Thorpe Watson, metallurgical engineering and materials science: The human-induced, global-warming narrative has tremendous traction despite nature’s refusal to co-operate. The narrative falsely claims that carbon dioxide (“CO2” – aka “carbon emissions”) is a pollutant and that it provides mankind with the ability to control the planet’s climate. In reality, CO2 is not a climate-control variable but it is a colourless, odourless, trace gas that is as important as oxygen and water in sustaining life on the planet. The subterfuge implies that hydrocarbon fuels (aka “fossil fuels” – coal, oil, and natural gas) do not provide clean energy, allegedly because of their so-called “carbon emissions”.
Paul Driessen, senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, Pope Francis: We must “enter into dialogue with all people about our common home,” Pope Francis recently told the US Congress, frequently quoting from his Laudato Si encyclical. “We need a conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge … and its human roots concern and affect us all.” I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, the pontiff seems more interested in a lecture than a conversation on climate change. The pope’s advisors believe humans are destroying our planet and dangerously changing its climate. This website shows over a thousand photos of how beautiful the world is today with snow falling from the Equator to the Poles. How much more snow do climate alarmists need in order that they will permit the world to continue using 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: Inflows don’t add to the level of carbon dioxide. Inflows set balance levels. Then actual levels approach balance levels according to a residence time of about 4 years. This leads, with some simple math, to the conclusion that the ratio of human-produced to nature-produced carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is equal to the ratio of their inflows, which is about 1:20. This conclusion is supported by common sense.
Don Bogard, radio-geochemistry, nuclear geochemistry, planetary science: This is an excellent personal summary describing what is known and what is uncertain about the topic of catastrophic man-made global warming and large rise in sea levels causing flooding of cities around the world. This is written from a personal and scientific point of view without political or faith oriented influences. It is very important to understand the topic of man-made global warming, man-made climate change, man-made climate disruption and man-made sea level rise correctly as best as possible. It has tremendous consequences if the conclusions and courses of action are right or wrong.
John Shanahan, civil engineer, president of Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA: Comment #2 on Bloomberg BNA article, Nuclear won't avoid climate problem, (Bobby Magill). Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass) describes challenges of “impacts of climate change on dangerous nuclear waste.” If the ideas in this article are implemented and the reasoning about catastrophic man-made climate change, etc., and dangerous nuclear waste turn out to be wrong, the consequences of going without fossil fuels, permanently disposing of hazardous nuclear waste (used nuclear fuel), and not using the approximate 99% available energy in the uranium ore stored in depleted uranium and used nuclear fuel will certainly be a disaster for humanity.
John Shanahan, civil engineer, president of Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA: Comment #1 on Bloomberg BNA article, Nuclear won't avoid climate problem, (Bobby Magill). This short article covers vast complex topics about energy from wind, solar, fossil fuels, and nuclear, catastrophic man-made global warming, man-made climate change, man-made climate disruption and man-made large rising of oceans with simple broad statements from “experts.” Some statements about the situation with the state of nuclear power in the United States are very accurate. Other statements lack scientific basis and cause serious problems in getting to the right conclusions. If the ideas in this article are followed and the logic and reasoning turns out to be wrong, the consequences of forcing the world to go without fossil fuels are dire.
Jack Hellner, writer for American Thinker: I am nostalgic for the days before the great global warming and climate change panic. Yesterday in Springfield, Illinois it was forecasted to be 97 degrees, but it only hit 92. The record high for this day was 104 in 1934. It is a shame that it has only been colder for 84 straight years. In reverence to Michael Mann and others we should adjust the 1930s temperatures down because they just don't match the agenda.
Bloomberg BNA: New nuclear reactor technology such as NuScale Power LLC’s small modular reactors and government support for existing nuclear power plants won’t be enough to rescue the declining nuclear power industry, according to new research. “Right now, the cost of generating electricity from newly constructed nuclear plants is almost double the cost for power from a new natural gas combined-cycle plant,” “In the absence of a dramatic change in market conditions, political will, and substantial subsidies, there is virtually no chance that the United States will be able to undertake the construction of additional large LWR (light water reactor) power plants in the next several decades.”