Robert Seitz: Yes, I actually am qualified to discuss climate and energy issues

1. Nice article. What you’re confronting are those indoctrinated into the climate hoax. There is large and vocal contingent who have been told from an early age if we don’t stop fossil fuels immediately, we’re all going to die. To gain attention they glue themselves to the ground, block traffic, and vandalize precious artwork. Maybe some will see the light, but it will be few.

2. When people cannot dispute facts they attack you, either by saying you are unqualified or by simply name calling. Thanks for sharing your views. I appreciate your qualified perspective.

3. Excellent and well stated, as also the other articles. Sadly the left agenda politicizes everything for gain. Common sense and facts seem to have been left out, intentionally.

4. Glad to see someone who is professionally qualified to speak to the energy issues in Alaska.
   I look forward to hearing more from Robert.

5. Dr. Syun- Ichi Akasofu, world renown researcher of the aurora borealis at UAF, has commented repeatedly on his opinions regarding man-made climate change. His opinions are not in alignment with the Left’s thinking, and therefore have been mostly ignored or silenced. This is what lefties do with their media allies. They silence you, for their political purposes. This results in bad science, fake science, and no science. Thank you, Mr. Seitz, for sticking to your opinions in the name of good science and real science. Eventually, the truth will be born out by people such as yourself.

6. Robert, if you’re reading these comments, I have questions, but I also agree w/your statements.

   Are you working w/actual data or climate models? What’s included as variables? Does plasma in the upper atmosphere influence the weather? I like to read science articles, mostly about astronomy and some geology. There have been occasions when I’ve questioned whether such variables mentioned in these articles are included in the science of weather and/or climate. Do we even know what all the variables of climate are? I’m thinking we don’t.

7. Thank you!

8. So what happened to the RAW hadcrut data?

9. Dear Sir, thank you for (more or less) citing my comments on your original story. I have been under the impression that most people here on MRAK skip over my comments, but you have shown this not to be the case.

   I do not doubt that you, as a trained electrical engineer, are well qualified to discuss alternative means of producing and distributing energy. Many of the current methods of accomplishing this are well known and understood by most engineers. That is not why I have taken issue with your previous article.

   My issue, indeed, is that by publishing such an article, you expose yourself as a climate change denier, and more specifically, as one who not only denies climate change, but who also denies that the change is caused by the combustion of hydrocarbons. In this regard, I rather doubt that you have the bona fides to act as an expert. Once again, when it comes to credibility on this subject, I will defer to scientists and physicists having access to both thousands of years of global climate data, and the sophisticated data analysis and modeling techniques needed to make sense of it.

   I am sorry that you have been confronted by this Inconvenient Truth, and even more so that you refuse to believe something so blatantly clear and well-proven.

   One of the hallmarks of a good engineer is, of course, the ability and willingness (indeed, eagerness!) to reassess and change one’s opinion in light of new, better, or more comprehensive data. Unfortunately, it appears that you are neither able nor willing to do so. So, carry on in your Quixotic efforts to discredit climate science, as you watch your structures in Fairbanks sink ever deeper into the melting permafrost. Don’t say that you weren’t warned.

   • Right on Dog! Seitz proves that one can be both intelligent and wrong.

   • Says a guy who probably drives his many combustion engine vehicles, flies regularly on jet planes, uses electricity that requires coal combustion, heats his home with combustive
     fuel, cooks his food from a source that requires combustion, uses a myriad of products, that either require electricity and gasoline or diesel, etc…..
     That’s why most of us don’t pay attention to this twit Lefty. Full of nonsense, just like his opinions about climate change. Nonsense.

   • Dog, the hottest years on record here in the United States was in the 30s. Remember? We learned about the Dust Bowl back then. We have not had consecutive hot days and hot summers like that since. Obviously, this was due to all those combustion engines, according to your quick accusation of our author that did not take the engine into consideration.
     We both know there’s much more to the climate changing than the combustion engine. But I think that dog may not hunt much longer when data is examined with a fair mind.

     • Weather is not climate, Mr. Rees.

       • It isn’t, until it supports the narrative. That’s the beauty of the narrative, everything supports it, nothing contradicts it.

       • Climate is not political, Mr Dog.

       • Oh yeah, sure, sure, when your global warming conference is canceled because of the snow storm of the century, weather is just a local phenomena. But when there are extreme heat waves in Texas, that local weather is all due to “climate change”! Nice try!

   • You are forgetting one thing, Dog, with your line about “when it comes to credibility on this subject, I will defer to scientists and physicists”. I realize this will place me in the category of a nut conspiracy person, but you need to follow the money. Most of those esteemed scientists and physicists have gotten huge grants of money to promulgate their “side” of the debate. And right now, casting Carbon as the great evil in life is the popular and financially remunerative position.

     • Madam, I think you’ve got it backwards. It’s politicians who are far more likely to engage in quid pro quo than are the world’s eminent scientists. They operate under a strict and rigorous system of publishing, peer review, and sanction, all of which are designed to pursue the truth.

       • Oh, honey, you need to read up about “peer review.” I literally laughed out loud when I got to that part of your reply.

   • “…….I have been under the impression that most people here on MRAK skip over my comments…….”
     Good for you! Most dogs seem to be clueless that the people around them disregard their incessant barking and whining at the shadows. You prove to be more perceptive of the regard you deserve.

   • Whidbey – Really? You trot out the tired old trope of “climate denier”! Dawg, find some new dialogue. The climate denier spin came out early in the first Obama administration, I believe. Science is not about building consensus, but more about objectively observing the physical and natural world through hypothesis and experiment. If you can’t question the “science” it’s not real science, but more likely indoctrination!

   • WTD, sadly you present yourself as an individual unwillling to have an open mind and to examining the facts, by calling Mr. Seitz a “climate denier” and his effort “Quixotic”. Labeling and calling names is never a good sign and indicates to me your inflexibility on the subject.

     I am far from an expert, but I have been around a good long time.
     Anytime “scientists” come to a “consensus” it means they are guessing, because their ability to proof their assertions with independently reproducible hard data and results is hampered either by non-existence of required technology or too much data that does not fit their mold.

     You wrote: “I will defer to scientists and physicists having access to both thousands of years of global climate data, and the sophisticated data analysis and modeling techniques needed to make sense of it.”

     So if you truly deferred to scientist with thousands of years of climate data you would have asked several questions of them:

     1) How did they conclusively get their global climate data?

     2) If according to their data the earth has been cooling and warming since it came to be, wiping out whole species in the process, how is this any different?

     3) Even according to their estimation, if mankind stopped producing all “hydrocarbons” the impact would be less than a few percentage points, why all the panic?

     4) Computer modeling isn’t an accurate science, it puts out what parameters you put in. Did ANY of the computer modeled scenarios ACTUALLY appear in a scientifically provable form in reality?

     I come back to my geography teacher in high school, who insisted (and the “scientific” textbook at the time espoused) that we were all doomed and headed for an ice age with Europe being covered in sheets of ice by the year 2000. Unless of course we immediately all rode bikes and did away with fossil fuels! That was back in the 70’s!

     So call me skeptical of all this hysteria. Is the climate changing? Sure, it has done that since the earth’s inception.
     Are we humans the sole factor to change the climate on the entire planet?
     The hubris of that statement is obvious and speaks to those who uttered it more, than to any actual climate impact.

     Ironically the demand to dismantle the Eklutna dam, use only unreliable renewables like wind and solar (unlike hydro) malign nuclear so that we can safe the planet for humanity’s survival, creates the opposite effect of leaving humanity in the cold and dark, exposed to the elements and death! So one has to wonder what the real purpose is here?

     I will leave you with two observations:
     Humans have the ingenuity to adapt as we have proven throughout our history. Never trust anyone who pressures you to do it “now” and only do it their way! Most likely they have ulterior motives.

     • Yes.

