Organic Foods Have Downsides? Who'Da Thunk It?

Life is a balance between all the choices we have presented before us and all the decisions we make. Yin and Yang, karma, The Secret, et cetera, all speak to this idea that everything has an effect (and affect?) on something. I have written before about our hubris in toying with nature, and our old friend The Law of Unintended Consequences.

Here's an interesting look at the research from some sources (and I am sure that there are others with different results) from a writer at the UK Telegraph, or, more appropriately, a professor that has been known to write about how the environmental/climate movement doesn't pay attention to the above-mentioned Law. I say that to be sure that you read this with a critical eye, knowing that I feel the same way he does and could be experiencing some Confirmation Bias (as I admittedly do, do you?).

Norman Borlaug, who got the Nobel Prize for starting the Green Revolution, liked to point out that organic farming on a global scale would leave billions without food. “I don’t see two billion volunteers to disappear,” he said.

Exactly. That's just one zinger, read the article to see the research about how organic fails at feeding large numbers. Here's an interview with this guy, Bjorn Lomborg, called The Reasonable Environmentalist, which I love, as that's exactly how I've described myself (conserve! reduce, reuse, recycle!), indeed, I try to be reasonable above all else.

His recent column, Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all, lays it out. The pledges agreed to in the Paris treaty would cost $1 to $2 trillion a year by 2030 to implement, with virtually no impact: At most it would reduce global temperature by a fraction of degree by the end of the century.

He says money would be better spent developing breakthrough technology that would truly be transformational to our economy (not solar and wind, which are piddling) and funding efforts to combat malnutrition and provide safe drinking water in the developing world.

The upshot is, if you truly care about two billion people living in dire poverty, the Paris treaty is the wrong way to help them.

THIS!!!! I once had an article from the "founder of Greenpeace now a skeptic" that had a great chart about the costs/benefits of spending allllll that cash on AGW versus not that came to the same conclusion, a reduction of a fraction of a degree. I can't find it!!!!

Oh, here's another article of his about the fact that there are good things about a warming world that don't get discussed because of HOW DARE YOU. I have said this as well, that fewer people will die because cold kills more people than heat....

Don't be led around by your nose, think, doubt, and verify from scientific sources not PuffHo, or WinfoArs and their ilk.

Typical "Journalism" Malpractice In One Photo.

Now, the article itself is what you'd expect, feel free to read it (or don't, it's crap) by clicking on the image, but it's the picture that I spotted immediately as a fraud. The commenters were all over it, too: those are cooling towers and the white "smoke" you see is water vapor. That's all. No emissions, no carbon dioxide, or carbon at all. Typical crap yellow journalism from the Independent. Buried in the story is a photo slideshow showing how we are Killing the Planet full of stock Getty images with stupid captions, led off by, you guessed it: cooling towers accused of polluting. It would be embarrassing if The Independent had any shame at all.

How Little We Know

A couple of stories came by my internetting today, one from NASA regarding the sun, one about the deepest borehole in the world, and one about the oceans' role in ending the Ice Age.

We all know the Sun is a big burning ball of gas, but the text in this article reveals something to me (remember, by the way, the principle of Confirmation Bias: I don't believe humans cause global climate change, so these things jump out at me): we don't understand the sun very well.

“The images that have all the pretty loops and arches are extremely hot material,” physicist Dean Pesnell said in an interview with Yahoo News. “We would like to understand where all those arches come from. They are filled with things that are about 2 million degrees. The sun itself is just about 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit.”

The borehole article is filled with things we didn't know, and it's from Mother Nature Network, no doubt a bastion of "humans are killing the planet" thinking (caveat: I haven't checked that claim).

Before the hole was drilled, geologists could only hypothesize about the composition of the Earth's crust. Needless to say, the amount of geological data produced by the project was unprecedented. Mostly, it revealed just how little we really know about our planet.

