Today: 11.Dec.2018

Sebastian Luening, paleogeologist: Leben wir in einer klimatisch außergewöhnlichen Zeit, die alles Vorherige in den Schatten stellt? Dafür muss man in die klimatische Vergangenheit schauen. Anhänger des Klimaalarmismus beschränken sich dabei auf die letzte 150 Jahre und kommen zu dem vorschnellen aber persönlich erhebenden Schluss: Ja, wir sind Teil einer Entwicklung die es noch nie gegegben hat, und wir sind auch noch selber Schuld daran. Wir mächtigen Menschen haben es geschafft, uns das Klima Untertan zu machen.

Edgar Ocampo Tellez: • Decir que las fuentes renovables de energía son inagotables es falso: tienen limitantes técnicas, físicas, y problemas de intermitencia. • El aumento exponencial de consumo de energía es muy reciente. Surge después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. En los últimos ocho mil años la humanidad estuvo conformada por menos de 300 millones de habitantes, pero hoy somos siete mil millones. El potencial renovable de nuestro territorio es de 44 terawatts de energía hidráulica, 87 de eólica, 200 de solar y 52 de geotérmica; en total, 400 terawatts hora anuales; pero nos faltarían 600 más. “Ése es el predicamento en el que se encuentra el modelo energético mexicano, y no es de fácil solución”.

Published in Several energy types

Bjorn Lomborg - When a “solution” to a problem causes more damage than the problem, policymaking has gone awry. That’s where we often find ourselves with global warming today. Actihttp://www.efn-usa.org/administrator/index.php?option=com_k2&view=itemsvist organizations like Worldwatch argue that higher temperatures will make more people hungry, so drastic carbon cuts are needed. But a comprehensive new study published in Nature Climate Change led by researchers from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis has found that strong global climate action would cause far more hunger and food insecurity than climate change itself.

S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. in physics is an atmospheric and space physicist. What is the impact of a warmer climate? It's not the warming itself that we should be concerned about. It is the impact. So we have to then ask: What is the impact on agriculture? The answer is: It's positive. It's good. What's the impact on forests of greater levels of CO2 and greater temperatures? It's good. What is the impact on water supplies? It's neutral. What is the impact on sea level? It will produce a reduction in sea-level rise. It will not raise sea levels. What is the impact on recreation? It's mixed. You get, on the one hand, perhaps less skiing; on the other hand, you get more sunshine and maybe better beach weather. Let's face it. People like warmer climates. There's a good reason why much of the U.S. population is moving into the Sun Belt, and not just people who are retiring.

Newsletter Subscription

  • Latest
  • Popular
  • Charles Sanders, Ph.D. radiobiologist: Dr. Sanders’ book…
  • Wade Allison, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Keble…
  • Jerry Brown, two time governor of California…
  • Roger Bezdek, President of Management Information Services,…
  • Bill Gates has a clear vision of…
  • Charles Sanders, Ph.D. radiobiologist: Dr. Sanders’ book…