   • Whidbey dog, I’m curious where is your proof that Seitz or any of the renowned Climate Scientists are Climate deniers? Or is this just another trick you Bolsheviks employ to deceive the stupid amongst us?

10. Stay strong !! I like your perspective. Some of these climate ninnies are totally insane in their demands and expectations.

11. LOL…….a supervisor of mine went on a turnaround assignment to Missile Command down south for a few years and came back with a t-shirt that read, “Well, actually, yes, I’m a rocket scientist”. It was great for laughs, but that’s about it. Qualifications are meaningless in this fantasy world. Belief and denial are the foundations of this world.
    Coming from an engineering career, my favorite jokes are engineer jokes:
    An engineer, a priest, and a doctor are trying to enjoying a round of golf. Ahead of them is a group playing so slowly and inexpertly that in frustration the three ask the greenkeeper for an explanation. “That’s a group of blind firefighters,” they are told. “They lost their sight saving our clubhouse last year, so we let them play for free.”
    The priest says, “I will say a prayer for them tonight.”
    The doctor says, “Let me ask my ophthalmologist colleagues if anything can be done for them.”
    And the engineer says, “Why can’t they play at night?”

    • I worked with brain surgeons. Smart? Of course, they are surgeons, who qualified for med school, etc. But so do all surgeons. I also worked with some really sharp nurses and surgical techs, PAs, NPs…
      Smart folks in all walks of life….

12. Robert Seitz is from an old Homer family!! HHS class of ‘59’ ?

13. Robt-S … I appreciate your articles. Your positions are very reasonable and worthy of discussion – consideration – investment. As you’ve noted clearly, we’re in a compromising position and need to have the necessary discussions so as to vet reasonable options. Personally, I would recommend “small scale nuclear reactor” to the list of positions.
    Good Job … Keep up the great work! … Ignore the chirpy noise.

14. Very nice to read the truth and this should be required reading at every school.

15. Getting thousands of “ specialist”to sign onto the hoax carries little weight with those capable of thinking for themselves.
    How many “ intelligent officials “ signing a letter stating that the hunter laptop was fake. All proven liars AND very unapologetic.
    All in the name of greed.

16. Robert, thanks for attempting to bring science into this discussion. We can, in fact, measure global mean temperature (GMT) and have been doing so with precision for a century. We can quantify that GMT has risen about 2 degrees F since about 1850. We can also quantify the global CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere- and we see those rising to about 421 PPM- a steady increase since the industrial revolution. Further, we can look at data by doing ice coring (as one example) and see the beautiful, linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and GMT going back many hundreds of thousands of years. This is all quantified.

    Anyone who opposes the work and research of thousands of scientists is free to do so- reasoned debate is always good. However, extraordinary claims require… extraordinary proof.

    I’d add that we need to be looking harder at hydrogen as part of the solution. Its super clean, renewable, doesn’t require dirty mining for metals for battery construction- as the Chinese do- and the technological innovations regarding its use are breathtaking. The Japanese are leading the way, and there is even a company in Europe that is perfecting the ability to make hydrogen from a solar system that pulls moisture from the atmosphere.

    • “We can quantify that GMT has risen about 2 degrees F since about 1850.” A great place to start, right at the end of the Little Ice Age, convenient even.

      “We can also quantify the global CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere- and we see those rising to about 421 PPM- a steady increase since the industrial revolution. Further, we can look at data by doing ice coring (as one example) and see the beautiful, linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and GMT going back many hundreds of thousands of years.” Interestingly enough that beautiful, linear relationship consistently shows CO2 measurements following sudden warming…as we’ve seen in the scientific record since the end of the Little Ice Age, or since the Industrial Revolution if you prefer. Just like all the other periods of slow cooling followed by sudden warming that has happened during the current ice age that we are in, even if we are in a relatively brief interglacial period.

      • Steve O:

        “…by sudden warming that has happened during the current ice age that we are in…”

        ‘I have no idea what you are talking about Steve. When did we enter an ice age?

        “The latest data suggest 2024 could outrank 2023 as the hottest year since records began after human-caused climate change and the El Nino natural weather phenomenon both pushed temperatures to record highs in the year so far, some scientists said.” US news and World Report- July 7, 2024

        • M,

          “I have no idea what you are talking about Steve. When did we enter an ice age?”
          We’ve been in an ice age for the last 3 million years. We are currently in an interglacial period that began about 11,000-12,000 years ago of this current ice age. Science tells us that there have been at least 5 major ice ages on earth in the last 2 billion or so years. Science and knowledge are wonderful things, they help provide perspective.

    • “We can, in fact, measure global mean temperature (GMT) and have been doing so with precision for a century.” Show me the raw data. Show me the original, unadjusted data.

      • Is NASA good enough for you, Jay?

        ‘https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures

        “Air temperatures on Earth have been rising since the Industrial Revolution. While natural variability plays some part, the preponderance of evidence indicates that human activities—particularly emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases—are mostly responsible for making our planet warmer.

        According to an ongoing temperature analysis led by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by at least 1.1° Celsius (1.9° Fahrenheit) since 1880. The majority of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15 to 0.20°C per decade.”

        • M – Not too long ago both NASA & NOAA were forced to grudgingly admit that they manipulated weather data in order to validate some of their climate change computer model conclusions – but, you probably know this.

          • SCIENCE! on grants

        • Using those numbers there’s been 0.75° to 1° Celsius of warming since 1975, out of the 1.1° since the end of the Little Ice Age…I mean the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Fascinating, how did we ever manage to come out of the Little Ice Age with only 0.1° to 0.35° Celsius (0.18° to 0.63° Fahrenheit) of warming over 100 years?

          • Steve, keep in mind that even a 1/2 change in GMT represents an extraordinary amount of energy.

            • 1/2 a degree change…

            • Right, it’s an enormous amount of energy and the only time 1/2 a degree Fahrenheit of change causes ice to melt is when it starts from 31.6°. The range that you’ve told us NASA said shows a 0.18° to 0.63° change, that means about 2/3 of that range wouldn’t even be enough to cause ice to melt let alone to bring the world out of the Little Ice Age until 1975. For persepctive, science tells us that the onset of the Little Ice Age saw a decline in temperature of 1.1° Fahrenheit from the preceding millenia. If we’ve actually seen a 1.9° Fahrenheit since the end of the Little Ice Age that means we are only 0.8° Fahrenheit above the temperature before the Little Ice Age. Following slow cooling periods rapid periods of temperature increases are also known to occur, science tells us this with repeatable certainty like Dansgaard–Oeschger events do.

              When simple math completely upends your arguement, it’s not a very convincing argument.

              • Steve, I think you may be confusing natural oscillation in GMT versus anthropogenic influence- which is the point here. CO2 levels have been steadily increasing since 1850 from about 320 ppm to 427 today. It is the influence of gases, like Co2, that can warm the atmosphere that are of concern and why there is a global concern.

                My view is that there is little we can do given that the human population is exploding- adding 200,000 people to the human population every day. Most of those people are in poverty, and they don’t give a rip about the environment. Nations like China and India are mass polluters and they continue to build coal fired power plants and emit massive air and water pollution.

                If the First World nations can use technical innovation to get us, affordably, on a hydrogen economy we benefit enormously.

                • Explain “Mike’s Nature Trick” to me. Or do I have to watch the movie.

                • M,
                  You are missing the point, global temperatures were warmer before the Little Ice Age and before the Industrial Revolution. They continued to rise after the relatively low temperatures seen during the Little Ice Age based on the information you provided and are now a grand total of about 0.8° Fahrenheit higher than what they were before the Little Ice Age and before the Industrial Revolution. According to science, we are still cooler than we were 5,500 to 9,500 years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum. As has been established, once again by science, atmospheric carbon levels rise following warming periods. There are many reasons for that, for example science tells us lakes contribute up to 1/4 of global atmospheric carbon. Science tells us lots of things, if we pay attention. Simply following a political movement using the guise of science isn’t paying attention.

