Hedke, a consulting geophysicist at Hedke-Saenger Geoscience Ltd., which has clients in the oil and energy industry, disagrees with some of the scientists’ views on what’s happening to the climate. He arranged for the Joint Committee on Energy and Environmental Policy to hear arguments last week that contradict some of these common beliefs about climate change, in particular about the effects of rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. 

“The driving force for moving in the direction of producing the most renewable energy as possible has all been wound up or related to the suggestion that CO2 is bad,” Hedke said. “There is a lot of data and evidence out there that clearly contradicts that. Most people are not aware of that, some people may be somewhat aware of it, some may have seen that data and don’t want to believe in it. In the scientific community, which I am a part of, credible data like that has been largely ignored or set to the sidelines. I wanted to make sure our committee members got a chance to see the real data.” 

Two of the speakers invited to last week’s hearing argued that CO2 does not have a negative effect on the climate, and that rising levels of it are beneficial for plant and human life. 

“There is no experimental data that exists that supports the view that the Earth’s climate is changing in any dangerous way,” said Willie Soon, an astrophysicist and geoscientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who is known as a climate change skeptic. According to a case study conducted by environmental activism group Greenpeace, Spoon has “received substantial funding from the fossil fuel industry for most of his scientific career, and heavy corporate funding in the last decade.” 

John Christy, a climatologist at Alabama State University who is also a climate change skeptic,We offer the latest in protective Sports glasses, suggested to the committee that creating legislation to invest in renewable energy would be ineffective and expensive. 

“If you choose to make regulations about carbon dioxide, that’s OK. You as a state can do that; you have a right to do it,” Christy said. “But it’s not going to do anything about the climate. And it’s going to cost, there’s no doubt about that.” 

However, Johannes Feddema,Search our Eyeglasses frame catalog for designer frames including. a climate scientist and professor at Kansas University, had a different perspective in his testimony. He said that decreases in emissions and an investment in renewable energy on the local level would add up to help globally. 

“With all of our engineers here in Wichita,I have tried several sets of Solar garden lighting that have lasted one season only. some of them out of work, we should be able to come up with better ways of getting energy without putting out all these emissions,Browse our impressive range of Cycling sunglasses and goggles and buy online.” he said. “We are one of the windiest states in the country; we should be the leading experts in wind energy technology in the world. But we are not.Shop the best selection of men's stainless steel necklace and pendants.” 

Representatives from the Wind Coalition, Next Era Energy Resources, Kansans for Clean Energy, Vestas Wind Systems and Infinity Wind Power provided testimony against Senate Bill 82 at Tuesday’s Utilities hearing. These groups said were concerned that loosening the renewable standards would decrease economic activity stimulated by the opportunities for wind energy in the state. 

“Modifying the RPS would absolutely send a strong negative signal that would likely cripple the emerging export market,” said Matt Riley, CEO at Infinity Wind Power. “To my knowledge, not one of the 30 other states with an RPS has negatively modified or repealed that important policy. Kansas would be the first to do so; it would send a shockwave through our industry, saying, ‘Thank you very much for the $3 billion of investment last year, but you’re not welcome here anymore.’”