Guest post by David Middleton
Look at All the Climate Change Deniers Vying for Jobs in the Trump Administration
can’t be goodis grrreat!!!
JEREMY SCHULMANNOV. 18, 2016
Donald Trump is a global warming denier. He wants to “cancel” the Paris climate agreement and repeal the Clean Power Plan—the twin pillars of President Barack Obama’s efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. He’s even promised to revive the coal industry, against all odds.
But Trump won’t be able to do these things all by himself. To fulfill his campaign promise and reverse the steps of his predecessor in the fight against warming, he’s going to need an entire administration of like-minded people. Environmental officials who reject climate science. National security officials who dismiss concerns that climate change will destabilize the world. Diplomats who oppose international climate agreements. Department heads who want to drill, baby, drill.
Some “highlights” from MJ’s blacklist…
Position: Chief of staff
Views on climate change: “Democrats tell us they understand the world, but then they call climate change, not radical Islamic terrorism, the greatest threat to national security. Look, I think we all care about our planet, but melting icebergs aren’t beheading Christians in the Middle East.” [CPAC speech, 2/27/15]
I’m fairly certain that “melting icebergs aren’t beheading Christians in the Middle East,” or anywhere else in the world.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)
Position: Attorney general nominee
Views on climate change: “The balloon and satellite data track each other almost exactly, and it shows almost no warming. So what we’re talking about is: The predictions aren’t coming true.” [Washington Watch via Right Wing Watch, 11/30/15]
Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state
Position: Head of transition team for domestic issues
Views on climate change: “Another false environmentalist narrative is the global warming hoax. A few decades back, environmentalist “scientists” started devising computer models that predicted man-made calamity—Manhattan submerged by rising Atlantic waters—within 10 or 15 years ago. It turns out the models were rigged, the data were falsified and, in fact, there has been no measurable warming for nearly 20 years. Most troubling of all, the lying scientists colluded to ruin the careers of honest scientists who tried to tell the truth.” [Washington Times, 4/30/15]
“Manhattan submerged by rising Atlantic waters—within 10 or 15 years”… Riiiight…
Eric Bolling, Fox News host
Possible position: “A position…in the Department of Commerce,” according toPolitico. Among other things, Commerce oversees the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is one of the country’s most important bodies for researching climate science.
Views on climate change: Bolling, a former crude oil trader on the New York Mercantile Exchange, pointed out last year that “there’s a great tweet that’s going around the internet: When Al Gore was born, there were 130,000 glaciers, and now there are only 130,000 glaciers.” Here’s how he explained his views on climate science in 2014: “I have two questions for you. Number one: If a…meteorologist can’t tell us if it’s going to rain tomorrow or be, you know, 20 degrees or or 50 degrees, how can they tell us what it’s going to be 2,100 years from now—that this whole global warming thing, what we’re doing now, is going to affect then? And the other thing is: Even if some of the carbon we’re emitting…is manmade, how much is it? And is it really the reason why the globe is increasing in temperature—if it is—every so slightly? I mean, there’s so many questions. The hoax is that if a meteorologist were to say, or a weather scientist were to say, that ‘yeah, this is normal—it’s weather, it’s cold, it’s hot, it’s normal,’ then they wouldn’t get funded. All these big projects wouldn’t be funded.”
Future NOAA Director Bolling is wrong, there are 198,000 glaciers in the world.
John Bolton, former UN ambassador
Possible position: Secretary of State
Views on climate change: “Obama can achieve his climate change legacy only through delicate negotiations with Congress. His poor relations with the House and Senate, especially on foreign policy, appear to render success unlikely. Obama may rely on his unilateral authority to join a world climate pact [in Paris], but without Congress his most important promises will be empty ones whose fate will be left to his successor.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/1/15]
Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas)
Possible positions: US Supreme Court justice
Views on climate change: “If you are a…liberal politician who wants government power, if that is your driving urge—government power over the American citizenry—then climate change is the perfect pseudoscientific theory. Why is that? Because it can never be disproven…The climate is always changing. It has been changing from the beginning of time.” [Cruz campaign event via the Washington Post, 2/3/16]
Future Supreme Court Justice Cruz is spot-on. Just ask Dr. Kevin Trenberth
Dr Kevin Trenberth, from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, argues that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is now so clear that the burden of proof should lie with research which seeks to disprove the human role.
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret.)
Possible position: National security adviser
Views on climate change: “And here we have the President of the United States up in Canada talking about climate change. I mean, God, we just had the largest attack…on our own soil in Orlando. Why aren’t we talking about that? Who is talking about that? I mean, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, Boston, people forget about 9/11!” [Fox News, 6/29/16]
Gov. Nikki Haley (S.C.)
Possible positions: Secretary of State
Views on climate change: “‘[The Clean Power Plan] is exactly what we don’t need,’ the governor said after addressing a gathering of the SC Electric Cooperatives at Wild Dunes Resort on the Isle of Palms. ‘This is exactly what hurts us. You can’t mandate utility companies which, in turn, raises the cost of power. That’s what’s going to keep jobs away. That’s what’s going to keep companies away.’ She added that officials in Washington ‘stay out of the way.’…’We need to be able to do our jobs and continue to recruit companies and recruit jobs without additional mandates,’ Haley said.” [The Post and Courier, 6/3/14]
Harold Hamm, oil and gas executive
Possible positions: Secretary of Interior, secretary of Energy
Views on climate change: “Obama imposed punitive regulations to stop this [oil and gas] renaissance, and in his administration’s very own words, they want to crucify America’s oil and natural gas producers…President Trump will release America’s pent-up energy potential, get rid of foreign oil, trash punitive regulations, create millions of jobs, and develop our most strategic geopolitical weapon: crude oil…Every time we can’t drill a well in America, terrorism is being funded…Climate change isn’t our biggest problem; it’s Islamic terrorism. Every onerous regulation puts American lives at risk.” [Republican National Convention, 7/20/16]
Bonus—Views on earthquake science: “Oil tycoon Harold Hamm told a University of Oklahoma dean last year that he wanted certain scientists there dismissed who were studying links between oil and gas activity and the state’s nearly 400-fold increase in earthquakes, according to the dean’s e-mail recounting the conversation. Hamm, the billionaire founder and chief executive officer of Oklahoma City-based Continental Resources, is a major donor to the university, which is the home of the Oklahoma Geological Survey. He has vigorously disputed the notion that he tried to pressure the survey’s scientists. ‘I’m very approachable, and don’t think I’m intimidating,’ Hamm was quoted as saying in an interview with EnergyWire, an industry publication, that was published on May 11. ‘I don’t try to push anybody around.'” [Bloomberg,5/15/15]
Note to Mother Jones: Wastewater injection wells and fracking are two different things.
Laura Ingraham, radio host
Possible position: Press secretary
Views on climate change: “This entire effort [the Paris climate negotiations] is about setting up global rules of governance. Rules that will, if instituted—which we know they won’t be—but if ever instituted would mean that we have less control over our own destiny as a country than we do today. Because Congress will have limited ability to change any treaty. Again, I don’t think it’s going to happen. But if these rules should go into place, we should expect the same compliance from countries like China that we get from China in deals like the World Trade Organization and the World Trade Organization Treaty. So, if people want less sovereignty in the United States, less independence, less oversight, our congressional authority to be meaningful, then we should all be excited about what’s going on with 150 leaders in Paris. But this has nothing to do with terrorism. It has everything to do with bringing America’s economy down, hurting the fossil fuel industry, etc., etc.—one of the few sectors that’s actually growing jobs and still paying people decent wages in the United States. So forgive me if I’m not all hot and bothered by the Paris events.” [Fox News via Media Matters, 12/1/15]
Future Press Secretary Ingraham nails it…
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”
Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska
Possible positions: Secretary of Interior
Views on climate change: “I want people to be empowered to ask questions about what is being fed them from the scientific community, that something’s not making a whole lot of sense when it comes to inconsistent data that is being produced and being fed, especially to our children, when it comes to global warming or climate change—whatever they’re calling it today…It’s a problem right from the start when you’re led to believe that 97 percent of scientists all agree that there is a consensus on global warming.” [Guardian, 4/15/16]
Rick Perry, former governor of Texas
Possible positions: Secretary of Energy
Views on climate change: “I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized. I think that there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that manmade global warming is what is causing the climate to change…The cost to the country and to the world of implementing these anti-carbon programs is in the billions, if not trillions, of dollars at the end of the day. And I don’t think, from my perspective, that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven and, from my perspective, is more and more being put into question.” [Perry campaign speech via CBS News, 8/17/11]
Considering the fact that 43% of Americans are unwilling to pay more than $1 per month to fight the mythical AGW beast and less than one-out-of-three are willing to pay more than $20 per month, it’s a safe bet that there is little support for spending trillions and devastate our economy to “battle climate change.”
How Much Will Americans Pay to Battle Climate Change? Not Much
Sam Ori is the executive director of the Energy Policy Institute at University of Chicago.
A wide range of public opinion polls point to a clear and growing trend: Americans of all political stripes are increasingly worried about climate change. This is undoubtedly good news for those advocating for robust policies to reduce carbon emissions, the main contributor to climate change.
But here’s a less asked and probably more important question: What are Americans actually willing to pay to do something about it?
This is what researchers from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC) and the Associated Press—NORC Center for Public Affairs Research at the University of Chicago set out to better understand. Their nationally representative poll found that 43% of Americans were unwilling to pay an additional $1 per month in their electricity bill to combat climate change—and a large majority were unwilling to pay $10 per month. That’s despite the fact that a whopping 77% said they think climate change is happening and 65% think it is a problem the government should do something about. Support plummets as the amount of the fee increases.
This is an upside-down result. The best available science tells us that Americans should be willing to pay considerably more, because the damages from climate change are so great—including to them personally. If we use the federal government’s estimate of the combined social cost of carbon pollution and apply it to the typical U.S. household’s electricity consumption on today’s national grid mix, the average household faces damages of almost $20 per month. Yet just 29% of respondents said they would be willing to pay at least that much.
This bit is priceless and worth repeating:
The best available science tells us that Americans should be willing to pay considerably more, because the damages from climate change are so great—including to them personally. If we use the federal government’s estimate of the combined social cost of carbon pollution and apply it to the typical U.S. household’s electricity consumption on today’s national grid mix, the average household faces damages of almost $20 per month. Yet just 29% of respondents said they would be willing to pay at least that much.
The first part strikes me the same way that this Roy Spencer quip did:
“The best available science tells us that” the observations are wrong. So, if that same “best available science tells us that” global warming will inflict $20/month of damages on the typical household, we should be thankful that President-elect Trump will populate his administration who will focus economic growth and combating Islamist terrorist groups, rather than regulatory malfeasance and combating the weather.