The Drinking Water Advisor

From the Summary:

“Fossil fuels have benefited humanity by making possible the prosperity that occurred since the first Industrial Revolution, which made possible investments in goods and services that are essential to protecting human health and prolonging human life. Fossil fuels also power the technologies that reduce the environmental impact of a growing human population, saving space for wildlife.

The IPCC and national governments around the world claim the negative impacts of global warming on human health and security, occurring now or likely to occur in the future, more than offset the benefits that come from the use of fossil fuels. This claim lacks any scientific or economic basis. The benefits of fossil fuels are nowhere reported in the IPCC’s assessment reports. The analysis conducted here for the first time finds nearly all the impacts of fossil fuel use on human well-being are net positive (benefits minus costs), near zero (no net benefit or cost), or are simply unknown.

The alleged negative human health impacts due to air pollution are exaggerated by researchers who violate the Bradford Hill Criteria and rely too heavily on epidemiological studies finding weak relative risks. The alleged negative impacts on human security due to climate change depend on tenuous chains of causality that find little support in the peer- reviewed literature.

In conclusion, the IPCC and its national counterparts have not conducted proper cost-benefit analyses of fossil fuels, global warming, or regulations designed to force a transition away from fossil fuels. The global war on fossil fuels, which commenced in earnest in the 1980s and reached a fever pitch in the second decade of the twenty-first century, was never founded on sound science or economics. The authors of and contributors to Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels urge the world’s policymakers to acknowledge this truth and end that war.” click here