The Climate-Industrial Complex (CIC) has taken umbrage over the Trump Administration’s proposal for a Presidential Commission on Climate Security (PCCS) within the National Security Council (NSC). It is to be headed by a distinguished physicist, Dr. William Happer, to examine the effects of climate change on national security. The proposed Commission would examine the causes of current climate change, and its purported impacts on national security. Such an independent review has been badly needed for many decades, but has been difficult until Trump came into office given the unwillingness of previous administrations to appear to even question “consensus” climate science.
A Much Broader Independent Reconsideration Is Needed
Unfortunately, the Commission is expected to review only the effects on national security. What is even more needed is a much broader review of the EPA greenhouse gas Endangerment Finding (EF) of 2009, the basis for most US EPA proposals for regulating emissions of carbon dioxide. The CIC would be likely to be even more outraged if the EPA decided to reexamine the EF. Rumor has it that an earlier version of an independent climate change scientific review (nick-named red-blue) was vetoed by General John Kelley several years ago, allegedly because it might be too controversial.
The CIC maintains that the United Nations and the US has already carried out a series of scientific assessments of the “consensus” climate science. As described in my book, Environmentalism Gone Mad, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports are an attempt to examine the causes and consequences of human emissions of greenhouse gases, not carry out an independent assessment of all the possible causes of climate change. Some “democratic socialists” have proposed spending about half of US gross national product on reducing climate change over the next ten years. The US EPA EF is based on the UN IPCC reports, So no new assessment there.
The Trump Administration Has Been Unwilling to Undertake the Needed Reassessment to Date But Needs to Undertake a Broader One Now
The Trump Administration has so far been unwilling to initiate an independent scientific review of all causes of climate change. If the proposed NSC effort goes forward, it would be the first independent, serious US Government effort. I hope so. It is badly needed. But if the Democrats are going to make climate the main issue or even a major issue in the 2020 presidential election, Trump would have been better advised to use the vast apparatus of the Federal Government to raise a thoughtful and cohesive consideration of all causes of climate change from very early in his Administration since it will take considerable time to prepare such a careful review. Without such an effort, Trump will be in a much weaker position when the 2020 election campaign starts getting serious. Last week Trump referred to the climate “consensus” as “fake science” in a Twitter message, but he will need more than a single Twitter message to alter the public perception of climate science. And without a reconsideration of the EF most of EPA’s efforts to scale back their climate change regulations will be of little use should a pro-“consensus” administration come into power. This makes no possible sense since the net result would be that the effect of the expenditures proposed by the “Democratic socialists” if implemented would not be measurable. But no neutral US Government study has really ever examined all causes of climate change despite the enormous costs already incurred within recent decades and now being proposed in the next decade. Many voters have never even heard that there is a vigorous debate on climate science. There is and has been for many years, as long described on this blog and elsewhere.
Politicians of all stripes try to avoid controversial issues in fear of losing votes, but in this case Trump would have been much better off to develop a comprehensive assessment of climate change from its first day in office. Ideally this would have been as part of a reevaluation of the EF, since that is the issue that will really determine what the US EPA ultimately does. There are differences between the climate views of various skeptics, but a reassessment of part of the problem is better than no reassessment, so should be supported, but much more will be needed prior to the 2020 election. It is very late to undertake a more comprehensive independent assessment with emphasis on the EF during the current Trump Administration, but better late than never.
via Carlin Economics and Science
March 17, 2019 at 05:07PM
Iowa Climate Science Education 