Monthly Archives: December 2018

Organic food has a greater climate impact than conventionally farmed food

“Organically farmed food has a bigger climate impact than conventionally farmed food, due to the greater areas of land required. This is the finding of a new international study involving Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, published in the journal Nature.” click here

Rising sea level acceleration manufactured

“Let me close by saying that I think that it is very bad scientific practice to splice together a terrestrial and a satellite record unless they agree well during the period of overlap. In this case, they disagree greatly over the period of record. For the detrended values over the period of overlap (1993-2013), the R^2 value is 0.01 and the P-value is 0.37 … in other words, there is absolutely no significant correlation between the satellite data and the C&W estimate.” click here

Fossil fuels benefit human health and environment

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

COP24 Climate Science Presentation

Renewable energy increases the cost of electricity, decreases reliability

“Under a renewable energy proposal from Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO), Indiana consumers would face a 12 percent electricity rate hike, which will cost the average household more than $100 per year in additional electricity costs. NIPSCO is justifying its renewable power rate hike by asserting renewable power saves consumers money, but there’s absolutely no truth to these claims.” click here

The land surface is cooling

“Finally, I’ve never seen a climate model from the turn of the century that predicted that for the first 18 years of the 21st Century the land would be cooling … and despite that, we’re supposed to believe that those same climate models can tell us what the temperatures will be doing in the year 2100 …” click here

Changing the data causes global warming, not carbon dioxide

“Unfortunately, the current NASA graph doesn’t even agree with their earlier graphs.  Eighteen years ago, NASA showed 0.5C warming prior to the year 2000.  Now they show twice as much warming prior to 2000.” click here