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.

Math is Hard, Climate Edition

Found this article from the BBC about the less warm warming, and while the usual crap still exists in the article, (obfuscation, guesswork, consensus rather than data and actual science), this part really struck me:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2007 that the short-term temperature rise would most likely be 1-3C (1.8-5.4F).

But in this new analysis, by only including the temperatures from the last decade, the projected range would be 0.9-2.0C."

So, it's totally ok to be off in prediction by over 100%? WTH???????

It's all so much guesswork, just read the article. Seriously, what a crock. Highlights for me include phrases like

Since 1998, there has been an unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the Earth's atmosphere.

Climate sensitivity looks to see what would happen if we doubled concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and let the Earth's oceans and ice sheets respond to it over several thousand years.

"The hottest of the models in the medium-term, they are actually looking less likely or inconsistent with the data from the last decade alone," said Dr Alexander Otto from the University of Oxford.

"It is a bigger range of uncertainty," said Dr Otto.

"But it still includes the old range. We would all like climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn't." 

The authors say there are ongoing uncertainties surrounding the role of aerosols in the atmosphere and around the issue of clouds.

The first one cracks me up, it's like economic news reporting here in the states, every increase in jobless numbers or drop in the dollar's value is "unexpected." 
"If" should never appear in a science article, right? I mean, we report on what we know based on observations and data, I thought. maybe I misunderstand the whole "scientific method" thing.

Well, if the models are "inconsistent with the data," then the models are wrong, right?
So, Dr. Otto, you are saying that you are more wrong than you thought you were?
Who cares what anyone "would like?" for Pete's sake SCIENCE IS ABOUT DATA NOT FEELINGS YOU FAKE!
Uhm, what's "the issue of clouds?" That you haven't/can't/didn't account for them in your models? NASA (which has accepted the IPCC crap hook, line, and sinker) can't account for clouds, they are working on it, but it's too complex!!!!! Again, what a joke.

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.

Global Warming Junk Science

This from the American Thinker, on how the UN IPCC are a bunch of liars, which for folks like me is not at all a news flash.

Again I say, having seen more chaotic weather around the world: our planet is ever-changing, chaotic, tumultuous, and unfair. Understand that and you may find some inner peace about chaos, as well as some understanding that if we TRIED TO KILL THE PLANET it would laugh at us. Ok, that's wrong. It wouldn't notice.

The earth has been hotter than this, it's been colder that this. Now go do something more constructive, and meaningful with your life than buying a hybrid, which does absolutely nothing to help anything but automotive sales figures and your fragile ego.