September 19, 2019
I WILL rest my case against “climate alarmism” with this column today.
The latest information coming in is a crusher for the United Nations climate agenda.
In sharp contrast to the UN’s admonition for mankind to eat less meat (in order to reduce carbon emissions), a new research study from a prestigious US university reports that poor countries will have to increase their carbon footprint in order to combat hunger.
This pulls the rug from under the feet of the UN’s relentless campaign against carbon dioxide (CO2) as the alleged culprit behind global warming. The UN must either refute the research or fold its inhuman campaign, when it convenes its climate summit on September 23.
President Duterte was indeed right not to send a Philippine delegation to another climate talkathon.
Carbon vs hunger
Agence France Presse (AFP) reported the news that researchers at Johns Hopkins University have concluded in a study that poor countries will have to increase their carbon footprint in order to combat hunger.
The study found that achieving a nutritious diet with adequate calories in developing countries would require a substantial increase in greenhouse gas emissions and water use.
The researchers developed a model looking at how changes to dietary patterns across 140 countries would impact greenhouse gas emissions and freshwater use at the individual and country level.
They used the model to determine the per capita and countrywide climate and water footprints of nine “plant-forward” diets, which included no red meat, pescatarian, vegetarian without eliminating eggs and dairy, and vegan.
Keeve Nachman, the study’s senior author, told AFP that much of the conversation about mitigating the effects of climate change “fails to recognize that many parts of the world are dealing with under-nutrition.”
“In order to get them to a place where they are not experiencing chronic under-nutrition, they will need to eat more, and accordingly, they will need to increase their carbon footprint,” he said.
“What that says to us is that in many high-income countries around the world, where we’re consuming far more animal products than the global average, there’s an increased urgency to start transitioning sooner rather than later towards some of these more plant-forward diets.”
“What’s exciting about some of the diets that we’ve modeled is, there are diets that don’t require you to fully eliminate any particular animal products; it’s all about a more nuanced approach.”
Carbon, as is well-known, is a key contributor to the exponential growth of agriculture and food production.
It’s a false and inhuman choice: food or carbon chastity.
Climate change: Natural or man-made
Dr. Roy Spencer, PhD, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and formerly with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, has summed up the climate debate persuasively in a current article in his blog titled “Global warming: natural or man-made.
“‘Global warming’ refers to the global average temperature increase that has been observed over the last 100 years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.
“Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is man-made. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.
“The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, ‘What else COULD it be?’ Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.
“But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global warming is man-made. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane), which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40 percent to 45 percent higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800s.
“It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions five more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.
“Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called ‘climate sensitivity.’…
“The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 to 0.5 Celsius (about 0.5 to 0.9 Fahrenheit) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy.
“You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it…The scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.
“Most climate change might well be the result of… the climate system itself! It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are.
“Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.”
Hot air or travesty
To close the argument, I want to cite two opinions that have been influential on my own thinking on climate change, crisis or apocalypse.
The late former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher discussed the climate issue in her final book, Statecraft (Harper Collins, New York, 2002). She titled her comment, “Hot air and global warming.”
She closed it with these words:
“We should be suspicious of plans for global regulation that all too clearly fit in preconceived agendas.
“We should demand of politicians that they apply the same criticism of common sense and a sense of proportion their pronouncements on the environment.
“We must never forget that although prosperity brings problems, it also permits solutions – and less prosperity, less solutions.
“All discussions must be made on the basis of the best science, whose conclusions have been properly evaluated.”
Finally, there is the widely respected and prizewinning author, George Will. He dismissed climate change as a travesty in a famous column in 2009. He wrote:
“Skeptics about the shrill certitudes concerning catastrophic man-made warming are skeptical because climate change is constant: From millennia before the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1300), through the Little Ice Age (1500 to 1850), and for millennia hence, climate change is always a 100 percent certainty….
“The travesty is the intellectual arrogance of the authors of climate change models partially based on the problematic practice of reconstructing long-term prior climate changes. On such models we are supposed to wager trillions of dollars — and substantially diminished freedom.”
Hot air? Travesty? I rest my case.
Credit belongs to : www.manilatimes.net