Larry Bell: "Climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth." - IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The larger issue has to do with just how many of those who stoke the global warming alarm fires have real confidence in that “science.” So let’s briefly review just a few candid comments that some of them have offered on this topic.
Tony Heller reviews Jim Hansen's predictions for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming aka Climate Change. This climate scientist appears to be making predictions based on computer models that contain assumptions that don't represent the full picture nor reality.
Paul Dorian, Meteorologist at Vencore reports that in early June, 2016 the sun had no sun spots. He explains the general significance for climate on Earth when there are prolonged periods of no sun spots. The sun is the dominant influence on Earth's climate, no carbon dioxide from use of fossil fuels.
John Coleman, meteorologist, Founder of the Weather Channel, and witness to how the man-made global warming scare got started with Al Gore provides facts and details in his video from 2014. His essay in 2016 discusses actions by Greenpeace and the Sierra Club decrying the "ugliness" of civilization. These organizations seem to think that things were better in pre-industrial times or modern-day central Africa..
David M. W. Evans - We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message. Here it is. Skeptics agree with government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2; they just disagree about the feedbacks. The climate debate is all about feedbacks: everything else is merely a sideshow.
John Shanahan, President of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy - USA explains the purpose of presenting all sides of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming, CAGW, / Climate Change debate along with comments by scientists on all sides of this discussion. Support for nuclear energy must be by sound science, i.e. following the Scientific Method. One of the sides in the CAGW debate is not following the Scientific Method. The readers of the efn-usa.org website can decide for themselves.
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.
William Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton University - He is a strong supporter of a clean environment. We need to be vigilant to keep land, air and waters free of real pollution, particulates, heavy metals, pathogens, but carbon dioxide (CO2) is not one of these pollutants. Carbon is the stuff of life. Our bodies are made of carbon. Every day a normal human exhales around 1 kg of CO2 - the simplest chemically stable molecule of carbon in the earth's atmosphere.