Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center: Real science seldom leads to a “consensus.” For example, after decades of being told that the “scientific consensus” on nutrition was that fat and cholesterol led to heart disease, now we are hearing “never mind.” Unfortunately, the avoidance of dietary fat led to a shift to carbohydrates, which in turn contributed to today’s obesity epidemic. Likewise, following the warmist’s prescriptions to outlaw carbon, our most efficient and cheapest energy source, will stunt economic growth in the developing world, leaving billions of people in disease and poverty; and will increase energy poverty in the U.S. and prevent job growth, all to achieve a meaningless reduction in the temperatures projected by computer models.
Switzerland ice storm on Lake Geneva, Lac Leman, Genfer See: Dramatic ice formations on land with the lake not frozen.
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.
Andrew Kenny, physicist and mechanical engineer: This article discusses CO2 levels and global temperatures over the last 550 million years, roughly the period of multi-celled life. CO2 has averaged about 2,000 ppm over this time but with huge fluctuations. Temperatures by contrast have been remarkably steady except for three periods of cold (when there was ice at the poles) and a period of semi cold.
John Holdren was President Barack Obama's Science Advisor: In the 1970s he talked about serious man-made global cooling. Since then, he talks about serious man-made global warming. In 2016 they issued a document saying that they would/could reverse climate change. If the climate gets warmer, they would cool it down (by stopping use of fossil fuels) and if the climate gets cooler, they would warm it up. Nothing close to this has ever been done. Here, he talks about the perversity of scientists discussing the "settled science" of man-made global warming. This has tremendous consequences for the global economy and well being of people everywhere. May the red team - blue team man-made global warming discussions begin.
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.
John Shanahan, civil engineer, President of Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA: In order to promote use of nuclear energy, it is necessary to understand how it fits in with other forms of energy, mainly fossil fuels. It is very likely that fossil fuels will be used until they are no longer economical to mine and extract from the earth. Fossil fuels produce H2O and CO2 as their main by-products. A debate rages whether CO2 from fossil fuels is causing irreversible, catastrophic global warming and many other severe weather phenomena. This website presents over 200 articles on all sides of this debate. Go to HOME and the main tab, ENVIRONMENT. This debate is important for nuclear power because we shouldn't use unsound scientific arguments about CO2 from fossil fuels. This article presents photos from around the world to help you decide on the current condition of Earth's climate and how it compares with the past. Is it good or bad? Is it getting seriously worse or not?
Lisa Friedman, The New York Times: The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration. The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited. “Evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans” ...