        • M you cite Goddard GISS data showing increases in global temperatures. They have two sets of data, one is recorded data (back to about 1850). The other is “ADJUSTED DATA” that somebody, most likely Goddard folks, mysteriously adjusted for one reason or another. Oh yeah, they adjusted it to fit the climate crazies “the earth is burning” craze, and used it as support for the Paris Climate Accords.

          Second, I hope you studied chemistry. Regarding CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the earth has an interesting way of dealing with high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and has been doing it for billions of years. When CO2 levels get high enough, they combine with one H atom of seawater H2O, and precipitate into calcium carbonate and drop to the ocean floor. For the unitiated calcium carbonate is otherwise known as limestone, and there are literally thousands of lenses of limestone in the earths crust and below.

          Lastly, every time the climate crazies are confronted with facts, they yell “95% of scientists agree” and you’re a climate denier. Quite the opposite in fact, climate’s been changing for billions of years. We used to have 15,000 feet of ice on North America a couple hundred million years ago.

          If you truly wanted to have an earth wide analysis of the net change in the earth’s temperature, it would take a thermoprobe every 1 meter x 1 meter x 1 meter from the bottom of the ocean to the ionosphere, and a computer to analyze it. Then you could convince me through a complete earth wide thermodynamic analysis, whether the global temperature is increasing or decreasing.

          No such computer exists, and if all these scientists agree, why can’t they forecast the weather even 24 hours in advance? I can do better with a barometer, yielding 95% accuracy 24 hours out.

        • “ongoing temperature analysis” – HIDE THE DECLINE and the raw data.

        • A simple question- where did the raw data go? Does it take a word salad or a phony movie to answer?

        • “……..Is NASA good enough for you, Jay?……..”
          Yeah, sure, like the FBI/DOJ is the final word on political corruption.

    • There you go again ” it’s the economy Man ? Read my lips NO NEW TAXES! What kind of world do we live in if we can’t afford to live! reason tell me CCP in America by stupidity or conquest ! Drill baby drill! Give your answer to anything I stated , M PLEASE . Is M for Mary?

      • Ed, I am not against using certain fossil fuels. Natural gas is a cleaner, transition fuel that will help us have smooth, affordable, transition to cleaner, renewable fuels. Hydrogen is the fuel of the future. It can be made from PV energy and water. Technological innovations are bringing us this technology rapidly. You have no pollution. And it will be affordable as OPEC and others will not be able to control the supply.

        You can stay with oil, if you want. But just remember that OPEC countries are price fixing so that they can screw you with higher prices. I’d rather go to hydrogen and let OPEC starve. They are not our friends.

        The majority of the 911 highjackers were from Saudi Arabia.

        • Sorry M, the US has enough oil resources to supply our needs, we do not need the Saudi’s. Supply and demand still works!
          The true culprit here on this front is the administration, who shuts down our own production and then begs the Saudi’s/Venezuela etc. to produce more. The handing over control to OPEC by our own government to supposedly “safe the environment” is disingenuous at best. It is idiotic to argue that elimination of fossil fuel development in our country is the climate correct way, and then IMPORT more oil from countries, who also have to produce it and potentially pollute more. So the net gain for the global climate protection (as espouse by our leaders) is clearly a deficit and a sham!

          • Taxpayer, you are mostly correct, but because oil is a global commodity even if the US produces all we need for domestic use, the price of (our) oil rises when OPEC cuts supply. That means you and I pay more at the pump, and we pay more when we heat with fuel oil. Fuel oil, for example, is refined in Alaska- but the price we pay for it is linked to the global markets. I never got a break on oil I bought just because it was made in Alaska.

            To your point about global climate issues- you are correct. It is a global problem and it will not be fairly or properly addressed if we go it alone. Going it alone makes no difference, and ends up costing us more.

            • I disagree. US domestically produced oil to supply the entire US AND our allies abroad, would critically impact OPEC’s ability to exert power on the market. Supply and demand still applies! If the Saudi’s do not have a buyer, then cutting production has only a limited effect on the price.
              In the final analysis all those “green” generation ideas are NOT ready for prime time, still too environmentally unfriendly (wind, batteries and solar require to many unrecoverable materials on the scale necessary). So at this point it would be better for our environment to produce our own resources here at home.

              • Taxpayer, think of it this way. Gold is also a global commodity, and we produce it here in Alaska. If you want to sell it for less than the global price, I will buy all of your gold. Oil is no different. What company is going to sell it for less than the maximum price?

                A lot of green energy is ready for prime time. Hydro has worked well for hundreds of years. Wind generation is found world wide. PV solar works well- and I have a company I am talking with right now that guarantees their solar panels for 25 years. The current approach used, often, is to send the PV power right back into the grid- no batteries needed- and your electricity bill is lowered by what you sell. (Not all utilities do this.) Fuel cell technology has been used since Skylab- almost 50 years and its proven. Toyota is doing amazing things with hydrogen…. the future is not with oil.

                • M, I see that you are not an economist. Companies have sold products under market value many times, if it is in the long run to their advantage and runs their competition out of market share. Try Amazon and Walmart etc.
                  Oil may not be our eventual future as estimates place current oil reserves at 50-75 years (which does not include potential future discoveries as technology advances). However in order to create enough energy to support the 2.2% increased need in world wide energy for 2024-2025 and for the foreseeable future oil and gas are the most reliable and COST EFFECTIVE means.
                  No green energy project can at this point reliably and affordably for the consumer replace oil on the large scale. Then you have not touched on all the other products we create from oil, which are necessary to make any green technology possible.
                  I support hydro wholeheartedly and am therefor dismayed that our assembly wishes to destroy our existing infrastructure.

                  • Taxpayer, so you don’t want to sell me all your gold below market value then?

                    Darn.

                    I do agree with you re. hydro.

                    • Sorry gold? What gold? If you can’t rebut you obfuscate and redirect…cute!

        • “……You can stay with oil, if you want……..”
          Sure, M. Every Gaia butterfly on Earth blesses our desire to stay with gasoline and diesel, not to mention governments at every level taxing fuels above your endangered ozone. Did you actually think before typing those words, or are you a stand-up comedian?

17. “Others wonder if I had access to HAD-CRUT (Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit Temperature) raw data”.
    I never wondered that. I asked you what happened to it. A very simple question.
    “We can quantify that GMT has risen about 2 degrees F since about 1850”
    How can something be “quantified” if the original raw data is missing?

    • Jay, I like that you want to learn about this. There are entire fields of science dedicated to learning about the Earth. Just one example- ice cores tell us about what was going on with our atmosphere for hundreds of thousands of years. Read up on the subject, it might be of great interest to you.

18. Bob. We love your perspective and knowledge. Thank you for sharing it with Alaskans.

19. After 50 years with an oil pipeline passing through North Pole to Valdez, natural gas is still trucked in small, expensive quantities to the 2nd largest urban area in our state. (Thankyou for your incompetence Alaska Republican hypocritical politicians). Pontificating about climate change as though it is not naturally cyclic and the fear tactics of alleging an impending disaster if net zero command and control government edicts are not enacted, yet there is no study quantifying the volume of electricity needed for Alaska to go “green”. Determining the energy needed just to replace all private vehicular and commercial semi truck use into “renewable” generated and stored electricity has never been published. This is over and above current electrical demand and home and commercial structure heating. Establishing a budget and production planning to manufacture wind mill and solar panels for this undefined volume of kilowatts has never been published. Let alone the massive biomass of storage batteries and creating the infrastructure to service EVs (as though they work reliably in Alaska). Hydro and nuclear generation is feasible but the same interests promoting the fraud will never allow sustainable energy. The ecofreaks came unglued when a power line was run from Healy to Fairbanks. Some narrative about endangered grass tussocks and black spruce bogs had them spinning out. The whole flats south of the Tanana River would need to be bulldozed, gravel back filled and covered with solar panels, windmills, access roads and toxic battery storage complexes, just for Fairbanks. Of course the current coal plants need to continue as the “green” dream is just a “pipe” dream. The consequences to fail in halting the madness will result in impoverishment and destruction of life as we know it.

    • Thank you Brian , the solution is obvious right! Ha, if they can open their ears & eyes & think!

    • “……..Thankyou for your incompetence Alaska Republican hypocritical politicians………”
      Excuse me, but why is the word “Republican” in that sentence? Are you alleging that the failure to pipe natural gas to the railbelt from the Slope is exclusively a Republican Party failure? If so, how so?

      • I’m simply stating the obvious that at our state and federal level the GOP has proven over and over to being incompetent and duplicitous. The public has elected majority GOP governments in Alaska and nationally several times in my lifetime and yet our state and country continue to devolve into chaos. Something as critical as adding a gas line with oil line should have been a priority for both the citizens of Alaska and the trade export value and revenue generated. Watching the ongoing and never ending clown shows described as legislative sessions in Juneau the past 50 years has confirmed our state GOP are worthless.

        • “……the GOP has proven over and over to being incompetent and duplicitous…….”
          You again side-slip my question, demonstrating your own duplicity. The reason now glows like neon. Democrats are the foundational name behind every anti-fossil-fuel scheme in the New World. The fact that Republicans either go along or fail to relieve us doesn’t aquit the obvious guilt of Demonrats and their Gaia religion useful idiots. Go electrify yourself down the road.

20. Thank you for your commentary and rebuttal to the leftist propaganda over climate change, Mr Seitz. You are correct, we need a multitude of energy sources to keep not only Alaska viable, but out to make our country strong.

21. Bravo. But how can solar panels and wind turbines benefit the amount spent , I looked into solar panel set up at my place and it’s as much as my mortage. Not worth it to me and I’ll be long gone before I pay it off. The wind turbines blades after reaching its life expectancy are discarded by being buried in the earth cause you cannot burn it. The many batteries it takes to hold the power from solar panels eventually goes bad too with alot of toxins being discarded where at anchorage dump ? I just don’t see any good remedies besides natural gas and wood. Your dammed if you do your dammed if you don’t.

22. Plenty left out of the article and comments. 1) in the context of this topic, what is the commonly agreed definition of the word, “scientist?” Or, for that matter, the word, “science?” Precisely who are “thousands of scientists.” What is the precise definition of “climate science?” Or “climate scientist?” Moreover, isn’t it true that the actual question is not that of climate change; but rather that of climate sensitivity… to anthropogenic influence? Isn’t permafrost thawing a symptomatic red herring when the real question should be “why is it thawing?” Could the reason be the same that glaciers have been receding for thousand of years? Any science, or scientist, or theory that involves politics, money, and tax incentives should be reviewed very skeptically.

23. Wonderful article. Thank you for bringing perspectives to the climate problem where there is no climate problem. That said I have 24 years experience with energy conservation. It was based on the economic advantage on storing energy. Simple because it was cost effective.
    Obama’s former climate czar Steven Koonin wrote a book “Unsettled”. I strongly recommend reading this wonderful book. What Mr Koonin states is that there is not near enough information to conclude anything about climate change. He was attacked by the Uber Climate Hoxers. As with many issues at a crossroad ie Biden’s competency, being publicly condemned if you are not in line, is the choice of the radical Left.

24. ‘https://prepareforchange.net/2019/09/15/nasa-climate-change-caused-by-changes-in-earths-solar-orbit-and-axial-tilt-not-man-made-causes/

    Milankovitch Cycles

25. Susanne, this is not controversial, it doesn’t insult or call names. Just another scientific theory. Can you please post?

26. Thank you so much for taking the time to write these articles. I wish there was a share button on the MRA app. It’s important for the public to know there are very articulate and qualified voices giving the true picture of what really shouldn’t be a debate of global climate.

Comments are closed.