsius, relative to 19th century temperature, cannot be avoided by any action.

The only mention of the Stefan-Boltzmann in the first 31 years of the UN IPCC Assessment Reports occurs in the 6th (2021). The law is implicit in some drawings showing environmental heat flow, especially those showing the upward emission of IR from the surface. However, it is never—repeat NEVER—applied to predicted future surface temperatures. Doing so would expose the folly of most (if not all) climate models.

The sole mention of the equation is in reference to the “Planck Response,” a negative feedback phenomenon. Importantly, it applies to a disequilibrium situation where the heat radiated to space is greater than or less than the heat absorbed from the sun, and tends to hold the surface temperature constant at a set point determined by the solar flux, the albedo, and the greenhouse effect.

Vijay Jayaraj, Research associate, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation: Has the climate propaganda reached a point where radical climatism is leading us into dangerous negligence? The severe winter in the northern hemisphere has been widely recorded. However, key climate information providers have altered data. The result — intended or not — has been to make the recent record lows of the winter appear normal.

Sanjeev Sabhlok, Economist: If CO2 were a pollutant, then carbon emissions trading would be a useful solution. But my personal conclusion is that climate science is too primitive to be of any use in making policy. Let it first get its predictions right and become a genuine science. In the meanwhile, we know for sure that the modest increase in CO2 over the past fifty years has been enormously beneficial.

Garth Paltridge, retired Australian atmospheric physicist. Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University and Emeritus Professor and Honorary Research Fellow at the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Oceans Studies, University of Tasmania. The bottom line of politically correct thought on the matter—the thought that we must collectively do something drastic now to prevent climate change in the future—is so full of holes that it brings the overall sanity of mankind into question. For what it is worth, one possible theory is that mankind, or a fraction of it has become both over-educated and more delicate as a result of a massive increase of its wealth in recent times. It has managed to remove the beliefs of existing religions from its consideration—and now it misses them. As a replacement, it has manufactured a set of beliefs about climate change that can be used to guide and ultimately to control human behaviour. The beliefs are similar to those of the established religions in that they are more or less unprovable in any strict scientific sense.

Ed Berry, physicist and climate scientist: Global warming is not your fault. Don’t over complicate climate physics. Simple physics proves the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, is wrong. Your carbon emissions do not cause climate change. Nature causes climate change. This article explains how carbon dioxide flows through the atmosphere, the oceans and land.

Government plans to capture carbon dioxide from power plants would be a tremendous waste of energy and money. It would weaken food production and thus make life worse for all animals, including humans. Many people in government and the voting public have no idea about science. This will lead to the downfall of freedom and free enterprise to be replaced by evil that will control most of our lives, what we can do and how we must think.

Kelvin Kemm, CEO of Nuclear Africa, is dedicated to promoting nuclear energy throughout Africa and he is working with countries in Asia who are looking to nuclear power also. This month marks the tenth anniversary of “Climategate” – the release of thousands of emails to and from climate scientists who had been (and still are) collaborating and colluding to create a manmade climate crisis that exists in their minds and computer models, but not in the real world.

At CLINTEL in the Netherlands, we see that during the past 30 years two topics are most often discussed in climate science and policy circles:

I. What is the influence of the increased CO2 concentration on the temperature in the atmosphere, particularly the lower troposphere?

II. What is the cause of the increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

The mainstream climate theory states that (1) the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of global warming ánd (2) that the increasing CO2 is caused by human activities. This explains the passionate 'War on CO2' in Western climate policies and the firm belief in climate emergency.

In CLINTEL however, we argue that there is NO question of climate emergency. In the past 160 years humanity has experienced an unbelievable boom. For the first time in history, a large portion of the world's (growing) population has an economically dignified existence.