Self-styled environmentalist Michael Shellenberger has publicly apologised for his earlier part in creating a climate scare: "On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem."
In a break-through paper just accepted for publication by the International Journal of Atmospheric & Ocean Sciences, U.S. physicist, Dr Edwin Berry shows that natural and human CO2 do not “add” CO2 to the atmosphere. Both natural and human CO2 “flow through” the atmosphere. As CO2 flows through the atmosphere, it raises the level of atmospheric CO2 just enough so CO2 outflow equals CO2 inflow. Nature balances CO2 in the atmosphere when outflow equals inflow.
Dr Berry comments on the release of his break-through paper:
Emeritus Professor Clifford Ollier writes at QUAESTIONES GEOGRAPHICAE: "The oceans are not acid, never have been in geological history, and cannot become acid in the future. Changes in atmospheric CO2 cannot produce an acid ocean. Marine life depends on CO2, and some plants and animals fix it as limestone. Over geological time enormous amounts of CO2 have been sequestered by living things, and today there is far more CO2 in limestones than in the atmosphere or ocean. Carbon dioxide in seawater does not dissolve coral reefs, but is essential to their survival."
Also from towerofreason.blogspot.com (exellent site!) an American certified electromagnetic compliance engineer with more than 30 years practical experience in high power radio frequency and microwave applicationsapologies for this post being highly technical, but explains why his critique of the CO2 driven climate change theory is based on a practical understanding of the intersection between chemistry and electromagnetic theory.
"Solar energy can do a few useful things. It can power a radio in an off-grid location. But it can’t support our day-to-day life. The sun’s incoming energy is extremely dilute, requiring panels spread over vast swathes of land to absorb it, thus pushing out forests and harming biodiversity. The 648 MW Kamuthi solar plant in Tamil Nadu covers ten square kilometres. A tenth of that land would have been sufficient for a larger capacity nuclear facility." Indian political leader Sanjeev Sahblok writes in the Times of India. (A Pigovian tax is a tax on any market activity that generates externalities - costs not included in the market price).
Pat Frank posts at WattsUpWithThat: "In short, climate models cannot predict future global air temperatures; not for one year and not for 100 years. Climate model air temperature projections are physically meaningless. They say nothing at all about the impact of CO₂ emissions, if any, on global air temperatures."
In this important paper, German scientist Uili Kulke, quotes Henrik Svensmark, head of solar research at Denmark’s Technical University in Copenhagen: “The climate is influenced more by changes in cosmic radiation than by carbon dioxide”. CO2 has an effect, of course, “but it is far less than most current climate models assume, and also less than the influence of cosmic radiation”. In his opinion, a doubling of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere would cause an increase in global temperature of at most one degree, and not two degrees, as is now generally accepted.
As the world contemplates greater use of wind and solar power, two new papers from USA, find it would require five to 20 times more land than previously thought, and would warm average surface temperatures over the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees C.
Professor Larry Bell writes at 'Newsmax': All of us nice people enthusiastically support educating and encouraging children about the importance of environmental stewardship. It's quite a different matter, however, to fill their precious minds with fearful fantasies that global survival depends upon solving a mythical climate crisis with magical energy solutions."
One of our American members, Dr Thomas P Sheahen has reviewed at "WattsUpWithThat" the latest book by Danish analyst Professor Bjorn Lomborg. Tom concludes: "Lomborg has a compelling case, and he makes it quite clearly with common-sense reasoning, a grasp of numerical values, and a comfortable writing style. It contains no equations, only graphs. Everyone who is concerned about pursuing the best approach to climate change will find merit in reading this book. "
Distinguished Canadian climate scientist, Professor Timothy Ball rebuts claims by an American group of medical doctors that "climate change" is a threat to human health.
Our planet has just experienced the most extreme two-year cooling event in a century. But where have you seen this reported anywhere in the mainstream media? You haven’t, even though the figures are pretty spectacular. As James Delingpole reports.
This is the story journalist Doron Levin wrote for Forbes magazine in America about the scientific research by Professor Nir Shaviv and Professor Henrik Svensmark, two members of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council. The Forbes editor, however, doesn’t seem to like the piece and has therefore removed it from its website. We post the censored story here for interested readers to make up their own minds about the research by Nir Shaviv and Henrik Svensmark.
What Professor Shaviv himself says about this:
Dr David Legates writes at Cornwall Alliance: "Generally, I conclude most of my climate change presentations with the phrase, 'It’s not about the climate; it never was.' Here, I would like to start with that statement. In this brief article, I will discuss why carbon dioxide isn’t the dangerous gas it is made out to be, why climate change is not an ‘existential’ threat to the planet, and why the Green New Deal is not a solution to climate change."
In this video interview, Viscount Christopher Monckton tells Texans that the real aim of the climate alarmist establishment is totalitarian control of the world, through a "world government".
"As environmental activists jet around the world complaining of 'carbon footprints' and preaching 'renewable energy' while insisting that countries be taxed for their CO2 emissions, they are silent regarding the real and present menace that is currently wiping out millions of human beings around the world," writres Dr Thomas D. Williams.
"Large but previously unrecognized uncertainties must therefore exist in all the past and present air temperature projections and hindcasts of even advanced climate models. The unavoidable conclusion is that an anthropogenic air temperature signal cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables." Patrick Frank posts at Frontiers in Science.
Matt Ridley rebuts biodiversity alarmism at Reaction.Life: "Driven perhaps by envy at the attention that climate change is getting, and ambition to set up a great new intergovernmental body that can fly scientists to mega-conferences, biologists have gone into overdrive on the subject of biodiversity this week.