President Donald Trump disagreed with the dire economic projections in the U.S. government’s latest climate report.
“I don’t believe it,” Trump said when asked by a reporter outside the White House on Monday if he agreed with the latest National Climate Assessment (NCA) report’s projections that global warming could hurt the U.S. economy.
“And here’s the other thing — you’re going to have to have China, and Japan, and all of Asia, and all of these other countries — you know, it — it addresses our country,” Trump said.
WATCH:
BREAKING: "I don't believe it."
President Trump passively rejects the findings of the major new US government multi-agency report that says climate change will wallop the US economy in years to come. https://t.co/YdptYPKn20 pic.twitter.com/hJx7IA0S5F
— NBC News (@NBCNews) November 26, 2018
“Right now, we’re at the cleanest we’ve ever been, and that’s very important to me. But if we’re clean but every other place on Earth on is dirty, that’s not so good,” Trump said. “So I want clean air. I want clean water — very important.”
The Trump administration released the NCA Friday, launching a wave of media coverage on the report’s dire predictions. The report claims that “global greenhouse gas emissions is expected to cause substantial net damage to the U.S. economy throughout this century,” including a 10 percent hit to gross domestic product (GDP) in one extreme scenario.
Major media outlets, including The New York Times, highlighted the potential economic damages under the most extreme global warming scenario. (RELATED: Global Warming Alarmists Aren’t Going To Be Able To Handle The Results Of A New Hurricane Study)
U.S. President Donald Trump waves to reporters as he departs the White House for travel to Mississippi in Washington, U.S., Nov. 26, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst.
“All told, the report says, climate change could slash up to a tenth of gross domestic product by 2100, more than double the losses of the Great Recession a decade ago,” The New York Times reported of the NCA.
However, that figure is based on a study funded by groups founded by two major Democratic donors and environmental activists — former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer.
That study only found substantial damage to the U.S. economy under an extreme global warming scenario of 15 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 — twice the United Nations’ worst-case scenario called RCP8.5.
“Even Trump is occasionally right,” tweeted environmental economist Richard Tol in response to Trump’s remarks.
Even Trump is occasionally right. https://t.co/51lWw7js9y
— Richard Tol (@RichardTol) November 26, 2018
Experts have increasingly called into question the usefulness of projecting future warming based on the RCP8.5 scenario since it’s based on “systematic errors in fossil production outlooks.”
Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter
One of the recent predictions of economic damage to the US was by the General Accounting Office (GAO). They didn’t fsctor in the cost of decarbonization, nor did they discount the future “benrfits” of decarbonization. In the private sector, this sort of accounting gets people fired, probably sued and possibly prosecuted.
Thank you David – excellent comments as usual.
I agree with Trump – I don’t believe the dire climate and economic projections in the U.S. government’s latest climate report – I reject them as false. The authors of this false report should be investigated and sanctioned by their professional associations.
The report’s extreme warming forecasts have extreme negative credibility. Excerpt from the article:
“That study only found substantial damage to the U.S. economy under an extreme global warming scenario of 15 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 — twice the United Nations’ worst-case scenario called RCP8.5.” This is utter nonsense – nobody should believe this drivel. One should reject economic projections that are based on this false temperature input.
A hypothetical doubling of CO2 from the so-called “pre-industrial” level of approx. 280ppm to 560ppm would cause AT MOST about 1C of global warming (Christy and McNider 2017, Lewis and Curry 2018) , such that any credible humanmade warming projections would NOT be dangerous, but would be net-beneficial for humanity and the environment.
A more realistic temperature scenario is for no major change in global temperature, or moderate global warming or moderate global cooling starting by 2020-2030, the latter which I (we) predicted in an article published in 2002.
The greatest risk is global cooling, not warming. Any cooling more than a few tenths of a degree will cause significant economic hardship, along with an increase in Excess Winter Deaths, unless mitigating measures are taken.
Regards, Allan
WILL cause significant economic hardship? That is is mildest way of describing it.
The blizzard predicted by the weather service did hit my area (5 miles east of Lake Michigan, 35 miles north of Chicago) as predicted, but instead of just snow, it started with a production of slush and rain. Not sleet, not snow -SLUSH. That immediately caused a problem because the temps dropped quickly and ice ( from the slush) caused a major outage in my area alone. 364,000 people reported outages to Com Ed, 180,000 of them in my general area. Cut the power so drastically that none of us had heat because gas furnaces use electricity to run the blower motor and force air through the ducts.
My indoor temperature dropped from 74 at the start to 59 by 4PM, when I saw the utility truck go north past my house. I had to use matches to light my stove, because the striker was not functioning properly.
Only a couple of houses here have wood-burning fireplaces, unlike the way houses were built 90 years ago. I find it more and more unrealistic to depend on so-called modern technology for anything, especially when it comes to getting through some of the winters we’ve had recently, including the 2011 blizzard that buried most of northeastern Illinois, blocked Lake Shore Drive, and dumped 9 feet of snow on Boston.
If anything, everything including the current solar minimum says that we are heading toward a cooling period which will make things worse for the technocrats. I want to know how they’ll survive in a real ice age, Big or Little. They are helpless without their technojunk
Yes, I also cook. And I can cook in a fireplace just as well as on a stove.
Thanks for the article.
Sara, you are over of my favorite people on here. God bless you!
Thank you.
.
Please remember that the utility repairmen who were out in that nasty weather were there from the first outage call until long after dark (4PM to 8)M where I live), just so that we could have heat and light again.
My advice to you and all readers is to do some minimum weather-proofing of your electrical systems. This only works if you have a one- or two-family house, but you can be a little island of refuge for otherwise unprepared neighbors. This works best if you have oil or gas heat, not so much if you have electric heat.
Have an electrician install a 30-amp generator connector on the outside of the house. Either inside or outside the house, install a manual transfer switch that allows you to selectively switch circuits onto the generator input. Make sure your refrigerator, freezer, furnace, and a couple of convenience circuits (cable modem/router and TV are easily handled as well) are routed from your existing panel through the manual transfer switch. You should be able to get this done for $1,500 or less.
Now, buy a ~7,000 watt portable generator from your favorite Big Box store. Home Depot has a 7,500 watt Generac with 745 reviews and a 4.7 star rating for $999. When disaster strikes, roll up the generator to the outside of your house, plug it in, fire it up, and transfer your loads. Done and done.
It’s Global warming that cause the snow and don’t you forget it! Sarc
A little climate trivia:
Next time someone goes off on climate change with you put this on them.
Data from NOAA and the NWS.
https://www.weather.gov/media/okx/Climate/CentralPark/100DegreeDays.pdf
Central Park NYC temperatures 100 F and above for the past 150 years
1930’s 8 different days
1940’s 8 different days
1950’s 12 different days
1960’s 4 different days
1990’s 8 different days
2000-2018 6 different days
No other decade had more than 2
All time record High 106 10 July 1936
https://www.weather.gov/okx/CentralParkHistorical
Where is Nick to insert his usual sophistry when reality Stokes down his religion?
More central park trivia:
when you do a 10 year running average of snow fall for CP NYC; you find that the snow season of 2017-2018 had the highest Avg of 38 .6 inches. 4 seasons with more than 60 inches 1873, 1923,1948, 2011, plus the 1995-96 season record of 75.6 inches
But, but, but… more cold and snow is proof of Global Warming. It’s true. I heard it on the news.
(Ouch! I just sprained an eye. Pro tip: Refrain from extreme eye rolling.)
H.R. It’s just like that very (un)scientific movie The Day After Tomorrow. It must be true. 🙂
Joking apart, I think the warmists got some ideas from that movie. It’s fiction just like their predictions are.
Supported by frozen turtles all the way down
Canada’s all time high was in Sweetgrass, Saskatchewan in July 1937 at 45C.
https://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/Canada/hottest.php
Actually, earlier searches gave 47C but I guess we are in the Adjustocene epoch.
For my little spot on the globe (Columbus, Ohio) the record high was 106 set July 21 in 1934 and tied July 24, 1936.
(The tie has been dropped from later list of records.)
Both were before my living memory (probably because I wasn’t alive for another 20 years).
The record low was -22 set January 19, 1994.
I do remember that.
You want to see GDP fall? Just elect Bloomberg or Steyer!
I think the days of weaponizing the weather are numbered . . .
What’s bittersweet is that this is the best President that we have had in our lifetimes but the best President that we will ever have in our lifetimes. It’s very unlikely that we will get as good as this again. I have no memory of Reagan as President, so I can’t conclude how he was. Would you rather live in the climax, but descend thereafter or the ascent? Philosophical question.
Prior presidents could not/would not be able to compete on the same playing field with Trump.
Trump understands America’s real enemies and the real economy. The two sponsors of this study and those who bankrolled the socialist/Marxists running for national offices are all princely peas in a larger king’s financial pod. Most important, Trump knows how to strategize and counter on that level, then pivot and dress down a media parrot masquerading as a “news” representative who deliberately and intentionally attempted to publicly bait him for reasons that had nothing to do with news.
IMO, Trump is a brave man with America in mind. He walks a fine line and is doing what he can, as he is able. God speed, Mr. Trump.
Trump is right that the report isn’t good news but to say you don’t believe something because you haven’t read the report, understood any of the science and don’t agree with the conclusions, shows a lack of genuine leadership and character that exemplifies Trump. How will Trump supporters see all this? Presumably the infallability of the man and his message will win.
If you don’t like the medicine don’t wish away your ills –
Gentlemen’s- it isn’t news. It is propaganda based on fairies and tap dancing crickets.
The real embarrassment is that people are out there who believe it.
Uhh herp derp?
So, he doesn’t believe the conclusions BECAUSE he didn’t read it? Wrong. What he understands is bulls**t when he sees it. Honestly, your comment is doesn’t make much sense. Looks like you’re having trouble.
Standard response. A person who has never looked at the science, declares that anyone who doesn’t agree with his religion just doesn’t understand the science.
Well Mr. Finance, most of the people here have spent years looking at and examining the actual science.
We disagree with the report because it doesn’t match the real world data.
When your model disagrees with the real world, fix the model, don’t ignore the real world.
“Standard response. A person who has never looked at the science, declares that anyone who doesn’t agree with his religion just doesn’t understand the science.”
Are you talking about Trump here? The man who makes an Olympic event out of stupid.
Are you trying to tell us Obama read and understood all that he repeated including the 97 percent. I believe Trump is miles ahead of Obama. The only thing Trump has not done is visit the 57 th state.
“The only thing Trump has not done is visit the 57 th state.”
Ohh and read the report. Seems Trumpy likes climate change when it means he can get a sea wall built for his golf course. What a hypocrite…
https://www.vox.com/2018/11/27/18114338/trump-climate-change-assessment-golf-course-ireland
“Trump is right that the report isn’t good news but to say you don’t believe something because you haven’t read the report, understood any of the science and don’t agree with the conclusions, shows a lack of genuine leadership and character that exemplifies Trump.”
I don’t recall Trump ever saying anything like that. Do you have a quote?
Trump understands the CAGW situation. He has plenty of people around him who know the score,too.
Trump also knows this new government report was written by CAGW activists, whose qualifications are suspect and whose conclusions in the report are not based on any facts.
The conclusions are pure speculation which depends on the Earth’s atmosphere overheating because CO2 supposedly causes a positive water vapor feedback which then causes the runaway Greenhouse Effect.
The problem for the report is the temperatures are falling, not increasing, in a time when CO2 *is* increasing, which is contrary to the CAGW hypothesis, and there’s is no evidence of any positive water vapor feedback, which is necessary for the CAGW speculation to be viable.
Every one of the dire predictions made in this report and made over the years is based on flawed computer models and nothing else. The computer models don’t reflect reality, and the computer model used for this report is wildly off the mark.
This CAGW propaganda narrative is the biggest science fraud in history. None of the claims have come true. I expect that to remain the case.
Tom says: “The problem for the report is the temperatures are falling, not increasing, in a time when CO2 *is* increasing”
…
Tom doesn’t realize that temperatures are rising: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/trend
The average temperature is 0.2 degrees C. warmer now
than the peak in 1980 =
ho hum,
could be nothing more than
measurement error.
Whether the temperature is rising, or falling,
depends entirely on the start point and end point
of the measurement, and the accuracy of the measurement.
Our planet is much cooler now, and has less CO2 in the air,
than during a majority of the past 4.5 billion years.
We have also had significant warming in the past 20,000 years —
enough to increase sea level 400 feet — now you tell us,
Mr. Smarty Pants Steve Heins — how much of that
4oo foot sea level rise was caused by man made CO2 ?
Half a foot ?
One foot ?
Come on Steve — tell us that man made CO2 is much more important
than natural climate change (causes unknown) … because it might be, maybe,
responsible for 1/2 foot of the 400 foot sea level rise in the past 20,000 years !
And since the late 2015 / early 2016 El Nino heat peak,
the average temperature has declined.
The problem is that the temperature goes up and down, regardless of what the CO2 levels do. Your 40 year period shows about 0.5 degree change in the linear trend = 0.125 degrees per decade.
A much earlier 40 year trend is also 0.5 degree change over 40 years for 0.125 degrees per decade.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1908/to:1948/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1908/to:1948/trend
How does this indicate that increasing CO2 levels is the cause of increasing temperatures?
Look at longer term trend: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1908/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1908/trend
That longer term trend shows it going up strongly from 1900 – 1940. We were not producing enough CO2 to do that!
That means it goes up when we don’t produce CO2, and then starting in 1950 when we started producing enough CO2 to impact the climate, the temps went down for 30 years?? Anyone that looks at this and thinks that CO2 is driving temperature changes, should become a politician. That is a good profession when you have to lie well enough to fool some of the people (democrats) most of the time.
And what happened to the last 20 years?? We are at peak CO2 production and all the models were predicting runaway “tipping point” global warming by now.
What did we get : http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/trend
Trump has spent his entire life in the New York real estate business. He is therefore an expert at spotting liars and fakers, as he has here.
I am surprised this scam is still going to be honest. After the CRU emails, the Hockeystick debacle, Hansens various errors. The blatant data manipulation, the half truths and just plain refuting data!
How on earth can anyone talk about CO2 being dangerous and keep a straight face?
Practice?
Curses! One more coffee soiled keyboard.
Come the new year, make a resolution: no more coffee near the computer.
The Left doesn’t care about truth or facts. Hillary Clinton committed multiple felonies. She was never charged by a corrupt DOJ. Despite all that, she still won the popular vote.
Since I had previously posted about the CNN reporter Jake Tapper’s reference to President Trump as a “moron” (I did not hear the exact word as I was shouting at the TV. Here’s some advice, it’s OK to shout at the TV, just don’t wait for an answer or the system will take hold of you) I will not revisit that theme. However, I did check the list of references to the 4th NCA report and I think a problem is evident. The reference list is an Honor Roll of circular reasoning, with CAGW advocates only. This is partly expected as the issuing committee is charged with studying the impacts of CAGW, not whether it is real or not, or whether the cost of mitigation is less than the cost of theoretical adjustment, or anything else. The IPCC also readily comes to mind in this aspect.
It’s IPCC all the way down.
While Trump may be a little linguistically challenged at times, he is right. Under the Paris Climate Accord, the East is being allowed to hugely increase its coaI fired plants, while the West is being forced to close its down. So they get cheap energy, and we pay for it.
Even first-world Japan is opening 30 new coal plants (see article just below this one). So Australia is going Green, at a huge cost to its economy and people, while exporting more and more coal to China and Japan. Does the Australian government think that coal suddenly goes Green, as soon as it leaves Australia?
In the UK, all our coal plants must close by 2023, under EU rules. And yet last winter we were dependent on coal, which was producing 11 gw for three months (chugging away at 110% nominal capacity, giving 20 of total electrical demand). Solar was doing nothing, and wind was at 25% capacity, due to anticyclonic weather patterns and too much ice on the blades. Had we not had these coal plants, the UK would have had rolling power cuts for three months.
Has anyone in the UK government woken up to this situation? Are they doing anything about it? I note the Fiddlers Ferry coal plant was due to close this year, but has been extended until 2019. But that is not a solution, because absolutely NO maintenenace is being done on that plant. UK coal plants cannot stagger on, year by year, with no investment.
We appear to be led by donkeys once more. And while Trump is derided as a donkey by the Hollywood and media luvvvies, he is the only politician with any common sense – able to swim against the tide of consensus, and shrug of the constant carping.
Ralph
Population reduction.
I used to listen to mark Passio who talked about the occult, mind control, and symbolism. (I know, not a very popular topic on here).
When I first found his natural far seminar, it shook me right out of the leftist stupor I was in.
Much of what he said I initially thought was crazy talk, but now, I’m seeing a significant portion of his work vindicated.
Unelected bureaucrats making anti human legislation, push for energy austerity in first world Nations at a time when we may see another cold snap, pedophilia rings all over the world and government, poisoning out water with fluoride, food with pesticides and GMO, spraying the skies (when the msm covers it as IF it could be an option, history tells us it’s already happening, and all you who scoff and dismiss with incredulity will come to admit it), poisoning our children with unnecessary vaccination all based on incorrect theories of germs.
You’ve all seem the magnitude of cover ups, the depths at which people who have much to lose will go to protect their spoils, you see the MSM coverage of this topic and see how painfully obvious it is they lie, yet all those other topics you steadfastly deny as conspiracy.
Shame on you for being so dense
I’m not quite sure what your point is with this:
“poisoning out water with fluoride, food with pesticides and GMO, spraying the skies (when the msm covers it as IF it could be an option, history tells us it’s already happening, and all you who scoff and dismiss with incredulity will come to admit it), poisoning our children with unnecessary vaccination all based on incorrect theories of germs.”
Here are some alternate facts:
I visited the hospital looking for the fluoride poisoned ward, pesticide poisoned ward, GMO infant deformation ward, and all I could find was the cancer and cardiac wards. Then I read an article that the 2nd or 3rd leading cause of death was medical mistakes. Which should I be most afraid of? Pesticides on my food or being admitted to the hospital? Here are two data points: my farmer dad died of natural causes at 89 and his farmer dad died of natural causes at 96. Their farms were not “organic” according to the contemporary meaning.
As a postscript to my comment above, toxicologists and statisticians link exposure to some chemicals to an adverse health effects. Should we trust that the health effect can be scaled to lower concentrations beyond the range of the empirical data?
You asked a question.
To answer the question for the benefit of Honest L ref scaling below the curve is surely obviously NO
measles is bad, vaccination with a lesser dosage is not bad
drinking water consumption is bad at low levels, bad at high levels, good at normal levels, etc
low levels of radiation we receive over and above background help keep us healthier for longer, the chart of x ray usage is positively linked to life expectancy.
Inoculation is a positive slope when graphed to life expectancy.
in fact surely almost everything possibly derided as a conspiracy by Honest Liberty probably correlates positively to life expectancy.
A one sentence summation of Australia’s power problem
“When talking wind and solar power just remember the old saying of ” I am from the government and here to help.” ”
https://www.redpowermagazine.com/forums/topic/118052-wind-farms/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-1243533
Yours too by the sound of that
The Donald is right, yet again. He can spot a political scam when he sees one (just like the EU and Brexit).
Phillip Bratby November 27, 2018 at 2:57 am
The Donald is right, yet again. He can spot a political scam when he sees one (just like the EU and Brexit).
——————————————–
As you obviously understamd the speech can you please translate the seemingly random collection of simple words, thanks.:
“And here’s the other thing — you’re going to have to have China, and Japan, and all of Asia, and all of these other countries — you know, it — it addresses our country,” Trump said.”
What addresses our country – ?
have to have china etc do what that we should know.?
============
Also a belief is hardly a suitable response!
thefordprefect, I understand people have trouble catching what Trump says. Here’s a translation: “And here is the other thing– you need to also include China, Japan, and the rest of Asia in a worldwide call to reduce CO2 emissions. But this report only addresses our country, the United States which seems rather lopsided.”
What did you, or Donald, expect to be discussed in “Climate Change Impacts in the United States”?
leowaj November 27, 2018 at 4:14 pm
thefordprefect, I understand people have trouble catching what Trump says.
——————-
I assume the quote is verbatim from his speech? so its not a question of “catching” but actually interpreting the gobbledygook that he uses. This is not a good sign of competence from the leader of a nation in my opinion
“global greenhouse gas emissions is expected to cause substantial net damage to the U.S. economy throughout this century”
First they must show empirical evidence (in the observational data outside of climate models) that warming is causally related to emissions.
Please see (three links below)
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/11/26/climate-sensitivity-parody/
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/06/tcre/
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/09/25/a-test-for-ecs-climate-sensitivity-in-observational-data/
Would someone point me to evidence that overall hurricanes are not increasing in numbers or intensity?
I keep seeing it reported here about “landings.”
When I look at NOAA’s data over time there appears to be a slight increase, but I don’t know if that is due to better equipment, underreported history or changing definitions?
Hurricanes that formed away from any landfall and shipping routes were not recorded and many times not known in earlier times, now all hurricanes are counted not only the ‘landed’.
No major hurricanes (Cat 3 and above) hit the US for eleven years from 2006 to 2017. That’s a little bit lower than “normal”. It’s hard to get a grip on hurricane trends, although Joe Bastardi does a pretty good job.
Tornadoes, as another indicator, are definitely on the decline with respect to numbers and intensity.
Trump may well be wrong this time, we are still consuming maximum ammounts of gas for our cars and homes, while the rest of the 1st world is innovating. They are not depandant on terrorist oil states or Russia.
Offcourse China and Japan must join as well, but do we realy want them to beat us to it ? Are we going to be the last ??
America should invest great in innovation to keep the lead
Fascinating.
In order to protect ourselves from Russia, we must destroy our economy.
Regardless, the US is a net exporter of fossil fuels and if the environmental nutcases would get out of the way, we could increase output even faster.
destroying your economy is a funny way to ” invest great in innovation”. Who wants “to keep the lead” on the road to impoverishment? thanks but no thanks. I’m glad we have a leader that wants to make out country great rather than destroy it.
Or maybe it is better to get all of the pollution we call oil out of the ground and burn it as fuel so it can’t cause problems any more…
Whatever you may think of President Trump, he is the only politician I know of that recognises the total scam and danger of the CO2 Meme.
Has we get closer to the latest IPCC jamboree we are going to see more of these types rushed out and poor quality of ‘reports or papers ‘, we known this because that has happened every time .
Lots of ‘media friendly’ claims of climate doom to add the extensive list , only for these to be totally forgotten after the event. Which is a good news for those that made them as they never have to worry about being asked about why they got it so wrong .
Its justa ‘dead tree ‘ creation process
Love your “IPCC jamboree” 🙂
Just about the only politician on the planet with any sense. You Yanks are so fortunate that he is POTUS.
cinical I assume ?!
No, actually. He was serious. States.. another paid troll.
We’ve been seeing your type on here in greater numbers lately, more random leftists that come and go. Never providing substance. Are yinz in bed with mosh?
I assume you meant “cynical” there states, and the answer is no, I suspect Derek was quite serious. only the TDS afflicted see cynicism in any positive comment about the current President of the United States.
Every year we grow 4% instead of 1.5%, makes up a quarter of the estimated loss.
I’ll stick with what we’re doing, thank you.
Agreed , by the time Trump leaves office his economic reforms will more than compensate for any loss predicted in 2100. A bird in the hand…
A 10% reduction in GDP in 2100 translates to about a 0.1% annual impairment over each of the next 82 years. The Obama administration’s policies (including a push for “renewable” energy) resulted in about a 10% GDP impairment over eight years.
Or since we average 2% GDP growth per year, the economy will not achieve until 2105 what it could have reached by 2100. Nice how exactly they can calculate such things!
Donald Trump reminds me of, Mogens Glistrup, a likewise minded party leader in Denmark some 40 to 50 years ago. CAGW is, to a great extend, about tax and equal life for all (Animal Farm), and so it was too in Denmark 40 to 50 years ago. Like Donald Trump, Mogens Glistrup was fighting, with interesting vocabulary, against all members of parliament, the mainstream media and the academic left sheeple. Eventually the state jailed him after a bogus tax case, but his party gained in popularity and lives on to this very day in a more tamed way.
I am sure most countries in Europe cold use people like Donald Trump or even better Vaclav Klaus, who can see through the radical intellectuals.
I just wish Mr. Trump would back up his comments with some science that the MSM might actually print.
He doesn’t bother because “they” won’t print it
Why present what you know they won’t print? I’m not a Trump-fan, I’m not sure I can make myself vote for him even now, but I like what this administration has done for us. And his remarks sound like he actually read what was in the Paris Agreement. Which is credible, I was hearing, even before the ‘16 election, that he reads a lot.
Sounds like he also read what was in the TPP.
The talk was about trade but one who also read it reported that it had 29 chapters, only 5 of which mentioned trade
Oldseadog, that or call for fairness of research in the climate science community. Namely, that skepticism get a fair toehold in society, as it should have anyway.
I see the coming Solar Grand Minimum as a real threat to global food crops. Fossil fuels will be need in mass to keep people alive.
“The Climate Won’t Crash the Economy: A worst-case scenario projects annual GDP growth will be slower by 0.05 percentage point.” by Steven Koonin on Nov. 26, 2018
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-wont-crash-the-economy-1543276899
Mr. Koonin, a theoretical physicist, is a University Professor at New York University. He served as undersecretary of energy for science during President Obama’s first term.
* * *
The final figure of the final chapter shows that an increase in global average temperatures of 9 degrees Fahrenheit (beyond the 1.4-degree rise already recorded since 1880) would directly reduce the U.S. gross domestic product in 2090 by 4%, plus or minus 2%—that is, the GDP would be about 4% less than it would have been absent human influences on the climate. That “worst-worst case” estimate assumes the largest plausible temperature rise and only known modes of adaptation.
To place a 4% reduction in context, conservatively assume that real annual GDP growth will average 2% in the coming decades (it has averaged 3.2% since 1935 and is currently 3%). … A 4% climate impact would reduce that multiple to 3.8—a correction much smaller than the uncertainty of any projection over seven decades.
* * *
If we take the new report’s estimates at face value, human-induced climate change isn’t an existential threat to the overall U.S. economy through the end of this century—or even a significant one.
* * *
Trump is often right. Here he is again.
Very often. 🙂
Michael Bastasch
Great post but the first picture of President Trump has a double sub header..
“U.S. President Donald Trump waves to reporters as he departs the White House for travel to Mississippi in Washington, U.S., Nov. 26, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst.”
In Canada, the anti-pipeline thugs have cost our country $120 billion in lost revenues. That loss is huge for a small country like Canada, with only ~35 million people.
This $120 billion loss a direct result of actions by the extreme-left, sponsored by foreign interests.
The anti-pipeline thugs claim to be pro-environment, but the truth is that pipelines are far safer for humanity and the environment that alternatives such as rail.
I suggest that the primary motive of the left is to damage our economy, to enable a full leftist takeover of our government – as has happened in about 100 pseudo-Marxist dictatorships around the world.
These leftists are not environmentalists, they are traitors – criminals who belong in jail.
1% of them are criminal traitors, 99% of them are simply useful idiots.
RT wrote:
“1% of them are criminal traitors, 99% of them are simply useful idiots.”
Perhaps so, but idiocy has never been an adequate defense against criminal conduct.
Radical Greens have now caused the deaths of more people than the ~50 million killed in WW2. Leading causes of death are the 30-year DDT ban, costly failed green energy schemes, and the gross misallocation of scarce global resources on false, fabricated crises like runaway global warming.
Most of the defendants at the Auschwitz Trial were hung – “I was just following orders” did not suffice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_trial
# Defendant Rank Function Sentence
1 Arthur Liebehenschel SS-Obersturmbannführer camp commandant death by hanging (carried out)
2 Hans Aumeier SS-Sturmbannführer Schutzhaftlagerführer death by hanging (carried out)
3 Maximilian Grabner SS-Untersturmführer camp Gestapo chief death by hanging (carried out)
4 Karl Möckel SS-Obersturmbannführer manager of camp administration death by hanging (carried out)
5 Maria Mandl SS-Oberaufseherin Birkenau female camp commandant death by hanging (carried out)
6 Franz Xaver Kraus SS-Sturmbannführer information officer death by hanging (carried out)
7 Ludwig Plagge SS-Oberscharführer Rapportführer death by hanging (carried out)
8 Fritz Buntrock SS-Unterscharführer Rapportführer death by hanging (carried out)
9 Wilhelm Gerhard Gehring SS-Hauptscharführer subcamp commandant death by hanging (carried out)
10 Otto Lätsch SS-Unterscharführer subcamp vice commandant death by hanging (carried out)
11 Heinrich Josten SS-Obersturmführer commander of the camp guard death by hanging (carried out)
12 Josef Kollmer SS-Obersturmführer commander of the camp guard death by hanging (carried out)
13 Erich Muhsfeldt SS-Oberscharführer Birkenau crematoria manager death by hanging (carried out)
14 Hermann Kirschner SS-Unterscharführer camp administration death by hanging (carried out)
15 Hans Schumacher SS-Unterscharführer manager of camp food supplies death by hanging (carried out)
16 August Bogusch SS-Scharführer camp administration death by hanging (carried out)
17 Therese Brandl SS-Aufseherin SS-Erstaufseherin death by hanging (carried out)
18 Paul Szczurek SS-Unterscharführer Blockführer death by hanging (carried out)
19 Paul Götze SS-Rottenführer Blockführer death by hanging (carried out)
20 Herbert Paul Ludwig SS-Oberscharführer Blockführer death by hanging (carried out)
21 Kurt Hugo Müller SS-Unterscharführer Blockführer death by hanging (carried out)
This all seems to be part of the build up to the climate conference in Poland in early December.
This morning the BBC has majored on the report in every news bulletin, repeating it four times between 6 and 7 am so one gets fed up hearing about it.
I suppose this is being done under the repeat a thing often enough meme then people will accept it as the truth.
The Climate Liars are nothing if not resourceful, continually coming up with new ways of lying. Their latest tactic I call an “Appeal to Conservatism”, and is as logically flawed as all of their other bogus arguments. Their “thinking” is that Conservatives only care about money, so let’s appeal to their pocketbooks. Setting aside for a monent the inconvenient fact that Skeptics/Climate Realists run the gamut on the political spectrum, their laughably dumb hope is that we will simply ignore the incredibly bad science their whole argument is based on. It can’t even be called science, in fact. They then like to point out that multiple governmental agencies involving many, many people produced this “report”, thus trotting out their two favorite forms of false logic, the Appeal to Consensus, and the Appeal to Authority”. Sad.
Foreign and domestic Leftist political hacks who want a piece of the $122 trillion (2018 IPCC estimate) to “fix” the fictitious CAGW scam are infuriated at Trump for not participating in the biggest and most expensive taxpayer heist and power grab in human history…
When the CAGW scam soon crashes and burns, Trump will be heralded as one of the first powerful politicians who helped end it, thus saving global taxpayers $trillions of their hard earned money that Leftist hacks would have squandered on this scam.
Surely he can just trust people with Geology, Statistics and English degrees on science , I think Mosher and Nick should give him a good stiff talking too :-).
It’s past time to embarrass the climate cult with a Red v Blue.
So to put this report together a climate model and an econometric model. Neither of which can make useful predictions about anything 70 years from now, and both of which rely on inputs of dubious acuracy.
This is what you call nonsense on stilts.
“systematic errors in fossil production outlooks.”
This is the least of the errors. A far, far bigger error is that ECS presumed for RCP8.5 is at least 3X to larger than the laws of physics can support.
“This is the least of the errors. A far, far bigger error is that ECS presumed for RCP8.5 is at least 3X larger than the laws of physics can support.”
Yes, I think them using RCP8.5 is a major error. How can they justify such an improbable scenario? And then others base endless doomsday speculations on it. It’s science fiction.
You should read the online comments – greenies are literally having embolisms.
Again, this is progressives projecting – they think bringing up ‘money’ will have a Pavlovian dog effect on our side (basically because they live in stereotypes), and this also attacks Trump’s strength – the economy – while they are trying to take credit for it at the same time.
In a way, the report is right — climate change will cause a reduction in GDP. By that I mean that enacting climate change regulations and legislation will make the US less competitive and less productive, which will indeed decrease GDP.
And let’s face it, barring any miracle medical discoveries, we are going to dead by 2100. So why should we care. If they are really concerned about the future, why are they not addressing the national debt and unfunded liabilities. Those are real, tangible problems that will be passed on to future generations.
Students are now taught to lie.
Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York are currently feeling the full brunt of an early winter snowfall. President Trump should be praising the hydroelectric workers, coal miners and fossil fuel suppliers for keeping the electric services available over most of these regions.
However imagine the death rate and carnage that would have been caused if Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York were powered mainly by ‘renewable’ (wind and solar) during this freeze-up.
Just imagine…
Just imagine if Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York sometime in the future, mandated renewable were to be the main power suppliers, and that citizens could ONLY drive battery powered vehicle.
Yes, just imagine.
Ridiculous, eh?
But that is what so many of your political representative wish to do. Then they could bath themselves in the glory of virtue signaling (while no doubt, scamming a profit for themselves.) The glorious virtue of killing folk to save the planet!
So next time you vote, listen well. Are these people wanting your vote, the murdering sociopaths/psychopaths that advocate your ‘death by misadventure’ through promoting ‘renewables’? If they are, and you do not have a death wish, avoid them, AND DON’T VOTE FOR THEM!.
Lucky you, americans, that have Trump. Here in Europe our politician are all criminals or brainwashed
Perhaps we could maintain a posting here for all the ways in which the climate assessment report is incorrect. Let’s try to stick to provable science or demonstrate the ways in which the assessment is not based on such science. I’m pretty sure there are enough smart people on this site regularly o pretty much demolish the report’s arguments and statements.
This would make a good start on a rebuttal booklet which could perhaps be e-published.
When then the goal posts have been deliberately moved to 2100, you have to wait a long while to disprove them.
The previous predictions\projections were all wrong. The Climate Gate emails exposed the corruption of the leading “scientists” in this field. None of it mattered, the propaganda train rolled on unimpeded.
figure 6.3 shows the coldest days are less cold and the hottest days are less hot than they used to be. some real creative explanations for the latter follow. ‘aerosol forcing’, ‘agricultural intensification’ and my favorite – Joad era ‘land-surface feedbacks driven by springtime precipitation deficits.’ ok.
When reality fails to confirm their hypothesis , they add what ever mathematical fudge factors are needed to “make it so” . Their models have correctly predicted Earth’s Climate 10 years into the future with 95% confidence , but only ex post facto , the intervals stretching from Meeahmee to Caleeforneea. To accurately predict Earth’s Climate 90 years into the future would require confidence intervals which captured the climate of every possible parallel Universe in the Multi -verse (assuming the Multi-verse even exist), and their future trajectories . What Hubris , predicting climate , a chaotic system , 100 years into the future with models which do not take into effect the primacy of our Sun’s varied influences ,including plasma streams and high energy particles , each varying both temporally , and in magnitude , and which humans have been observing for only a relatively short period of time, thus we can have only an incomplete preliminary understanding of our Climate, and probability of future trajectories . Our Climate is known to be effected by cosmic rays , high energy particles which interact with Earth’s atmosphere . Our Sun and Solar system are not isolated systems , and there exist a multitude of know unknowns , and probably as many unknown unknown forces , multiple actors influencing Earth’s climate as it travels into parts unknown . Climate models conclusions are based on extrapolations derived from very incomplete understanding , and multiple assumptions , thus forecasting with positive and negative predictive power near zero .
I am not a climate scientist. But I know a bogus report when I read one. Any clear thinking person would agree that if the global temperature goes up or goes down that there will be ecological and societal winners and losers. E.g., Longer growing seasons versus more drought regions. E.g.. More arable land in Canada versus rising seas in the Galapagos. But the report is 100% negative. This cannot be a fair assessment and a 100% negative analysis to me is 200% bogus.
The report was written by CAGW True Believers so there is no way it is a fair assessment. They assume things not in evidence, like assuming that humans are adding enough heat energy via CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere to cause a runaway Greenhouse Effect that will heat the Earth up beyond anything ever seen.
There is no evidence that human CO2 is doing anything detrimental to the atmosphere or weather patterns, much less causing it to overheat. You don’t have to believe me, just ask some Alarmist you know to provide you with the evidence. Tell them you want to see something other than a Hockey Stick surface temperature chart. Don’t be surprised if they can’t provide you with any definite evidence. That’s because there is none. Anyone who disagrees is free to put their evidence right here in this post. However, I don’t expect anyone to do so. I would bet money on it. 🙂