Douglas Lightfoot, Mechanical Engineer, Founder, Lightfoot Institute, http://www.thelightfootinstitute.ca: The scientific evidence used in this study is robust and comes together from many reliable sources. Evidence is connected in new and innovative ways to expand and clarify the overall picture of climate change as experienced by the Earth and its inhabitants. Because of this, significant parts of the evidence and how it is used will be new and unfamiliar to many scientists. Nevertheless, the results and conclusions of this study are important to the wellbeing of everyone on Earth.
Howard Cork Hayden, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut: For the last half-million years, there have been 100,000-year glacial periods interrupted by brief (10,000-15,000-year) interglacial such as the one we’re in now. In all cases, the temperature changes have preceded CO2 changes, and CO2 has never been able to ward off descent into glacial cycles.
Uli Weber, Geophysiker und Publizist: Jede wissenschaftliche Theorie und jedes wissenschaftliche Theorem kann durch einen einzigen schlüssigen Gegenbeweis widerlegt werden. Und jetzt stellen Sie sich einmal vor, sie hätten einen ganz eklatanten Widerspruch in einer wichtigen physikalischen Berechnung entdeckt, der die Welt, so wie sie uns erklärt wird, nachhaltig verändern würde – oder besser ausgedrückt, Sie glauben entdeckt zu haben, dass es gar nicht notwendig wäre, unsere Welt durch eine Dekarbonisierung bis zum Jahre 2100 vor einer menschengemachten Klimakatastrophe zu retten.
Dr. Curry a world renowned and academically honored climatologist and former chair of the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology discussed political attacks she has been subjected to that started when she began to question the tactics of climate alarmist “consensus” following the revelations brought into the light by Climategate which clearly displayed the lack of transparency and openness present in mainstream climate science.
David Henderson, John Cochrane, Wall Street Journal: Climate change is often misunderstood as a package deal: If global warming is “real,” both sides of the debate seem to assume, the climate lobby’s policy agenda follows inexorably. It does not. Climate policy advocates need to do a much better job of quantitatively analyzing economic costs and the actual, rather than symbolic, benefits of their policies. Skeptics would also do well to focus more attention on economic and policy analysis. To arrive at a wise policy response, we first need to consider how much economic damage climate change will do. Current models struggle to come up with economic costs consummate with apocalyptic political rhetoric. Typical costs are well below 10% of gross domestic product in the year 2100 and beyond.
Switzerland ice storm on Lake Geneva, Lac Leman, Genfer See: Dramatic ice formations on land with the lake not frozen.
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?
The Right Climate Stuff, TRCS, Hal Doiron, Chairman: Astronauts have had a unique perspective of Earth, home to us all. Having viewed it as a whole from above, they realize the finite nature of our planet and have had to weigh what humans may be doing to it through industrialization. The upshot is they’ve become super-sensitive to published information relative to man’s potential influence on the planet but concerned over the direction NASA has taken on climate-change science.
Calvin Beisner, Cornwall Alliance: For 218 years—since Thomas Robert Malthus published the first edition of his Essay on the Principle of Population—people have been coming up with new rationales for limiting or even reducing human population. Julian Simon, in The Ultimate Resource and I in Prospects for Growth: A Biblical View of Population, Resources, and the Future, provided both theoretical and empirical evidence that such fears were baseless. If people are fundamentally consumers and polluters, as extreme environmentalists picture them, it may make sense to try to reduce population size. If they are instead made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26) to be creative and productive, then His instruction for them to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over” everything in it makes better sense.
Uli Weber, Geophysiker: „Mit dem Begriff Tabu wurde in der traditionellen hawaiischen Gesellschaft ein unbedingtes Verbot bezeichnet, dessen Übertretung schwerste Strafen nach sich zog. Der Vollzug der Todesstrafe wegen Tabubruchs war keine Seltenheit.… In steinzeitlichen Kulturen betrug die verfügbare pro-Kopf Energiemenge etwa das 3 bis 6-fache des menschlichen Grundbedarfs. Im Zeitalter von Ackerbau und Viehzucht etwa 18 bis 24-fache. In unserem Industriezeitalter 70 bis 80-fache des Grundbedarfs. Wir sind hier in den westlichen Industrienationen eigentlich gar nicht mehr so weit vom richtigen Paradies entfernt. Wir haben die zornige Göttin Pele lediglich gegen eine gütige Mutter Gaia eingetauscht und uns für sie inzwischen ebenfalls ein paar schöne Tabus ausgedacht: 1) Eine zwanghafte CO2-Vermeidung, 2) eine globale Klimagerechtigkeit und 3) die Dekarbonisierung der ganzen Welt.“