fossil fuels

LNG as a fuel has existed for many years in Europe. Still, it has always been an outlier. This is about to change. Not only has the European Union pinned LNG on its clean air targets, but even single countries also come to realize that this is truly the only operational option for clean trucking.

Russia has many new fields to drill into and develop. But those fields are even harder to develop than the original ones. Hence they are way more expensive. Technological progress helps somewhat but its no magic wand. But today, Russia cannot use Soviet-Union-style economics to make those impossible fields work. Those developments cost what they cost and the locations of the fields have not become any better since then.

Alexander Hellemans, IEEE Spectrum: As soon as the new Dutch government took office in October, it announced an aggressive target—to reduce carbon emissions by 49 percent by 2030. This will ultimately require the Netherlands to sequester 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year—equivalent to the annual emissions produced by 4.5 coal-fired power plants. Sequestering that much CO2 underground will be difficult, whether it’s captured directly from the flues of power stations and steel mills or extracted from the air. Currently, the Netherlands sequesters less than 10,000 metric tons of CO2 annually.

John Shanahan, Civil Engineer, Editor of allaboutenergy.net and efn-usa.org: The Nuclear Energy Institute website makes statements suggesting that carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is causing catastrophic man-made climate change. NEI should avoid these claims and work on removing - resolving hurdles that are holding nuclear back. China and Russia are moving forward with nuclear as fast as possible with less costs. The situation in Europe and North America is a shame.

Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh. Professor Cohen was a staunch opponent of the so-called Linear no-threshold model (LNT) which postulates there exists no safe threshold for radiation exposure:

Jay Lehr, Ph.D. Past Science Director at The Heartland Institute, Member of the Professional Speakers Network, speaking on agriculture, environmental policy, aging, health & nutrition, retirement/aging and green/environment. To stay fit and alert he does long distance bicycling with his wife and has parachuted once a month most of his adult life.: This PowerPoint Presentation was prepared for the President of the United States in late 2016. The President has acted as if he understands the message and agrees with it. People everywhere should do the same. Fossil fuels have been and will remain the most important energy source for the world. Hydro-electric plays an important role. Nuclear energy is the major hope for the long term future. Fear monger groups and people with radical political agendas want to get rid of fossil fuels and nuclear. If they prevail, the world is in for a lot of suffering, genocide, environmental destruction and loss of biodiversity. The extreme greens must be stopped and quickly.

Along with becoming shorthand for the soullessness of modern consumer society, with the birth and growth of the environmental movement, plastic began being denigrated as a unique threat to the Earth. Today, many people just assume plastic is horrible for the planet. Governments big and small try to, and sometimes successfully do, ban “single-use” plastic bags and straws, supposedly to protect the environment.

Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate [of the Earth].” The models can’t properly model the Earth’s climate, but we are supposed to believe that, if carbon dioxide has a certain effect on the imaginary Earths of the many models it will have the same effect on the real earth.

Once money and status started flowing into climate science because of the disaster its denizens were predicting, there was no going back.

The purported climate catastrophe ahead is 100% junk science.

Paul Driessen, senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow: Fifty years ago, I helped organize Earth Day #1 programs on my college campus, calling attention to serious pollution problems that afflicted much of the USA. Over the ensuing decades, laws, regulations, and changed attitudes, practices and technologies reduced most of that pollution, often dramatically. What I find fascinating in all this is the steadfast, often nasty determination of scientists, politicians and interest groups promoting alarmist themes – and profiting immensely from them – to reject and deny any science, history and evidence that undermines their claim that nothing like this ever happened before.

Michael Mann, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University versus the NATIONAL REVIEW. FREE SPEECH. Seldom in the history of the United States have so many academics been so far off from sound science and imposed their views on everyone else. The NATIONAL REVIEW criticized Michael Mann's teaching on catastrophic man-made global warming and was sued by him. The case has languished for years in the lower courts. It is time for the Supreme Court to rule on this issue.

Michael Hart book author, Michael Kelly book reviewer: Let us be clear at the outset: the global climate is changing, and has always been changing. The earth has warmed by 1C over the last 150 years. That is not the issue. The issue is whether the human emissions of carbon dioxide since 1850 are heralding an imminent and certain global climate catastrophe that could be averted by engineering projects.

Dr. Patrick Moore has been a leader in the international environmental field for over 30 years. He is a founding member of Greenpeace and served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International. As the leader of many campaigns Dr. Moore was a driving force shaping policy and direction while Greenpeace became the world's largest environmental activist organization.

John Shanahan, Civil Engineer, Editor of allaboutenergy.net and efn-usa.org: Individuals with science degrees (John Holdren, Tom Cochran, Michael Mann, Jim Hansen, etc.), organizations with science in their name (national academies of science), universities, organizations with misleading names (Natural Resources Defense Council), actors, main stream media, and politicians have been working since the 1970s to have the world stop using fossil fuels. This would set humanity back to lifestyles and life expectancies of the Middle Ages or at least back to the 1800s when there was much slavery and horse manure.

Charles Battig, M.D. and electrical engineer: In the propaganda wars committed in the name of righteous eco-environmentalism, the term "climate" has been defined as whatever is necessary to achieve compliance from the masses, and financial gain for the ruling classes. Being a physician (as well as an engineer), I always wanted to pose the question to Al ( the earth has a fever) Gore...where precisely shall we stick the thermometer in sick mother earth?

Robinson Meyer staff writer for The Atlantic: The Atlantic Magazine publishes articles about man-made global warming. One of their staff writers, Robinson Meyer, is concerned about man-made global warming. But he correctly understands that nuclear power is not a Silver Bullet solution. There are several obvious, but ignored reasons: 1) Electric generation is only a fraction of uses for fossil fuels. The other uses will continue for a long time. 2) Nuclear power can't be allowed to be operated in countries with bad governments, terrible economies, poor education systems and no local industry to support it. 3) At the very best, it would take the world more than a century to switch entirely to nuclear power, probably several centuries. The supposed man-made global warming crisis is said to have to be solved in fifty years or so.