One of the main problems I encountered in the Climate Change report is that the article portrays carbon dioxide (CO2) as “toxic.” [emphasis, links added]
As I often point out in the discussion of this issue in legal uprisings, this assertion is a blatant lie.
One of the largest suppliers of this kind of vacancies is the Biden administration team of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Biden’s team used a report to justify its update to Obama’s Social Cost (SCC) policy, which aims to justify stricter regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.
Now a recent study published in Nature Scientific Reports The SCC estimates that challenge the Biden administration have increased fivefold, partly based on forecasts for global crop yields.
The study, conducted by economist Ross McKitrick, re-examines and extends the data set used in previous studies that influence SCC estimates.
The title almost summarizes the key points: Extended crop yield meta-analysis data do not support upward SCC revisions. It reviewed the 2014 database set used to demonstrate a substantial increase in regulations is CO2.
This article proposes many key points, including that the original dataset is not yet complete.
The original dataset for SCC updates contains 1,722 records, but only 862 are available due to missing variables. McKitrick retracted 360 other records, increasing the sample size to 1,222.
Interestingly, the reanalysis of larger data sets yielded significantly different results from previous studies.
Although earlier analysis showed that yields for all crop types declined even at lower warming levels, New and improved information shows that even if the temperature rises to 5°C, changes in global average crop yields will vary.
The study found that adaptive work and carbon dioxide fertilization have beneficial effects on crop yields, I noted earlier.
It seems like a good time to share Dr. William Happer’s video, who provides a rational view of carbon dioxide.
In short, the study concluded that climate change-related agricultural damage estimates were used to demonstrate that SCC increase was too pessimistic and that suggestive revisions to SCC [lack support from] Extend data.
Since crop yields did not collapse as stated in the report used by Biden's EPA, the fundamental principle used to substantially increase the “social cost of carbon” disappeared.
Top photo of Luca J on Unsplash
Reading break during legal riots
