Diego Ortiz, writer for the BBC: He describes "ten simple changes to help save the planet." Most people understand that the world is much better off with fossil fuels than without them. There are some who absolutely want to get rid of fossil fuels. They (from Rome and Potsdam to Hollywood and Sacramento) say that the world can be saved with a few simple changes. For the sake of people everywhere, lets hope that clearer, smarter heads will prevail.
Gary Young, retired engineering manager: It is lamented that far too few of the electorate have any real understanding of the hard sciences. This lack of understanding has given rise to embracing poor (junk) science at even some of the highest levels of academic and political thought. The current concept of most concern is all the political rhetoric about renewables such as solar and wind providing our energy. There is only one well understood technology at the present time that could produce vast amounts of power in addition to fossil fuels and that is nuclear. We are held back from the nuclear solution by unfounded fear. The root of the fear is the very wrong doctrine of “liner no threshold” concerning the biological effects of radiation. In truth, there are thresholds and almost nothing in science is linear.
James Conca, scientist in the field of earth and environmental sciences. Contributor to Forbes: Through thick and thin, extreme hot or extreme cold, Columbia Generating Station nuclear power plant in Richland, Washington, USA never seems to stop producing over 9 billion kWhs of energy every year, enough to power Seattle. The same with all other nuclear plants in America. Not exactly the same with fossil fuels, wind and solar. Nuclear power plants have more design requirements for extremes of weather and catastrophes natural and man-made than fossil fuel, wind and solar generating stations. Which do you want? How important is continuous electrical power for you?
William Happer, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Princeton University: Albert Einstein would almost certainly have been a global warming skeptic if he were alive today. Many distinguished, contemporary scientists are skeptics too. Most importantly, Einstein would have paid close attention to how well the establishment theory of global warming agreed with experiment. He famously stated: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong.” The earth has done the kind of experiment Einstein had in mind. It has warmed at a much slower rate, two or three times slower, than models have predicted. To make matters worse for alarmists, no one knows how much of the relatively small warming is due to increased carbon dioxide.