The Climate-Industrial Complex (CIC) has taken umbrage over the Trump Administration’s proposal for a Presidential Commission on Climate Security (PCCS) within the National Security Council (NSC). It is to be headed by a distinguished physicist, Dr. William Happer, to examine the effects of climate change on national security. The proposed Commission would examine the causes of current climate change, and its purported impacts on national security. Such an independent review has been badly needed for many decades, but has been difficult until Trump came into office given the unwillingness of previous administrations to appear to even question “consensus” climate science.
A Much Broader Independent Reconsideration Is Needed
Unfortunately, the Commission is expected to review only the effects on national security. What is even more needed is a much broader review of the EPA greenhouse gas Endangerment Finding (EF) of 2009, the basis for most US EPA proposals for regulating emissions of carbon dioxide. The CIC would be likely to be even more outraged if the EPA decided to reexamine the EF. Rumor has it that an earlier version of an independent climate change scientific review (nick-named red-blue) was vetoed by General John Kelley several years ago, allegedly because it might be too controversial.
The CIC maintains that the United Nations and the US has already carried out a series of scientific assessments of the “consensus” climate science. As described in my book, Environmentalism Gone Mad, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports are an attempt to examine the causes and consequences of human emissions of greenhouse gases, not carry out an independent assessment of all the possible causes of climate change. Some “democratic socialists” have proposed spending about half of US gross national product on reducing climate change over the next ten years. The US EPA EF is based on the UN IPCC reports, So no new assessment there.
The Trump Administration Has Been Unwilling to Undertake the Needed Reassessment to Date But Needs to Undertake a Broader One Now
The Trump Administration has so far been unwilling to initiate an independent scientific review of all causes of climate change. If the proposed NSC effort goes forward, it would be the first independent, serious US Government effort. I hope so. It is badly needed. But if the Democrats are going to make climate the main issue or even a major issue in the 2020 presidential election, Trump would have been better advised to use the vast apparatus of the Federal Government to raise a thoughtful and cohesive consideration of all causes of climate change from very early in his Administration since it will take considerable time to prepare such a careful review. Without such an effort, Trump will be in a much weaker position when the 2020 election campaign starts getting serious. Last week Trump referred to the climate “consensus” as “fake science” in a Twitter message, but he will need more than a single Twitter message to alter the public perception of climate science. And without a reconsideration of the EF most of EPA’s efforts to scale back their climate change regulations will be of little use should a pro-“consensus” administration come into power. This makes no possible sense since the net result would be that the effect of the expenditures proposed by the “Democratic socialists” if implemented would not be measurable. But no neutral US Government study has really ever examined all causes of climate change despite the enormous costs already incurred within recent decades and now being proposed in the next decade. Many voters have never even heard that there is a vigorous debate on climate science. There is and has been for many years, as long described on this blog and elsewhere.
Politicians of all stripes try to avoid controversial issues in fear of losing votes, but in this case Trump would have been much better off to develop a comprehensive assessment of climate change from its first day in office. Ideally this would have been as part of a reevaluation of the EF, since that is the issue that will really determine what the US EPA ultimately does. There are differences between the climate views of various skeptics, but a reassessment of part of the problem is better than no reassessment, so should be supported, but much more will be needed prior to the 2020 election. It is very late to undertake a more comprehensive independent assessment with emphasis on the EF during the current Trump Administration, but better late than never.
The socialist primaries look to be a remarkable horse race of bad ideas and candidates.
I wonder if this can hurt climate change by turning the cause into an even bigger farce? The threat always 10 years in the future but that never arrives, even after decades.
Al Gore acted serious andresponsible. Mad Jim Hansen is nuttier than captain queeg, but one mad scientist is not too bad to have on board your cause. Fortunately for the Left, Obama and Hillary were only two candidates in 2008. Hillary and sAnders only 2 main candidates again in 2016. They could maintain some decorum. However now there are 15 or more candidates babbling away.
how is any cause helped when chsmpioned by Alexandria Cruz?
Beto ORourke is the worst candidate I have ever seen. Spastic hands. Airhead. Contradicts himself. Apologizes around the clock. When Beto touts climate change, how can that help the cause?
Governor Inslee has no other cause.
Harris, sAnders, Spartacus booker are on board. Children are boycotting schools. It’s the fad du jour after three decades of nothin happening but hype. No cause premised on future fear can last forever.
The bevy of lousy candidates hurts the gravity of their fear mongering.
Many Americans realize the utter falsity of Fake News socialist reporters after 3 years of mud slinging at Trump on every topic, not just climate.
This overall context of news media crazy lies is a useful precondition for Trump now empowering Happer to convene a science review about climate. The science review can serve to educate the public and to reveal the leftist reliance on fictional narratives to supplant reason, realism, and science. The Socialists have disrespected Science and silenced many universities with sicko political correctness.
The times seem right for a climate science review by professor Happer.
Since advent of the USEpA, Trump seems the first President to doubt the divine inspiration of the science underpinning its spawned regulations.
This makes him laudable, especially in relation to George Herbert walker Bush and George Dubya Bush. Mad Jim Hansen was treated with deference during Dubya’s era. As with many other difficult problems, climate change has festered and been left to President Trump to clean up.
I will defend the President on this one.
A national security context seems apt. China is building missiles of enormous speed and range. Nuclear weapon proliferation and terrorism is another sobering threat. Compared to these appalling threats, the climate forecasts of the United Nations and Obama are implausible and trivial fantasies. A NSC housed commission can examine the climate risk in relation to appalling risks in the real world and helpfully shed light on CO2 and it’s hysterically exaggerated risk..
This will prepare for a campaignin 2020. Trump will go into the election with a record of withdrawing from a bad UN agreement and of reviewing the science. Voters will have a starkly clear choice. Open borders and climate folly versus a pro America agenda.
If Trump beats the socialists again in 2020, he can discard the Obama era finding later. the President is dealing with climate alarmism in a measured way.
If he loses in 2020, the socialists can reinstitute their climate agenda in 2021. If so, little would be gained in repealing the endangerment finding during 2019. The President is playing a longer game.
In 2018, an energized Left retook the House of Representatives. Their uptick owed to suburban voters, more prone to vote against the President on shallow grounds like style.
For 2020, Trump can emphasize economic stewardship and reviewing the science of climate alarmism. That seems enough.
No prior President has challenged virtue signaling environmentalism as boldly yet also as smartly. Gone now is Pruitts initial frenetic negativism about the Federal government, replaced by Wheelers calm manner. Administrator Wheeler enunciated a Federal program for PfOS, Teflon molecules. These are a public concern in the election important state of Michigan. for 2020, trump needs to tack to the middle, while the democrats go crazy socialist.
By launching a review by professor Happer, trump aims to defend his climate skepticism with science and good sense. This is a wise balance based on political realism about 2020.