Today: 24.Jun.2018
Man-Made Global Warming - Skeptical of serious anthropogenic global warming
Man-Made Global Warming - Skeptical of serious anthropogenic global warming (105)

31.May.2018 Written by

Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor at MIT. This short video explains the man-made climate change views of alarmists, skeptics, politicians, extreme environmental groups and the media.

16.Apr.2018 Written by

Marc Morano, Editor of ClimateDepot.com blog a project of CFACT, Anthony Watts, publisher of wattsupwiththat.com Watts Up With That? The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change: This book covers the history of climate, from the global cooling ‘coming ice age’ scare of the 70s to the ‘we have just a few years left to save the planet’ that characterizes the current global warming scare. Written in a light reading style, virtually every page is meticulously referenced with sources for the points he makes.

08.Apr.2018 Written by

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.

22.Dec.2017 Written by

Vaclav Havel, , first Prime Minister (1993–1998) and second President of the Czech Republic (2003–2013). The issue of climate alarmism, of man-made and human society endangering global warming has become one of my main topics as well as worries. I strongly disagree with the global warming doctrine which is an arrogant, human freedom and prosperity of mankind endangering set of beliefs, an ideology, if not a religion. It lives independently of the science of climatology. Its disputes are not about temperature, they are part of the “conflict of ideologies”.

20.Dec.2017 Written by

Tim Ball, Environmental Consultant, Tom Harris, Executive Director of International Climate Science Coalition, Paul Driessen, Senior Policy Advisor, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow: The plot to deceive the world about human-caused global warming gathered momentum right after the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) created the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. “Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation.” More than any other event, that single hearing before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee publicly initiated the climate scare, the biggest deception in history. It created an unholy alliance which was bolstered by the U.N. and the popular press – leading to the hoax being accepted in governments, industry boardrooms, schools and churches all across the world.

02.Dec.2017 Written by

Bryan Leyland, power systems design, mechanical engineer: Most people who believe in dangerous man-made global warming appear to be confident that the world will soon start to warm again and in 20 or 30 years time the predictions of the climate models will have proved to be correct. Many also tell us that we will have reached the 2° "tipping point" where, they claim, irreversible climatic changes will occur by 2050.

06.Nov.2017 Written by

Istvan Marko (1956 – 2017) was a professor and researcher in organic chemistry at the Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium. CO2 is not, and has never been, a poison. Each of our exhalations, each of our breaths, emits an astronomical quantity of CO2 proportionate to that in the atmosphere (some >40,000 ppm); and it is very clear that the air we expire does not kill anyone standing in front of us. What must be understood is that CO2 is the elementary food of plants. Without CO2 there would be no plants, and without plants there would be no oxygen and therefore no humans. The equation is as simple as that. Our relentless crusade to reduce CO2 could be more harmful to nature as plants are not the only organisms to base their nutrition on CO2

04.Nov.2017 Written by

Ed Berry, PhD in Physics with a focus on atmospheric physics. Dr. Berry’s theoretical PhD thesis is recognized as a breakthrough in the science of rain formation and in the use of computer-based numerical models.: Continued human emissions will not increase the 18-ppm human-caused balance level. They will only maintain it. Therefore, there is no cause for alarm. The human-caused 18-ppm would disappear in a few years if human emissions stopped. Nature’s 392-ppm balance level would remain. The Paris Climate Agreement proposed to reduce worldwide human emissions by 28 percent of 18 ppm, or by 5 ppm. The Paris Agreement would not change climate and would not stop natural climate change.

22.Oct.2017 Written by

Sebastian Luening, Geologist, Paleontologist, publisher of website kaltesonne.de: The storms are no different – but we are It’s not the weather that has got worse, it’s our ability to cope without the creature comforts. This article documents that increased storminess in Europe going back centuries is mostly associated with colder climate conditions and weak solar activity, not the recent use of fossil fuels.

19.Oct.2017 Written by

Ed Berry, PhD in Physics with a focus on atmospheric physics. Dr. Berry’s theoretical PhD thesis is recognized as a breakthrough in the science of rain formation and in the use of computer-based numerical models. His model of the microphysics of rain formation is summarized in cloud physics textbooks and taught in university courses: It may be hard to believe, but climate realists now come in two opposing flavors: vanilla and chocolate. The chocolates want to prove the IPCC is fundamentally wrong by using solid, simple arguments like I have summarized above. The chocolate argument is sufficient to cut off the alarmist argument at its knees. Nothing more is needed.

Newsletter Subscription

  • Latest
  • Popular
  • Edgar Ocampo Tellez: El propósito de este…
  • Alexander Hellemans, IEEE Spectrum: As soon as…
  • Vaclav Smil, Czech-Canadian scientist and policy analyst.…
  • IEEE SPECTRUM, The Institute of Electrical and…
  • Nadine Freischlad, writer for Mongabay Series: In…