fossil fuels

Viv Forbes, Executive Director of The Saltbush Club, Australia: The climate alarm media, the bureaucracy and the Green Energy industry follow an agenda which is served by inflating any short-term weather event into a climate calamity. They should take a long-term view. Earth’s climate is never still – it is always changing, with long-term trends, medium-term reversals and minor oscillations. Humanity is best served by those who use good science to study geology, astronomy and climate history searching for clues to climate drivers and the underlying natural cycles and trends hidden in short-term weather fluctuations.

Greta Thunberg, Swedish high school student leading global campaign against fossil fuels: A group of seven- and eight-year-olds had gathered in the library of their school to watch a video of a speech Greta Thunberg delivered at the UN. A Toronto mother says a confusing school presentation involving teen activist Greta Thunberg and a ticking clock left her young daughter fearing Earth’s imminent demise. At least one child yelled “I don’t wanna die” during the presentation on man-made climate change.

The Right Climate Stuff, TRCS, Hal Doiron, Chairman: Astronauts have had a unique perspective of Earth, home to us all. Having viewed it as a whole from above, they realize the finite nature of our planet and have had to weigh what humans may be doing to it through industrialization. The upshot is they’ve become super-sensitive to published information relative to man’s potential influence on the planet but concerned over the direction NASA has taken on climate-change science.

What is green hydrogen and how does green hydrogen ‘work’? And what is blue hydrogen and what is the difference between blue and green?

Javier, Watts Up With That, WUWT: Climate change is a reality attested by past records. Concerns about preparing and adapting for climate change are real. However, the idea that we can prevent climate change from happening is dangerous and might be anti-adaptive. Certain energy policies that might have no effect on climate change could make us less able to adapt.

Charles Battig, MD, electrical engineer, member: CO2 Coalition, The Heartland Institute, TRCS: This presentation shows that carbon dioxide is an essential molecule for life on Earth and not a pollutant like environmental extremists and their politicians claim. People in the free world must come to their senses regarding the importance of fossil fuels for freedom, strong economies, peace, prosperity, healthy environment, preservation of wildlife habitat and biodiversity. An easy to understand document like this is essential for the public. The nuclear power industry should stop making claims that nuclear power can save the world and polar bears from catastrophic man-made global warming. Nuclear power is not able to control Earth's climate. This presentation and many like it clearly explain what controls climate change. Nuclear power is essential to providing strong economies around the world for thousands of years and helping poorer, less prosperous people. It should rely on that strength to get new nuclear power plants going worldwide.

Eric Jelinski, past president of Environmentalists for Nuclear - Canada, farmer, environmentalist, university lecturer with degrees in mechanical and chemical nuclear engineering: There is no such thing as renewable energy. Could you build a renewable energy system without any support from coal, oil or natural gas? I’d like to see the renewable energy advocates mine, manufacture and transport everything that is needed for wind and solar farms and electrical distribution networks using wind and solar alone. Jim Conca, geologist, science and energy writer for Forbes predicts the 2100 mix will be natural gas and wind. John Shanahan, civil engineer says that natural gas and nuclear is better.

Paul Driessen, senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow: On the global stage, despite Herculean efforts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and activist groups to redefine ‘climate change’ and conjure up scary hobgoblins, the obsession over global warming, ‘green’ energy and the Paris climate treaty has hit the rocky shoals of reality. Despite well over $150 million spent by billionaires Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros and multiple environmentalist groups, hard-green voter propositions were resoundingly defeated in the 2018 US elections.

Don Bogard, radio-geochemistry, nuclear geochemistry, planetary science: This article is another scientist's opinion on use of fossil fuels and what will be required for a transition when fossil fuels eventually run out or if governments decide to force abandonment of these energy resources that have created the modern world. He makes a very important conclusion: "Any significant change to the US power infrastructure MUST be a measured and long-term endeavor." There are several reasons for the long transition time: a) We don't have the technical ability to build nuclear plants that fast. b) We must establish used nuclear fuel reprocessing, mainly to save the unused 99% of nuclear energy from the ore. Don't put it back in the ground "forever." c) We must establish standard ways of storing the remaining radioactive waste. d) Nuclear power should only be used in countries with stable governments, strong economies, good education systems, well developed industries to perform some of the maintenance operations. e) We must develop additional nuclear power technologies besides the very large Light Water Reactors of the past. Don Bogard understands these needs. Too many outside the nuclear power profession wrongfully claim that the whole world can be owning and operating nuclear plants in fifty or one hundred years. In reality, it will be several centuries, maybe longer. We must have wise energy planning for the whole world NOW. That must include fossil fuels for generating electricity, not abandoning them for wind and solar.

John Shanahan, civil engineer, President of Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA: Who does not like plants, animals, people and nature? Where do we come from? Through all the processes of life, we come mostly from carbon dioxide in the air and rain water. Here are some answers, some photos of life and some questions about the future.

Ian Plimer, geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne: Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash, it has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.

Patrick Moore has a different opinion.

Climate alarm is nonsense. The idea that rising CO2 will cause dangerous change is nonsense. Actually, it will have no [detrimental] effect on the climate but a wonderful effect on plant life. But the recent rise in CO2 (since about 1850) is because of man burning fossil fuels.

John Shanahan, civil engineer, President of Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA: China, France, Russia, South Korea are countries with a bright future for nuclear power, even oil exporting countries have plans for nuclear power. The United States has minimal plans beyond the first generation of commercial power plants. This is disgraceful. The anti-nuclear organizations, spokespersons, and the public that agree with them can cheer for the moment. Modern societies need fossil fuels and nuclear power to prosper for the long term future. Things have to change and will.

Michael Shellenberger, Founder - President of Environmental Progress: Environmental journalists and advocates have in recent weeks made a number of apocalyptic predictions about the impact of climate change. Bill McKibben suggested climate-driven fires in Australia had made koalas “functionally extinct.” Extinction Rebellion said: “Billions will die” and “Life on Earth is dying.” Vice claimed the “collapse of civilization may have already begun.” Few have underscored the threat more than student climate activist Greta Thunberg and Green New Deal sponsor Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. There is good evidence that the catastrophist framing of climate change is self-defeating because it alienates and polarizes many people. (Note, John Shanahan: The man-made global warming alarmists could also be just plain wrong that fossil fuels are a major source of global warming. See Ed Berry's articles and over 450 other articles on this website challenging the alarmists. Look under the main tab, ENVIRONMENT.)

Vijay Jayaraj, Climate Scientist, Contributor to Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation: It is easy to associate climate skepticism with the Republican Party and climate alarmism with the Democratic Party. It’s also easy to brand skeptics as beneficiaries of big oil and proponents of unfettered capitalism and alarmists as in the pocket of big wind and solar and boosters of socialist central planning. But attitudes about climate change transcend political ideologies, and they should. Here are a few reasons why I, as a climate scientist, am a skeptic.

Ed Berry, physicist and climate scientist: Simple physics explains why man-made carbon dioxide does not cause catastrophic global warming. Analysis of the chemistry of the carbon dioxide cycle is more complex. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change computer models are black boxes. The public doesn't know what's in them and their fudge factors can get any answer they want. The computer models have never explained climate change in the past. Dr. Berry's physics model explains the process of CO2 in the atmosphere. We can accept this explanation or debate it until the next ice age. We can continue to use fossil fuels or forgo them, transfer wealth by mandate and abandon modern living standards. We can believe those who claim that nuclear can control climate change or understand that nuclear can help us when climate changes. Simple.