Humboldt County Jail Reports: Daily Booking Sheet – March 16, 2025

How you have been fooled.

For two decades, the public has been bombarded with dire warnings of an impending climate-induced agricultural apocalypse. The claim is that a climate warmed excessively by the carbon dioxide emissions of human activity will ravage the food supply and plunge humanity into famine and chaos.
For many reasons, none of this ever made sense. Now, a new study published in Scientific Reports has turned this narrative of catastrophe on its head, revealing that a global temperature rise of even 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) would not reduce crop yields—and might even increase harvests. 
The paper, written by economist Ross McKitrick, dismantles a key pillar of the Biden administration’s always-suspect upward revision of the “social cost of carbon”—a metric used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to quantify the supposed economic damage of carbon dioxide emissions. The fivefold increase of the social cost of carbon—from $51 per ton of carbon dioxide to more than $250—was based partly on the assumption that warming would devastate agriculture. 
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
The new findings aren’t just a minor correction to the scientific record; they are a reversal of dangerous conclusions drawn from sloppy—perhaps even fraudulent—analyses. Everything we’ve been told about climate change and food security is wrong. 
How did the EPA arrive at a social cost of carbon that equates with mass starvation? 

In 2014, a widely cited meta-analysis of crop-model studies claimed that a warming climate would slash global crop yields, an assertion that fed into subsequent models that influenced the Biden EPA’s social cost of carbon hike. 
That original dataset, however, was flawed—crippled by missing variables. Of its 1,722 records, nearly half lacked critical data, such as changes in CO2 concentrations, leaving only 862 usable entries. This incomplete picture painted a grim outlook of crop yields declining with only modest warming. 
McKitrick, undeterred by what had become climate orthodoxy, dug deeper. By revisiting the source material, he recovered 360 additional records, bringing the total to 1,222—about a 40% increase in usable data.
The additional information showed “positive average output gains for all crop types across the warming scenarios even up to 5 degrees Celsius”—a temperature jump far beyond warming predictions of the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change. This isn’t cherry-picking; it’s what happens when the full scope of evidence is examined.
“If over the next 100-200 years, yields of all crop types increase, it does not stand to reason that a global trade model could generate global welfare reductions,” writes McKitrick in his concluding remarks.
https://www.daily signal.com/2025/03/16/study-destroys-basis-epa-climate-regulations/