• Home
  • News
  • Commentary
  • 13-Minute News Hour
  • Fresh Ink
  • Cartoons
  • The Loft
  • About Us
    • Contact
    • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Home
  • News
  • Commentary
  • 13-Minute News Hour
  • Fresh Ink
  • Cartoons
  • The Loft
  • About Us
Home » Fresh Ink

Another study refutes climate change claims

GOPUSA StaffPittsburgh Tribune-Review (Greensburg, Pa.) Posted On 6:40 am February 1, 2018
7


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.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
please wait...
Rating: 10.0/10 (6 votes cast)
Another study refutes climate change claims, 10.0 out of 10 based on 6 ratings
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0
Shares
  • Share On Facebook
  • Tweet It




7 Comments

backpacker
backpacker
10:10 am February 1, 2018 at 10:10 am
Log in to Reply

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”.

VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
Rating: 5.0/5 (7 votes cast)

    lakeworthcane
    lakeworthcane
    6:26 pm February 1, 2018 at 6:26 pm
    Log in to Reply

    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

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    please wait...
    Rating: 4.0/5 (1 vote cast)
baitfish
baitfish
11:44 am February 1, 2018 at 11:44 am
Log in to Reply

Never was about science or climate change. It’s about separating Americans from their money. Period.

VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
Rating: 5.0/5 (8 votes cast)

    ltuser
    ltuser
    3:49 pm February 1, 2018 at 3:49 pm
    Log in to Reply

    AND cause this refutes the libtards claims, of COURSE THE MEDIA will ignore it as long as feasibly possible..

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    please wait...
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
turner39459
turner39459
1:38 pm February 1, 2018 at 1:38 pm
Log in to Reply

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.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
please wait...
Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

MyronJPoltroonian
MyronJPoltroonian
3:08 pm February 1, 2018 at 3:08 pm
Log in to Reply

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.

VN:D [1.9.6_1107]
Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

    ltuser
    ltuser
    3:51 pm February 1, 2018 at 3:51 pm
    Log in to Reply

    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.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    please wait...
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Login or Register

    • Click here to login or use the link below to register and start making comments.
    • Register
    • You can also make comments using one of your existing social media accounts.
  • Comment using:

  • Get our Newsletter!

    Sign up for our daily newsletter. It's free!
    Click here to subscribe.
  • advertisement
  • Hot Topics

    • Here's what Trump should do with the border deal Here’s what Trump should do with the border deal 74 comments
    • Pelosi warns Democrat president could declare national emergency on guns Pelosi warns Democrat president could declare national emergency on guns 46 comments
    • Open Border Advocates Use Butterflies and Birds as Excuse to Stop Border Security Open Border Advocates Use Butterflies and Birds as Excuse to Stop Border Security 46 comments
    • NYC to lose billions as Amazon pulls plug after leftwing opposition NYC to lose billions as Amazon pulls plug after leftwing opposition 45 comments
    • Democrat Cory Booker says meat-eating will destroy planet Democrat Cory Booker says meat-eating will destroy planet 43 comments
  • Recent Comments

    • "Ben Shapiro reported that Jussie’s charachter was slated to be written out of the show. As soon as his story broke, the studio backed away from those plans. So, in the end... it’s the same motivation as so many other liberal scams. GREED and a willingness to claim victim hood by lying." Comment by Outdrzman
      Posted in Media: Bring us your Anti-Trump stories; Facts are optional
    • "Ya, and it won't be an amazon box!" Comment by pumpkinjack
      Posted in Thank a Democrat: Long Island City biz community loses big amid Amazon exit
    • "You've got a point, there. It would be something to see New Yorkers vote out the mayor, the gov, and OAC. Now THAT would be news!" Comment by pumpkinjack
      Posted in Thank a Democrat: Long Island City biz community loses big amid Amazon exit

  • Bringing the Conservative Message to America

    Get our Newsletter!

    Sign up for our daily newsletter. It’s free!
    Click here to subscribe.

  • Hot Topics

    • DACA Activist: Pledge of Allegiance 'rooted in ... white supremacy' DACA Activist: Pledge of Allegiance ‘rooted in … white supremacy’ 141 comments
    • Louis Farrakhan calls for separate state for Black Americans, says that's 'what God wants' Louis Farrakhan calls for separate state for Black Americans, says that’s ‘what God wants’ 138 comments
    • Green New Deal:  Say Goodbye to Your Farting Cows and Airplanes Green New Deal: Say Goodbye to Your Farting Cows and Airplanes 122 comments
    • Still bitter Meghan McCain slams Jared and Ivanka for coming to her father's funeral; promises never to forget Still bitter Meghan McCain slams Jared and Ivanka for coming to her father’s funeral; promises never to forget 114 comments
    • Nike responds to thousands of angry Muslims who want 'blasphemous' shoe recalled Nike responds to thousands of angry Muslims who want ‘blasphemous’ shoe recalled 105 comments
  • advertise

Press enter/return to begin your search