polarbearscience.com: What is causing the death of the polar bear as a climate change icon? Fat bears are part of it, but mostly it’s the fact that polar bear numbers haven’t declined as predicted. ... Not only have we been seeing pictures of fat bears rather than starving bears in recent years but there are lots of them, in Western Hudson Bay and other seasonal sea ice regions where there should be none (if the models had been correct).
Seth Wynes, Kimberly Nicholas: Current anthropogenic climate change is the result of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere, which records the aggregation of billions of individual decisions. Here we consider a broad range of individual lifestyle choices and calculate their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in developed countries. We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child, living car-free, avoiding airplane travel and eating a plant-based diet. These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling or changing household lightbulbs.
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.
Uli Weber, Geophysiker und Publizist: Jede wissenschaftliche Theorie und jedes wissenschaftliche Theorem kann durch einen einzigen schlüssigen Gegenbeweis widerlegt werden. Und jetzt stellen Sie sich einmal vor, sie hätten einen ganz eklatanten Widerspruch in einer wichtigen physikalischen Berechnung entdeckt, der die Welt, so wie sie uns erklärt wird, nachhaltig verändern würde – oder besser ausgedrückt, Sie glauben entdeckt zu haben, dass es gar nicht notwendig wäre, unsere Welt durch eine Dekarbonisierung bis zum Jahre 2100 vor einer menschengemachten Klimakatastrophe zu retten.
Sarah Kaplan, The Washington Post: About 700 million years ago, Earth turned into a snowball. The polar ice sheets expanded until they engulfed the globe. The oceans turned to slush. The vast expanses of ice and snow reflected the sun's light back into space, exacerbating the endless winter. Temporary relief came in the form of massive volcanic eruptions, which spewed carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and triggered a period of global warming. But that, too, spiraled out of control. Earth became a greenhouse — its oceans hot enough to cook their inhabitants, its blighted landscape further ravaged by floods. Then, suddenly, something about the shifting continents or ash-darkened skies prompted the planet to cool again. The snowball returned.
Dr. Curry a world renowned and academically honored climatologist and former chair of the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology discussed political attacks she has been subjected to that started when she began to question the tactics of climate alarmist “consensus” following the revelations brought into the light by Climategate which clearly displayed the lack of transparency and openness present in mainstream climate science.
David Henderson, John Cochrane, Wall Street Journal: Climate change is often misunderstood as a package deal: If global warming is “real,” both sides of the debate seem to assume, the climate lobby’s policy agenda follows inexorably. It does not. Climate policy advocates need to do a much better job of quantitatively analyzing economic costs and the actual, rather than symbolic, benefits of their policies. Skeptics would also do well to focus more attention on economic and policy analysis. To arrive at a wise policy response, we first need to consider how much economic damage climate change will do. Current models struggle to come up with economic costs consummate with apocalyptic political rhetoric. Typical costs are well below 10% of gross domestic product in the year 2100 and beyond.