"One of the biggest controversies (and misconceptions) about meat production is its contribution to global warming, which reached media prominence following the publication of the 2006 UN report entitled “Livestock’s Long Shadow.” This document made the shocking claim that livestock accounts for 18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions globally, placing it ahead of the transport sector. Now, call me naive, but I thought the cause of global warming was our predilection for burning fossil fuels. Does it seem likely that farming – an activity that took place for thousands of years before the industrial revolution – is likely to be the problem?". Keir Watson posts at Quillette.
A recent study demonstrates that dairy farming is a more efficient and cheaper method for providing human energy and protein requirements than growing grains or pulses. This contradicts decades of claims that a plant based diet is the only way to feed a burgeoning world population.
Dr John Hunt posts at Heartland: "Climate scientists are not prophets. Those who believe them on faith provide no good service to the pursuit of truth. Those who blame climate change for every storm or forest fire are silly. Equally silly are those who claim that a particularly cold day proves that climate change is a farce."
In ‘The Ethics of Belief’ (1877), William Kingdon Clifford gives three arguments as to why we have a moral obligation to believe responsibly, that is, to believe only what we have sufficient evidence for, and what we have diligently investigated. Clifford's 'law' is especially apposute in the curren...
Emeritus Professor Geoff Duffy writes: "The GHG concentration of the actual atmosphere is 1.028% of the total atmosphere, based on water vapour being 1% (200C, 75% Relative Humidity). The main gases from possible agricultural sources (methane and nitrous oxide) total only 0.02% of all the GHG, or 0.00021% of the total atmosphere......Hence, it can be concluded from all the available evidence that their contribution to any potential change in weather is miniscule".
Extract from a reply by astronaut Harrison Schmitt on climate change: "Right now, in my profession[geology], there is no evidence. There are models. But models of very, very complex natural systems are often wrong. The observations that we make as geologists, and observational climatologists, do not show any evidence that human beings are causing this. Now, there is a whole bunch of unknowns."
Professor Tim Ball and Tom Harris write in the "Washington Times": "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate forecasts were wrong from their earliest reports in 1990. They were so inaccurate that they stopped calling them forecasts and made three 'projections': low, medium, and high. Since then, even their 'low' scenario projections were wrong."
Christopher Booker writes in the UK Sunday Telegraph: "The 'special report' by the IPCC urging the world to use only renewable energy is pure fantasy". He concludes: "However much those behind this report may delude themselves and try to delude the rest of us, the fact is that the rest of the world is no longer being taken in by their make-believe."
"The IPCC well knows that halving CO2 emissions in 12 years is politically impossible, economically unaffordable and climatically unnecessary." Guest essay on WattsUpWithThat by Barry Brill, chair of New Zeakabd Climate Science Coalition.
The [UN]IPCC report is a fairy tale concerning the dangers of human-caused climate change, and a wish fulfillment fantasy concerning the world’s ability to reduce the use of fossil fuels while simultaneously eliminating poverty. This Non-Intergovernmental report explains why.
These slides by US physicist Dr Ed Berry prove human CO2 emissions add only 18 ppm to CO2 in the atmosphere while nature adds 392 ppm. Therefore, everything the UN IPCC and its supporters have told you about climate change is WRONG! Human emissions do not change the climate.(Click on downward arrow lower left corner to change slides)
Our earlier posting of links to Dr John McLean's exposure of errors in the HadCrut temperature data relied on by the IPCC for its (mostly misleading) predictions, reminded us of the 2009 paper by Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts that analysed the siting of temperature recording stations. That paper is worth reading again in 2018 as IPCC makes more scary predictions, continuing its line of alarmist forecasts which have still not come to pass.
In a lecture to the UK-based Global Warming Policy Foundation, Professor Emeritus Richard Lindzen, formerly of MIT, said: " None of the proposed policies will have much impact on greenhouse gases. Thus we will continue to benefit from the one thing that can be clearly attributed to elevated carbon dioxide: namely, its effective role as a plant fertilizer, and reducer of the drought vulnerability of plants. Meanwhile, the IPCC is claiming that we need to prevent another 0.5◦C of warming, although the 1◦C that has occurred so far has been accompanied by the greatest increase in human welfare in history."
Interesting comment by Melanie Phillips in The Times (London): Link to Melanie
Lindzen tells Daily Mail global warming ended 20 years ago Link to Mail
When Al Gore coined the term "carbon footprint", he and his alarmist conspirators, in their evil desire to scare the populace, seized on using the term carbon as a synonym for carbon dioxide (CO2) knowing it would conjure up visions of soot, lamp black and coal dust, none of which were warm and fuzzy. Dr Jay Lehr and Tom Harris explain this attempted brainwashing.
In the new NIPCC report, 117 scientists, economists, and other experts address and refute the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assertions that the impacts of climate change on human well-being and the natural environment justify dramatic reductions in the use of fossil fuels. The Summary provides more than 100 references to peer-reviewed literature, while the full report provides nearly 3,000 such references.
The first ever audit of the HadCrut4 global data from 1850 onwards used by climate alarmists to justify their claims of "dangerous anthropogenic global warming" (now known as "climate change" in the absence of predicted warming) has been undertaken by Melbourne climate analyst Dr John McLean for his PhD thesis, and then continued it on afterwards until it was complete. Three links follow:
First by Joanne Nova on her widely-read blog (and be sure to read through the many comments that follow): Link
Then James Delingpole, well known UK columnist at Breitbart: Link to James
Finally, where to buy an on-line copy of the complete thesis for US$8: Buy
As the world contemplates greater use of wind and solar power, two new papers from USA, find it would require five to 20 times more land than previously thought, and would warm average surface temperatures over the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees C.
Two days ago, the New Zealand Herald published an op-ed by Professor Emeritus Geoff Duffy, of University of Auckland, NZ, rebutting claims about emissions of methane by livestock contained in a report to our Parliament by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Today in the Herald is a letter to the editor from one Paul Judge, of Hamilton, calling Prof Duffy a "climate denier", and challenging Geoff's statements about absence of warming. Read below, Geoff's article, and look at graphs that weren't in the Herald article. Then decide for yourself: who is the real denier?
And here are graphs to support Geoff's article: AUSTRALIA and USA temp graphs.pdf