Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

2 shock studies frost cherished climate change “science” claims

2 shock studies frost cherished climate change “science” claims

Climate skeptics are cleaner; US drops its carbon dioxide emissions while Europe’s increases.

Two new studies have been published that completely frost the claims made by green justice warriors.

One of the most cherished tenets of eco-activists is they do more to “save the planet”. However, the first report indicates that it is, in fact, climate change skeptics that are leading the way to a cleaner environment.

Do our behaviors really reflect our beliefs? New research suggests that, when it comes to climate change, the answer is no. And that goes for both skeptics and believers.

Participants in a year-long study who doubted the scientific consensus on the issue “opposed policy solutions,” but at the same time, they “were most likely to report engaging in individual-level, pro-environmental behaviors,” writes a research team led by University of Michigan psychologist Michael Hall.

Conversely, those who expressed the greatest belief in, and concern about, the warming environment “were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions.”

Actually, this result is not surprising for those of us who believe that personal responsibility and independent actions lead to a better quality of life than nanny-state government mandates. The news is also not shocking for Legal Insurrection readers, who have read the posts on the mountains of garbage left behind after progressive protests.

Another assertion made by climate change advocates is that the United States is going to pollute the planet with carbon dioxide because it pulled out of the United Nations’ Paris Climate Accord. The real data reveal the opposite is true: European emissions have increased, while America’s has decreased.

Global energy-related CO2 emissions grew by 1.4% in 2017, reaching a historic high of 32.5 gigatonnes (Gt), a resumption of growth after three years of global emissions remaining flat. The increase in CO2 emissions, however, was not universal. While most major economies saw a rise, some others experienced declines, including the United States, United Kingdom, Mexico and Japan. The biggest decline came from the United States, mainly because of higher deployment of renewables.

The U.S.’s performance contrasts with that of the European Union, whose carbon dioxide emissions increased by 1.8 percent last year. This, even though many E.U. countries participate in a carbon market and are engaged in vast efforts aimed at replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar power.

…Although the Trump administration is generally hostile to international climate change agreements, the Environmental Protection Agency reports that the U.S. reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 2 percent in 2016. This drop is largely attributable to a continuing market-driven switch from coal to natural gas, to more renewable generation, and to a relatively mild winter.

I project that between the sulfur dioxide emissions from Kilauea and the disappearance of sunspots (indicating reduced solar energy emissions), the global climate is going to be cooler in the near future. However, green justice green justice warriors will still find a reason to blame President Donald Trump, America, and capitalism, despite the real facts.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

casualobserver | May 7, 2018 at 9:28 am

Data and facts are for ignorant deniers… (sarc)

I didn’t notice anything about subjects’ intentions. One might buy a fuel-efficient car or recycle or buy electricity-efficient items to save money, or refrain from polluting activities because one appreciates clean air, clean water, not because one is trying to ameliorate climate change.

Any comment from the Goreacle?

mochajava76 | May 7, 2018 at 10:14 am

this reminded me of the report of charitable donations of Mitt Romney and Biden.

Romney gave 29.4% of their income to charity in 2011.
Biden gave 1.5% of their income to charity in 2011.
Probably because Biden views it as the Government’s job to dole out money to the *right* charities.

for some people, it’s the same with individual responsibilities for stewarding the planet. That’s the domain of the government.

    Shane in reply to mochajava76. | May 7, 2018 at 11:53 am

    Nope, Biden is greedy and beholden to money. He did not gain his money through honorable means, so he never learned the lessons that doing such a thing teaches. This causes him to fear it’s loss, bringing about his greed.

    casualobserver in reply to mochajava76. | May 7, 2018 at 1:33 pm

    I’ve come across some progressives that say out loud that laws are needed to force people to do things that are either not innate or against their will. So, in this case, I can image some would argue that everyone will naturally tend to use more energy. Laws will penalize them enough so they will not. Those on the right side of climate views are not bad. They just need the big stick of the law over their heads. Or something….

