CBS News: How come environmental causes — climate change, specifically — have not been brought to the forefront of political debate this year? Domestic, international, and economic issues are at the center, but we really aren’t talking about the environment this cycle. Why is that?
Well, first of all, I’m not telling anyone who to vote for. In my opinion, it’s all due to who I call “the deniers.” The deniers have been very successful — surprisingly successful — because they are almost exclusively funded by the fossil fuel industry. So this whole anti-science movement has been set up to preserve an economy that is going away. The rest of the world is moving away from fossil fuels in order to do business, but not the United States. You know, I, as an engineer, as a citizen by birth, as a patriot — I would prefer that the United States was leading the world in renewable energy. I’d prefer the United States to be leading, but the deniers have been able to influence the power brokers so successfully. The United States has hardly done anything to counteract that. The U.S. has just scratched the surface.
Depending on whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton wins the election, how do you see this changing? Will it change?
If the election goes to the candidate who is in favor of addressing climate change and preserving the environment it will move in one way, but if it goes the other way, it will be very difficult — it will lower the quality of life for billions of people. Unites States has to be a world leader when it comes to the environment.…
The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration jointly issued a new regulation last week that is meant to help protect the world from “climate change” by limiting “greenhouse gas emissions” and improving fuel efficiency in medium- and heavy-duty vehicles operated in the United States.
A “regulatory impact analysis” published by EPA and NHTSA estimates the regulation will add an average of as much as $13,749 to the cost of a tractor truck and $1,370 to a trailer, making some tractor-trailer combinations $15,119 more expensive in 2027 than they would be under current regulations.
While admitting that the regulation will increase the cost of trucks and the other vehicles it effects, the administration argues that the owners of these vehicles will actually save money by using less fuel and that the regulation “will result in up to $230 billion in net benefits to society.”
These “net benefits to society” include what the administration calls “health benefits” and “energy security benefits.”…
But is man-made global warming to blame? Climatologists Patrick Michaels and Paul Knappenberger point to two recent studies that indicate not.
In one study, two researchers at the University of Iowa specializing in hydroscience and engineeringconclude that “over the last 65 years, the stronger storms are not getting stronger, but a larger number of heavy precipitation events have been observed.”
The larger number of precipitation events, however, were not a result of burning of conventional resources of energy such as coal, oil, and natural gas. The study finds that “the climate variability of both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans can exert a large control on the precipitation frequency and magnitude over the contiguous USA.”
In other words, changes in the ocean are the reason for these increases in precipitation.
Another study, published by the American Meteorological Society, analyzes model projections and actual observed trends in heavy precipitation throughout the U.S.
The lead author is Karin van der Wiel of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. Van der Wiel and her team concluded “no evidence was found for changes in extreme precipitation attributable to climate change in the available observed record.”
Knappenberger also points to a NOAA study from June 1978, when the media and climate concern centered on the next ice age and global cooling. As heputs it: “Lower Louisiana is a climatologically prime location for massive precipitation amounts.”
What about globally? After all, man-made warming is supposed to be about global warming, right?
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found evidence for increases, decreases, and no trend at all in flood activity or severity. The report says:
In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.
Trends in local events, such as hail and thunderstorms, were also inconclusive.
So whatever your theory on climate change and floods is, the U.N.’s climate change panel has studies to back you up—which suggests a lot of uncertainty in the field.
Here’s the real kicker, though: Even if it were definitively conclusive that man-made carbon dioxide emissions contributed directly to more intense and more frequent storms, the Obama administration’s regulatory climate agenda would be a costly nonsolution…
Americans in their 20s and 30s could lose trillions of dollars in potential lifetime earnings as climate change disrupts the global economy and weakens U.S. productivity, according to a new report by NextGen Climate said.
If countries fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit the amount and pace of global warming, a 21-year-old college graduate today could lose $126,000 in lifetime wages and $187,000 in long-term savings and investments, the report found.
This would outrank the lost income due to student debt or wage stagnation.
As an entire generation, U.S. millennials — all75.4 million of them — could lose nearly $8.8 trillion in lifetime income without climate action, NextGen said. Those losses could keep climbing for the children of millennials and beyond.
“Global warming may very well be the biggest threat over the lifetime of a single generation,” Tom Steyer, the billionaire liberal climate activist and founding president of NextGen, told reporters Monday on a press call.
According to emeritus ProfessorMichael Hart, who has just published a book, Hubris: The troubling #Science, economics, and politics of climate change, that shouldn’t come as a surprise. Why? Because climate changedogma has been turned into a grant-making gravy train that rewards the hysteria while starving out the doubters. The more Hart researched the global warming phenomenon, he quickly learned how the new regulations rolled out by the Obama administration and the United Nations are all backed up by shoddy science.
The renowned Canadian professor says this regulatory agenda relies on people pushing ahead the murky science of climate change to further an environmentalagenda. Hart says that to understand this global movement, people need to realize the climate is a “complex, chaotic, non-linear system” that can’t be duplicated in a computer program.
Hart says our climate is affected by a variety of forces: the sun, our planet’s orbit, ocean oscillations and heat uptake, plus hundreds of other variables more important than the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2). He notes the alarmists have taken the trace gas CO2 and convinced much of the world it is the primary driver of the climate. It isn’t.
While Hart concedes that an increase in CO2 can lead to some warming, the extent of that warming within our complex climate is “highly exaggerated.” He says the best evidence for this was the well-documented lack of warming at the end of the twentieth century, which was within historical bounds. He also points out the first 15 years of the twenty-first century showed a global warming pause until a strong El Nino presented itself. Temps …
“I do believe that climate change is occurring,” Johnson said. “I do believe that it is man-caused” and “that there can be and is a free-market approach to climate change.”
Johnson’s “free market” approach to global warming includes “a fee — not a tax, he said — placed on carbon” to make those who emit the greenhouse gas pay the supposed cost of their actions, according to the Juneau