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
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.
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.
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.
Thorpe Watson, Ph.D. in Physical Metallurgy & Science of Materials. Thirty five year career covering wide range of science disciplines plus 10 year investigation of the climate controversy: According to NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory (Mauna Loa, Hawaii), the CO2 content of the atmosphere is increasing about 2 parts per million (“ppm”) each year. The climate alarmists believe that a doubling of CO2 will result in a global temperature increase of 2 deg. C. Using this unproven, exaggerated CO2/temperature sensitivity, simple arithmetic reveals that CO2 would be responsible for a maximum temperature increase of 0.01 deg. C per year. [(2 ppm x 2 deg. C)/400 ppm = 0.01 deg. C]. Clearly, Harvey is a natural weather event and is not the product of CO2-induced climate change.
Sebastian Luening, Geologist, Paleontologist, publisher of website kaltesonne.de: Das Klimaestablishment hat sich jahrelang bequem eingerichtet. Mithilfe des Klimaalarms wurde politischer Druck aufgebaut, der eigene Bereich erhöht und Fördermittel abgegriffen. Niemand konnte ein Interesse daran haben, dieses praktische und einträgliche System zu verlassen. Es macht daher Sinn, den klimatischen Status Quo durch unabhängige, unbelastete Forscher prüfen zu lassen. Dies ist ein klassischer “Red Team”-Ansatz, der in großen Firmen gelebt wird.
Marjorie Mazel Hecht: Global Warming” is, and always was, a policy for genocidal reduction of the world’s population. The preposterous claim that human-produced carbon dioxide will broil the Earth, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life, came out of a 1975 conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, organized by the influential anthropologist Margaret Mead, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in 1974.
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. After debating climate alarmists for many years, I have concluded the only way to win a climate debate (note I did not say “convert the believer”) is to clearly negate the alarmist hypothesis. Otherwise, a climate debate can go on for years and accomplish nothing.
Alan Caruba, a CFACT adjunct policy analyst: Describing the role of the Sun, Australian geologist, Ian Plimer, said, “There is a big thermonuclear reactor in the sky that emits huge amounts of energy to the Earth…The Sun provides the energy for photosynthesis. The Sun is the bringer of life to Earth. If the Sun were more energetic the oceans would boil. If the Sun were less energetic the oceans would freeze and all life on Earth would be destroyed.” We don’t control the Sun. Or the climate. It controls us. Consider that the Sun has a diameter of 865,000 miles. The Earth’s diameter is 7,917.5 miles. Thus, the Sun’s diameter is 109 times greater than the Earth’s. Carbon dioxide is barely .04% of the Earth’s atmosphere. Reducing it as the U.S.-China agreement proposes would have zero effect on the Earth’s climate.
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.