Last week I explained in general terms why the basic methodology used by the UN to justify its climate alarmism is hopeless for the purpose and proves nothing other than how gullible the Climate-industrial Complex (CIC) thinks the world is. This week Fox News has published an analysis showing how the Draft National Climate Assessment Report publicized by the New York Times as a great “scoop” last week really has long been available on the Web. The analysis explains how the Assessment’s main “contribution” is that the authors are being bolder in hyping their personal opinions as to how much of the “global warming” is attributable to human activity (they claim 100%, which is farcical given the huge emissions of carbon dioxide from natural sources) even though they do not cite any new basis for going beyond the more cautious but unsupportable alarmist conclusions of the most recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2013.
The Fox analysis speculates that the CIC is planning to use the Congressional “due date” (August 18) for the Report to hype the alleged perfidy of the Trump Administration in not agreeing with this most recent extension of all the previous outrages attempting to justify the unjustifiable in terms of climate alarmism. That this is even under discussion is a result of the decision of the Trump Administration not to directly confront the bad science employed by the CIC and exemplified by the Draft Assessment Report. Rather, the EPA Administrator’s current position is that he does not know what contribution humans make to climate change. This appears to be a political rather than a scientific conclusion since I suspect that he knows better.
It is long past time for the Trump Administration to directly confront the climate “science” exemplified by this Draft Report for what it is: bad science. Stalling further or waiting for a “red/blue” confrontation will not make the ultimate debate any more palatable politically. The climate alarmists have too much invested in their scientific scam to ever admit that their “science” is what Richard Feynman characterized as “cargo cult science,” regardless of how much EPA invests in either time or effort in “red/blue” debates. The most likely result of red/blue debates would be to decrease the likelihood that sufficient time will remain during the Trump Administration to revoke the GHG Endangerment Finding (EF), the legal underpinning for most EPA attempts to impose the climate alarmism ideology.
The Extreme Importance of Revoking the GHG Endangerment Finding
Revoking the EF is the only way to bring the climate alarmism scam to the untimely end it so richly deserves in the US and hopefully indirectly elsewhere. Until that happens the CIC will continue to pursue its bad science through reports such as the National Climate Assessment with the recommended disastrous policies that would seriously damage the environment, impoverish the less wealthy, and bring economic disaster for our Nation by raising the prices and decreasing the availability and reliability of fossil fuel energy which is so central to our way of life and economy. If a genuine debate is desired, it would best be undertaken as part of a reconsideration of the GHG Endangerment Finding where the outcome would have some practical and important consequences. Each day that this reconsideration is postponed increases the risks that EPA will be forced by court decisions to impose unjustified carbon dioxide emission reduction regulations based on implementing the EF.
via Carlin Economics and Science
August 17, 2017 at 03:34PM
Iowa Climate Science Education 