Fox Business Host Stuart Varney – ‘Varney & Company’ – August 5, 2015
Varney asks Climate Depot publisher Marc Morano: Obama said we are currently at the “highest level of carbon for 800,000.”
Morano: “Studies have shown that 10,000+ years ago levels may have been similar levels.
If you go back further in the geologic record, we have had ice ages with carbon dioxide higher.
There is no correlation with CO2. There are hundreds of factors impacting climate. Technically Obama is correct, but it does not mean anything. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is overwhelmed by other factors and you cannot distinguish CO2’s impact from natural variability whether you are talking temperature, sea level, extreme storms. There is no climate signal when you look at that.
And there is actually a new survey showing that the alleged 97% of climate scientists who endorse Obama’s climate view drops to under 50% when they are asked if CO2 is basically the control knob for the climate. He is wrong in his implication, but he is technically right on his one fact.”
Obama claimed hottest years on record?
Morano: “No. Right now, the satellite data today shows we are at 18 years 7 months (new record length) the global warming pause has continued. When they claim a ‘hottest year’, they are talking about hundredths of a degree different between these years. The error margin is tenths of a degree. In other words, there is no way they can make the ‘hottest’ year claim scientifically. And they actually admitted it. NASA said there is only a 38% chance of the claim being accurate. The Associated Press had to actually retract these claims of 2014 being the hottest year. It’s statistical nonsense.
We have warmed up until the end of the 20th century and then it stopped since late 1990s. So any claims about it being the hottest years are based on measurements that are immeasurable. You cannot distinguish between years.
NASA’s former lead global warming scientist James Hansen came and said this plan is ‘practically worthless’ and he said ‘you’ve got to be kidding me’. Obama’s own EPA chief admitted it would have no impact on global temperature let alone impacts on global CO2 levels. It’s pure symbolism. So even if you believe Al Gore and Pres. Obama’s science views, this EPA plan would no impact both on CO2 emissions in any significant way or any possible global temperature or storminess. So they are selling us a bill of goods. Even if you believed it, this is a nonsensical plan when it comes to climate with a lot of economic pain.”
End Morano partial transcript.
Watch Now: Morano on BBC TV on Obama EPA climate regs: ‘Even if we faced a climate crisis, these regs would have no impact. It’s pure symbolism’ – BBC World News – August 3, 2015 – Climate Depot Publisher Marc Morano – Selected Highlights of Morano’s comments: “Even if we faced a climate crisis, these regulations would have no impact. It’s pure symbolism. Its going to have a huge economic impact, jobs impact and no climate impact. Even warmists’ are saying this is not going to have any impact, that Obama way off base (and not being ambitious enough.)
‘The number is so small as to be undetectable’ – Pure Symbolism – EPA Climate Regs Avert 0.018°C Temperature Rise – That’s ‘less than two one-hundredths of a degree C’ – We’re not even sure how to put such a small number into practical terms, because, basically, the number is so small as to be undetectable.’
Fmr. NASA Scientist James Hansen: Obama’s climate policy is ‘practically worthless’ – ‘You’ve got to be kidding’ – Hansen on Obama EPA climate regs: ‘The actions are practically worthless. They do nothing to attack the fundamental problem.’ “You’ve got to be kidding,” Hansen wrote, when asked if the plan would make continued climate activism unnecessary. Obama’s plan, and for that matter the proposed plan Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, he continued, “is like the fellow who walks to work instead of driving, and thinks he is saving the world.”
Chip Knappenberger on CNN: Obama plan’s ‘impact on climate turns out to be largely undetectable and the public health benefits tenuous, at best’ – ‘The human health benefits of the President’s plan do not largely stem from the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. After all, carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas that is not dangerous to breathe. Instead, they are to come from the “co-benefits” of reducing some forms of air pollution that are emitted when fossil fuels are burned. But these by-product emissions are already subject to existing regulations and are being double-counted by the President. Further, direct health impacts from climate change are difficult to pin down — and ethereal — as adaptive measures can more than erase them.’
Key Points: ‘Report shows that the plan would close 48% of all coal-fired plants in the country.’
This plan is “regulation without representation.”
‘The president’s rules would usurp the traditional role of states in managing their own electrical generation and saddle the economy with enormous costs while empowering the EPA to control vast swaths of the American economy.’
‘Coal-fired power will be the first to be shot, but the EPA is targeting all sources of carbon energy.’
Climate Scientists Rip Apart EPA’s Global Warming Rule – “Well the one thing you don’t hear President [Barack] Obama mention is how much his proposed emissions reductions will reduce global warming,” wrote Dr. Judith Curry, a climatologist at Georgia Tech. “It has been estimated that the U.S. [climate plan] of 28% emissions reduction by 2025 will prevent 0.03 [degrees Celsius] in warming by 2100.” “And these estimates assume that climate model projections are correct,” Curry wrote, “if the climate models are over-sensitive to CO2, the amount of warming prevented will be even smaller.”
Watch Now: Prof. Ross McKitrick on Obama EPA regs: The health claims ‘are groundless’ – ‘Carbon dioxide is not a factor in smog or lung issues’ – Rips Obama for deceptive language: ‘Instead of calling it carbon dioxide, we are just going to call it ‘carbon pollution’
McKitrick on Sun News on June 2, 2014 – McKitrick on Air Pollution: The models get ‘more deaths from air pollution than you were death from all causes’- ‘Particulates and soot are at such low levels in the U.S. — levels well below what they were in the 1970s. The health claims at this point are groundless coming from this administration. I noticed these numbers coming up for Ontario for how many deaths were caused by air pollution. What struck me — was knowing that air pollution levels were very low in Ontario — but they were extremely high in 1960s. So I took the same model and fed in the 1960s air pollution levels into it: How many deaths would you get? I did the calculations and you quickly get more deaths from air pollution than you were death from all causes. In other words, the streets would have been littered with bodies from air pollution if it was actually that lethal. The problem with all of these models is they are not based on an actual examination of death certificates or looking at what people actually died of — these are just statistical models where people have a spreadsheet and they take in an air pollution level and it pops out a number of deaths. But there are no actual bodies there, it is all just extrapolation.’
Obama Moves To Regulate CO2 From Airplanes – First tailpipes, then power plants and now airplanes. The Obama administration announced another major effort to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from airplanes after the Environmental Protection Agency linked airliners to global warming. The EPA issued a proposal Wednesday declaring that CO2 from airliners threatens public health because it contributes to global warming. The agency says it’s doing this in conjunction with an international effort to bring the airline industry under global carbon dioxide standards for commercial jets.
Obama Harvard Law School Prof Lawrence Tribe on EPA Climate Regs: ‘BURNING THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE PART OF OUR NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY’ – Laurence Tribe, a liberal constitutional scholar at Harvard University: “EPA possesses only the authority granted to it by Congress,” Tribe told lawmakers in a hearing Tuesday. “Its gambit here raises serious questions under the separation of powers… because EPA is attempting to exercise lawmaking power that belongs to Congress and judicial power that belongs to the federal courts.”
The term ‘carbon pollution’ is unscientific and misleading: ‘Phrase conflates carbon dioxide with noxious chemicals like carbon monoxide and black carbon’ – ‘The phrase ‘carbon pollution’ is scientifically inaccurate because there are more than ten million different carbon compounds, and the word ‘carbon’ could refer to any of them. Some of the more notorious of these compounds are highly poisonous, such as carbon monoxide (a deadly gas) and black carbon (the primary ingredient of cancerous and mutagenic soot). Using a phrase that does not distinguish between such drastically different substances is a sure way to misinform people.’
EPA regulations on CO2 will accomplish nothing for climate or public health: Obama using ‘diversionary tactic to conflate CO2 with the actual ‘carbon pollution’ of atmospheric particulate matter, to deflect criticism from Obama’s draconian CO2 proposals’
Warmists: ‘Obama Wants You to Think His Climate Plan Is Bold. It’s Not.’ – By Eric Holthaus – Vox’s Brad Plumer has calculated that the president’s rule would shave just 6 percent from U.S. carbon emissions by 2030. Climate science and international equitydemand the U.S. cut emissions 80 percent by then. We’re nowhere near that pace. Still, this plan is not nothing. In its coverage, the Times includes this hopeful gem: But experts say that if the rules are combined with similar action from the world’s other major economies, as well as additional action by the next American president, emissions could level off enough to prevent the worst effects of climate change. That’s a lot of hedging on which to base a climate legacy. In fact, when compared with the climate plans of his would-be successors on the left—Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley—Obama ranks last in terms of ambition. Clinton, who has frequently aligned herself with the president on climate, announced a preview of her own climate plan last week. It’s fractionally more ambitious than Obama’s, but it essentially just kicks the can forward another few years.
Watch: Morano on Fox on new Fed fracking regs: ‘They are going after the foundation of fracking’s success’ – Watch Video here: Fox Business ‘Varney & Co.’ w/ Stuart Varney – March 20, 2015 – ‘Will new fracking regulations kill the industry?’ (See: Obama Admin Imposes New Regulations On Fracking) – Morano selected excerpts: It’s the first step to the death of a thousand cuts, and this is probably the first 200 or 300 blades being introduced by the federal government — but it’s not going to kill fracking now. This will impose a one size fits all federal government solution.
They are going after the foundation of fracking’s success. Obama is already taking out coal, they’ve stopped keystone pipeline, they are preventing oil drilling in places like Alaska. What’s left? Fracking. Solar is .23% of our electricity (EIA 2013), wind power is barely over 4% and their implication is they will replace carbon based fuels with solar and wind.
Morano: ‘It’s the agenda here: John Holdren said in 1970s that energy that is too cheap is one of the greatest hazards to society and the more we get away from energy, the more jobs we will have. (See: Flashback 1975: Obama Science Czar John Holdren warned U.S. ‘threatened’ by ‘the hazards of too much energy’ – Holdren: ‘Less energy can mean more employment.’)
The Energy Sec. Moniz has said he wants to make ‘dirty fuels’ three times more expensive. This is the first step towards that. (See: Obama Energy Dept. nominee favors TRIPLING the cost of fossil fuels – Energy Nominee Moniz: We Need Carbon Price To Double Or Triple Cost Of Dirty Energy)
Look to Europe to see America’s Energy Future: