Scott Denning, Director of Education, ESMEI, Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: The science of Man-made Climate Change is simple to explain, serious to our way of life and solvable. We don't have to choose between progress and prosperity. Many people think: "Our well-being is based on stuff we extract from the ground." When we stop burning coal, will our descendants shiver in the dark? "We create our well-being through crativity, ingenuity, and hard work." The future is bright.
Bryan Leyland, power systems design, mechanical engineer: Most people who believe in dangerous man-made global warming appear to be confident that the world will soon start to warm again and in 20 or 30 years time the predictions of the climate models will have proved to be correct. Many also tell us that we will have reached the 2° "tipping point" where, they claim, irreversible climatic changes will occur by 2050.
Bryan Leyland, power systems design, mechanical engineer: What is remarkable is that a retired engineer with access to the Internet has been able to make reasonably accurate predictions of future climate. Yet, to my knowledge, no computer-based climate model nor any mainstream “climate scientist” predicted the 2011 cooling or the timing and magnitude of the 2015/2016 El Niño/La Nina. To me, this is truly remarkable We could be returning to the conditions in the little ice age. This is confirmed by the very weak solar cycle with no sunspots for significant periods. History tells us that cooling causes crop failures, famine, disease and, often, war. We must not forget that the climate changes naturally and we need to be prepared for climate change–be it cooling or warming.
Harold Doiron, Ph.D. Chairman, The Right Climate Stuff Research Team (Retired NASA scientists and engineers): Since America’s national security depends in part on energy security, unsubstantiated claims about global warming that prevent policymakers from making “rational decisions” with regard to the development of U.S. energy resources have become a national security threat. “At NASA, we have a policy: You can’t make a design decision on a spacecraft or rocket that is not validated,” he said. “You don’t make critical decisions based on ‘garbage in, garbage out.’ Yet our government has been doing that with respect to climate alarm.”
Christopher Monckton: There are references in Pope Francis' climate encyclical that there is a sever warming of the climate. Yet satellites show no warming of the lower troposphere for 18 years 5 months. Just 41 papers, or 0.3% of 11,944 climate papers published in the 21 years 1991-2011, stated that recent warming was mostly manmade. There is, therefore, no scientific consensus, and in recent decades - little warming.
John Holdren, Science Advior to President Barack Obama, Pope Francis, Vatican: Encyclical: "A very solid consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic sysem." "In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in sea level and, .. .. by an increase in extreme weather events. Downpours increasing everywhere. Stormiest winter on record fo Ireland and UK. Warming creates a vicious cycle affecting the availability of essential resources like drinking water, energy, and agricultural production .. .. and extinction of part of the planet's biodiversity."
John Robson: For the past 2.5 million years the Earth has been unusually cold, with repeated glaciations whose periodic advances and retreats science cannot model or predict. In fact we are still in an “ice age” today, with significant polar ice, though in a relatively warmer “interglacial”. Fortunately. Civilization would be impossible without the warming that started suddenly 12,000 years ago, and would become very difficult if the glaciers began another sudden advance. If the Earth actually is now warming, relative to 15,000 years ago or indeed the “Little Ice Age” from the end of the Middle Ages into the mid-19th century, it would be neither surprising nor man-made.
The science arguments of James Hansen former NASA scientist, considered the father of man-made global warming, man-made climate change, man-made climate disruption is part of the basis for this organizations lawsuit against the U.S. Government: Americans who don't agree with this organization's lawsuit plus all the rest of the world that disagrees with this group will just have to go without fossil fuels, if the court rules in their favor. Going without fossil fuels requires lots of windmills and solar panels or going back to life without electricity and energy for transportation, heating, cooling, industry. Anyone who claims that nuclear can jump right in doesn't know reality. A right to a safe climate? What is that?