Energy

Why Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life on planet Earth

The main hobgoblin of the current climate scam is carbon dioxide generated by burning fossil fuels (which represents only 0.1% of total greenhouse gases). Our civilization depends on fossil fuels and life on Earth depends on carbon dioxide. The following essay shows why carbon dioxide is necessary for life.

Farming the air

by David Wojick, CFact.org

You are built almost entirely out of carbon dioxide and water. So is all the food you eat. Likewise for all the energy you use moving about and staying alive. Carbon dioxide and water! In short the carbon dioxide in the air is the global food supply. This is why all life on Earth is said to be “carbon based”.

The climate alarmists play a tricky word game here. They call carbon dioxide “pollution” and wind and solar power “clean.” Our food supply is not pollution. Nor is emitting carbon dioxide (which we all do when we exhale) unclean. This is just false advertising. Watching a child grow is watching processed carbon dioxide be reprocessed.

Here is how it works. Plants collect carbon dioxide from the air then use sunlight and water to create the stuff they consume to build their bodies and to live on. They also use tiny amounts of vitamins and minerals, just as we do. Fertilizer is like vitamins, not like food. So almost all of what they use is carbon dioxide and water. Animals eat the plants for food, basically reprocessing the carbon dioxide and water. Then we eat both plants and animals.

There is a saying that you cannot live on air but in fact that is just what we do. All of our food begins as airborne (or waterborne) carbon dioxide. Our farmers are literally farming the air!

Go into a grocery store and look around. All the food you see — vegetables, fruit and meat — fresh, frozen or canned — is processed carbon dioxide. So are the people shopping there. So are you.

The climate scare is based on the fact that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has been slowly increasing for the last hundred years or so. That this might cause a tiny bit of global warming is really not a problem. The good news is that plant productivity is increasing around the world as a direct result of the increasing carbon dioxide. This is called the “greening” of planet Earth and it has been clearly observed by NASA satellites.

So the global food supply of carbon dioxide has been steadily increasing. This helps explain how we are able to feed our growing human population. Crop yields have consistently increased even though the amount of farm land has actually gone down.

The actual process is a miracle. Plants are passive consumers. They sit there and wait for carbon dioxide molecules to bump into them, where they are then combined with water and sunlight to make the plant’s food. Carbon dioxide is called a trace gas because there is very little of it as a fraction of the air. A hundred years ago it is estimated that there was something like one carbon dioxide molecule out of every 3,000 air molecules. Today it is more like one out of 2,500 which is a big help to the passive plants.

Note that this increase in global plant growth due to increasing carbon dioxide is incorrectly called the “fertilization effect”. It should be called the food effect. Imagine putting on a table everything you will eat in a day. Next to that put a vitamin pill. Fertilizer is like the pill while carbon dioxide is like the pile of food.

Also the carbon dioxide is not there because of our burning gasoline, diesel, natural gas, oil and coal. It is part of a natural “carbon cycle” that is twenty times bigger than our emissions. Life on Earth is part of and depends on this natural carbon cycle. Our carbon dioxide just adds a little bit to it, which is a good thing.

Unfortunately you will seldom, if ever, hear any of this, because of climate change hysteria. Carbon dioxide is called dangerous pollution, when it is actually the stuff of life. The increase is decried as bad when it is actually good. The alarmists want to stop the increase or even reverse it, ignoring that this is the global food supply. As a carbon based life form we should be leery of calls for “decarbonization”.

Likewise calling wind and solar power “clean energy” just because they do not create carbon dioxide is false, bordering on a hoax. There is nothing unclean about carbon dioxide. It is our food.

We should be very thankful that carbon dioxide is increasing, not demonizing it. We are all made of carbon dioxide. (Source)

See also: Why reducing carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuel will have no effect on climate

People for the West newsletter for June 2022

The People for the West newsletter for June, 2022 is now online:

https://wryheat.wordpress.com/people-for-the-west/2022-archive/2022-06-june/

In this issue we will examine the science and politics of energy and climate. As H. L. Mencken once wrote:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

The first article shows why carbon dioxide (and the more the better) is vital for life.

Under the “State of the Union” section is a link to a free E-book by Milton Friedman titled: Why Government Is the Problem.

Grijalva’s Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act Is the Wrong Solution for American Mining

The following article is written by Congressman Pete Stauber who represents Minnesota’s Eighth Congressional District and serves as the ranking member of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee. Raul Grijalva is chairman of the committee.

Everything in this world is either grown or mined, and if we don’t grow it or mine it in America, we import it. Events from the past few years, namely the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, have highlighted America’s hunger for metals, including copper, nickel, cobalt, platinum-group elements, and more. Therefore, Congress needs to boost domestic production. Instead, the majority is putting up more arbitrary hurdles, like the so-called Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act.

Don’t let the name fool you. This legislation, introduced by Chairman Grijalva (D-AZ) and being considered before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources this week, will make it even harder to access clean energy minerals domestically while furthering our reliance on Russia, China, and the Congo. The bill contains several provisions that contribute to longtime goals of the Left: dissuade investment in mining and choke projects to death with an unpredictable permitting process.

Talk to any miner, member of the building trades, or industry expert and you’ll hear the same frustration about mining in America: permitting timelines are too long, too uncertain, and incentivize lawsuits and trial lawyers. Take, for example, the PolyMet project in my northern Minnesota District which is approaching two decades of permitting and litigation. PolyMet proposes to mine copper, nickel, cobalt, and more. It has won every lawsuit thrown its way but is still being targeted by the Biden Administration. We cannot wait 20 years to get the nickel we need; not while state-owned Russian companies are dominating the market.

So, how does the Grijalva bill address our permitting timelines? By adding two more duplicative permit requirements. Adding these permits wouldn’t add just months or years, they could add decades to review. Every permit approval will be met with a lawsuit brought on by an activist group and met with a wink and a nod from a faceless bureaucrat in the Administration, dragging it out further and further. So, instead of PolyMet taking a mere 20 years, it’s a good possibility it could be 40 or 50 years under this Leftist dream.

The Grijalva bill also puts hardrock mining squarely in the crosshairs by upending the claims system. Hardrock mineral rights are established through mining claims. Companies then drill thousands of exploratory holes to determine if the resource is even economical to develop. Only about 1 in every 1,000 discoveries results in a mine. For example, the Twin Metals project in my district has already invested just shy of $1 billion in a new mine, before even starting the permitting process. The bill considered this week would make it an oil and gas-style leasing system, treating copper like you would natural gas, making it even less economical for companies to invest in American resources.

And finally, the bill imposes punitive royalties on hardrock mines in America. Every new mine that survives litigation would be subject to a 12.5% royalty. Meanwhile, existing mines aren’t immune either: a functioning mine would owe 8% of everything they extract to the federal government. Hardrock resources cover a wide variety of minerals, occur in unique geologic formations, and all have varying commodity prices. The one-size-fits-all royalty scheme proposed by Chairman Grijalva and President Biden in his Interagency Working Group Recommendations, like upending the claims system, is another bold attempt to shutter investment.

It makes no sense to subject such a wide variety of minerals to the same, inelastic royalty. For example, lithium in Nevada is derived from a salt brine, while copper and nickel in northern Minnesota will be pulled out of the ground as a solid ore. Meanwhile, mining in Minnesota funds every single school district in the state. If we slap the Grijalva Tax on mines in America, it’ll push companies looking to invest in Minnesota overseas.

America is facing a metals crisis. We can no longer rely on our foreign adversaries to supply us with the copper, nickel, cobalt, and other minerals we need for modern life. Instead of making it harder to mine American resources, as the Grijalva legislation does, there are steps Congress can take to make America an attractive place for mining.

First, we need to update the permitting process. It should not take 20 years to develop our natural resources. Reviews should be timely, transparent, and reasonable. We also need to limit the President’s authority to arbitrarily kill projects with the stroke of a pen. Just this past February, Biden chose to cancel the federal leases held by the Twin Metals project that date back to the 1960’s. Legislation I introduced, the Accessing America’s Critical Minerals Act and the Saving America’s Mines Act, would update our permitting process and end the President’s authority to kill mining with the stroke of a pen.

This week, as Congress considers the so-called Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act, don’t buy the rhetoric. Democrats proposed this legislation to make permitting more difficult and dissuade investment, making our supply chains even more crippled. Let’s instead consider serious proposals that grow mining in America and secure our domestic supply chains. (Source)

Notes:

I live in Grijalva’s district in Tucson, AZ, and know that he has long been an opponent of mining. Here are some of my posts on his actions:

Grijalva’s Proposed Change to Mining Law Would Be Disastrous for America

Mr. Grijalva, why imposing royalties on hard rock mining is a bad idea

Grijalva’s anti-jobs bills

See also: Mining and the bureaucracy

People for the West newsletter, May 2022

Current political policies on climate and energy have the potential of putting us back in the “dark ages.” Carbon dioxide, a substance necessary for life on this planet, is now the boogeyman allegedly responsible for a plethora of evils.

In this newsletter, we will examine the real science and point out the dangers of promoting the fake “climate crisis.” It’s all about money and power. Read the newsletter here.

Comments on the new IPCC climate report, April, 2022

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that unless we reduce or eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and keep global temperature rise to less than 1.5°C, the planet will become uninhabitable. They ignore the fact that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels constitute just over 0.1% of total greenhouse gases (See article here). They also ignore the fact that for much of the past 600 million years global temperature has been 12°C warmer than now and life has flourished (see figure below). The IPCC is as political organization, not a scientific one. All their climate models run hotter than real observations and all their doomsday predictions have not come to pass.

Here are some comments on the IPCC report:

Heartland Institute Climate Experts React to Latest UN IPCC Report

APRIL 7, 2022

By H. Sterling Burnett, James Taylor, Linnea Lueken, Tim Benson, Anthony Watts

The IPCC has been scandalously wrong regarding virtually all of their past predictions. There is no reason to believe this version will be any more accurate.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) this week. IPCC chairman Hoesung Lee claimed “we are at a crossroads” but need to start reducing overall global emissions of carbon dioxide after 2025 to “secure a livable future.” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said unless we dramatically reduce CO2 emissions, humanity faces a future of “unprecedented heatwaves, terrifying storms, widespread water shortages and the extinction of a million species of plants and animals.”

Climate science and policy experts at The Heartland Institute strongly disagree with this assessment. The Heartland Institute is the world’s most-prominent think tank promoting the work of scientists and other experts who do not think human activity is causing a climate crisis.

The IPCC report is tantamount to ‘old whine (pun intended), in new bottles.’ There is nothing truly new in this report. It makes the same unsubstantiated claims of doom, and the same unsubstantiated claims that we can act now, to, in a very short time period, end the use of fossil fuels to save the earth, and profit in the process. The projections of climate models have repeatedly proven inaccurate, and the resources simply do not exist to – in the time frame the IPCC says saving the planet demands – remake the entire global economy sans fossil fuels. In the process of trying, we would destroy the environment by mining, erecting wind turbines and solar arrays, to save it. (Read more)

See also: The New IPCC Climate Report – More of the Same Hot Air, with Extra Alarmism Added; Facts Missing And: The dread 1.5 degree target is dead.

The Many Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2 — An Introduction

By Craig D. Idso — April 6, 2022

Dr. Craig Idso, Chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and a new principal at MasterResource, invites readers to join him in a new series of articles discussing the many ways in which rising atmospheric carbon dioxide benefits humanity and nature.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide: you can’t see, hear, smell or taste it. But it’s there—all around us—and it’s crucial for life. Composed of one carbon and two oxygen atoms, this simple molecule serves as the primary raw material out of which plants construct their tissues, which in turn provide the materials out of which animals construct theirs. Knowledge of the key life-giving and life-sustaining role played by carbon dioxide, or CO2, is so well established, in fact, that humans—and all the rest of the biosphere—are described in the most basic of terms as carbon-based lifeforms. We simply could not and would not exist without it.

Ironically, far too many demonize and falsely label this important atmospheric trace gas a pollutant. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of being shunned like the plague, the ongoing rise in CO2 should be welcomed with open arms. (Read more)

Study: More Evidence Of Climate Model Heat Biases

Professor Nicola Scaffeta of the University of Naples Department of Earth Sciences has just published a detailed, peer-reviewed assessment of the latest generation of global climate models. He begins by noting that there are about 40 major climate models and their climate sensitivity levels vary by a factor of three, from 1.8 to 5.7 degrees C per doubling of carbon dioxide.

Which right away tells you there is a lot of guesswork going on. He groups the models into low-, medium-, and high-sensitivity categories and asks a simple question: how well did the models do at reproducing the warming from 1980 to 2021? Among the high-sensitivity models, they got the pattern wrong for over 80 percent of the Earth’s surface. The medium-sensitivity models did better, but they were still wrong for over 68 percent of the Earth’s surface. Finally, the low-sensitivity models did the best, but they were wrong on 60 percent of the Earth’s surface. (Read more)

Reality Cannot Penetrate Into The Fantasy World Of Climate Campaigners

by Francis Menton

It was only a few weeks ago when the UN’s International Energy Agency issued its Report on “CO2 Emissions in 2021.” I covered the IEA’s Report in my previous post a few days ago. The Report gives detail as to the obvious fact that world CO2 emissions, after a downward blip in 2020 due to the Covid pandemic, have resumed their rapid increase, mostly attributable to massive deployment of coal-fired electricity generation resources in large-population developing countries like China and India. In any rational world, this Report would have to have dashed any remaining dreams of climate campaigners that overall world CO2 emissions would see anything but large ongoing increases for the foreseeable future. The climate-obsessed jurisdictions in the U.S. and Europe already represent only a shrinking minority of world energy consumption, headed for insignificance as the large-population countries of the developing world join the fossil fuel age. (Read more)

CCIP fig 2

Compared to the past, Earths temperatures are low now because we are in an ice age, but fortunately in an interglacial period.

The following shows the output of climate models compared to reality.

Christy models vs observations

See these blog articles for more information:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

The Broken Greenhouse – Why Co2 Is a Minor Player in Global Climate

A Summary of Earth’s Climate History-a Geologist’s View

ATMOSPHERIC CO2: a boon for the biosphere

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth

The April, 2022, issue of People for the West newsletter is now online

click on:

https://wryheat.wordpress.com/people-for-the-west/2022-archive/2022-04-april/

Included is this issue are essays and articles about the state of the union and the politics of energy and climate policy such as:

Growing old in a country you no longer recognize.

What Electric Vehicles Require – not so green – the story of what it takes to supply the batteries

Why reducing carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuel will have no effect on climate

Politicians and international organizations think we can stop climate change by eliminating 0.13% of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere in spite of the fact that climate has been changing all by itself for four billions years. “…the most dangerous greenhouse-gas emissions come from the front ends of politicians, not the back ends of cows…” – Walter Russell Mead

The “greenhouse effect” is proposed as an atmospheric “blanket” that keeps Earth warm. However, the term “greenhouse effect” with respect to the atmosphere is an unfortunate analogy because it is misleading. The interior of a real greenhouse (or your automobile parked with windows closed and left in the sun) heats up because there is a physical barrier to convective heat loss. There is no such physical barrier in the atmosphere. The greenhouse hypothesis deals only with heat transfer by radiation and conduction, but completely ignores convective heat transfer. Convective heat transfer in the atmosphere shreds the alleged “blanket.”

In short, the “greenhouse effect” is this:

Solar radiation, mostly short-wave radiation, passes through the atmosphere and warms the surface. In turn, the heated surface re-radiates energy as long-wave infrared radiation back to the atmosphere and eventually, back to space.

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere intercept specific wavelengths of the long-wave infrared radiation and transfer some of the energy to excite (warm) other molecules in the atmosphere, some of the radiation goes back to warm the surface, and some of the radiation is radiated into space. Once all or most of a specific long-wave infrared radiation wavelength is intercepted (become saturated), additional amounts of a greenhouse gas will have no effect. Carbon dioxide reaches saturation at about 280 parts per million (ppm). Currently carbon dioxide is at 413 ppm. (Source)

The major greenhouse gases, water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane, represent about 2% of the atmosphere. Water vapor comprises 95% of total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide comprises 4% of total greenhouse gas. Human carbon dioxide emissions represent just 3.4% of atmospheric carbon dioxide, or 0.13% of the total greenhouse gas. (Source)

Do you think that eliminating 0.13% of greenhouse gas can significantly effect global temperature? I think not.

This table from Geocraft shows more detail (and slightly different) data about greenhouse gases:

03-Antropogenic contribution to greenhouse effect

 

Additional Reading:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

The Broken Greenhouse – Why Co2 Is a Minor Player in Global Climate

A Summary of Earth’s Climate History-a Geologist’s View

Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review

The “Social Cost of Carbon” Scam Revisited

ATMOSPHERIC CO2: a boon for the biosphere

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth

“King Coal” is not dead yet

Many countries are ignoring the (false) principles of the Paris Climate Accord and instead going with what works to produce reliable electricity.

Here are some recent headlines about generating electricity by burning coal:

Africa to double coal fired power by 2030 (link)

India meets climate goals early by doubling coal, and keeping it as main energy source for next 30 years (link)

In 2020 China built three times more coal power than the rest of the world (link)

Un-Greening: Mexico gives up on renewables, revives coal industry (link)

The UK’s “End of Coal” lasted a whole week (link)

Colombia announces coal support for decades to come (link)

Coal rescues Germany from its renewable energy folly (link)

France relights coal power plants to keep the lights on (link)

Coal’s Share Of Global Energy Supply Has Been Increasing For 50 Years, IEA Reports (link)

And:

Will France Leave the Paris Agreement in 2022?

France is failing to meet its goals under the Paris Climate Accord. Depending who is elected the new French president in 2022, France may dump the accord altogether. (Read more)

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is employing climate and energy “czars” who appear to be woefully ignorant of both subjects. Instead, in my opinion, their real goal is power. The Biden administration’s approach to both energy and corona virus could be summed up as follows:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H. L. Mencken

But President Biden claims that climate change is “an existential threat” and any view to the contrary must be eliminated, see:

When Climate Alarmism Meets Cancel Culture 

by Bjorn Lomborg

The academic and activist faction that sets the threatening tone in the climate conversation wants dissent eliminated, leaving themselves the only ones authorized to tell you how scared you should be. To avoid wasting trillions, we should not let them. (Read more)

For the real story on climate and energy, read my posts:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

A Summary of Earth’s Climate History-a Geologist’s View

Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review

The “Social Cost of Carbon” Scam Revisited

ATMOSPHERIC CO2: a boon for the biosphere

Impact of the Paris Climate Accord and why Trump was right to drop it

The “Social Cost of Carbon” Scam Revisited

As I wrote in 2015:

The “social cost of carbon”(SCC) is a computer-generated artifice that puts a dollar figure on the alleged environmental and economic damage caused by carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. This number is supposed to allow bureaucrats to offset the alleged damage through regulation and taxes, i.e., it will increase the cost of electricity and gasoline. The computer models fail to take into account the benefits of carbon dioxide, such as making our crops more robust and more water efficient. Also, there is absolutely no physical evidence that our carbon dioxide emissions have any significant role in controlling global climate. (Read more on Wryheat)

Recent articles on SCC:

Why ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ Is Most Useless Number You’ve Never Heard Of

by Kevin Dayaratna

Dubbed by some as “the most important number you’ve never heard of,” the social cost of carbon is defined as the economic damages associated with a ton of carbon dioxide emissions across a particular time horizon. That metric, relied upon heavily by the Obama administration, has been used as the basis for regulatory policy in the energy sector of the economy. Three sets of statistical models are used to estimate the social cost of carbon. Social cost of carbon estimates are based on very questionable assumptions regarding the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide emissions, naive projections reaching 300 years into the future, and ignorance of discount rate recommendations by the Office of Management and Budget regarding cost-benefit analysis. Our results tell the same story: Assumptions made by modelers can drastically change the purported estimates and thus beef up the damages as much as they want. (Read more)

Social Cost of Carbon May Be Social Benefit of Carbon, Economist Finds

by James Taylor (commenting on Dauaratna’s paper)

The Biden administration made headlines by imposing a “social cost of carbon” – to be factored into federal cost-benefit analysis – that is more than six times higher than the social cost of carbon determined by the Trump administration. However, economist and data scientist Kevin Dayaratna published an article documenting that the alleged social “cost” of carbon may actually be a social “benefit” of carbon. In an article for the Daily Signal, Dayaratna observes that any accurate assessment of the social cost of carbon must include social benefits as well as merely social harms. Importantly, Dayaratna observes that any sound cost/benefit assessment must take into account “positive agricultural feedback effects associated with carbon dioxide emissions.”

“In fact, we found that under very reasonable assumptions, those benefits can outweigh the costs, suggesting that the social cost of carbon can indeed be negative,” Dayaratna writes. “The policy implication of a negative social cost of carbon is that the government should not be taxing carbon dioxide emissions, but should be subsidizing it instead.” (Source)

See also: The Social Cost of Carbon Fantasy and

Biden’s Arbitrary Social Cost of Carbon: What You Need to Know

12 State Attorneys General Sue Biden Admin Over Its Climate Policies The lawsuit said Biden’s executive order enables regulatory agencies to place restrictions on nearly every aspect of Americans’ lives in order to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions.

For a tutorial on climate read:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

White House Brochures on Climate (There is no climate crisis)

[Wryheat note, the brochures linked to below were intended to be posted on the White House website, but since they are politically incorrect, the new administration has banned them. If the original links don’t work, click the “alternate link.”]

[UPDATE: Jan. 13, 2021:

 These briefs demonstrate that climate science has glaring deficiencies as a science when it is used to declare that carbon dioxide is causing dangerous global warming. These deficiencies are unacceptable to any student of the scientific method.

Legates and Ryan Maue, an author of one of the briefs, were promptly removed from their positions by OSTP director and Trump’s science advisor Kelvin Droegemeier was fired. They returned to their positions at NOAA. Applying the scientific method to climate science is not permitted in Washington, regardless of political party. It is clear that conformity conquers all.]

January 8th, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. 

Late last year, several of us were asked by David Legates (White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) to write short, easily understandable brochures that supported the general view that there is no climate crisis or climate emergency, and pointing out the widespread misinformation being promoted by alarmists through the media.

Below are the resulting 9 brochures, and an introduction by David. Mine is entitled, “The Faith-Based Nature of Human Caused Global Warming”.  

Wryheat note: These brochures never made it to the White House website and have been removed from Dr. Spencer’s website as well. Fortunately, I saved the originals. Note that these brochures are no longer official White House publications.

Introduction(Dr. David Legates)

Alternate link: White House Brochures on Climate (There is no climate crisis) « Roy Spencer, PhD

The Sun Climate Connection(Drs. Michael Connolly, Ronan Connolly, Willie Soon)

Alternate link: WH brochure The-Sun-Climate-Connection

Systematic Problems in the Four National Assessments of Climate Change Impacts on the US(Dr. Patrick Michaels)

Alternate link: WH brochure Systematic-Problems-in-the-Four-National-Assessments-of-Climate-Change-Impacts-on-the-US

Record Temperatures in the United States(Dr. John Christy)

Alternate link: WH brochure record temperatures

Radiation Transfer(Dr. William Happer)

Alternate link: WH brochure Radiation-Transfer

Is There a Climate Emergency(Dr. Ross McKitrick)

Alternate link: WH brochure is there a climate emergency

Hurricanes and Climate Change(Dr. Ryan Maue)

Alternate link: WH brochure Hurricanes-and-Climate-Change

Climate, Climate Change, and the General Circulation(Dr. Anthony Lupo)

Alternate link: WH brochure Climate-Climate-Change-and-the-General-Circulation

Can Computer Models Predict Climate(Dr. Christopher Essex)

Alternate link: WH brochure Can-Computer-Models-Predict-Climate

The Faith-Based Nature of Human-Caused Global Warming(Dr. Roy Spencer)

Alternate link: WH brochure The-Faith-Based-Nature-of-Human-Caused-Global-Warming

See also my Wryheat post: A Review of the state of Climate Science