New publication: Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels

The fifth volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered series, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels, produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), is undergoing final peer review. It was publicly presented on December 4, 2018 in Katowice, Poland — the host city of the 24th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 24) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

From the press release:

“Each year the verdict becomes stronger and clearer that the scientific evidence debunks global warming alarmism. While the United Nations’ Conference of the Parties frantically searches for reasons to justify its continued existence, The Heartland Institute is proud to present the science that debunks U.N. alarmism.

“We will also be presenting examples of real-world evidence contradicting important U.N. climate claims. We will be delivering the truth that the only thing ‘settled’ about the global warming debate is that U.N. climate reports have little credibility. Skeptics present a far better scientific case.”

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels assesses the costs and benefits of the use of fossil fuels (principally coal, oil, and natural gas) by reviewing scientific and economic literature on organic chemistry, climate science, public health, economic history, human security, and theoretical studies based on integrated assessment models (IAMs). It is the fifth volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered series and, like the preceding volumes, it focuses on research overlooked or ignored by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Previous volumes in the Climate Change Reconsidered series were published in 200920112013, and 2014. Those volumes — along with separate executive summaries for each report— are available for free online on this site. Use the links on this page or use the pull-down menu that appears when clicking on the tab titled “Volumes” at the top of this page. Print copies can be ordered at The Heartland Institute’s online store or at Amazon.com.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international network of climate scientists sponsored by three nonprofit organizations: the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), and The Heartland Institute. It was convened in 2013 to provide an independent review of the reports produced by the United Nations’ IPCC.

Outline of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels

Click on each title below to view a PDF version of that chapter, or download the full volume (20.65 mb) here.


Table of Contents

Front Matter

Part 1: Foundations

  1. Environmental Economics
  2. Climate Science

Part II: Benefits of Fossil Fuels

  1. Human Prosperity
  2. Human Health Benefits
  3. Environmental Benefits

Part III: Costs of Fossil Fuels

  1. Air Quality
  2. Human Security
  3. Cost-Benefit Analysis

Appendix 1: Acronyms

Appendix 2: Authors, Contributors, and Reviewers

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “New publication: Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels

  1. Much needed. Having proved the case, a skeptic tends to consider the matter over. In politics and popular culture, such an approach is considered surrender.

  2. We can reconsider dismantling our energy infrastructure over a Climate HUNCH?

    Since there are no Laws, Axioms, Postulates nor formulae derived from the CAGW Theory, how is it differentiated from a mere HUNCH?

    It’s self describing …

    Hypothetical
    Unproven
    Non-scientific
    Climate
    Hunch

  3. “Each year the verdict becomes stronger and clearer that the scientific evidence debunks global warming alarmism.”

    Nice.

    Scientific evidence is the alarmism denier.

  4. Go for it, NIPCC! I’m sitting here in Mendoza, Argentina, the center of wine production in South America, and we have had a series of very cold rain storms. The pass to Chile is closed due to a snow storm yesterday, there is fresh snow on the pre-Cordillera, and, most importantly, the grapes are confused about what season it is and are off to a poor start. This AGW deal is not working out as predicted. Go, NIPCC!

    • ” … most importantly, the grapes are confused …
      A catastrophe in the making!
      I’ll have a glass of Washington State Malbec tonight, and contemplate confused grapes.

    • What????? Are you saying the Carmelita Uco Valley Cabernet Franc will be late, or worse: unavailable???????????

      No!!!! I am DEVASTATED!!!!!!!

      No Bodega El Esteco Old Vines Torrontés 1945? Riccitelli Wines, Old Vines Semillón, Patagonia? I weep for this – this travesty!!! (Wine whine)

  5. The only climate science publication
    that’s better than my PdF file of
    Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels,
    … is a new, updated version of
    Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels.

    This is real science.

    Not the usual climate junk science,
    consisting of scary predictions
    that won’t happen,
    and wrong wild guesses
    of the future average temperature,
    using climate computer games,
    all brought to us by
    the government bureaucrats
    who are paid well for
    their climate scaremongering,
    and “rewarded” with
    permanent job security.

    Plus they are getting paid
    for playing computer games,
    and no leftists even care if they make
    wrong average temperature
    predictions every year … which is
    exactly what they do !

    Those bureaucrats with science degrees
    should be ashamed of themselves,
    but they are just like the scientists
    who were paid to claim
    that cigarettes were safe —
    the government bureaucrats with
    science degrees give us
    climate change junk science
    because that is exactly what
    they are paid to produce.

    • “scientists … were paid to claim that cigarettes were safe” —

      . cigarettes are unsafe as long as I smoke them.

      . polar bears are safe — no one smokes polar bears.

  6. In 100 years, people will regard the scientists of today in the same way we regard doctors of 100 years ago who would bleed patients in order to reduce a fever.

    They will go down in history as clowns, too stupid to follow or understand basic scientific principles, and unable to comprehend the basic principles of mathematical models.

    • Steve O: “In 100 years, people will regard the scientists of today in the same way we regard doctors of 100 years ago who would bleed patients in order to reduce a fever. ”

      Exactly! Bloodletting led me to one of two questions that prompted me to examine the state of the science declaring that CO2 is warming the Earth. Those earlier peoples practiced bloodletting without knowing that it was almost always exactly the wrong thing to do. It all seems implausible now, so I wondered if we believe something today that is completely opposite of truth. So I pondered, what if Carbon Dioxide is not harmful to life but rather beneficial to life. Every single detail I have studied since then has shown that indeed CO2 is beneficial and not harmful.

      It’s as if we as mankind feared fire and then learned to harness it.
      Then, we as mankind feared our own blood until we understood how necessary it is.
      Now, we as mankind fear CO2 even though it is the base of the food chain and necessary for life.

      Carbon Dioxide is the Life Blood of Life.

  7. Instead of the UN conferences being called “Conference of the Parties” shouldn’t they be called the 2-week, Parties at the Conference. They don’t accomplish anything worthwhile.

  8. Anthony’s CO2 jar experiment demonstrated that an increase in CO2 will not lead to a higher temperature. If the addition of CO2 did then by now there should have been a change in the specific heat of air. So far nothing.

  9. What I’ve realised about the 97% of folks who believe in climate change because they don’t know the science and they’ve simply been told repeatedly is they associate CO2 with sooty carbon pollution and how it’s damaging the environment rather than how fortunate they are to be able to use fossil fuels to minimise the impact on their environment-
    https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/indias-polluted-air-killed-124-million-in-2017-study/ar-BBQBncj

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *