The Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) was released last week by the US Government. It was reported by some newspapers that the Report had received the approval of the White House for its release. If so, this would appear to rule out inattention by the Trump Administration as the reason for the approval, especially given the publicity concerning the Draft Report by the mainstream media some months ago.
The obvious question is why the Administration apparently approved a Report that is not consistent with sound science and with pre-election statements by the President concerning the validity of climate science. One possibility is that they are currently trying to avoid taking a public stand on the scientific validity of climate alarmism, which they may have feared that they would have had to do if they had chosen to turn down the Report.
There are other things they could have done, of course, like issuing the Report with a statement that it does not necessarily represent US Government policy. The unfortunate result, however, is that the climate alarmists can point to the alleged approval as Trump Administration approval for the views expressed in the Report. Given the scientific invalidity of these views, the Administration may pay a heavy price for this action in terms of later attempts to disown climate alarmism.
Apparent Attempt by Administration to Avoid Passing Judgment on the Scientific Merits of Climate Alarmism
The Administration’s justification for its climate policy decisions is that the Obama Administration decisions on climate policy are not a “good deal” for the US and do not conform to the Trump Administration’s interpretation of existing laws. The decision to exit the Paris Accord, for example, was justified based on the former argument, while the exit from the Clean Power Plan was based primarily on the latter. If all environmental decisions are based on such non-scientific issues, which strongly echo some of Trump’s major campaign promises, we may never learn what the Administration’s preferred climate policy actually is. They may continue to claim that their climate policy awaits careful review and a debate that they never manage to hold or proves to be inconclusive or, most likely, results in a bitter disagreement.
I fail to see why the Administration may be taking this agnostic view on climate alarmism. Do they seriously think that this approach will result in greater support from climate alarmists? This seems doubtful given the adverse views of the Trump Administration prior to the election. It is reported by the press that Al Gore has given up trying to get Trump to support climate alarmism, so why continue the fiction that the Administration is undecided to avoid criticism from the alarmists? Or maybe the Administration is really agnostic concerning climate alarmism despite Trump’s pre-election statements and is really awaiting some sort of red/blue team confrontation before determining its climate policy. Again, more than doubtful. The alleged successful use of red/blue have primarily involved groups of bureaucrats who have some incentives to show some measure of cooperation and positive attitudes. Will the Administration really be more enlightened by what is likely to be a strongly confrontational shouting match led by a former Obama Administration official with little in depth knowledge of the issue. And given the vast material that has been generated by the climate debate, such a debate might well require years or even the rest of Trump’s term in office.
The Administration Made a Serious Mistake in Apparently Approving the Report without Qualifications
My view of the alleged White House decision to approve the Report is that it was a very unfortunate decision with possibly serious consequences for the Trump Administration’s climate policies.
Continued Lack of Action on the Endangerment Finding
Unfortunately, the Trump Administration has still not announced any action to withdraw or even reconsider the Obama Administration’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding (EF). As long as it stands, the Administration has little legal grounds for removing climate regulations that are consistent with the EF and are also consistent with existing law and the Constitution. The very likely result will be that the Obama Administration’s climate regulations (or worse) will be resurrected just as soon as the Democratic Party wins a Presidential election. For all the reasons discussed in my book and on this blog this would be a major adverse outcome for the US economy, the integrity of science, and rationality. In order to solve this strange policy situation, the Administration will either have to greatly cut short their proposed review of climate science or live with the adverse results of further delaying a decision on EF reconsideration.
Why the CSSR Is Based on Unsound Science
You may ask why I characterize the CSSR as being based on unsound science. This reflects my arguments summarized two weeks ago that alarmists have never really addressed at least six crucial scientific assumptions used by climate alarmists, as explained at that time with supporting links. As explained then the CSSR assumes that it is valid to use bottom up climate modelling, ignores the opposite results obtained by using a top down approach, ignores the likelihood that significant atmospheric warming is impossible due to the heat dissipation of many emergent climate phenomena which appear to have the effect of dissipating heat, especially near tropical oceanic areas, fails to address how the alleged warming effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels overcome such heat dissipation emergent phenomena, fails to address why the global warming hypothesis fails to satisfy the critical requirement that it satisfy the scientific method, and fails many comparisons between catastrophic anthropogenic global warming and observations.
The failure of alarmists to satisfactorily address even one of these problems is enough to raise serious questions about climate alarmism as a valid scientific hypothesis. The failure to examine all six broad areas is devastating and more than enough to invalidate the CSSR Report as valid science. Briefly, I find it incomprehensible that the Trump Administration apparently approved the Report. Continuing to ignore the scientific issues underlying climate alarmism can only make it more difficult to avoid the threats posed by climate alarmism to the US economy, which the Trump Administration has promised to make “great again.”
The first international environmental agreement was reputedly to protect the earths ozone layer against ozone depleting chemicals. This was the MontreaL Protocol and may have been signed by the USA. Uncertain science was used to justify attacking chemicals.
Another UN agreement pertains to carbon. It is associated with Stockholm and addresses carbon containing substances that are tarred as persistent organic pollutants (pops). The USA did not sign onto that one. Fatuous nonsense.
The Paris agreement about climate is in this multinational tradition. Between depleting ozone and persisting and changing climate, environmentalists can attack useful molecules several times over.
The US signed the first, stayed on the sidelines with the second, and is en route out of the latest shenanigans. This is a positive trend of steering clear of virtue signaling UN Eco silliness. If a UN endeavor has no merit, the US best contributes by staying out. The Trump administration has done a great job of publically spurning the Paris agreement.
Perhaps because the endangerment finding still exists but the us is steering clear of Paris, left wing US politicians find themselves in a tricky spot. They must feel obliged to support statewide programs against fossil fuel use, thereby raising energy costs. This sets up a statewide contrast between those who raise taxes versus those who would not. The latter offers more popular appeal.
Now Northam was recently elected governor in Virginia, there was a news report Virginia will be instituting some kind of cap and trade greenhouse gas emission reduction scheme. This illustrates how climate schemes can be part and parcel of state politics. That’s a positive. Let each State decide its own climate policies.
In a state under Republican control, policy makers are free to choose to review climate science and to repudiate the Federal endangerment finding as based on weak science. State decision making could offer a policy pathway alternative in lieu of the trump administration reviewing the science on behalf of 50 states. Instead let each of the 50 States decide climate policy for itself, as has Virginia.
Another trenchant analysis, Dr. Carlin.
My guess is the reason for release of the report is legalistic. A report may have been required by a law, so was released. It’s an open secret the President and Administrator Pruitt are themselves skeptics. Their opinions won’t change just because bureaucrats issue a defective report.
Will the administration decide to convene a policy review? My guess is they will. When and how remains to be learned.
Right now the agenda is led by tax reform. Climate change science may be a distraction at present. The President can choose to commission a science policy review at any time that suits him, so it’s a money in the bank asset that can be used to suit him. Or the administration may become obliged to do a deal with democrats and bargain away climate science for something the President wants. My crystal ball is as imperfect as a climate forecast.
All we can each accomplish in life is what is within our personal control. You have achieved something astounding. You have contributed wonderfully to a persuasive refutation of alarmism, based on grounds of earth sciences. This represents a powerful case without expiration date. It can be used by policy makers in any country or state, to the end of time. Overall, the case for skepticism seems in a strongly favorable strategic position.