In case you missed it — it hasn’t exactly been making the mainstream media rounds — a new study published in the professionally recognized journal Nature punches a hole in the doom-and-gloom scenarios of “settled” climate change.
The study’s authors determined that the Earth apparently is less sensitive to changes in CO2 levels than previously estimated. “Our study all but rules out very low and very high climate sensitivities,” said lead author Peter Cox, a professor at the University of Exeter.
According to the researchers, if CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere doubled, global temps would increase no more than 3.4 degrees Celsius. The United Nations climate prognostications pegged the increase at 4.5 to possibly 6 degrees Celsius. At the very least, this study brings into question the worst-case United Nations’ climate-change predictions.
Based on higher-temperature estimations, the Obama administration in a 2015 EPA report projected that climate change would triple the hottest U.S. days, increase air and water pollution and cause tens of thousands of premature deaths by 2100, Investor’s Business Daily reports.
Of course, one study is hardly conclusive. And no one is suggesting a rollback in environmental safeguards. But the latest findings should at least draw a raised eyebrow to claims that, of late, have blamed the recent nationwide cold snap on man-made climate change.
Climate science is not as simple, or as settled, as the world’s loudest climate alarmists insist.
___
(c)2018 The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (Greensburg, Pa.)
Visit The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (Greensburg, Pa.) at www.triblive.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
—-
This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.
Join the discussion
Hey Al Gore, how are your three mansions, your private jet and the limousines that pick you up? Maybe we should put on liberals on an island in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean with no carbon fuels. The liberals can live in a cave and no fires will be permitted, because that can cause a “carbon footprint”.
If anyone’s interested, here’s a link to the actual study: just the abstract and sources.
http://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450#article-comments
Never was about science or climate change. It’s about separating Americans from their money. Period.
AND cause this refutes the libtards claims, of COURSE THE MEDIA will ignore it as long as feasibly possible..
Just one more reason why to be skeptical of anything promoted through the IPCC: A leading contributor to the IPCC climate change report stated, quote; “We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects.” (Mike Hulme) (them being the public (us)).
Einstein once postulated the “Theory of Relativity” which has a lot of anecdotal support but no direct evidence to prove it (otherwise it would be the “Law of Relativity”). This is the same for the “Theory of Evolution”. Imagine that. Science isn’t settled on the subject by a long shot. It will take 3 to 4 hundred
Years worth of data, not the 130 years most of the pundits of climate change base their beliefs on, to really BEGIN to point to an answer as to whether or not man is responsible. Given the geological evidence, which is a settled science, our earth has been through many epochs of climatic change,
and it hasn’t stopped! Based on the un-manipulated NOAA data there has been no significant change. This same Data does show a slight cooling. Based on the data of the Arctic ice pac over the last 20 years, the pac is increasing in size, not decreasing. When scientist deliberately manipulate data to obtain a specific result; that this is pure subterfuge. NO, science is not settled on this issue by a long shot.
It would seem to me that those acolytes who insist on the unchallenged acceptance of the IPCC’s “Anthropogenic Climate Change” theory are forgetting (although I believe “Ignoring” is the more accurate term) the first rule of scientific inquiry, which is to, “Trust, but verify”, true science untainted by political and personal gain. I suggest reading an interesting little tome: “Unstoppable Global Warming [Every 1,500 Years]” 2nd ed. -S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. One of the interesting (“Telling”) results of their book, which pulls together scientific studies from many different disciplines from the earth sciences to astrophysical, is that instead of attempting to refute the conclusions of Singer and Avery by disproving the studies they present (that would be the scientific method, would it not?), they have been subjected to personal attacks and vilification by those I’m calling “The Consensatarians”. (Which, I believe, would be the “Secular/Theocratic” method.) If you actually read it from cover to cover and can debate the science, that’s the scientific method. If you can only skim through it and denigrate the personalities of those who’ve done the research, well … it would be obvious as to which side of the equation you belong to.
That’s the thing. Leftists KEEP PROVING they have no desire for “INQUIRY”, cause that would mean they would have to DEBATE their so called facts, which we all know, they CAN’T.