For instance, one of the most surprising findings was the absence of the transition from granite to basalt at a depth between 3 and 6 kilometers below the surface. Previously, scientists had used seismic waves to glean information about the composition of the crust. They had discovered that a discontinuity existed at this depth, which they assumed was due to a transition in rock type. But the borehole drillers found no such transition; instead they found only more granite. It turns out that the discontinuity revealed by the seismic waves was actually due to a metamorphic change in the rock, rather than a change in rock type. It was a humbling realization for theorists, to say the least.

Even more surprising, the rock had been thoroughly fractured and was saturated with water. Free water was not supposed to exist at such depths. Geologists now surmise that the water consists of hydrogen and oxygen atoms that were squeezed out of the surrounding rock by enormous pressure, and is retained there due to a layer of impermeable rock above.

Researchers also described the mud that flowed out of the hole as "boiling" with hydrogen. The discovery of such large quantities of hydrogen gas was highly unexpected.

By far the most riveting discovery from the project, however, was the detection of microscopic plankton fossils in rocks over 2 billion years old, found four miles beneath the surface. These "microfossils" represented about 24 ancient species, and were encased in organic compounds which somehow survived the extreme pressures and temperatures that exist so far beneath the Earth.

The final mystery revealed by the borehole was the reason drilling operations had to be abandoned. Once the drill reached depths in excess of about 10,000 feet, the temperature gradient suddenly began to increase unexpectedly. At the hole's maximum depth, temperatures skyrocketed to 356 degrees Fahrenheit, which was much higher than the 212 degrees Fahrenheit originally predicted. The drill was rendered useless at such temperatures.

The project was officially closed down in 2005, and the site has since fallen into disrepair. The hole itself was welded shut by the rusted metal cap that today covers it, as if to permanently hide the hole's many mysteries from the surface world. 

 Though the hole's depth is impressive, it's a small fraction of the distance to the center of the Earth, which is estimated to be nearly 4,000 miles deep. By comparison, the Voyager 1 spacecraft, which has reached the outer layers of our solar system, has relayed information from over 10 billion miles away. The human race truly understands less about the ground beneath its very feet than it does about the cosmos that abound. It's humbling to realize just how much mystery still exists right here on our little blue world.

Lastly, let's peruse the article about the oceans.

"The oceans are leaking carbon dioxide to the atmosphere," said study co-author Gavin Foster from the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom.

The findings suggest these regions were pumping carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The gas concentrations in the two regions spiked at different times, hinting that different processes underlie the rise in ocean carbon, the researchers said. However, in both cases the scientists think carbon dioxide levels in these two regions jumped because water rich in carbon and nutrients welled up from the deep ocean. 

Yet scientists still puzzle over what triggered these giant burps in greenhouse gas. Leading theories include changes in ocean currents or wind patterns. Some researchers recently suggested that sea-level drops triggered underwater volcanoes to erupt more vigorously, belching carbon dioxide in the process.

"We don't know the ultimate case," Foster said. "[But] we're one step toward the answer."

The researchers plan to test additional sites and examine how carbon dioxide levels changed through the glacial cycle, he said.

Not man, certainly 10,000 years ago. They. Don't. Know. There is also no Cause/Effect relationship proven between CO2 and temperature ("proven" being the important word there, by the way)


Seriously, readers, don't get fussed and have your tubes tied or something. We don't know everything we think we know.

This is Awesome

This is also an indictment of the way in which all of these stories are communicated. Shame on you, media and "scientists" that behave this way.

'There are strong signs that these recent climate disasters were not random deviations from the usual weather, but instead signals of the emergence of a new normal for world climates'

A Like Mind (with more time and expertise)

I have been enjoying this blog about AGW, and the bunk that gets propped up as "science."

We are especially like minds in the media's role in the hysteria, like this post is which he destroys the headlines about the storm on St. Judes's Day. The British Press is just as bad, if not worse than the US.

"The Met Office have now issued their comprehensive report on the St Jude’s Day storm, that hit southern England in October.

Readers will recall idiotic headlines at the time, describing it as “The Storm of the Century”, “Unprecedented”, “Superstorm” and “A repeat of 1987”. I pointed out at the time that such claims were patent nonsense, and that the storm was not an unusual event.

The Met Office report now confirms what I was saying."

Much like the hype over typhoon Haiyan being the worst ever (like this Guardian article asserts) one of the strongest ever, or the deadliest ever, it wasn't. Every article that reveals the truth has to share how horrible it was to fend off accusations of callousness, I'm sure, but the criticism is rightly directed at the media outlets that hyped the horrible storm into the "worst, deadliest, strongest" so that more people would buy their papers or watch their telecasts (I can't bring myself to call them "newscasts" anymore). My new-found writer above also comments about this.

Simply put, don't listen to the talking heads. They lie.

Unintended Consequences, Again. Surprised?

This article has its share of good reporting and stupidity, but the fact remains that actions have consequences. Duh.

"As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found.

Five million acres of land set aside for conservation — more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined — have vanished on Obama's watch.

Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies, releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil.

Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, contaminated rivers and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can't survive.

The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative impact."

What happens when you allow a policy belief to override science? You kill eagles and marine life chasing Global Warming alarmism. You destroy the environment to enact your policies which are more designed to control your population and the economy than to save the Earth.

"Fundamental Transformation" has a price, after all.....

Go Ahead, Tax Carbon, But Nothing Will Change

Thanks to Junk Science, I saw this today:

The Carbon Tax: Washington's Latest Bad Idea, Oddly Shepherded By Republicans

I love this:

"One can use the EPA’s own model (curiously, acronymed MAGICC) to assess the effects on global temperature of emissions reductions that would be caused by a carbon tax. Assuming outrageously high taxes that would reduce them by 83% (giving Americans the per-capita emissions of 1867), the amount of warming that would be prevented is too small to measure on the 50-year time scale. Anything less does even less."

In other words, the effects are essentially the same as doing nothing. Why then, should we do it??

FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wait, the Earth Regulates its Temperature?

"For humans to presume that they are more than a gnat on an elephant’s rump in terms of impact on climate change is vain and delusive."    Or, as I like to say, Hubris.

 

This is Science

"...as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances."

That, my friends, is the best, most accurate statement you will ever read about Climate Change.

more:

(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”


 
Hubris is not a fault of his, unlike the rest of the Global Warming mob.

More Green Promises Wither

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for these articles:

Electric cars may not be so green after all, says British study   

Here's my takeaway: 

The study was commissioned by the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, which is jointly funded by the British government and the car industry. It found that a mid-size electric car would produce 23.1 tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime, compared with 24 tonnes for a similar petrol car. Emissions from manufacturing electric cars are at least 50 per cent higher because batteries are made from materials such as lithium, copper and refined silicon, which require much energy to be processed.

 

and then there's this about how much methane "biodegradable" products release in landfills:

 

If we want to maximize the environmental benefit of biodegradable products in landfills,” Barlaz said, “we need to both expand methane collection at landfills and design these products to degrade more slowly — in contrast to FTC guidance.

 

Surely we don't really need a lesson in The Law of Unintended Consequences, so we?

 

Wind Turbines are Killers! Panic! wait....Where's the Panic?

Well, it's well documented that wind turbines are actual wildlife killers, so why bother reporting it, if you are a journalist in the US? Wouldn't want to get people all riled up when there are Green stories to write, after all.

Thankfully, the UK press is all over this one:

"California's attempts to switch to green energy have inadvertently put the survival of the state’s golden eagles at risk.
Scores of the protected birds have been dying each year after colliding with the blades of about 5,000 wind turbines.
Now the drive for renewable power sources, such as wind and the sun, being promoted by President Obama and state Governor Jerry Brown has raised fears that the number of newborn golden eagles may not be able to keep pace with the number of turbine fatalities."

so, with the perceived Bogeyman of Environmental Disaster, we slaughter wildlife to save what, exactly?

Greenland Was Called That For a Reason

Okay, folks, here's one from Yahoo (new link, old one expired) today, and as noted in the comments, it's an old story, and the writer desperately tries to come to a conclusion that isn't supported by the story, which is funny to me.

"Scientists fear that the 21st century warming is caused by climate change, stoked by a build-up of greenhouse gases from human activities. An acceleration of warming could cause a meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, raising world sea levels."

Dunce. After recounting all the changes to the climate of Greenland (and therefore the planet) over the centuries, to add that sentence is, well, stupid.

Another Hysterical Man Caused Global Warming Statement timed out

Here's the link to this wonderful post that I like so much, I'm pasting all the content here, so you can read it here. You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Please go to the original site via the link, though, they deserve the traffic.

Flashback 2005: UN Predicts 50 Million Global Warming Refugees By 2010

By Noel Sheppard | April 12, 2011 | 10:31

To give you an idea of the kind of hysterical predictions the global warming crowd have made in recent years, the United Nations in 2005 actually forecast that by the end of the previous decade, there would be 50 million environmental refugees around the world as a result of climate change.
Britain's Guardian reported October 12, 2005:

Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse.

"There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change," Dr Bogardi said. "This new category of refugee needs to find a place in international agreements. We need to better anticipate support requirements, similar to those of people fleeing other unviable situations." [...]

Hans van Ginkel, UN under-secretary-general and rector of the university, said: "This is a highly complex issue, with global organisations already overwhelmed by the demands of conventionally recognised refugees. However, we should prepare now to define, accept and accommodate this new breed of refugee."

As Gavin Atkins of the Asian Correspondent noted Monday, the U.N. back in 2005 provided a handy map to identify "places most at risk including the very sensitive low lying islands of the Pacific and Caribbean."
Atkins chose to look at census figures for some of these "at risk" locales to see whether the U.N.'s predictions - pun intended - hold water. What he discovered was that far from seeing a population exodus, many of these areas are growing in their number of homo sapiens.
These included the Bahamas, St. Lucia, Seychelles, and the Solomon Islands. Atkins continued:

Meanwhile, far from being places where people are fleeing, no fewer than the top six of the very fastest growing cities in China, Shenzzen, Dongguan, Foshan, Zhuhai, Puning and Jinjiang, are absolutely smack bang within the shaded areas identified as being likely sources of climate refugees.

Similarly, many of the fastest growing cities in the United States also appear within or close to the areas identified by the UNEP as at risk of having climate refugees.

More censuses are due to come in this year, and we await the results for Bangladesh and the Maldives - said to be places most at risk - with interest.

However, a very cursory look at the first available evidence seems to show that the places identified by the UNEP as most at risk of having climate refugees are not only not losing people, they are actually among the fastest growing regions in the world.

Kind of like predicting a team to come in last place at the beginning of the season that ends up winning the Super Bowl, wouldn't you say?
Climate realists are also ticking down Nobel Laureate Al Gore's prediction that "the world has 10 years or less to turn things around before it is too late."
Although this is from his pathetic schockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" released in August 2006, he apparently made this claim at the Sundance Film Festival in January of that year.
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has been counting down the days since January 27, 2006:

In four years, nine months, and roughly fifteen days, when we're all still standing here and the world hasn't come to an end, Gore's going to have some serious splainin' to do.
(H/T Global Warming Policy Foundation)

AGW nutroots, and lets's blame...?

Thanks to @danaloesch for the story tip on twitter, these are the types of stories that make you just want to scream. Parents commit global warming fear-inspired suicide/murder.

Now, I know that there are just crazy people, but this really points out the damage that these crazy global warming nutcase doom and gloom endtimes types cause. So read this story (thanks @brooksbayne for that one!) about how the science is very unsettled next to Algore's attempt to keep scaring us all in the New York Times, and determine for yourself if there's any cause and effect going on here, ok?