William Happer, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Princeton University - This short, easy to understand video explains why alarmist predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming, climate change, climate disruption based on computer models is not science. These predictions should not be used to make any government sponsored decisions about use of fossil fuels that are so important for people everywhere.
James Hansen former NASA scientist, considered the father of global awareness of man-made global warming, man-made climate change, man-made climate disruption: The latest prediction does extend the period in which Hansen and Schmidt’s theories cannot be falsified by temperature observations. Up, down or sideways, this paper covers their butts. Why doesn’t the US Government save some taxpayer’s money, ask Punxsutawney Phil for his climate predictions, instead of continuing to pay NASA GISS for their each way bets?
Javier, Watts Up With That, WUWT: Climate change is a reality attested by past records. Concerns about preparing and adapting for climate change are real. However, the idea that we can prevent climate change from happening is dangerous and might be anti-adaptive. Certain energy policies that might have no effect on climate change could make us less able to adapt.
James Conca, scientist in the field of earth and environmental sciences. Contributor to Forbes: Most people have heard of something called externalities, costs not factored into the price. An energy’s deathprint is a rarely-discussed externality. The deathprint is the number of people killed per kWh produced. There is debate on the absolute numbers, but no one debates on the relative ranking from most dangerous to least. It is notable that in media and legislative discussions, the only time death is mentioned is for nuclear, ironic since it has the lowest deathprint of any source.