He will reverse a policy that isn’t working anyway.
Given the emotional reactions that Donald Trump and climate change each trigger separately, they offer an especially combustible combination. Paul Krugman worries that Trump’s election “may have killed the planet.” Activist Bill McKibben calls Trump’s plan to reverse the Obama climate agenda by approving the Keystone XL pipeline and other fossil-fuel projects, repealing the Clean Power Plan, and withdrawing from the Paris agreement “the biggest, most against-the-odds, and most irrevocable bet any president has ever made about anything.” And let’s not forget “Zach,” the DNC staffer who reportedly stormed out of a post-election meeting upset that “I am going to die from climate change.”
[…]
— Oren Cass is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the forthcoming report, “The Costs of Climate Change Are Real — and Manageable.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442383/donald-trump-climate-change
Donna Brazile, the interim leader of the Democratic National Committee, was giving what one attendee described as “a rip-roaring speech” to about 150 employees, about the need to have hope for wins going forward, when a staffer identified only as Zach stood up with a question.
“Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this?” he asked, according to two people in the room. “You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself.”
Some DNC staffers started to boo and some told him to sit down. Brazile began to answer, but Zach had more to say.
“You are part of the problem,” he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump’s victory by siding with Clinton early on. “You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”
Zach gathered his things and began to walk out. When Brazile called after him, asking where he was going, he told her to go outside and “tell people there” why she should be leading the party.
Let’s return to the NRO article to see what has poor Zach so terrified…
Just listen to President Obama. His administration developed a “Social Cost of Carbon” that attempts to quantify in economic terms the projected effects of climate change on everything from agriculture to public health to sea level, looking all the way out to the year 2100. So suppose President Trump not only reverses U.S. climate policy but ensures that the world permanently abandons efforts to mitigate greenhouse-gas emissions. How much less prosperous than today does the Obama administration estimate we will be by century’s end?
The world will be at least five times wealthier. Zach may even live to see it.
The Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy (DICE) model, developed by William Nordhaus at Yale University, which has the highest climate costs of the Obama administration’s three models, estimates that global GDP in 2100 without climate change would be $510 trillion. That’s 575 percent higher than in 2015. The cost of climate change, the model estimates, will amount to almost 4 percent of GDP in that year. But the remaining GDP of $490 trillion is still 550 percent larger than today. Without climate change, DICE assumes average annual growth of 2.27 percent. With climate change, that rate falls to 2.22 percent; at no point does climate change shave even one-tenth of one point off growth. Indeed, by 2103, the climate-change-afflicted world surpasses the prosperity of the not-warming 2100.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442383/donald-trump-climate-change
Setting aside the facts that the Social Cost of Carbon is 100% mythical and that neither 2.27% nor 2.22% growth are robust… 2% growth is basically treading water… We’re supposed to gleefully spend $44 trillion over the next couple of decades based on a statistically insignificant difference between two rolls of the DICE?
Well, the climate is certainly more important than money. Poor Zach must be terrified that the Earth will turn into Venus under President Trump. So, even though the economic benefits of CLIMATE ACTION NOW! are insignificant and mythical, the actual effect on the weather in the year 2100 will be significant… Right?
Even with U.S. “leadership,” the commitments made by other countries under the Paris agreement look almost identical to the paths those countries were on already. Thus the agreement’s impact is at best a few tenths of a degree Celsius. MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, for instance, projected 3.9°C of warming by 2100 without the Paris agreement and 3.7°C with it.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442383/donald-trump-climate-change
I’m not a CPA (I do pay one to do my taxes), but I’m going to go out on a limb here: $44 trillion now is worth a Helluva lot more than a mythical 0.05% annual GDP boost and 0.2°C of averted warming by 2100… Particularly since a realistic “business as usual” model wouldn’t predict more than 2.0°C of warming by 2100…
I built carbon emissions scenarios for two cases:
Constant ratio of oil, gas & coal based on 2005-2014 averages (left).
Decreasing oil, increasing gas and relatively stable coal, based on trends in Figure 3 (right).
Figure 5. RCP 8.5 might be “business as usual… On Venus! The graph on the left uses a constant ratio of oil, gas and coal. The graph on the right displaces oil with gas.
Then I took my real world “business as usual” relative concentration pathway and applied three reasonable climate sensitivities to it: 0.5, 1.5 and 2.5 °C per doubling of atmospheric CO2, starting at 280 ppmv (TCR 0.5, TCR 1.5 and TCR 2.5). HadCRUT4, referenced to 1850-1879 is clearly tracking very close to TCR 1.5…
Figure 7: A real world (this world, not Venus) “business as usual” scenario would barely nudge the dreaded 2 °C limit by the year 2100… Assuming that all of the warming since 1850 is due to greenhouse forcing… Which it isn’t.
Since it is generally assumed (by competent scientists) that at least half of the warming since 1850 was natural, the actual climate sensitivity would have to be significantly lower than 1.5 °C per doubling. Therefore, RCP 8.5 should never be described as “business as usual,” “expected” or a “baseline case.” Since its assumptions are mind mindbogglingly unrealistic, it shouldn’t be used in any serious publication. It is bad science fiction.
South (and Dave M. a bit, too): Redemption is done by God alone. Justice (and here, there is NO cause for mercy — none) is the job of the justice system. If it is not allowed to work as it ought to in a given case, it undermines the whole thing. There is no justification for excusing her criminal and national security endangering/treasonous acts. You would give the Clintons a special status that no other American citizen has. No one, not Richard N1xon, not Bernie M@d0ff, not even the Clintons,
is above
the law.
The Clinton Rack@teering Syndicate was dealt a blow, but, it has not been defanged. You underestimate their (and their followers’) drive and influence. So WHAT if this evi1 enterprise has done (or might do) some good — that’s what many cults do! This is no time to back off. We (not Trump, but those already empowered to prosecute her) must finish the job. No settlement. UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER is the only acceptable resolution to their years of betrayal and deceit.
I, for one, will NOT forget:
“We’ll get those people who made that video tape.”
I would very much like to see prominent scientists who are also skeptics, like Richard Lindzen, John Christy, et al. publish an Open Letter to President-Elect Trump, explaining:
– the origins of the CAGW movement and its connection to leftwing globalist ambitions (Algore’s ‘global governance’);
– why the creation of the IPCC with its mandate to make the case for CAGW subverted scientific inquiry with confirmation bias;
– how the billions of government subsidies and grants have skewed the whole subject in favor of Alarmism;
– how in fact there is no empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 causes any measurable warming;
– and how the ‘climate change’ cult is manifestly working to create energy poverty in the third world and among poorer people in the developed world.
And then the letter should request that President Trump fulfill his campaign pledge to stop US funding of the UN climate enterprise, and cut out funding for US scientists currently on the ‘climate change’ gravy train.
The aim would be not only to remind the Trump team of these truths, but to educate the American people, who have been propagandized by the current administration and the entire climate cult for years.
I would be happy to contribute something toward the publication of such a letter, and happy to help in any other way as well.
/Mr Lynn
Mr Lynn (and all the other big H folks here) –
It is really more insidious than that – the effort has been to set up this carbon economy scheme in parallel, if you will, to Wall Street trading to shuffle the bucks toward wealth redistribution, with bureaucratic control of course. When Trump sees that, deal is done.
Coming out of Marrakesh, I watched the reactions to Trump. One said very clearly that he should recognize the new “climate economy”. Think about that.
Best,
Jim
I hope you are right. He seems to be waffling. . .
Pop Piasa
November 22, 2016 7:42 pm
Perhaps it is time for each of us that agrees to send our president (cc: elected officials) that ‘open letter’ message personally, to show our numbers and our resolve.
I certainly will send one of my own and put it on my personal blog. I just think it will carry more weight if it comes from the most prominent among the scientific skeptics.
/Mr Lynn
Here’s what I sent a couple of weeks ago. KISS….keep it simple stupid. “It’s time the “Climate Change” scam is put to bed for good. CO2 must be removed from EPA’s list of polluters. Historical climate data must be restored to its’ pre corrupted status. No more subsidies around renewable energy….either they make it on their own or fail. Stop brainwashing our students with Climate Change propaganda. Restore the positions of those scientists and educators who dared speak the truth about Climate Change and were subsequently fired for doing so
William Everett
November 22, 2016 10:04 pm
If the record of global temperature history featuring similar length periods of warming and non-warming continues in the same manner then the 21st century will experience only 40 years of warming. If the temperature rise during the warming periods approximates those of the warming periods experienced during the 20th century then the temperature rise in the 21st century will be somewhere around one degree F. Where will the atmospheric CO2 have gone in the non-warming periods?
Keith
November 23, 2016 2:17 am
David Middleton – trifecta of Brexit HRC and Trump’s climate action – I think it comes to 4 rather than 3, or maybe even 5. In the last UK election where the Tories got a large majority, and were able to dump the Liberal Democrats, many of the polls, certainly the Guardian, and many others predicted a very close run thing. Apparently the same issue – people who voted right did not want to say so in the polls. It brought out lots of comments about “closet conservatives” etc. Even in the Scottish referendum in 2014, the polls predicted a 50 / 50 or even 49 / 51, and the result was 55 / 45. Scottish people maybe did not want to say they were against independence because it seemed unpatriotic, but at the end of the day they voted to stay in the UK.
Our Chattering Class is in hyperdrive right now. I think they may have left the known universe.
To save ink, paper, bandwidth, and millions of manhours over the next couple of months, why don’t “we” comment on what Mr. Trump actually does.
Incompetent ‘science’ has frightened a lot of folks. Mother Nature’s truth will prevail.
Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Terrestrial EMR absorbed by CO2 is effectively rerouted to space via water vapor.
CO2 is not merely harmless, it is profoundly helpful. It is helpful in that it is plant food and reduces plant’s need for water.
Sunspot number anomaly time-integral plus net of the effect of all ocean cycles plus effect of water vapor increase provides a 98% match to temperature anomaly measurements 1895-2015. Analysis and graphs are at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
South (and Dave M. a bit, too): Redemption is done by God alone. Justice (and here, there is NO cause for mercy — none) is the job of the justice system. If it is not allowed to work as it ought to in a given case, it undermines the whole thing. There is no justification for excusing her criminal and national security endangering/treasonous acts. You would give the Clintons a special status that no other American citizen has. No one, not Richard N1xon, not Bernie M@d0ff, not even the Clintons,
is above
the law.
The Clinton Rack@teering Syndicate was dealt a blow, but, it has not been defanged. You underestimate their (and their followers’) drive and influence. So WHAT if this evi1 enterprise has done (or might do) some good — that’s what many cults do! This is no time to back off. We (not Trump, but those already empowered to prosecute her) must finish the job. No settlement. UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER is the only acceptable resolution to their years of betrayal and deceit.
I, for one, will NOT forget:
“We’ll get those people who made that video tape.”
The fat lady ain’t singin’ yet folks.
I would very much like to see prominent scientists who are also skeptics, like Richard Lindzen, John Christy, et al. publish an Open Letter to President-Elect Trump, explaining:
– the origins of the CAGW movement and its connection to leftwing globalist ambitions (Algore’s ‘global governance’);
– why the creation of the IPCC with its mandate to make the case for CAGW subverted scientific inquiry with confirmation bias;
– how the billions of government subsidies and grants have skewed the whole subject in favor of Alarmism;
– how in fact there is no empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 causes any measurable warming;
– and how the ‘climate change’ cult is manifestly working to create energy poverty in the third world and among poorer people in the developed world.
And then the letter should request that President Trump fulfill his campaign pledge to stop US funding of the UN climate enterprise, and cut out funding for US scientists currently on the ‘climate change’ gravy train.
The aim would be not only to remind the Trump team of these truths, but to educate the American people, who have been propagandized by the current administration and the entire climate cult for years.
I would be happy to contribute something toward the publication of such a letter, and happy to help in any other way as well.
/Mr Lynn
Mr Lynn (and all the other big H folks here) –
It is really more insidious than that – the effort has been to set up this carbon economy scheme in parallel, if you will, to Wall Street trading to shuffle the bucks toward wealth redistribution, with bureaucratic control of course. When Trump sees that, deal is done.
Coming out of Marrakesh, I watched the reactions to Trump. One said very clearly that he should recognize the new “climate economy”. Think about that.
Best,
Jim
Trump will stick to his guns on climate. The complicted issue is best legal (US) tactics.
I hope you are right. He seems to be waffling. . .
Perhaps it is time for each of us that agrees to send our president (cc: elected officials) that ‘open letter’ message personally, to show our numbers and our resolve.
Apologies, that was intended as a reply to Mr Lynn.
I certainly will send one of my own and put it on my personal blog. I just think it will carry more weight if it comes from the most prominent among the scientific skeptics.
/Mr Lynn
Here’s what I sent a couple of weeks ago. KISS….keep it simple stupid. “It’s time the “Climate Change” scam is put to bed for good. CO2 must be removed from EPA’s list of polluters. Historical climate data must be restored to its’ pre corrupted status. No more subsidies around renewable energy….either they make it on their own or fail. Stop brainwashing our students with Climate Change propaganda. Restore the positions of those scientists and educators who dared speak the truth about Climate Change and were subsequently fired for doing so
If the record of global temperature history featuring similar length periods of warming and non-warming continues in the same manner then the 21st century will experience only 40 years of warming. If the temperature rise during the warming periods approximates those of the warming periods experienced during the 20th century then the temperature rise in the 21st century will be somewhere around one degree F. Where will the atmospheric CO2 have gone in the non-warming periods?
David Middleton – trifecta of Brexit HRC and Trump’s climate action – I think it comes to 4 rather than 3, or maybe even 5. In the last UK election where the Tories got a large majority, and were able to dump the Liberal Democrats, many of the polls, certainly the Guardian, and many others predicted a very close run thing. Apparently the same issue – people who voted right did not want to say so in the polls. It brought out lots of comments about “closet conservatives” etc. Even in the Scottish referendum in 2014, the polls predicted a 50 / 50 or even 49 / 51, and the result was 55 / 45. Scottish people maybe did not want to say they were against independence because it seemed unpatriotic, but at the end of the day they voted to stay in the UK.
Our Chattering Class is in hyperdrive right now. I think they may have left the known universe.
To save ink, paper, bandwidth, and millions of manhours over the next couple of months, why don’t “we” comment on what Mr. Trump actually does.
Incompetent ‘science’ has frightened a lot of folks. Mother Nature’s truth will prevail.
Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Terrestrial EMR absorbed by CO2 is effectively rerouted to space via water vapor.
CO2 is not merely harmless, it is profoundly helpful. It is helpful in that it is plant food and reduces plant’s need for water.
Sunspot number anomaly time-integral plus net of the effect of all ocean cycles plus effect of water vapor increase provides a 98% match to temperature anomaly measurements 1895-2015. Analysis and graphs are at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
This chick is seriously good-
(hat tip Tim Blair)