The Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) was released last week by the US Government. It was reported by some newspapers that the Report had received the approval of the White House for its release. If so, this would appear to rule out inattention by the Trump Administration as the reason for the approval, especially given the publicity concerning the Draft Report by the mainstream media some months ago.
The obvious question is why the Administration apparently approved a Report that is not consistent with sound science and with pre-election statements by the President concerning the validity of climate science. One possibility is that they are currently trying to avoid taking a public stand on the scientific validity of climate alarmism, which they may have feared that they would have had to do if they had chosen to turn down the Report.
There are other things they could have done, of course, like issuing the Report with a statement that it does not necessarily represent US Government policy. The unfortunate result, however, is that the climate alarmists can point to the alleged approval as Trump Administration approval for the views expressed in the Report. Given the scientific invalidity of these views, the Administration may pay a heavy price for this action in terms of later attempts to disown climate alarmism.
Apparent Attempt by Administration to Avoid Passing Judgment on the Scientific Merits of Climate Alarmism
The Administration’s justification for its climate policy decisions is that the Obama Administration decisions on climate policy are not a “good deal” for the US and do not conform to the Trump Administration’s interpretation of existing laws. The decision to exit the Paris Accord, for example, was justified based on the former argument, while the exit from the Clean Power Plan was based primarily on the latter. If all environmental decisions are based on such non-scientific issues, which strongly echo some of Trump’s major campaign promises, we may never learn what the Administration’s preferred climate policy actually is. They may continue to claim that their climate policy awaits careful review and a debate that they never manage to hold or proves to be inconclusive or, most likely, results in a bitter disagreement.
I fail to see why the Administration may be taking this agnostic view on climate alarmism. Do they seriously think that this approach will result in greater support from climate alarmists? This seems doubtful given the adverse views of the Trump Administration prior to the election. It is reported by the press that Al Gore has given up trying to get Trump to support climate alarmism, so why continue the fiction that the Administration is undecided to avoid criticism from the alarmists? Or maybe the Administration is really agnostic concerning climate alarmism despite Trump’s pre-election statements and is really awaiting some sort of red/blue team confrontation before determining its climate policy. Again, more than doubtful. The alleged successful use of red/blue have primarily involved groups of bureaucrats who have some incentives to show some measure of cooperation and positive attitudes. Will the Administration really be more enlightened by what is likely to be a strongly confrontational shouting match led by a former Obama Administration official with little in depth knowledge of the issue. And given the vast material that has been generated by the climate debate, such a debate might well require years or even the rest of Trump’s term in office. I view the alleged White House decision to approve the Report as a very unfortunate decision with possibly serious consequences for the Trump Administration’s climate policies.
Why the Administration Made a Serious Mistake in Apparently Approving the Report without Qualifications
The Administration has not announced any action to withdraw or even reconsider the Obama Administration’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding (EF). As long as it stands, the Administration has little legal grounds for removing climate regulations that are consistent with the EF and are also consistent with existing law and the Constitution. The very likely result will be that the Obama Administration’s climate regulations (or worse) will be resurrected just as soon as the Democratic Party wins a Presidential election. For all the reasons discussed in my book and on this blog this would be a major adverse outcome for the US economy, the integrity of science, and rationality. In order to solve this strange policy situation, the Administration will either have to greatly cut short their proposed review of climate science or live with the adverse results of further delaying a decision.
You may ask why I characterize the CSSR as being based on unsound science. This reflects my arguments summarized two weeks ago that alarmists have never really addressed at least six crucial scientific assumptions used by climate alarmists, as explained at that time with supporting links. As explained then the CSSR assumes that it is valid to use bottom up climate modelling, ignores the opposite results obtained by using a top down approach, ignores the likelihood that significant atmospheric warming is impossible due to the heat dissipation of many emergent climate phenomena which appear to have the effect of dissipating heat, especially near tropical oceanic areas, fails to address how the alleged warming effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels overcome such heat dissipation emergent phenomena, fails to address why the global warming hypothesis fails to satisfy the critical requirement that it satisfy the scientific method, and fails many comparisons between catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and observations.
The failure of alarmists to satisfactorily address even one of these problems is enough to raise serious questions about climate alarmism as a valid scientific hypothesis. The failure to examine all six broad areas is devastating and more than enough to invalidate the CSSR Report as valid science. Briefly, I find it incomprehensible that the Trump Administration apparently approved the Report. Continuing to ignore the scientific issues underlying climate alarmism can only make it more difficult to avoid the threats posed by climate alarmism to the US economy, which the Trump Administration has promised to make “great again.”
via Carlin Economics and Science
November 11, 2017 at 02:58PM