fossil fuels

Politicians, actors, and "climate activists" warn us regularly that meltwater from massive ice sheets in the Antarctic and Greenland, the Arctic Sea ice, and glaciers around the world will soon drown our coastal towns and cities, and the process will become "irreversible."

But fundamental data, observations, and established physical laws do not support this hysteria of human-made CO2 global warming.

THE BOTTOM LINE: CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVISTS GROSSLY DISTORT AND EXAGGERATE THE EFFECT OF HUMANKIND ON SEA LEVEL.

Dennis Hedke, geophysicist: Are the world's coastal cities destined to be inundated as ice melts at the top and bottom of the planet, causing the oceans to rise? Climate alarmists argue this will be the case if policymakers do not adopt draconian measures to eliminate fossil fuels, especially coal, which produce carbon dioxide emissions that, they allege, cause harmful global warming.

Paul Driessen, CFACT, Roger Bezdek: Saltwater intrusion clearly has been an increasing problem across much of Chesapeake Bay. Climate alarmists attribute this danger to human fossil fuel use. Reality is much different. At least for the Chesapeake region, Houston-Galveston, Texas, area, Santa Clara Valley, California, and other places around the globe, the primary cause of seawater intrusions is not rising oceans – but land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal and to “glacial isostatic adjustments.”

Thomas Ruppert, Coastal Planning Specialist: This primer on sea-level rise (SLR) offers information on its causes and what this may mean for Florida. Has Sea Level Changed Before? Yes. Sea levels around the globe have fallen and risen dramatically over millions of years, driven primarily by glacial advance and retreat. Sea-level changes in the distant past were often substantial and occurred faster than our current change. After the last ice age ended approximately 20,000 years ago, sea level rose rapidly, but for the last few thousand years has been rising very slowly and has been almost stable for the last 4-5 thousand years.

As career physicists, science demonstrates there is no climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2.

Thus no scientific basis for the proposed rule.

“If adopted, disastrous consequences for people worldwide and the U.S. because it would reduce CO2 and the use of fossil fuels.

Calvin Beisner, Cornwall Alliance: Selling nuclear by its lack of CO2 emissions has been a dumb idea all along, and the Greens are certainly not going to continue “supporting” it once it becomes clear we really must begin using a lot more of it.

Geert de Vries, physicist: Since 2010 I said that nuclear power should not sail under the false green flag that advertises its nil-CO2 output. That is because CO2 does not do what it is accused of, and one day people will find out. Then nuclear will lose the traction that came with the nil-CO2. And nuclear will once again be saddled with the old bugbears nuclear waste, radiation danger and proliferation. Until recently I expected that day to be another decade or more in the future.

Harold Doiron, Mechanical Engineer, retired from US Space Program: We need to focus climate research on getting rid of the unnecessary "official" uncertainty regarding the GHG climate threat, by outlawing unvalidated climate simulation model output for use in public policy decision-making, and only trust validated observation-based models that are in compliance with The Scientific Method.

Leon Louw, Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Free Market Foundation: If we want prosperity, we must have huge coal and nuclear power investments. Why does the government take irrational proposals seriously? It may be the victim of a new kind of “Guptas out, IPPs in” state capture. IPPs spend fortunes on propaganda. We do not face a binary choice between renewables and coal/nuclear. The Daft IRP is a 180 degree reversal of the preceding IRP. The lesson to be learned is that the future is unknowable, that what’s needed is humility, to which end the government should replace the biased proposal with a balanced role for all options.

Paul Driessen, Senior Policy Analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, www.cfact.org: But more than 1.2 billion people (more than the USA, Canada, Mexico and Europe combined) still do not have electricity; another 2 billion have electrical power only sporadically and unpredictably. In Sub-Saharan Africa, 700 million still cook and heat with “renewable” wood, charcoal and animal dung. Al Gore, the IPCC, alarmist modelers and researchers, and EPA’s “social cost of carbon” scheme and carbon dioxide “endangerment” decision have all depended on the climate bogeyman. Eternal vigilance, education and pushback by the rest of us will be needed for years to come.

Here is an excellent collection of short videos about the real situation with climate and climate change.

With worldwide refinery closures outpacing new construction, shortages and inflation are likely to be the new norm that inflicts regressive expenses upon those that can least afford it, as control of the worldwide refining industry shifts to Asia and Europe.

As the world has become impassioned with increasing its electricity generation from wind turbines and solar panels from breezes and sunshine, the world is silently slipping into a future of shortages and inflation as society’s demands for all the products and fuels manufactured from crude oil is exceeding the supply available from the dwindling number of refineries.

Ed Berry, physicist and climate scientist: He uses simple, well known principles of physics to analyze and form conclusions about the role of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels in influencing Earth’s climate. These principles can be understood by most school children who have spent a summer day swimming at a pond. Don Bogard is a retired NASA chemist. He views the topic of atmospheric carbon dioxide from the science of chemistry. It is a lot more complex with fewer clear conclusions. This article contains supplementary explanations for the physics model in response to the chemist's comments.

Climate change has happened, is happening and will always happen. Contrary to the message of the last thirty years, current rate of climate change is well within the bounds of natural variability. Thus, a perfectly natural phenomenon became the biggest deception in history.- Tim Ball

“I, and many other scientists, think the warming will be small compared [with] the natural fluctuations in the earth’s temperature, and that the warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind.” - William Happer

“It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.” - Hal Lewis

“Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.” - Richard Lindzen

John Eidson, electrical engineer: The people who try to scare kids about global warming say that picture shows that polar bears are starving due to melting Arctic ice that’s driving away seals, their primary food source. Maybe the bear was so old that it could no longer hunt. Maybe its mother died before she could teach it how to find other prey when the local seal population migrates. Or maybe the people who took that picture went to the Arctic on a mission to find a skinny polar bear to photograph no matter how long it took. Alternate possibilities for that bear’s condition are never mentioned by the people who lead kids to think that a picture of a skinny polar bear is proof that global warming is destroying the planet.

Small nuclear reactors offer extensive flexibility, and they run continuously, independent of day or night, rain or sunshine, wind or no wind. They also do not need a system for delivering a continuous fuel supply; deliveries two or three times a year would be sufficient. Nuclear power is the future.

Robert Bryce, author of “Smaller Faster Lighter Denser Cheaper,” captures the headlong rush of Western culture’s endless drive for ever better technology. It is an extraordinary impulse that has created a world in which more people live longer and more comfortably than ever before. Mr. Bryce’s policy prescriptions will be more welcome in Houston than in the White House. He contends that the pantheon of environmentalists like Mr. Gore, Bill McKibben, Amory Lovins and Greenpeace are wildly optimistic in their extravagant hopes for wind power, solar cells and biofuels.