CO2 Coalition, www.co2coalition.org: Mark Twain said, "It is not so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. Rather, the mischief is caused by things that we do know that ain’t so.” We “know” that carbon dioxide is “bad for the environment.” (In fact, it is a prerequisite for life.) We “know” that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is reaching historically dangerous levels. (In fact, we have, these past centuries, been living through a CO2 famine. We “know” that on the subject of climate change, the “science is settled”.
Rodney W. Nichols and Harrison Schmitt: In the U.S., and for much of the world, the most dangerous environmental pollutants have been cleaned up. U.S. emissions of particulates, metals and varied gases—all of these: ozone, lead, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur—fell almost 70% between 1970 and 2014. But a myth persists that is both unscientific and immoral to perpetuate: that the beneficial gas carbon dioxide ranks among hazardous pollutants. It does not.
Die Kalte Sonne, Sebastian Luening: Die Wissenschaftsgeschichte ist reich an Entdeckungen, Fortschritt, Irrungen und Wirrungen. Wie werden zukünftige Generationen von Forschern die Geschichte der Klimawissenschaften sehen? Wo werden Sie den Wendepunkt zwischen ungebremstem Alarm und einsetzendem Klimarealismus setzen?
Ulrich Weber, Geophysiker: Die Grundlage unseres Lebensstandards ist die industrielle Wertschöpfung durch Nutzung fossiler und atomarer Energieträger, ebenso wie unsere statistisch nahezu verdoppelte Lebenserwartung gegenüber „ökologischen“ Gesellschaften auf der alleinigen Grundlage von Ackerbau und Viehzucht.
Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba: The best answer to most of the claims by climate activists and their political allies is simply: so what? "Climate change is real," they say. So what? Gravity and sunrise are also real. That doesn't mean we cause them or we would be better off without them. Climate has been changing since the origin of the atmosphere billions of years ago.
Uli Weber, Geophysiker: Klimahysterie: Die Weltbevölkerung als Ganzes hat riesige Probleme, die sich nicht auf die griffige Formel reduzieren lassen: Wenn wir den Ausstoß von CO2 verhindern, wird alles gut! Wir sollten daher das Aufkommen jeglicher Angstgläubigkeit um die vorhergesagte Klimakatastrophe vermeiden. Überschlägige Berechnungen zeigen erhebliche Widersprüche in den Grundannahmen für die Abhängigkeit unseres Klimas von CO2 auf und weisen nach, dass sowohl unsere Befürchtungen als auch unsere klimapolitischen Zielsetzungen unrealistisch hoch sind.
William Happer, Professor of Physics - He believes that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind. He predicts that future historians will look back on this period much as we now view the period just before the passage of the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution to ban the manufacturing, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors. It as the 1917 version of saving the planet. What about the frightening consequences of increasing levels of CO2? In a word, they are wildly exaggerated, just as the purported benefits of Prohibition. At least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player.
D. Kreutzer, N. Loris, K. Tubb and K. Dayaratna: Hysteria over global warming is now pervasive in the federal government, driving energy and environmental policies, and those of nearly every federal department and agency. Beyond the waste and misallocation of taxpayer dollars, these policies enable cronyism, favoring elites and undermining the fairness of our economic system. Whether one thinks global warming poses little or no threat or that the planet is on a path toward catastrophe, the cumulative climate effect of these policies, if implemented, would be a change in the earth’s temperature almost too small to measure.
Bjorn Lomborg - The Obama administration released a new report this week that paints a stark picture of how climate change will affect human health. Higher temperatures, we’re told, will be deadly—killing “thousands to tens of thousands” of Americans. The report is subtitled “A Scientific Assessment,” presumably to underscore its reliability. But the report reads as a political sledgehammer that hypes the bad and skips over the good. It also ignores inconvenient evidence—like the fact that cold kills many more people than heat.
Mario Loyola - The Danish scientist Bjørn Lomborg, a prominent critic of the top-down international conference approach to climate change, called the Paris agreement (COP21, December 2015) the “costliest in history” if implemented. According to Lomborg, the agreement would “reduce temperatures by 2100 by just 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.09 degrees Fahrenheit)…. This is simply cynical political theater, meant to convince us that our leaders are taking serious action…a phenomenally expensive but almost empty gesture.” NASA scientist Jim Hansen, one of the earliest proponents of the idea that global warming is manmade, slammed the deal as “half-assed and half-baked,” a “fake,” and a “fraud.”