Ken Haapala, SEPP, The Science and Environmental Policy Project: Richard Lindzen, Sloan Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at, MIT: None of the political policies dealing with the announced man-made climate change alarms will have much impact on greenhouse gases. Thus we will continue to benefit from the one thing that can be clearly attributed to elevated carbon dioxide: namely, its effective role as a plant fertilizer, and reducer of the drought vulnerability of plants.
Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor at MIT. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. There is at least one positive aspect to the present situation. None of the proposed policies will have much impact on greenhouse gases. Thus we will continue to benefit from the one thing that can be clearly attributed to elevated carbon dioxide: namely, its effective role as a plant fertilizer, and reducer of the drought vulnerability of plants.
Nils-Axel Moerner, former head of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics department at Stockholm University: This is a summary of The Porto Climate Conference on Basic Science of a Changing Climate at the University of Porto in Porto, Portugal: How process in the Sun, Atmosphere and Ocean affect Weather and Climate, Porto September 7 and 8, 2018 included 35 paper, 4 posters and 2 discussion sessions. The conclusions of this conference present very important scientific research about man-made climate change that is the opposite of the alarmist positions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Sebastian Luening, paleogeologist: In der Klimawandeldiskussion wird oft die bereits stattfindende Zunahme der Klimavariabilität unterstellt: „Das Klima wird verrückter.“ Ständig versorgen uns Medien mit neuen Rekorden, Versicherungen mit explodierenden Schadenskurven, im Jahresabstand folgen 100-jährige Extremereignisse. Es folgt eine rationale Annäherung an die Frage, ob das Klima gegenüber früher generell extremer geworden ist und ob das die Folge des anthropogen verstärkten Treibhauseffekts ist.
Many scientists, engineers, professionals in many fields, members of the general public, the Governor of California, the Chancellor of Germany, and the Pope, "know" that mankind through their use of fossil fuels is causing catastrophic global warming, climate change, climate disruption and sea level rise. They demand that the poorer half of the world never use fossil fuels and the richer half stop using them. That would be an anthropogenic catastrophe. A scientific organization in Austria, ZAMG, reports that the climate variability in Austria for the last 200 years is the same or less than for the long term average. So mankind is innocent.
Kieran Nicholson, Denver Post: Finally, a newspaper reporter writes about the weather and compares it with facts in the past rather than sounding the catastrophic man-made climate change alarm. Up and down the Front Range of Colorado cities from Pueblo to Denver, Boulder and Fort Collins have university professors and people with all kinds of credentials who know for certain that man's use of fossil fuels causes catastrophic global warming, climate change, climate disruption, and sea level rise. They fret that the world must stop using fossil fuels. But they have few intentions to stop using their cars, turn the lights, heating and air conditioning off, stop using their iPhones, TVs, computers, ovens, stove tops and microwaves. Just demand that billions of poorer people around the world not increase their use of energy.
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology: Hurricane Florence is not the result of global warming. It's likely due to natural weather patterns, not climate change as some have already said. Coastal lake sediments along the Gulf of Mexico shoreline from 1,000 to 2,000 years ago suggest more frequent and intense hurricanes than occur today. Why? No one knows. Unusual things happen in nature sometimes. The Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1635 experienced a Category 3 or 4 storm, with up to a 20-foot storm surge. While such a storm does not happen in New England anymore, it happened again there in 1675, with elderly eyewitnesses comparing it to the 1635 storm.
Global Warming Policy Forum, GWPF: The global body tasked with naming geological eras, the International Commission on Stratigraphy, has rejected the proposed Anthropocene epoch, the controversial ‘geological’ epoch in which mankind allegedly dominates natural processes.
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.
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.