Research From Latest US Climate Report Tied to 2 Major Democratic Donors

From The Daily Signal

Michael Bastasch / @MikeBastasch / November 26, 2018 /


Michael Bastasch


Michael Bastasch is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation.

It’s been repeated throughout the media that global warming could wipe out one-tenth of the U.S. economy by 2100. Now it’s a top-line finding of a major government climate report, but based on a study funded by groups affiliated with two major Democratic donors.

The oft-repeated claim also stemmed from a global warming projection that’s come under increased scrutiny from experts, including one who called it “outlandish.”

The federal government released the second volume of the National Climate Assessment, or NCA, on Friday. The federal report issued dire warnings, including from “ice sheet disintegration on accelerated sea level rise, leading to widespread effects on coastal development lasting thousands of years.”

The report also 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 the nation’s gross domestic product in one extreme scenario.

However, NCA’s dire prediction of a 10 percent hit to the GDP comes from a 2017 study supported by the charitable foundations founded by major Democratic donors. The study was also funded by other organizations, including the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Skoll Global Threats Fund.

That 2017 study, published in the journal Science, was funded in part by Bloomberg Philanthropies and Next Generation, which were founded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer, respectively.

University of Colorado professor Roger Pielke Jr. pointed out problems with the study on Twitter Saturday, including the fact it was funded by groups connected with Bloomberg and Steyer.

Bloomberg and Steyer were the biggest donors to Democratic-aligned political action groups in the 2016 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Bloomberg, who founded Bloomberg Philanthropies, handed nearly $60 million to liberal super PACs to help put Democratic candidates in office and defeat Republicans in the 2018 election cycle, according to the center.

Steyer, who co-founded Next Generation, gave roughly $58.7 million to liberal super PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Bloomberg and Steyer back the Paris climate accord and Obama-era policies to phase out fossil fuels.

The Bloomberg-Steyer-funded study found future temperature rise could cost “roughly 1.2% of gross domestic product per [additional one degree Celsius increase] on average.” At the most extreme high-end, that could add up to 10 percent of gross domestic product by 2100.

Pielke called the use of such an extreme scenario “embarrassing” because it’s based on a future that’s 15 degrees Fahrenheit warmer—in other words, twice what the United Nations’ most extreme scenario projects.

But even the United Nations’ worst-case scenario, called RCP8.5, is being called into question by experts. A study published in 2017 found that scenario was “exceptionally unlikely” because it suffered from “systematic errors in fossil production outlooks.”

“Imagine if research funded by Exxon was sole basis for claims. Given weaknesses of the work [it’s] just [foolish] to lean on it so much,” Pielke tweeted.

Major media outlets, however, did no such examination of the NCA’s reliance on such an “outlandish” claim, as Pielke called it.

CNN reported “the economy could lose hundreds of billions of dollars—or, in the worst-case scenario, more than 10% of its GDP” by 2100. The news outlets’ headline warned future warming could also “kill thousands.”

“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.

Andrew Light, a distinguished senior fellow at the World Resources Institute and reviewer of the chapter highlighting the Bloomberg-Steyer-funded study did not respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Instead, Light forwarded The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which is responsible for producing the NCA. Program officials have yet to respond.

The NCA was put together with input from 13 federal agencies and outside scientists.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email

Michael Bastasch


Michael Bastasch is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation.

HT/Willis Eschenbach

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joel Snider
November 29, 2018 10:04 am

How much of the economy did Obama wipe out?

mark from the midwest
Reply to  Joel Snider
November 29, 2018 10:51 am

It depends on the expected or average long-term growth rates and on how you do the compouding, but it looks like Obummer managed to wipe out about 10% of the U.S. economy in just 8 years

Reply to  mark from the midwest
November 29, 2018 2:01 pm

At least. But it disproportionately fell on the lower middle class and working class, particularly middle aged people and men. For the first time in a century, life expectancy is falling because of suicide, overdoses and other problems related to economic personal well-being.

Reply to  Jim
November 29, 2018 2:03 pm

Sorry, FELL. It began falling a few years ago and continued into last year. We shall see if this trend reversed this year and next year.

Reply to  Joel Snider
November 29, 2018 2:20 pm

None. The economy had a major rebound during Obama’s administration, which continues today. Most stats improving at a slower pace, but that’s to be expected because (a) its easier to get big percentage increases when starting from a smaller base, and (b) economic cycles eventually peter out.

Glad I could Google that for you. 😉

Reply to  chris
November 29, 2018 2:34 pm

Baloney. U.S. annual economic growth averaged less than 2.0 percent in the eight years that Obama was President. That is lowest rate of growth under any President in the post-World War II era. If you exclude the Obama Presidency, annual U.S. GDP growth has exceeded 3.0 percent.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Mohatdebos
November 29, 2018 2:55 pm

Absolutely DELIBERATELY the slowest growth – see – that’s the thing – he did it to us on purpose – training us for the ‘new normal’. And then has the utter slimy GALL to try and claim credit for the improvement once he was gone – and all his moron marching brooms put up bumper stickers that say ‘it’s Obama’s economy’ – not ONE mechanism that would have allowed that to happen. Our numbers improved the DAY of the election – just getting that @#$#$# out of the way.

Obama’s presidency was worse than a fail – it was enemy action. And THAT is what he’s continuing to this day.

Reply to  Joel Snider
November 29, 2018 8:47 pm

Sort of like Obama trying to take credit for the boom in oil production, even though he did everything in his power to suppress it.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Joel Snider
November 30, 2018 12:07 pm

‘Sort of like Obama trying to take credit for the boom in oil production, even though he did everything in his power to suppress it.’

Yeah – his lack of shame clearly translates to his smarmy, stuck-up, pretentious lying, simultaneously ignorant/know-it-all followers.

Reply to  Joel Snider
November 30, 2018 5:58 pm

“enemy action” – exactly why Obama was ineligible to be President in the first place. He is not “natural born”, and has an allegiance to a foreign power through his foreigner father.

The whole birther thing was barking up the wrong tree. Only the President must be “natural born”, meaning born of two American citizen parents.

The framers chose to adopt the stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen”, to block any chance of the person with foreign allegiances or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military. No person having any foreign influence or claim of allegiance on them at birth could serve as a future President. The person must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth. This means TWO AMERICAN CITIZEN PARENTS, as anything else means being raised by a parent with allegiance to another country, which burdens the child unacceptably.

Obama didn’t really care that much about the welfare of the United States of America.

Still doesn’t.

Reply to  Joel Snider
November 30, 2018 6:18 pm

MODERATORS, Please delete this post:

It violates site policy: “Certain topics are not welcome here and comments concerning them will be deleted. This includes topics on religion, discussions of barycentrism, astrology, aliens, bigfoot, chemtrails, 911 Truthers, Obama’s Birth Certificate”

Reply to  Joel Snider
December 8, 2018 9:52 am

He definitely kept a chokehold on the US economy

Orson Olson
Reply to  Mohatdebos
November 30, 2018 5:16 am

It’s worse than this. The US growth of GDP since 2008 is even lower than the 1930s – the decade of the Great Depression witnessed better times, as measured by GDP growth – than we have.

“The hard fact is that the past decade’s $10 trillion in deficit spending has produced the worst economic growth as measured by Gross Domestic Product in our nation’s history. You read that right, in the past decade our nation’s economy grew slower than even during the Great Depression. This stagnant, new normal, low-growth economy is leaving millions of working age people behind who have given up even trying to participate, and has led to a malaise where many doubt that the American dream is attainable.” LOOK IT UP, as did the author here

Joel Snider
Reply to  chris
November 29, 2018 2:44 pm

Chris – that is a total load of crap – what you’ve done is repeat Obama’s shell-game – strangling economic growth, and then calling whatever trickle that leaks through ‘steady growth’ and I am not surprised at all that you would show up here with that bullshit.

Reply to  Joel Snider
November 29, 2018 7:33 pm

Chris’ “take” on the economy is true if you listen to Obama!

Just a day ago Obama took credit for the oil boom going on in the US even though he did everything to curtail it while president!

Never in history has there been a president as blatantly dishonest as B. H. Obama!

The sole accomplishment Obama did was to demonstrate his absence was the best thing that ever happened to the economy!

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  chris
November 29, 2018 6:32 pm

Obama was the first full-term president to never see 3% growth in a year…and he had two full terms of opportunity.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
November 29, 2018 6:40 pm

And Trump is on track for >3% growth in 2018… His first full year in office. The worst quarter in 2017-2018 was Q1 2017, 1.8% growth, Obama’s 8-yr average.

Reply to  David Middleton
November 30, 2018 6:11 am

Trump is also adding a trillion dollars in stimulus to the economy, along with a trillion to the debt. Eventually and probably soon, this will have to be dealt with via inflation. The underlying issue is demographics. There is no easy solution so all the politicians kick the ball down the road by borrowing. It will all end in tears. Be prepared!

Reply to  David Middleton
November 30, 2018 6:14 am

The stupidity of the war on carbon and the Socialization of the economy are added burdens that bring us closer to the economic and social apocalypse. Drugs and crime for spice!

Reply to  David Middleton
November 30, 2018 8:33 am

Obama also added trillions to the national debt, about 10 trillion, from $9trillion at the start to $19 trillion at Trump’s inauguration.

Plus he did it while suffocating economic growth to 2%.

Quite a record to be proud of, if you’re a Progressive deciever.

Reply to  chris
November 29, 2018 8:46 pm

As usual, Chris believes he is entitled to his own facts.
The Obama economy did manage to recover a tiny bit from the Obama recession, but it was both weak and very late.
The big boom didn’t occur until well after Obama left office.

Reply to  chris
November 30, 2018 8:24 am

Now use your brain and look at Obama’s Economy in terms of Grams of Gold instead of Obama’s inflated Dollars. Here is a starting point. Look at the last chart.
Printing trillions of dollars of US currency just make you think the economy is improving. It makes the stocks, Oil, etc all cost more Dollars,and fools people like YOU. Ask yourself what happens when you pull that toilet paper currency back.

Hokey Schtick
November 29, 2018 10:05 am

Money can buy rubbish

Honest liberty
Reply to  Hokey Schtick
November 29, 2018 3:04 pm

Interesting, I recall some random commenter making the claim this site is too political…
Global depopulation couched as saving the Earth had always been political.

But this extra piece of data will be dismissed as irrelevant or some other trivial, inane excuse by the likes of Stokes, et al.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Honest liberty
November 29, 2018 3:18 pm

When the opposition politicizes everything, there’s really no choice.

Reply to  Hokey Schtick
November 29, 2018 7:39 pm

Look for who has money on the table and where it is!

Joel Snider
November 29, 2018 10:06 am

Or even better, how much of the economy has ‘climate mitigation’ wiped out?

I’m not even talking the toll on life, liberty, standard of living, disease, etc.

J Mac
November 29, 2018 10:16 am

“It’s gonna get Hot! Bigly Hot! Twice as hot as the UN-IPCC predicted” says Tom Steyer’s paid toady.

Skepticism is the only logical response…..

Reply to  J Mac
November 29, 2018 11:08 am

….. with the irony, of course being that Tom “Mr Fake-Virtue” Steyer’s Farallon venture fund(s) made piles of money, for him, investing in fossil fuel plays:

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  philincalifornia
November 29, 2018 11:31 am

Farallon – say what?
On Nov 23rd, Willis wrote (Froth of the fourth) about Climate Assessments:
They sink with the sad finality of an outboard motor spark plug accidentally dropped overboard two miles at sea …

A bunch of folks had great fun with that.
Today we learn that Tom Steyer’s venture fund uses the name Farallon.
* the very large Farallon Plate was consumed beneath the North American and Caribbean Plates *

Or, Farallon sank with a sad finality . . .

Tom Halla
November 29, 2018 10:21 am

If the green blob couldn’t use projection, many of their favorite themes would be lost. So the study funded by Bloomberg and Steyer mirrors their usual theme that skeptics are funded by Big Oil? And it is only 200% of the worst case (RCP 8.5) of the IPCC?
But they are trying to save the world, so whatever they do id justified./sarc

Reply to  Tom Halla
November 29, 2018 11:21 am

And the green blobs (which includes the goobermint bureaucratic departments) are additionally funded by dished-out taxpayer money in amounts any private companies (ie Exxon, etc) that might donate look like peanuts.

Curious George
November 29, 2018 10:21 am

Bloomberg and Steyer use their hard-earned money very effectively. Money was earned in hedge funds, a very productive form of socialism, which builds factories and employs hundreds of thousands of workers. Please tell me if you happen to know one of these workers.

mark from the midwest
Reply to  Curious George
November 29, 2018 10:54 am

Yes I do, virtual Bob is a very good friend of mine

Reply to  Curious George
November 29, 2018 7:43 pm

Sorry, Curious George– I don’t personally know any Chinese who work in factories built by hedge funds!

Do you?

Reply to  RockyRoad
November 29, 2018 8:49 pm

Hedge funds invest all over the world. Perhaps you haven’t been keeping up?

November 29, 2018 10:32 am

So when the official National Climate Assessment takes an economic model and uses RCP 8.5 as input to the model, and then uses the high side 95% value from that scenario, have they not branded themselves “CAGW proponents” and the term should be used without being accused of ‘snark?’ It’s essentially a recognition of their self-assessment.

November 29, 2018 10:32 am

Sounds like the alarmist Brexit predictions.

November 29, 2018 10:32 am

At the same time, they tell us that even being in the same state as a representative of an oil company is enough to completely discredit any research that they disagree with.

M__ S__
November 29, 2018 10:46 am

Quite rapidly (and unfortunately) the reputation of science is being destroyed by people abusing it for their political agendas, and by those who have the title of scientist but neither the right attitude nor the integrity.

We’ll be decades healing this breach of trust

Ian W
Reply to  M__ S__
November 29, 2018 11:26 am

And unfortunately, many of those destroying Science consider themselves scientists.

November 29, 2018 11:00 am

Climate quid pro quo for the ages

November 29, 2018 11:06 am

Why do I feel the sudden urge to start shopping for a yellow safety vest like the gilets jaunes in France? Well maybe vests and hand warmers because the coming decade of protest against climate policy change over reach is going to include global cooling and a lot less driving.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
November 29, 2018 11:18 am


Hold that thought.

You may get an invitation to the UK if the threatened second referendum on Brexit is called. Bring your yellow jacket, democracy lovers will need both you and it.

(Of course no PM would dare usurp the will of the majority in this country. The threats are all just shenanigans and grandstanding to frighten the weak minded to fall for Theresa May’s ruse. But don’t sell your jacket, just in case).

Reply to  HotScot
November 29, 2018 11:24 am

And sorry, I am OT.
Yes we Brits are obsessed about Brexit right now.
And yes, if the seat of democracy is overturned, what democratic country will be next?
Brexit isn’t just a national issue.

Reply to  HotScot
November 29, 2018 12:43 pm

Yes, I understand.

Ukraine citizens are having to deal with Moscow while UK citizens are having to deal with Brussels and London. In the U.S. citizens are having to deal with SF and NYC dictates or soon to be dictates.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
November 30, 2018 6:23 am

I’ve come to believe that big is bad- for individual humans at least. Big business, big labour, big government (EU), big science, big money, big tech. These are all forces that overpower the individual and diminish our personal sovereignty and ability to determine our own fate.
At the end of life, even big medicine seems to be an uncaring machine.
How to live free of them is the critical question.

Reply to  HotScot
November 29, 2018 1:20 pm

Hopefully Great Britain can get its sanity back from the ‘carbon’ madness as we see from this biased paid for report. The USA is firmly divided on this insanity, and it would sure help if the UK could at least develop a realistic view on AGW, and energy development without the heavy hand of Brussels and the unelected Mob that will surely become a global threat again in the future. Comes in 3’s.

It was the United Kingdom, Allies, and later the Commonwealth that reigned in parts of the Continent when Napoleon ran amuck, Bismarck & Co tried seizing much of Europe and finally beating back the Germans who had fallen for fascism. The USA probably played a pivotal role in determining the last two. And will hopefully up hold the world order as we have known it for the last 70+ years.

Great Britain should revert back to a total independent country, free of any unelected tyrannical EU influence. The Commonwealth and the USA is the gold standard for which the basic principals of democracy, freedom of speech, thought and religion should prevail across the global community. Because they are the best universal values that the world has so far seen.

Reply to  Earthling2
November 29, 2018 3:08 pm

The Commonwealth and the USA is the gold standard for which the basic principals of democracy, freedom of speech, thought and religion should prevail across the global community. Because they are the best universal values that the world has so far seen.

Damn, that’s a rallying call!

Reply to  Earthling2
November 29, 2018 8:29 pm

“Hopefully Great Britain can get its sanity back from the ‘carbon’ madness”

How can you type that when the UK has the BBC’s overwhelming AGW BS filling everyone’s ears with their shiite? I’m from the UK and looking from afar, I think they’re going to be the last ones to know – but, mustn’t grumble eh chaps. Stiff upper lip and all that.

November 29, 2018 11:10 am

The MO of the media is to lie by omission. That’s what makes it fake news and alarmist headlines.

Reply to  Gary
November 29, 2018 2:53 pm

What’s black and white and red all over?™

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Roger Knights
November 30, 2018 12:40 am

Sunburned zebra?

Reply to  Gary
November 29, 2018 8:38 pm

Exactly Gary, and that disgusts me more than anything regarding modern human society and its communication tools.

Wouldn’t it be great to celebrate, with our children, the resurgence of polar bear populations? Oh no, that doesn’t fit the kleptocrat narrative. Children must be made to fear being burned to a crisp in ten years by the phony bogeyman. Absolutely disgusting.

Jim Gorman
November 29, 2018 11:24 am

Do any of these reporters ever do a simple check on what they are reporting? 15 degrees F over the next 80 years would be about 2 degrees every decade. Since CO2 is logarithmic lets say the next decade would see an increase of 3 – 4 degrees. The past decade should have been at least that bad. Does anyone remember temperatures in summer getting terribly hotter or winter temperatures being hotter. I sure don’t. I doubt the general population does either. All these pronouncements do is make the public more and more doubtful that these folks know what they’re doing.

Ian W
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 29, 2018 11:28 am

You are crediting the media with a higher level of numeracy than any appear to have achieved.

Reply to  Ian W
November 30, 2018 6:27 am

The media isn’t even interested in the truth. All they want is the most dramatic headline they can come up[ with that is even marginally relevant to the issue. They are a starving circus act.

George Lawson
November 29, 2018 11:27 am

There is an upside to this unbelievable stupidity. The more outrageously ridiculous these people become, the greater the increase in numbers of the public who will not believe them, totally ignoring the global warming hoax and these laughable reports. It seems that excessive wealth sometimes has the effect of reducing all logic and common sense.

November 29, 2018 11:28 am

New paper:
“In our data, we see high levels of carbon dioxide, reaching 1000 ppm as opposed to today’s 410 ppm. In this respect, present day levels are not unique, but the speed of these changes have never been seen before. Changes that typically take millions of years are now happening in a century. This additional CO2-data may help us understand the future of our planet.” In future research, phytane can be used to go even further back in time than the Phanerozoic, the earliest found in two billion-year-old samples.

Ian W
Reply to  vukcevic
November 29, 2018 11:33 am

If you disregard sampling rate it is amazing what sort of false conclusions you can come to.

Reply to  vukcevic
November 29, 2018 8:51 pm

I’ve yet to find an actual scientist who believes CO2 levels are going to get much above 700ppm.
Of course getting it up to 1200 would be a very good thing. It just isn’t going to happen.

November 29, 2018 11:29 am

Not only is the 10% number bogus… It’s spread out over 80 years and a 10% reduction from about 300% total growth over that period.

I downloaded HadCRUT4 and UAH 6.0 from our friends at Wood For Trees. After converting to Fahrenheit and applying static shifts to match NCA4’s baseline, I overlaid the real data on Figure 1.4 from NCA4 Volume I and projected UAH 6.0 to the end of this century…

Note to Christy-bashers: UAH 6.0 and HadCRUT4 are virtually indistinguishable when shifted to the same baseline.

The 1979-2018 trend line extrapolates to 3.4 °F (1.9 °C) of warming by 2100. Closer to RCP2.6 than any other scenario.

According to Hsiang et al., 2017, that equates to about a 1% reduction in US GDP from 2080-2099, relative to what it would be without any additional warming…

How much would you spend today to avert a 1% loss in 300% of GDP growth over the next 80 years?

Is the only correct answer.

Russ R.
Reply to  David Middleton
November 29, 2018 11:54 am

Even the 1% loss is ludicrous. They are basing this on the following:

The combined value of market and nonmarket damage across analyzed sectors—agriculture, crime, coastal storms, energy, human mortality, and labor—increases quadratically in global mean temperature, costing roughly 1.2% of gross domestic product per +1°C on average. Importantly, risk is distributed unequally across locations, generating a large transfer of value northward and westward that increases economic inequality.

Essentially only bad stuff happens when it gets warmer. Agriculture will suffer?? Crime will get worse?? Coastal storms will increase?? Energy access will decrease and become more expensive (if they have anything to say about it)?? Human mortality will increase ?? Labor will become less productive??
I would actually agree with most of it, if they were saying the same thing about the Earth getting an equal amount colder. But the evidence that warmth causes all these negative impacts on society is non-existent, unless you ignore all the substantial benefits of a warmer climate.
Complete Junk Science all the way down. This is just Malthusian propaganda with scientific sounding wrapper applied. Makes me want to take a shower after looking at it. Wash off the dark ideology.

Reply to  Russ R.
November 29, 2018 12:02 pm

Also… The vast majority of their asserted GDP reduction is due to “mortality.” Last I checked, BEA doesn’t factor mortality into their GDP calculations.

Russ R.
Reply to  David Middleton
November 29, 2018 12:16 pm

That is because the answer would not support the supposition. Where do peopel go to prolong their mortality? In the US, they go to Florida, and Arizona, and every warm state in between (CA is a bit pricey). How many elderly people do you know that are moving to International Falls, because the heat is chasing them out of their current moderate climate?

Reply to  Russ R.
November 29, 2018 1:36 pm

Florida = God’s waiting room… 😉

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  David Middleton
November 29, 2018 12:44 pm

Even if the alarmist assertions were true, calculating an average 2% compounded growth rate till 2100 gives a final GNP of over 100 trillion starting from a 20 trillion base. Cutting 10 % off that would reduce the growth rate to 1.7%. Is that so scary considering the probability of this actually happening to be near ZERO?

Reply to  David Middleton
November 30, 2018 6:31 am

What would be the effect on GDP of returning our climate to the miseries of the little ice age. This seems to be the standard we are supposed to be seeking as “ideal”.

November 29, 2018 11:37 am

“Global warming could wipe out one-tenth of the U.S. economy by 2100”

Why settle for 10% in 80 years time.
Go 100% renewable and you can have 90% in 10 years time.

Reply to  Ve2
November 29, 2018 11:41 am


Reply to  Ve2
November 29, 2018 11:47 am

““Global warming could wipe out one-tenth of the U.S. economy by 2100””

Or it COULD increase the economy by 20-30%

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  fred250
November 29, 2018 7:03 pm

Or it could increase the economy by √-1

November 29, 2018 12:21 pm

Why are the government employees involved in this scam report still employed?

Reply to  JimG1
November 29, 2018 12:27 pm

government unions

Reply to  MarkW
November 29, 2018 12:36 pm

I thought Reanaldus Magnus took care of that with the flight controllers. Trump should be able to do likewise given his excellent track record so far. And I ain’t kidden!

Reply to  JimG1
November 29, 2018 8:54 pm

Reagan only broke the Flight Controllers union, and he was only able to do that because the union members broke the law by going out on strike the way they did.

One, small, government union. The rest are still in place, protected by the permanent government and all liberals in office.

Orson Olson
Reply to  MarkW
November 30, 2018 5:26 am

American liberty is doomed to an early death unless the Deep State is completely jettisoned, and unless the partisan sinecure that is federal employment for millions – DOUBLE of the income and benefits of the private sector – is completely expunged.

Randle Dewees
Reply to  MarkW
November 29, 2018 2:35 pm

No. While some union gov employees might have “worked on” the report in menial ways, for the most part anyone in a union is no position to do anything except try to do their relatively limited duties in spite of the enormous amount of regulations/rules/BS imposed on them, they have my sympathy.

The bureaucrats that conspired and generated this report are way too senior to be members of any union. While I agree generally with JimG1’s position this is not the same situation as the flight controllers and I doubt these people are worried about their jobs.

Gunga Din
Reply to  MarkW
November 29, 2018 3:41 pm

That’s involved but you have to remember that the system is packed with employees who were hired and/or promoted by past political appointees. They don’t disappear when the political appointee is replaced.

Randle Dewees
Reply to  Gunga Din
November 29, 2018 9:43 pm

That’s true, but the overwhelming union membership is comprised of low to mid level employees that are so removed from the political leadership that they are essentially “civilians”. I’m really just arguing about the gov union statement above – the unions aren’t protecting the miscreates because the unions don’t represent them.

The bureaucrats and political appointees that generated this report, I mean decided what was going to be in it, these are swamp creatures of the highest GS grades and SES levels that are in mid-high management positions. They might deal with unions too, but from a different perspective.

November 29, 2018 12:49 pm

A 10 percent decline in GDP is just the start from banning ICEs, meat, fossil fuels, and converting the economy to a series of politically connected deals with taxpayer funds in projects that go nowhere.

November 29, 2018 12:51 pm

The final line of Roger Piekle’s tweet says it all for me:

“Even rudimentary attention to COI would avoided this.”

Clearly, the management group responsible for this report chose the authors and reviewers to deliberately get this result. There is no way any review panel I have been part of would have let this type of conflict of interest stand.

Reply to  Rob
November 29, 2018 1:40 pm

What has been described here is straightforward corruption and deceit by the report authors.
They lied about the index of ghg, falsely substituting the least likely ghg future, and pretending it is the most likely.
They used non-government sourced marketing hype from vested interests without disclosure.
They used government resources to write a report that only serves the interests of investors seeking to maintain the profitability if their energy investments.
The Inspector General if the relevant Agency should investigate, if not the FBI.

Reply to  hunter
November 30, 2018 6:37 am

I tend to think you are probably correct. If so, are they open to a lawsuit?

Michael Carter
November 29, 2018 12:57 pm

Where does one buy one of these crystal balls?

I need one!


Russ R.
Reply to  Michael Carter
November 29, 2018 2:38 pm

No crystal ball is required.
You document naturally occurring events, that have happened regularly during human history and previous to human history, and pretend it is worse now because we have more people in the way, with more ability to measure and document the negative aspects of those events.
You ignore any benefits to a warming world.
You hype the least likely worst case scenario, and pretend it is the most likely scenario when disseminated to the masses.
You ignore all the failures of previous similar prognostications.
Cook your steaming pile for 4 years at 0.8C above average ambient temperature, and serve raw while claiming it is will be burned to a crisp if you wait another 50 to 80 years.

If you are not a “made member of the climate mafia”, you may want to include this:

“All climate data appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real climate data, current or future, is purely coincidental.”

November 29, 2018 1:13 pm

Billionaire oligarchs corrupting a government report to help justify and protect their investments.
FBI should be called in.

November 29, 2018 1:20 pm

… a top-line finding of a major government climate report, but based on a study funded by groups affiliated with two major Democratic donors.

So, would it be fair to call these donors ‘climate deceivers’? Because the study findings are obviously manufactured as part of their unspoken political agenda.

Richard S.J. Tol
November 29, 2018 1:20 pm

How come you guys did not know this? Steyer has funded a number of dubious papers over the years. The Hsiang one in Science is one of the more solid ones.

Reply to  Richard S.J. Tol
November 29, 2018 1:35 pm

I guess we’re not *that* omniscient… 😉

Reply to  Richard S.J. Tol
November 30, 2018 6:40 am

Probably because he is full of deceit. He slides these things under the door via his “useful idiots”.

November 29, 2018 1:35 pm

read/decipher the paper….they admit that they took the most extreme scenarios
..that have the least confidence

…no one believes them

November 29, 2018 2:15 pm

Which chapter is it? I’m wondering if it’s the one that K Hayhoe proudly said she had authored (in a tweet). It was regarding Trump’s “I don’t believe it”, which was obviously much more related to the extreme media hype over the 10% loss in GDP for a 15°F rise.

November 29, 2018 2:23 pm

The article states:

However, NCA’s dire prediction of a 10 percent hit to the GDP comes from a 2017 study supported by the charitable foundations founded by major Democratic donors.

I think what the author should have said is that the government report is _consistent_with_ the 2017 study. The 10 US Government agencies that co-authored the report do not, and are not permitted to simply reprint reports published by non-peer reviewed publications (assuming the 2017 report mentioned was not peer-reviewed)

The government rules are very strict.

Reply to  chris
November 29, 2018 2:49 pm

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha

Thanks, I needed a really good laugh.

Reply to  chris
November 29, 2018 8:56 pm

In chris’s world, if the government says something, it’s true and must never be questioned.
Unless of course it’s a conservative government, then it always lies.

Reply to  chris
November 30, 2018 6:42 am

Thanks Chris! Your commentary is consistent with every other piece of B.S. I’ve heard from the Alarmist camp.

Bob boder
November 29, 2018 3:03 pm

If you did a study showing that socialism would destroy 50% of our gdp they would be more than happy to do it anyway.

Orson Olson
Reply to  Bob boder
November 30, 2018 5:28 am

…because why? Equality!

November 29, 2018 6:15 pm

Bought studies by lobbyists aren’t worth shit . Bloomberg and Steyer made money off fossil fuels and the wealth it generates . Between them over $ 120 million spent on political buying and largely failed campaigns
to achieve what ? They got Donald Trump elected .
Yeah shut down coal . Pure brilliance .

Tasfay Martinov
November 29, 2018 9:26 pm

Follow the money.
Climate alarmism is funded by Bloomberg and Steyer.
Ergo, climate alarmism is B.S.

Smart Rock
November 30, 2018 12:32 am

They project 10% loss of GDP from 8°C warming (and that is apparently warming from today)

But we’re being assailed by the IPCC report that says 1.5°C warming from 1850 (i.e. 0.5°C from today) is going to lead to endless disasters, mass extinction, even the end of life on earth in the opinion of the more extreme warmists.

Using the plot in this study to make a projection, a 0.5°C (say 1°F) will have no measurable direct effect on the US economy.

This difference clearly illustrates a lack of coherence in the alarmist community. To put it more bluntly, they are just making it up as they go.

November 30, 2018 3:21 am

A colder climate would do far more damage to Northern Hemisphere economies than the deluded report alluded to here. Ignoring Europe & Russia for now, having neither Canadian nor US wheat & maize (north of Kansas & Missouri) would put the kibosh on grain fed beef & ethanol fuelled vehicles as well as a greatly reduced capacity to generate electricity, by solar or wind.

Coal mines will probably be the warmest locations for North America’s population to starve to death. As for Northern Europe & Asia, here’s a map of the Last Glacial Maximum. Cold? Watermelons have no idea.

comment image

November 30, 2018 6:33 am

15F warmer? After this bit of ice, slush dragging power lines into non-functioning status, nearly 400,000 people losing electricity in my area due to a storm that was forecast incorrectly as rain followed by snow, when it was freezing rain in the form of globs of slush and dropping temps (they left out that bit) weighing down and damaging power lines, I’d embrace a warmer 15 degrees Fahrenheit with great gusto!

This ridiculous fear of CHANGE in a tumultuous chaotic system that changes from one state to another in a 15 minute period is evidence of both ignorance of how weather systems work, and of a really serious need to spend some time with a professional therapist. The Warmians, CAGWers and all of that bunch are out of their tiny, mingey little minds.

But the fact that research like this is heavily funded by politicians who seem to see a person gain from it makes it more heinous than it already is.

November 30, 2018 7:28 am

Between winter and summer we have more than 15F warming yet there is no drop in GDP.

Except for igloo salesmen the 15F in warming is a welcome change in climate.

Mike Maguire
December 1, 2018 3:28 am
%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights