Guest FAKE NEWS ALERT by David Middleton
It’s Lindsey Graham vs. Donald Trump on climate crisis
Lauren Dezenski
By Lauren Dezenski, CNN
Updated 5:18 AM ET, Sun July 14, 2019Washington (CNN) Sen. Lindsey Graham is sounding an alarm on climate change — and hoping to make it loud enough for President Donald Trump to hear.
“I would encourage the President to look long and hard at the science and find a solution. I’m tired of playing defense on the environment,” the South Carolina Republican said in a news conference on Wednesday.
Graham said acknowledging — and embracing — the climate crisis as an issue in the GOP can be a good thing, and the party is ignoring it at its own peril.
“We will win the solution debate, but the only way you’re going to win the debate is admit we’ve got a problem,” Graham said. “Let’s talk about climate change from the innovative and not the regulatory approach.”
Trump himself has consistently confused much of the science around climate change. In an interview with Piers Morgan in June, Trump said, “It used to be called global warming, that wasn’t working, then it was called climate change and now actually it is called extreme weather.”[…]
Fake News by Darth Vader
No… Lauren… You are the one who is confused…
“It used to be called global warming, that wasn’t working, then it was called climate change and now actually it is called extreme weather.” And now it’s called “the climate crisis.”
And you are lying (fake news)… Senator Graham never mentioned the “climate crisis”.
“We will win the solution debate, but the only way you’re going to win the debate is admit we’ve got a problem. Let’s talk about climate change from the innovative and not the regulatory approach.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Problem ≠ Crisis
At no point does Senator Graham refer to the “climate crisis”…
Graham has even joked about Trump’s reticence around climate change.
“Climate change is real, the science is sound and the solutions are available,” Graham said in April. “If I told Trump that [special counsel Robert] Mueller thinks climate change is a hoax, we’d be well on our way.”
Fake News by Darth Vader
To the extent anthropogenic climate change might be a problem, Senator Graham’s “solution” is very different than the Green New Dealers…
Republicans form conservation caucus to take on environment, climate change
BY REBECCA BEITSCH – 07/10/19Republicans on Wednesday launched an environment-minded conservation caucus aimed at battling the perception that their party doesn’t care about climate change.
Dubbed the Republican Roosevelt Conservation Caucus after National Park Service founder President Teddy Roosevelt, the bicameral group lists public land access, water quality and ocean pollution among its priorities.
[…]
Graham also called the Democrat’s Green New Deal plan to reduce the nation’s environmental impact “crazy economics,” adding that “innovation is going to do more to solve this problem than any government mandate.”
“We believe our friends on the other side care about the environment, but they care so much they’re going to destroy the economy in the name of saving the environment. That’s a false choice,” Graham said.
He also said Democrats have been too alarmist about climate change, adding, “You don’t have to ground all the airplanes and kill all the cows.”
[…]
Republicans, alongside Democrats, have introduced a number of bills this year that would fund research and development for battery storage, carbon capture technology and other energy needs.
But the caucus members on Wednesday stressed that traditional energy sources like coal, oil and gas would remain a part of the mix.
Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) said traditional energy sources are important for affordability.
“Somebody can’t worry about the energy efficiency of their home if they’re worried about where their next meal comes from. Somebody can’t worry about the standards or emissions of their automobile if they’re worried about going to work the next day,” he said, referring to a Trump administration proposal to freeze fuel efficiency standards for cars in an effort to make new vehicles more affordable.
“These things go hand in hand,” he added.
[…]
Graham also pushed back against President Trump‘s comments on climate change, saying the vast majority of scientists are worried about climate change and say action must be taken.
“I believe the nine out of the 10, not the one,” Graham said of scientists’ consensus. “I would encourage the president to look long and hard at the science and find the solution. I’m tired of playing defense on the environment.”
The Hill
The only thing Senator Graham has said on climate change that I seriously disagree with is the “nine out of the 10, not the one” comment. The consensus, to the extent there is one, is not 90% and there is no consensus that “action must be taken” now or with any urgency, much less economically destructive action.
Republicans Take an Important Step Back into the Environmental Debate
By KAYLA BARTSCH
July 15, 2019Conservatives ought to conserve. The newly formed Roosevelt Conservation Caucus aims to do just that.
[…]
Last Wednesday, a group of Republican senators and congressmen gathered to announce the formation of the Roosevelt Conservation Caucus (RCC), to be co-chaired by Senators Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), Cory Gardner (R., Colo.), and Steve Daines (R., Mont.). According to a press release announcing the news, the RCC will “embrace and promote constructive efforts to address environmental problems, responsibly plan for all market factors, and base policy decisions on science and quantifiable facts.”
[…]
Along with his legislative endeavors, Roosevelt wrote and spoke extensively on the importance of conservation. In a 1910 speech delivered at the dedication of the John Brown Memorial Park in Osawatomie, Kan., Roosevelt declared:
“Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.”
The Roosevelt Conservation Caucus seeks to embrace this two-pronged approach to its namesake cause, championing policies that both develop and protect the country’s natural resources. As Senator Gardner put it, the caucus aims to be “a platform that will help shine more light on Republican efforts on innovative, economically viable policies which will both improve the environment and make sure the American people continue to have the highest quality of life possible.”[…]
“Simply put, we believe in innovation when it comes to solving environmental problems, not regulation. We believe you can have a healthy environment and still fly a plane and eat a hamburger,” Graham said on Wednesday. The RCC’s goal is to harness the powers of the economy to work for the environment, rather than tearing down the economy to save the planet.
While no concrete policy proposals have yet emerged from the RCC, the press conference suggested that plans for a carbon tax, climate-resilient infrastructure, and increased funding of clean-energy research are likely to be among the initial proposals. By means distinctly less flashy than the Green New Deal, Republicans and consensus-minded Democrats have been working to formulate innovative solutions to environmental problems. Section 45Q of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 — the last omnibus to pass under the GOP-controlled House — included a significant tax credit for the implementation of carbon-capture technology. In February, the bipartisan USE IT Act was again introduced by Senator John Barrasso (R., Wyo.) to expand upon the Section 45Q tax credit and further support research into CO2 utilization and direct-air-capture research.[…]
National Review
While I don’t agree with all of the Roosevelt Conservation Caucus’ ideas, particularly a carbon tax, they aren’t “acknowledging — and embracing — the climate crisis” and their proposed solutions are diametrically opposed to the Green New Deal Cultural Revolution.
If The Hill and National Review can report this story without lying, why is it that CNN can’t?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sorry, Lindsay, but we don’t need or want “Eco-Nazi lite,” either. The data is garbage, the science by extension is garbage, and there IS NO “problem.” And your non-solutions to the non-problem are just the same crap being offered up by the Dimbulbcrats in smaller doses.
THIS ISSUE, and the ENTIRELY MEANINGLESS attempts to “fix” the non-existent “problem,” is EXACTLY WHY PEOPLE VOTED FOR TRUMP TO BEGIN WITH!
Oh, and by the way, even if there WAS a “problem,” you couldn’t fix it even by committing the Dimbulbcrats’ suggested economic suicide COMBINED WITH all of your “innovation” put together wouldn’t “fix” it – because China and India and other “developing” nations will simply replace the emissions (AND the prosperity and living standards that go with them) that the U.S. surrenders with their OWN.
“Republicans, alongside Democrats, have introduced a number of bills this year that would fund research and development for battery storage, carbon capture technology and other energy needs.”
See: https://whynotwind.wordpress.com/2019/07/15/alice-in-wonderland-syndrome/ for why endorsing carbon capture, battery storage, etc is suicide
Carbon capture is actually a very good idea…
https://www.netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/netl-file/CO2_EOR_Primer.pdf
It is a “good idea” in instances where there is a NEED for that carbon (as in the oil fields), and where “capturing” it makes economic sense.
But most proposals from scientists, activists and politicians push it forward as part of a solution to an “existential crisis” and economic return takes a back seat.
Fortunately Rick Perry isn’t the typical politician.
For the foreseeable future, coal will continue to play a critical role in powering the Nation’s electricity generation, especially for base-load power plants. Coal-fired power plants have made significant progress in reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide (contributors to acid rain), particulate matter, and mercury.
https://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-capture
CFNN
All the news fit to form.
“Of the 198 House Republicans who didn’t belong to the congressional Climate Solutions Caucus, 177 (89 percent) of those seats remained Republican after the election. Of the 43 House Republicans belonging to the Climate Solutions Caucus, just 23 (53 percent) of those seats remained in Republican hands.”
James Taylor
Heartland Institute
When will Republicans ever learn, Imitating Dims is not a winning strategy.
Lindsey is my Senator, and is from my current town.
On the positive side, he seems more rational than he did when his mentor John McCain was alive.
But on the subject of climate science, you have to remember he’s the one who said: (paraphrase).
“For all who doubt Global Warming, you should have been with me in Hong Kong last week to see the CO2 spewing out of the motor bike ahead of us.”
And this was years before when Greta was able to observe the gas.
Senator Graham: “I would encourage the president to look long and hard at the science and find the solution. I’m tired of playing defense on the environment.”
Senator Graham, I would suggest you do what you are telling the president to do, look long and hard at the science.
If you do look long and hard at the science, and not just make a judgement based on a “97 percent” lie, then you will see that the science is very much *not* settled and you and your advisors are assuming things not in evidence, because someone told you to assume them.
And when you are telling the truth as you see it, and calling out the lies and deceptions of others, it’s not defense, it’s offense. What you are really tired of is not having all the answers about this subject. Get yourself educated and you won’t feel so defensive.
Any Republican that proposes a Carbon Dioxide tax is going to have problems getting elected or reelected. Some Republicans see CAGW as a way of raising taxes (because there is a crisis, don’t you see) and allows them to get away with it politically. No! That’s not going to fly. Try it and see.
Anyone who takes, at face value, the stated position of ANY, life long, politician at ANY level of government should keep in mind the following quote from The Hunt for Red October.
Jeffrey Pelt: “Listen, I’m a politician which means I’m a cheat and a liar, and when I’m not kissing babies I’m stealing their lollipops. But, it also means I keep my options open.”
Senator Graham is keeping his options open.
Cheers
Max
“acknowledging — and embracing — the climate crisis as an issue in the GOP can be a good thing, and the party is ignoring it at its own peril.”
Yeah, I noticed that embracing issues that most Americans consider inconsequential or irrelevant has been a winning strategy for the Democratic Party.
In POLITICS consensus counts. In SCIENCE, not so much.
It is not just republican vs democrat beliefs about beliefs are urban legends.
The CAGW paradigm, in particular the Bern equation, has been disproved by recent observations.
There are current observations that are hard paradoxes for the key assumption which CAGW requires to create the problem.
For example the biosphere material balance paradoxes. The amount of water and CO2 leaving the biosphere is vastly greater than the Bern equation assumed only new input into the biosphere of water and CO2.
Recently it has been found that three times more water is being dragged down into the mantel by the ocean plates as they are pushed under the continents.
The discovery that large amounts of water are dragged down into the mantel was expected as there is also an early water problem that has been around for 30 years.
The early water problem is due to the fact that the earth was struck by a Mars size object roughly 100 million years after its formation.
The Mars size object early earth impact created the moon and stripped the newly formed earth of a Venus like atmosphere and heated the surface of the earth to 700C.
That impact also caused the heavy metals to sink to the core of the earth and for the earth material to be well mixed.
The high surface temperature 700C was a surprise as that removes most of the water and CH4 from the mantel.
How then is possible that 70% of the earth is now covered by deep water? When did the deep water appear on the earth?
20 years ago it was assumed there was a late veneer of comets and special astroids that hit the earth after its formation.
It has assumed this late veneer consisted of comets and core material from a Mars size object that was hypothesized to have formed the astroid belt.
It is now know that the astroid belt was formed from small bodies that were not large enough to have concentrated heavy metal cores.
This created a paradox as to how to explain the known concentration of heavy metals on the surface of the earth and the paradox that there are concentration of a suite of heavy metals, including uranium and thorium in bituminous coal and heavy oils. The amount heavy metals in the oil, increase as the oil viscosity (stickiness) increases.
The late comet impact has also been ruled out as the oxygen content of the moon rocks is almost exactly the same as similar earth rocks. Also a late comet impact would have increased the amount of nobel gases in the atmosphere which is not observed. The late comet impact is a dead theory.
The early water/CO2 problem is a paradox as all of the possible late veneer very large sources of water and CH4 have been ruled out.
That observation is a hard paradox (material balance problem).
There must be a undiscovered (there are tons of observational evidence that the missing source is CH4, CH4 disassociates in the upper atmosphere to form CO2 and H2O) ) very large source of CH4 or some other source of water and CO2, that is constantly entering the biosphere or the earth would be dry and lifeless and/or plants would die from lack of CO2, rather than covered 70% by water that is 2 miles deep with continents and oceans that are covered, full of plant life.
The amount of CO2 that is assumed to enter the biosphere paradigm (fundamental assumption of the Bern Equation), the fossil fuel paradigm, and the planet’s water paradigm are all based on the recycle water/CO2/hydrocarbon paradigm.
In this paradigm it is assumed that the only ‘new’ source of water and CO2 that enters the biosphere is from volcanic eruptions.
The Bern equation assumes zero biological material is being sequestered in the ocean.
This recent observation that C14 is making to the deepest ocean with no delay is an observational fact that disproves the CAGW team created absurdly non-physical so-called Bern model of CO2 sinks and sources and resident times.
The Bern model assumes that ocean circulation (with hundreds of years delay) is the only method for deep sequestration of CO2 in the ocean.
The alleged long lifetime of 500 years for carbon diffusing to the deep ocean is of no relevance to the debate on the fate of anthropogenic CO2 and the “Greenhouse Effect”, because POC (particular organic carbon; carbon pool of about 1000 giga-tonnes; some 130% of the atmospheric carbon pool) can sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year (Toggweiler, 1990).
https://www.livescience.com/65466-bomb-carbon-deepest-ocean-trenches.html
Bomb C14 Found in Ocean Deepest Trenches
‘Bomb Carbon’ from Cold War Nuclear Tests Found in the Ocean’s Deepest Trenches
Bottom feeders
Organic matter in the amphipods’ guts held carbon-14, but the carbon-14 levels in the amphipods’ bodies were much higher. Over time, a diet rich in carbon-14 likely flooded the amphipods’ tissues with bomb carbon, the scientists concluded.
Ocean circulation alone would take centuries to carry bomb carbon to the deep sea. But thanks to the ocean food chain, bomb carbon arrived at the seafloor far sooner than expected, lead study author Ning Wang, a geochemist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Guangzhou, said in a statement.
At this point one should note that the ocean is composed of more than its 75 m thick top layer and its deep, and that it indeed contains organics.
The residence time of suspended POC (particular organic carbon; carbon pool of about 1000 giga-tonnes; some 130% of the atmospheric carbon pool) in the deep sea is only 5-10 years.
This alone would consume all possible man-made CO2 from the total fossil fuel reservoir (some 7200 giga-tonnes) if burned during the next 300 years, because this covers 6 to 15 turnovers of the upper-ocean pool of POC, based on radiocarbon (carbon-14) studies (Toggweiler, 1990; Druffel & Williams, 1990; see also Jaworowski et al., 1992 a).
“There must be a undiscovered… very large source of CH4 or some other source of water and CO2”
In honor of current cosmology models, I dub these compounds respectively “dark methne”, “dark water” and “dark carbon dioxide”.
Senator Graham is inching towards alarmism, like all good globalists. But there is NO middle ground – AGW is JUNK SCIENCE on which to build an eco-totalitarian world government. PERIOD.
Sorry for shouting. but we’re still at risk of this nightmare fraud coming to pass; too few people know the real threat and that journalistic omission may do us in. Arguing over junk science is insane – we need critical mass awareness ASAP.
I swear, I have to do everything in this country.
We have two problems. 1) nuclear waste and 2) climate change.
Build a molten salt reactors at Yucca Mountain near Las Vegas. A bunch. Make them small, air cooled, and passively safe. Mildly reprocess the existing nuclear waste – anything that can get burned up in the molten salt reactor goes in, the rest goes into storage. Only need to be stored for say 200 years. Electricity generated from the first 10 reactors is given for free to the state of Nevada for sale, to compensate for hosting the reactors.
The money used to build and operate the reactors is from the federal trust fund set up for disposal of nuclear waste. So basically we get them for free. 5 years to build.
Three possible outcomes – they fail, we learn something important. They succeed – eh, we got rid of our existing waste. They really succeed, climate change problem solved – every state will start building carbon copies of them.
“If The Hill and National Review can report this story without lying, why is it that CNN can’t?”
Liars lie, it’s just what they do.
Neo, July 17 asks the right question, The rest. is all talk, write a book, jump up and down while yelling, “What do we want, we want it now””.
First back in the 1980 tees was Bob Brown of Tasmania. Now to be
fair Bob was a true “”Greenie”” all the way through. He may have later on as a Senator, especially as a “”Balance of Power” in our upper house, adopted some of the present day rubbish, but I cannot recall him back then mentioning climate or CO2. It was all about keeping the Island nice and green.
Then with the collapse of the old Soviet Union, 1991, things started to change, slowly around the World the colour Green changed, it was as many said was now just like a watermelon, Green on the outside, and very red inside.
Clearly the Western fellow travellers i.e.; Communists, who while enjoying the economic benefits of a Western Capital systems economies, still dreamt of a World Government run by them. The ideal of pure Communism.
This is what is facing us today, the Media love it, the well paid scientists fresh from our left wing universities love it, and of course the Politicians love it, it the way to scare the public, with of course the message, “”We can save you”” just as long of course as you vote for us.
We have already had a similar scenario for some 2000 years, it works, so why change it.
Where President TRUMP is the promised Red team verus the Blue team, to prove that CO2 is a good and much needed gas. That is in my opinion still the key card in the whole rotten “”House of Cards””.
MJE VK5ELL
“Section 45Q of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 — the last omnibus to pass under the GOP-controlled House — included a significant tax credit for the implementation of carbon-capture technology. In February, the bipartisan USE IT Act was again introduced by Senator John Barrasso (R., Wyo.) to expand upon the Section 45Q tax credit and further support research into CO2 utilization and direct-air-capture research.”
Oh, Lord, another Government program with eternal life and no measurable benefit other than to the wealthy few and their researchers who will promptly become dependent on this and become, yet, another bottomless pit of taxpayer dollars.
If Graham and the Republicans were serious about this, they’d be pouring research dollars into 3rd and 4th generation nuclear, maybe, even thorium, not CO2 sequestration. Not to mention, the plants and trees vote NO.
Why do I think our tax dollars are being used to make the GOP “look good” and to satisfy some current or future campaign donors? With each new Gov. subsidy or tax credit, comes a new bunch of rent-seekers to provide campaign donations to ensure the Trough is always full.
The directly measurable benefit is enabling coal-fired power plants to continue to operate economically and increasing domestic crude oil production.
The Department of Energy provided some funding for the Petra Nova CO2 EOR project…
US EIA
The initiation of CO2 injection very quickly boosted oil production in the WEST RANCH (41-A & 98-A CONS.) unit from about 100 BOPD to 3-4,000 BOPD. The August-September period was adversely affected by Hurricane Harvey.
Power plant output is relatively unchanged. The greatest demand occurs during May through September when temperatures are highest. May-Sept 2016: Avg. Temp 82 °F, total output 7,802,898 MWh. May-Sept 2017 Avg. Temp 80 °F, total output 7,655,403 MWh. Nameplate capacity is about 4,000 MW and carbon capture only affects 240 MW; so this shouldn’t be a surprise.
The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that 85 billion barrels of oil could be recovered from old oil fields through CO2 EOR. For most oilfields, CO2 EOR is uneconomic with oil prices below $80/bbl A little bit of taxpayer money spent on subsidizing carbon capture storage and utilization (CCSU) would have a much greater impact on carbon emissions than all of the taxpayers’ money p!$$ed away on wind and solar boondoggles… And it will keep coal-fired power plants running and increase domestic oil production.
If the government is going to subsidize energy production, it should subsidized things that work, rather than green schist that doesn’t work.
“The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that 85 billion barrels of oil could be recovered from old oil fields through CO2 EOR.”
That’s a lot! 🙂
Where are all the dead bodies promised 20 years ago? These people don’t know what a real crisis is. When imaginary bad things that still haven’t happened going on 20 years is a crisis, then what isn’t? The chicken nugget crisis? The toilet paper crisis? I’m so tired of this nonsense. There has to be a better way to fight this.
So it’s not only the democrats we have to worry about? I thought the republic-CANs were the good guys?
Republicans are just less bad.
There’s a > 97% consensus with kilimanjaro climbers that there’s ever min. 1 more kilimanjaro climbing is a good thing to be done.