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.
https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1066462831871062016
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.
https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1066463469602394112
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 licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Michael Bastasch
Michael Bastasch is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation.
HT/Willis Eschenbach
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
read/decipher the paper….they admit that they took the most extreme scenarios
..that have the least confidence
…no one believes them
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.
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.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha
Thanks, I needed a really good laugh.
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.
Thanks Chris! Your commentary is consistent with every other piece of B.S. I’ve heard from the Alarmist camp.
If you did a study showing that socialism would destroy 50% of our gdp they would be more than happy to do it anyway.
…because why? Equality!
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 .
Follow the money.
Climate alarmism is funded by Bloomberg and Steyer.
Ergo, climate alarmism is B.S.
Bloomberg-Steyer.
BS.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/18326/