Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century. This is not some barmy, right-wing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion. Yet almost nobody seems to know this. -Matt Ridley, The Spectator, 19 October 2013
Whenever I make the point in public, I am told by those who are paid to insult anybody who departs from climate alarm that I have got it embarrassingly wrong, don’t know what I am talking about, must be referring to Britain only, rather than the world as a whole, and so forth. At first, I thought this was just their usual bluster. But then I realised that they are genuinely unaware. Good news is no news, which is why the mainstream media largely ignores all studies showing net benefits of climate change. --Matt Ridley, The Spectator, 19 October 2013
Craig Idso, an expert on the fertilization effects of elevated CO2 levels on various plant species, has done a new study of the positive externality (unintended economic consequence) of increasing CO2. In the 50 year period, 1961-2011, he estimates that there has been a $3.5trillion benefit resulting from increased agricultural productivity. The projected benefits in the coming decades are even larger. Egad! How could any by-product of human activity possibly be good? That sure wasn’t what I was taught in school! --Roy W. Spencer, 18 October 2013
Until we get an unbiased accounting of BOTH costs AND benefits of using fossil fuels, there is little hope in getting rational public policy that won’t do more harm than good. --Roy W. Spencer, 18 October 2013
A simple idea underpins science: “trust, but verify”. Results should always be subject to challenge from experiment. That simple but powerful idea has generated a vast body of knowledge. Since its birth in the 17th century, modern science has changed the world beyond recognition, and overwhelmingly for the better. But success can breed complacency. Modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying—to the detriment of the whole of science, and of humanity. --The Economist, 19 October 2013
The news for environmental journalism in the United States is grim and getting grimmer. From 85 weekly science sections in newspapers in the U.S in 1989, there were just 19 left by 2012. Like climate change, the demise of science reporting is a slowly unfolding tragedy (sic), say many environmental journalists in the United States. --Zofeen Ebrahim, IPS News, 15 October 2013