    The same basic misunderstanding of human nature and laws is at the root of a lot of progressive ideas. They are committed to using law to force culture to fit their viewpoint, rather than having culture dictate the laws. It’s fundamentally what drives gun control. It has nothing to do with the canard of reducing gun violence. It is more a matter of the view that you do not NEED certain guns (or any gun) therefore we will force you to abide or make you pay (jail) no matter what your intent to possess. Or no matter what your rights. You shouldn’t. So we will make it a law.

And yet, this article which points out facts still contains falsehoods. The US’s big decline comes not from a shift to renewables, which are still inefficient, unexconomic, a tiny percentage of total consumption, and nonexistent without to government subsidies.

Instead the big declines for the US come from Natural gas plant replacing coal plants.

great unknown | May 7, 2018 at 11:28 am

Relatively mild winter? Have the data already been corrupted?

What this really is a human tendency to want someone else to stop us from our bad behaviors. The secret addict advocating for harsher drug laws, in hopes of stopping his own addiction. It never works and it is a sign as the article makes clear, that we are responsible for ourselves and our own actions.

Remember the comparison between the homes of W Bush and Algore

I personally put a solar panel on my roof to charge the deep cycle batteries that turn my exterior lights on at dusk and off at dawn. The LED light strings are 16 feet long and have 300 individual LEDs, each string consumes 24watts. No government subsidies, no contractor to install, and yet, I now have very nice lights that are unique in the neighborhood. Many have stopped to see how my lights work. But, I am just a denier that wants dirty air and polluted water.

Henry Hawkins | May 7, 2018 at 1:49 pm

I put my sweater on.

nordic_prince | May 7, 2018 at 6:36 pm

Some “green” actions may be beneficial, but some (most?) are at best merely a huge waste of time:

https://vimeo.com/216389085

I don’t go out of my way to recycle.

All programs designed to clean up the environment cost more money and actually acerbate human pollution production.

Take recycling. There are virtually NO recycling programs which are cost neutral, self-supporting, and the vast majority actually cost the community money. Recyclables have to be collected, transported, sorted, sent to other locations which will convert them into useful items and then sold. This requires manpower, vehicles and energy expenditure, all of which cost money. The sale of the material to be recycled and the recycled materials come nowhere near offsetting the total cost of the program. Also, much of the conversion process, of the material being recycled, actually produces further pollution products. It all looks good on paper, but the net gain is minimal at best and usually is nonexistent.

Also, people tend to look at the environment as being far simpler than it really is. More CO2 and water vapor in the air equals higher temperatures equals a bad thing. But, this is not true. The largest number of inhabitants of this planet actually thrive in an environment with a higher CO2 and water vapor content. These are the plants and other organisms which use photosynthesis to survive, and to thrive. Plants do much better with higher temperatures, higher water vapor and greater CO2, as long as sufficient light is present. And, greater plant production equals greater food supply for animals, including human beings.

Then of course, there is the anthropomorphic viewpoint of most of humanity. Most people are easily convinced that everything which happens on the planet is the direct result of human activity. This is hubris in the extreme. A rise in global CO2 levels MAY be attributable to human CO2 production. It can also be attributed to reduced plant activity for reasons other than human activity, such as reduced solar radiation.

Reliable scientific studies continually point up the fact that current levels of human activity have little impact on the global environment. It can have significant impact on local environmental conditions, but, on a planet which is 75% water, most in huge ocean areas, human impact is going to be minimal.

    erc in reply to Mac45. | May 8, 2018 at 11:41 am

    Correctimundo.

    Mike H. in reply to Mac45. | May 8, 2018 at 6:34 pm

    Mac45 another thought for your list.

    Plants are the only life form on the planet that make their own food. The food is made from Carbon and other elements and they eat it to grow.

    The greater the level of CO2 in the atmosphere the faster they grow.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend