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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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. 🙂