Climate Ideology

Pledging Climate Fidelity

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Climate change/global warmers believers are swearing oaths and taking pledges to show fidelity to the UN IPCC and Paris accord.  The ceremony goes by the name We Are Still In.  Adherents sign this document:

Open letter to the international community and parties to the Paris Agreement from U.S. state, local, and business leaders (Full text here)

The creed asserts the following:

Fighting climate change brings significant economic and public health benefits, but
No mention of trillions of someone’s dollars to be spent
Ignores research showing warming saves lives.

Paris accord will avoid the most dangerous and costly effects of climate change, but
If all nations comply, it could mean only 0.2C less warming by 2100.

The U.S. will remain a global leader in reducing emissions, but
Presumes killing the economy as in last recession
Fails to credit fracking revolution
Exported energy emissions are charged to others.

The global effort will hold warming to well below 2℃, but
Up to 2℃ is net beneficial
Achieving NDCs, especially China’s and India’s won’t bend the curve.

The transition to a clean energy economy will accelerate, but
Renewables are not low-carbon, are costly and unreliable.

The following statement was released today by the presidents of 12 major U.S. research universities, commonly referred to as the “Ivy-Plus” group. (Full text here)

Affirmation of leading research universities’ commitment to progress on climate change 

The climate is changing largely due to human activity, but
No one has yet proven how much warming humans cause.

The imperative of a low carbon future is increasingly urgent, but
All metrics show climate variations are within normal ranges.

The consequences of climate change are accelerating, but
Statistical measures of changes to natural conditions are not accelerating.

Research will advance evidence-based understanding of the causes and effects of climate change on the environment, the economy and public health, and develop solutions, but
Presently our knowledge of the climate system does not allow us to predict its behavior.

Summary

The last point is the only difference between the “Wearestillin” crowd and the “Ivy-Plus”.  The latter leaves the door open to actually study how the climate changes naturally, that is, to gain knowledge how internal natural processes cause multi-decadal effects upon temperature and precipitation.  So far the IPCC has willfully stayed ignorant of that need to know.

 

Inside a True Believer’s Mind

Posted on by Ron Clutz

true-believer

At Slate Susan Matthews writes Bret Stephens’ First Column for the New York Times Is Classic Climate Change Denialism  It doesn’t outright reject the facts—which makes it all the more insidious.

Key Paragraphs (my bolding for emphasis)

But in reality, the goal of this column is not to help readers learn how to reason with people who are skeptical about climate change. Instead, the column reinforces the idea that those people might have a point. The New York Times push notification that went out Friday afternoon about the column said as much—“reasonable people can be skeptical about the dangers of climate change,” it read. That is not actually true, and nothing that Stephens writes makes a case for why it might be true. This column is not a lesson for people who want to advance good climate policy. Instead, it is a dog whistle to people who feel confused about climate change. It’s nothing more than textbook denialism.

The institutions Stephens questions in his column are not singular entities but entire ideas—scientists who may not see their biases, statistical models that might be skewed, liberals who may be so swayed by their ideology. His argument is convincing because the institutions he mentions can make mistakes. It’s true, there are some problems with how we use probabilities in science. We tend to be bad at distinguishing between correlation and causation. Sometimes our biases do get in the way. Stephens knows this, and he taps into it in his piece. “Much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities,” he suggests. You have to be an idiot or a zealot to believe climate change is certain, whispers the subtext.

The Credo

Regardless of what Stephens says in this column, and regardless of Clinton’s modeling failures, climate change is a terrible threat to life as we know it on this planet. Anyone who wants to honestly investigate the data will come to the same conclusion that the scientific establishment has—climate change is real, and dangerous. Our failures elsewhere—even in the disturbing wake of the election of Donald J. Trump—do not negate that. The questions are no longer whether and how but how soon and how bad. Climate change is happening, and “claiming total certainty about the science” does not “traduce the spirit of science.” Instead, it is a reasonable interpretation of the science at hand.

Don’t Give an Inch

What he is suggesting here is that the rational way to go forward with a conversation about climate change is to admit that climate change might not be certain. This is similar to the torturous logic he puts forward throughout the rest of the piece—the only way to be reasonable about this topic is to give in to those who are unreasonable about it. While he calmly insists he is the only logical person around, he is spewing complete bullshit.

Stephens article itself is excerpted at  NYT Opens Climate Can of Worms

KISS for Climate Marchers

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Keeping it simple, here’s the elevator speech for climate marchers, excerpted from a more lengthy article linked below.

Expect more craziness this weekend. Earth Day is Saturday. This year’s theme: Government must “do more” about climate change because “consequences of inaction are too high to risk.”

They make it sound so simple:

1) Man causes global warming.

2) Warming is obviously harmful.

3) Government can stop it.

Each claim is dubious or wrong.

1) Man’s greenhouse gases contribute to warming, but scientists don’t agree on how much. Of 117 climate models from the 1990s, 114 overpredicted warming.

2) Warming is harmful. Maybe.

But so far it’s been good: Over the last century, climates warmed, but climate-related deaths dropped. Since 1933, they fell by 98 percent. Life expectancy doubled.

Much of that is thanks to prosperity created by free markets. But some is due to warming. Cold kills more people than heat.

Carbon dioxide is also good for crop growth. Even The New York Times admits, “Plants have been growing at a rate far faster than at any other time in the last 54,000 years.”

3) Nothing we do today will stop global warming. The Obama regulations that Trump recently repealed, horrifying the Earth Day crowd, had a goal that amounted to a mere 1 percent reduction in global CO2. And that was just the goal.

Of course, some think any cut is better than nothing. But cuts are costly. They kill jobs, opportunity. All to accomplish… nothing the earth will notice.

If warming does become a problem, we’re better off if our economy is very strong when the science tells us clearly that action will make a difference.

We should be especially wary of expensive government projects given how often alarmists were wrong in the past.

The alarmists claim they’re marching for “science,” but they’re really marching for a left-wing religion.  Instead we should celebrate human progress and our ability to use energy to improve everyone’s quality of life.

Excerpts from Earth Day Dopes By John Stossel April 19, 2017

Background info: Data, Facts and Information

 

 

NYT Readers Face Diversity

Posted on by Ron Clutz

 

Imaginary Enemies

A lot of fuss is in the media about the New York Times hiring Bret Stephens from the Washington Post. Stephens won the 2013 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is regarded as a conservative, and has written critically about Trump, as well as liberals. In particular he has poked fun repeatedly at the climatism hysteria. For this latter point, the climate faithful are up in arms about the prospect of Stephens columns appearing on pages of NYT (a kind of bible for liberals and environmentalists).

For sure Bret Stephens is as outspoken as Mark Steyn, but with his own preoccupations and style. To see what might be in store for NYT readers, let’s look at some excerpts of his commentary regarding global warming/climate change. Note: Washington Post has a paywall, so links to these articles go to blogsites where the full text is available.

In 2014 Stephens published Climate Prophets and Profiteers, which gives an idea where he is coming from.

It is now the dogma of the left that any hint of doubt when it comes to predictions of climate doom is evidence of greed, stupidity, moral turpitude or psychological derangement. “Climate denial” is intended to be the equivalent of Holocaust denial. And yet the only people who’ve predicted anything right so far are those who foresaw that the Kyoto Protocol would fail, that renewable energies didn’t really work, and that climate bureaucrats accountable to nobody but their own sense of virtue and taste for profit were a danger to everyone.

Rereading Mr. Kerry’s speech, I have to say he really does come across as a true believer. That it begins by citing Maurice Strong, the ultimate cynic, tells you what you need to know about where this strain of true belief leads.

On Climate Religion

In a November 2011 column The great global warming fizzle, Stephens described ‘the case of global warming’ as a ‘system of doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen’ that, like religion, ‘is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.’

Consider the case of global warming, another system of doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen.

As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term “climate change” when thermometers don’t oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other “deniers.” And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.

This week, the conclave of global warming’s cardinals are meeting in Durban, South Africa, for their 17th conference in as many years. The idea is to come up with a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire next year, and to require rich countries to pony up $100 billion a year to help poor countries cope with the alleged effects of climate change. This is said to be essential because in 2017 global warming becomes “catastrophic and irreversible,” according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency. (my bold)

Yet a funny thing happened on the way to the climate apocalypse. Namely, the financial apocalypse.

All this has been enough to put the Durban political agenda on hold for the time being. But religions don’t die, and often thrive, when put to the political sidelines. A religion, when not physically extinguished, only dies when it loses faith in itself.

On Climategate Emails

That’s where the Climategate emails come in. First released on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit two years ago and recently updated by a fresh batch, the “hide the decline” emails were an endless source of fun and lurid fascination for those of us who had never been convinced by the global-warming thesis in the first place.

But the real reason they mattered is that they introduced a note of caution into an enterprise whose motivating appeal resided in its increasingly frantic forecasts of catastrophe. Papers were withdrawn; source material re-examined. The Himalayan glaciers, it turned out, weren’t going to melt in 30 years. Nobody can say for sure how high the seas are likely to rise—if much at all. Greenland isn’t turning green. Florida isn’t going anywhere.

The reply global warming alarmists have made to these dislosures is that they did nothing to change the underlying science, and only improved it in particulars. So what to make of the U.N.’s latest supposedly authoritative report on extreme weather events, which is tinged with admissions of doubt and uncertainty? Oddly, the report has left climate activists stuttering with rage at what they call its “watered down” predictions. If nothing else, they understand that any belief system, particularly ones as young as global warming, cannot easily survive more than a few ounces of self-doubt.

Meanwhile, the world marches on. On Sunday, 2,232 days will have elapsed since a category 3 hurricane made landfall in the U.S., the longest period in more than a century that the U.S. has been spared a devastating storm. Great religions are wise enough to avoid marking down the exact date when the world comes to an end. Not so for the foolish religions. Expect Mayan cosmology to take a hit to its reputation when the world doesn’t end on Dec. 21, 2012. Expect likewise when global warming turns out to be neither catastrophic nor irreversible come 2017.

And there is this: Religions are sustained in the long run by the consolations of their teachings and the charisma of their leaders. With global warming, we have a religion whose leaders are prone to spasms of anger and whose followers are beginning to twitch with boredom. Perhaps that’s another way religions die.

Climate Crisis as a Liberal Imaginary Enemy

Stephens fully disclosed his views at the time of Paris COP in Liberalism’s Imaginary Enemies In Paris, it’s easier to battle a climate crisis than confront jihadists on the streets.

Little children have imaginary friends. Modern liberalism has imaginary enemies.

Hunger in America is an imaginary enemy. Liberal advocacy groups routinely claim that one in seven Americans is hungry—in a country where the poorest counties have the highest rates of obesity. The statistic is a preposterous extrapolation from a dubious Agriculture Department measure of “food insecurity.” But the line gives those advocacy groups a reason to exist while feeding the liberal narrative of America as a savage society of haves and have nots.

The campus-rape epidemic—in which one in five female college students is said to be the victim of sexual assault—is an imaginary enemy. Never mind the debunked rape scandals at Duke and the University of Virginia, or the soon-to-be-debunked case at the heart of “The Hunting Ground,” a documentary about an alleged sexual assault at Harvard Law School. The real question is: If modern campuses were really zones of mass predation—Congo on the quad—why would intelligent young women even think of attending a coeducational school? They do because there is no epidemic. But the campus-rape narrative sustains liberal fictions of a never-ending war on women.

Institutionalized racism is an imaginary enemy. Somehow we’re supposed to believe that the same college administrators who have made a religion of diversity are really the second coming of Strom Thurmond. Somehow we’re supposed to believe that twice electing a black president is evidence of our racial incorrigibility. We’re supposed to believe this anyway because the future of liberal racialism—from affirmative action to diversity quotas to slavery reparations—requires periodic sightings of the ghosts of a racist past.

I mention these examples by way of preface to the climate-change summit that began this week in Paris. But first notice a pattern.

Dramatic crises—for which evidence tends to be anecdotal, subjective, invisible, tendentious and sometimes fabricated—are trumpeted on the basis of incompetently designed studies, poorly understood statistics, or semantic legerdemain. Food insecurity is not remotely the same as hunger. An abusive cop does not equal a bigoted police department. An unwanted kiss or touch is not the same as sexual assault, at least if the word assault is to mean anything.

Yet bogus studies and statistics survive because the cottage industries of compassion need them to be believed, and because mindless repetition has a way of making things nearly true, and because dramatic crises require drastic and all-encompassing solutions. Besides, the thinking goes, falsehood and exaggeration can serve a purpose if it induces virtuous behavior. The more afraid we are of the shadow of racism, the more conscious we might become of our own unsuspected biases.

And so to Paris.

I’m not the first to notice the incongruity of this huge gathering of world leaders meeting to combat a notional enemy in the same place where a real enemy just inflicted so much mortal damage.

Then again, it’s also appropriate, since reality-substitution is how modern liberalism conducts political business. What is the central liberal project of the 21st century, if not to persuade people that climate change represents an infinitely greater threat to human civilization than the barbarians—sorry, violent extremists—of Mosul and Molenbeek? Why overreact to a few hundred deaths today when hundreds of thousands will be dead in a century or two if we fail to act now?

Here again the same dishonest pattern is at work. The semantic trick in the phrase “climate change”—allowing every climate anomaly to serve as further proof of the overall theory. The hysteria generated by an imperceptible temperature rise of 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880—as if the trend is bound to continue forever, or is not a product of natural variation, or cannot be mitigated except by drastic policy interventions. The hyping of flimsy studies—melting Himalayan glaciers; vanishing polar ice—to press the political point. The job security and air of self-importance this provides the tens of thousands of people—EPA bureaucrats, wind-turbine manufacturers, litigious climate scientists, NGO gnomes—whose livelihoods depend on a climate crisis. The belief that even if the crisis isn’t quite what it’s cracked up to be, it does us all good to be more mindful about the environment.

And, of course, the chance to switch the subject. If your enemy is global jihad, then to defeat it you need military wherewithal, martial talents and political will. If your enemy is the structure of an energy-intensive global economy, then you need a compelling justification to change it. Climate dystopia can work wonders, provided the jihadists don’t interrupt too often.

Here’s a climate prediction for the year 2115: Liberals will still be organizing campaigns against yet another mooted social or environmental crisis. Temperatures will be about the same.

Bret Louis Stephens is an American journalist who won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2013. He works for The Wall Street Journal as the foreign-affairs columnist and the deputy editorial page editor and is responsible for the editorial pages of its European and Asian editions.

Summary

Wow! A full-throated, articulate conservative and climate unbeliever writing columns for the New York Times. His views both on liberalism and on climatism will be repulsive to many of the readers, who profess to be “liberal thinkers” but who are closed to all but “our kind of people”. What will they allow Stephens to write about? Will he last longer than lukewarmist Roger Pielke Jr. did at 538 blog (one column)?

Stay tuned.

For Further Reading

In 2008 column Al Gore’s Doomsday Clock, Stephens wrote:

What manner the catastrophe might take isn’t yet clear, but the scenarios are grim: The climate crisis is getting worse faster than anticipated; global warming will cause refugee crises and destabilize entire nations…. And so on.

In 2009 Climategate: Follow the Money Stephens gave the subheading:

Climate change researchers must believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.

A week later in 2009 came Global warming and the psychology of true belief. This time Stephens wrote: ‘

Last week, I suggested that funding flows had much to do with climate alarmism. But deeper things are at work as well. One of those things, I suspect, is what I would call the totalitarian impulse.

In April 2010 came What’s the Next ‘Global Warming’? Herewith I propose a contest to invent the next panic.

Stephens declared that ‘global warming is dead, nailed into its coffin one devastating disclosure, defection and re-evaluation at a time.’ He predicted that this meant ‘that pretty soon we’re going to need another apocalyptic scare to take its place.’ He offered the wager that ‘within a few years ‘climate change’ will exercise global nerves about as much as overpopulation, toxic tampons, nuclear winters, ozone holes, killer bees, low sperm counts, genetically modified foods and mad cows do today.’

 

Skeptical Journalist Spotted, Species Feared Extinct

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Just spotted this article:

A Skeptic’s View on Climate Models
By Ross Pomeroy January 23, 2017 in Real Clear Science

I like to think that I’m a good skeptic. I’ve read every word of Carl Sagan’s timeless Demon Haunted World. I almost always ask for evidence. I employ the scientific method to guide my actions. I try to think critically. I’m willing to admit when “I don’t know”. I question bold and crazy claims. And most importantly, I try not to let my ideology sway which claims I question. That’s why, as a skeptic, and as a firm advocate of science, I simply cannot accept the following claims without some level of incredulity:

“The next few decades offer a brief window of opportunity to minimize large-scale and potentially catastrophic climate change that will extend longer than the entire history of human civilization thus far.”

“The forest as we know it would effectively be gone.”

“We will have very few humans on the planet because of lack of habitat.”

Each of the preceding statements are bold, apocalyptic claims concerning climate change, and there are many more like them littered across the Internet. But just because they are widespread and originate from respectable, legitimate scientists, that does not mean I can simply switch off my skepticism. I must subject these claims to the same scrutiny that I would acupuncture, chiropractic, or demons. And when I do, I can only conclude that most claims of catastrophic, apocalyptic climate change are bogus.

But when it comes to portending doom and gloom, the tools scientists use — namely atmosphere and oceanic general circulation models — are woefully insufficient to render specific predictions about the future. The Earth is big, with so many moving parts it would make your head spin. Modeling its climate is a monumental task, and frankly, it’s impossible to do so with complete and total accuracy. Climate scientists try their best, taking into account variables such as cloud cover, albedo, water movement, radiation, and surface pressure. Unfortunately, as climate scientists alter their models to take into account more variables, some of which are poorly understood or difficult to measure, they introduce more sources of uncertainty.

To see if their models work, climatologists validate them against past data, figuring that if they match the past, they can predict the future. But there probably has never been a situation in the history of our planet where carbon dioxide has been the primary culprit of climate change. In other situations (most commonly volcanic eruptions) numerous other greenhouse gases also greatly increased the rate of heating. It’s really hard to build a model for a situation for which there is little historical precedent.

What does all of this mean? It means that anyone who says they know that climate change will result in (insert apocalyptic scenario here) is not making claims based on solid evidence.

Summary

The whole article is worth a read. He comes out at the end a lukewarmist while skeptical of climate models and dismissive of alarmist claims.


Steven “Ross” Pomeroy is Chief Editor of RealClearScience. A zoologist and conservation biologist by training, Ross has nurtured a passion for journalism and writing his entire life. Ross weaves his insatiable curiosity and passion for science into regular posts and articles on RealClearScience’s Newton Blog. Additionally, his work has appeared in Science Now and Scientific American.

For more on how climate models work see Climate Models Explained, an extended comment by Dr. R.G. Brown of Duke University.

 

 

The Weathermen vs. EPA’s Scott Pruitt

Posted on by Ron Clutz

This week the AMS (American Meteorological Society) sent a letter chastising Scott Pruitt for keeping an open mind on the question of man-made global warming/climate change. The letter (here) referred to the AMS institutional statement on the matter, and summarized their position in this paragraph:

In reality, the world’s seven billion people are causing climate to change and our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause. This is a conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. It is based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been affirmed by thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world. We are not familiar with any scientific institution with relevant subject matter expertise that has reached a different conclusion.

Background on AMS and Climate Science

Firstly, not all the weathermen are contrary to EPA Chief Scott Pruitt.  The statement announced in 2012 can only be seen as a Council Statement resulting from a process initiated and controlled by AMS council.

The Council puts out a call for volunteers for the writing teams, and approves the make-up of those teams. A Council member serves as a liaison to the team. The writing team’s initial draft is put out to the entire membership for a comment period. The writing team responds to those comments and executes a redraft. The Council, meeting in person or in teleconference, may make final edits before voting to approve or disapprove the statements.  With some over-simplification the process is driven by the AMS Council; the resulting products are Council statements.

Secondly, a subsequent survey showed that the views expressed by the AMS Council have mixed support among AMS members. Respondents numbered 1827 and 52% said “Yes, Most of the warming since 1850 is due to humans.” The other responses included: Insufficient Evidence, Equally Human and Natural, Not Sure It is Happening, and Mostly Natural (in order of frequency). Clearly almost half of the membership sample do not agree with the IPCC position endorsed by AMS Council.

A more recent 2016 survey got a higher number of agreeable members (67%), but it is still the case that 47% of 4092 members contacted did not respond to the questionnaire.

Further, these surveys are now being conducted in the context of the Council already committing the society prior to seeking the views of members. Finally, the whole exercise demonstrates that global warming/climate change is clearly a matter of opinion, not knowledge.

Of course, the questionnaires are superficial and geared to produce a “consensus” support for policy action and for project funding. In depth surveys show much more the complexity of the issues and range of opinions.

Climate Etc. Has several posts going into the details of the AMS maneuvers.

AMS Statement on Climate Change

The 52% Consensus

New AMS Survey on Climate Change

For another assessment including a comment and references by Roger Pielke Sr. See:
AMS Letter to Pruitt,How Ideologues Abuse Power in Professional Associations

Meet Richard Muller, Lukewarmist

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Richard Muller, head of the Berkeley Earth project, makes a fair and balanced response to a question regarding the “97% consensus.”  Are any of the US Senators listening?  Full text below from Forbes 97%: An Inconvenient Truth About The Oft-Cited Polling Of Climate Scientists including a reference to Will Happer, potentially Trump’s science advisor.

Read it and see that he sounds a lot like Richard Lindzen.

What are some widely cited studies in the news that are false?

Answer by Richard Muller, Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley, on Quora:

That 97% of all climate scientists accept that climate change is real, large, and a threat to the future of humanity. That 97% basically concur with the vast majority of claims made by Vice President Al Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize winning film, An Inconvenient Truth.

The question asked in typical surveys is neither of those. It is this: “Do you believe that humans are affecting climate?” My answer would be yes. Humans are responsible for about a 1 degree Celsius rise in the average temperature in the last 100 years. So I would be included as one of the 97% who believe.

Yet the observed changes that are scientifically established, in my vast survey of the science, are confined to temperature rise and the resulting small (4-inch) rise in sea level. (The huge “sea level rise” seen in Florida is actually subsidence of the land mass, and is not related to global warming.) There is no significant change in the rate of storms, or of violent storms, including hurricanes and volcanoes. The temperature variability is not increasing. There is no scientifically significant increase in floods or droughts. Even the widely reported warming of Alaska (“the canary in the mine”) doesn’t match the pattern of carbon dioxide increase–it may have an explanation in terms of changes in the northern Pacific and Atlantic currents. Moreover, the standard climate models have done a very poor job of predicting the temperature rise in Antarctica, so we must be cautious about the danger of confirmation bias.

My friend Will Happer believes that humans do affect the climate, particularly in cities where concrete and energy use cause what is called the “urban heat island effect.” So he would be included in the 97% who believe that humans affect climate, even though he is usually included among the more intense skeptics of the IPCC. He also feels that humans cause a small amount of global warming (he isn’t convinced it is as large as 1 degree), but he does not think it is heading towards a disaster; he has concluded that the increase in carbon dioxide is good for food production, and has helped mitigate global hunger. Yet he would be included in the 97%.

The problem is not with the survey, which asked a very general question. The problem is that many writers (and scientists!) look at that number and mischaracterize it. The 97% number is typically interpreted to mean that 97% accept the conclusions presented in An Inconvenient Truth by former Vice President Al Gore. That’s certainly not true; even many scientists who are deeply concerned by the small global warming (such as me) reject over 70% of the claims made by Mr. Gore in that movie (as did a judge in the UK; see the following link: Gore climate film’s nine ‘errors‘).

varv101407a

The pollsters aren’t to blame. Well, some of them are; they too can do a good poll and then misrepresent what it means. The real problem is that many people who fear global warming (include me) feel that it is necessary to exaggerate the meaning of the polls in order to get action from the public (don’t include me).

There is another way to misrepresent the results of the polls. Yes, 97% of those polled believe that there is human caused climate change. How did they reach that decision? Was it based on a careful reading of the IPCC report? Was it based on their knowledge of the potential systematic uncertainties inherent in the data? Or was it based on their fear that opponents to action are anti-science, so we scientists have to get together and support each other. There is a real danger in people with Ph.D.s joining a consensus that they haven’t vetted professionally.

I like to ask scientists who “believe” in global warming what they think of the data. Do they believe hurricanes are increasing? Almost never do I get the answer “Yes, I looked at that, and they are.” Of course they don’t say that, because if they did I would show them the actual data! Do they say, “I’ve looked at the temperature record, and I agree that the variability is going up”? No. Sometimes they will say, “There was a paper by Jim Hansen that showed the variability was increasing.” To which I reply, “I’ve written to Jim Hansen about that paper, and he agrees with me that it shows no such thing. He even expressed surprise that his paper has been so misinterpreted.”

A really good question would be: “Have you studied climate change enough that you would put your scientific credentials on the line that most of what is said in An Inconvenient Truth is based on accurate scientific results? My guess is that a large majority of the climate scientists would answer no to that question, and the true percentage of scientists who support the statement I made in the opening paragraph of this comment, that true percentage would be under 30%. That is an unscientific guestimate, based on my experience in asking many scientists about the claims of Al Gore.

This question originally appeared on Quora. the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.

Compare Muller’s statement with a short video by Lindzen.

 

Climatist Manifesto

Posted on by Ron Clutz


Obama and other Western political leaders have been saying that Climate Change is the biggest threat to modern society. I am coming around to agree, but not in the way they are thinking. I mean there is fresh evidence that we can defeat radical Islam, but we are already losing to radical climatism.  I refer to climate alarm and activism, which has come to dominate the environmental movement and impose an agenda for social re-engineering.

The Climatist Game Plan

Mission: Deindustrialize Civilization

Goal: Drive industrial corporations into Bankruptcy

Strategy: Cut off the Supply of Cheap, Reliable Energy

Tactics:

  • Raise the price of fossil fuels
  • Force the power grid to use expensive, unreliable renewables
  • Demonize Nuclear energy
  • Spread fear of extraction technologies such as fracking
  • Increase regulatory costs on energy production
  • Scare investors away from carbon energy companies
  • Stop pipelines because they are too safe and efficient
  • Force all companies to account for carbon usage and risk

Progress:

  • UK steel plants closing their doors.
  • UK coal production scheduled to cease this year.
  • US coal giant Peabody close to shutting down.
  • Smaller US oil companies going bankrupt in record numbers.
  • Etc.

Collateral Damage:

  • 27,000 extra deaths in UK from energy poverty.
  • Resource companies in Canada cut 17,000 jobs in a single month.
  • Etc.

For more info on progress see: http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/terence-corcoran-clean-green-and-catastrophic

Summary:

Radical climatism is playing the endgame while others are sleeping, or discussing the holes in the science. Truly, the debate is over (not ever having happened) now that all nations have signed up to the Paris COP doctrine. Political leaders are willing, even enthusiastic dupes, while climatist tactics erode the foundations of industrial society.  Deaths and unemployment are unavoidable, but then the planet already has too many people anyway.

ISIS is an immediate threat, but there is a deeper and present danger already doing damage to the underpinnings of Life As We Know It. It is the belief in Climate Change and the activists executing their game plan.  Make no mistake: they are well-funded, well-organized and mean business.  And the recent behavior of valve-turners, acting illegally to shut off supplies of fossil fuel energy, shows they are willing to go very far to impose their will upon the rest of us.

Note: On an earlier version of this post, I was chastised by a deep environmentalist, Michael Lewis, for tarring him and others dedicated to environmental concerns with the same brush as climate activists.  I take his point, and acknowledge the dismay many environmentalists feel at the damage climatists have done both to science and to efforts to protect the planet from real pollution.

Conclusion

With Trump’s election, there is a new sheriff in town. We can hope for changes, firstly to stop the erosion and secondly to repair the damages to the underpinnings of modern society.  The transition is underway, and it looks like this:

Running the Climate Gauntlet

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Several Native American tribes of the Eastern Woodlands culture forced prisoners to run the gauntlet (notables included Daniel Boone). Forced to run between two rows of people repeatedly striking him, the runner could only survive by taking the blows while moving forward and avoiding a stumble. No mercy is shown to one who loses his footing and falls to the ground.

Currently US Senators are putting Scott Pruitt through their gauntlet, called the Confirmation Hearing for the Nominated Director of the EPA. Pruitt recently provided 242 pages of written responses to hundreds of questions from senators. Below are extracted many of the substantial questions and answers regarding climate change. The interchanges reveal the preoccupations of climate activists and the contrasting worldviews of climate alarmists and skeptics.
H/T to Steve Milloy for links to the document at Junk Science EPA nominee Pruitt doubles down on climate skepticism

In the text below, the question number comes from a particular senator’s list, the answer paragraph is Scott Pruitt’s response.  (Many questions were not specific to climate change per se.)  I have bolded some notable themes and put some key statements into italics.

Senator Booker:

3. Climate change is one of the most pressing issues currently facing the planet. Rising sea levels and extreme weather are currently threatening the safety and security of my constituents in New Jersey. Lower income and vulnerable communities are disproportionately impacted by the extreme heat and flooding events that are becoming more common and more severe. Given the immediate and increasing threat to my constituents and to people everywhere, what is your plan to address climate change?

If confirmed, I will work to achieve the objectives of EPA-administered laws consistent with the process and framework established by Congress. I will work closely with the states in establishing and implementing regulatory standards to ensure a meaningful and effective advancement of these objectives.

Senator Cardin:

31.What is your understanding of the role of climate change in algal blooms?

EPA identifies the following as causes of harmful algal blooms: sunlight, slow-moving water, and excess nutrients. For climate change to have a role, it would first have to have an impact on one of these three causes.

74.How does your position that EPA should ostensibly recuse itself from State Department responsibilities and engagements on the Paris Agreement comport with any plans that you, as the next EPA administrator, may execute to rescind or alter domestic policies that affect the US National Determined Contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement?

As I stated in a previous answer, should the State Department decide to continue to participate in the Paris Agreement and if I am confirmed as Administrator, I will work with all involved agencies to ensure that commitments made on behalf of the United States are achievable and consistent with requisite legal authorities delegated by Congress.

75.Recently at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Chinese President Xi Jinping expressed China’s great interest in being the world’s leader on a number of issues including action to address climate change. Do you believe it is the U.S.’s national interest to cede leadership to the Chinese on global action to address climate change?

It is the mission of the State Department to advance our national interests within the realm of foreign policy. If confirmed, I will work to advance the mission of the EPA, which is to protect human health and the environment, consistent with the State Department’s strategy for international engagement on climate change.

76.Do you believe climate change is a real and serious threat to the planet?

The climate is changing and human activity impacts our changing climate in some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue.

77.Do you accept the scientific consensus that should average global temperatures reach or exceed +2 degrees Celsius that many regions of the world will very likely experience catastrophic changes in the environment that may very likely impact the safety and prosperity of many people?

  • Do you believe that uncertainty in climate science warrants greater study before the U.S. takes significant action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution?
  • If so, are you aware that the portion of the scientific community that claims there is uncertainty in the science is limited to limited to about 5% of climate science communities?
  • If you believe that the very small portion of the world’s climate science community who hold outlier opinions on the severity of climate change justifies inaction, why wouldn’t you give similar credence to other outlying opinions in the climate science community that hold that global average temperatures may exceed 10 degrees Celsius and that catastrophic events may occur as soon as five or ten years?

The climate is changing and human activity impacts our changing climate in some manner. The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective scientific data.

78.Our ability to predict the weather has improved dramatically over the last 20 years with the advent of supercomputers, new satellite monitoring options, and vastly superior atmospheric models. But still floods, droughts, hurricanes and similar phenomena occur and cause damage with sometimes only limited warning. What precision of prediction do you require before you are willing to accept the scientific community’s overwhelming consensus that unchecked increases in greenhouse gas emissions will very likely have catastrophic effects, many of which the National Climate Assessment has described in detail every 4 years since 1990?

The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of human activity on our changing climate, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective scientific data.

80.What would have to change about our ability to predict the effect of increasing greenhouse gas emissions in Earth’s atmosphere for you to consider it adequate?

If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective scientific data, including the ever-evolving understanding of the impact increasing greenhouse gases have on our changing climate.

87.Do you trust the analysis, concerns and recommendations of security experts at the State Department, Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, The Navy War College, UN Security Council, and the World Bank, who have expressed growing concerns over the threat climate change poses to national and global security?

I have no reason to disagree with the statements from the listed security experts, although I have not made any attempt to independently verify their accuracy.

Senator Carper

15.Mr. Pruitt, my State of Delaware is already seeing the adverse effects of climate change with sea level rise, ocean acidification, and stronger storms. While all states will be harmed by climate change, the adverse effects will vary by state and region. Can you comment on why it is imperative that we have national standards for the reduction in carbon pollution?

If confirmed, I will fulfill the duties of the Administrator consistent with Massachusetts v. EPA and the agency’s Endangerment Finding on Greenhouse Gases respective of the relative statutory framework established by Congress.

60.As you are well aware, on April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court determined that sufficient information existed then for EPA to make an endangerment finding with respect to the combined emissions of six greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines under CAA section 202(a). On December 7, 2009, the Administrator determined that those gases/sources contribute to greenhouse gas pollution that endangers public health and welfare. How do you plan to execute your legal authority to protect the public health and welfare from greenhouse gas pollution?

The Supreme Court held that GHGs are an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. It did not address the question of whether regulation of GHGs under the Clean Air Act is warranted. In the subsequent UARG decision, the Supreme Court cautioned EPA that there are significant limits on EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act. The unprecedented Supreme Court stay of EPA’s so-called “Clean Power Plan” was predicated upon a finding that the plaintiffs in the case were likely to prevail on the merits. In light of these holdings, I will hew closely to the text and intent of the Clean Air Act when considering further regulation of GHGs under that law if confirmed as Administrator.

63.As you know, the Renewable Fuels Standard, as amended by Congress in 2007, requires the blending of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel into conventional gasoline and diesel by 2022. In order to add that many renewable fuel gallons to our fuel supply, do you agree that EPA must approve the sale of fuels blended with greater than 10-percent renewable content?

While Congress included “applicable volume” levels in the RFS statute, Congress also took care to expressly authorize the EPA Administrator to reduce volumetric requirements below the statute’s default levels in light of real-world conditions from year to year. Specifically, the Administrator may waive the statute’s volume requirements if he determines “that implementation of the requirement would severely harm the economy or environment of a State, a region, or the United States, or “that there is an inadequate domestic supply.” The EPA already has granted such waivers based on real-world conditions in recent years and, if confirmed, I would take care to administer the statute in accordance with the statutory objectives. While no statute mandates the sale of fuels blended with greater than 10 percent renewable content, statutes do vest the Administrator with discretion to authorize a variety of fuel blends.

132.Do you agree with this statement from NASA: “97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.” If not, please explain why you do not agree.

I have no reason to disagree with NASA’s statement, although I have not made any attempt to independently verify its accuracy.

Senator Gillibrand:

37.What is the scientific basis for sea level rise, which we have experienced along the coast of New York State?

If confirmed as Administrator, I will work to ensure EPA regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective scientific data, including the ever-evolving understanding of the changes in our climate and sea level rise.

38.Do you agree with the National Climate Assessment that human-induced climate change has already increased the number and strength of extreme weather events?

I am aware of the broad range of views within the scientific community regarding the relationship between human activity on changes in the climate and any resulting impact on extreme weather events. If confirmed as Administrator, I will work to ensure EPA regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective scientific data.

Senator Markey:

23.The greenhouse gas effect traps outgoing longwave radiation causing a radiative imbalance of Earth, ultimately leading to the warming of the globe. The fundamental physics of climate change are well settled.

  • Are you aware of the theory of radiative balance of the Earth? Can you briefly describe it?
  • Do you understand Planck’s law and the difference between shortwave vs. longwave radiation, and how that relates to Earth’s energy balance?
  • Do you agree that disturbances to this equilibrium can warm or cool the Earth?
  • Are you aware of the atmospheric circulation and oceanic currents that transport heat from the Equator to the poles?
  • Due to the complexity of the climate system, there are lag times between changes in certain conditions, such as the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and other observable changes, such as the temperature of the deep ocean. If an action by the United States or world today, could positively or negative benefit the future, say 50 to 100 years down the road, is that an important consideration?
  • Are you aware that there is less ice on land in such places as Antarctica and Greenland than in previous years since the Industrial Revolution? What do you believe is causing this decrease in mass of ice on land?
  • To where do you believe the water from ice melt on land goes, and do you believe that could cause global sea levels to rise?
  • Do you disagree that additional greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, will cause a smaller magnitude outgoing longwave radiation to escape to space? Please explain.
  • Do you disagree that the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil or natural gas, cause carbon dioxide to be released into the atmosphere? Please explain.
  • Do you disagree that if fossil fuels were not extracted and burned, less carbon dioxide would be released into the atmosphere? Please explain.
  • Therefore, is it possible, if not probable, that humans releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere could cause more heat to be trapped by the atmosphere? Please explain.
  • Do you understand that the concept address is the previous question is the basis of human-caused climate change? Please explain.
  • If not human burning of fossil fuels, how do you explain the observed increase in carbon dioxide in atmosphere?
  • What is a safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Please provide this number in parts per million. Please explain.
  • If states want to individually take measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions will you allow them to do so? If yes, how will you support them? If not, why does the EPA have the authority to stop a state from implementing measures to curb greenhouse gases?

If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective scientific data, including the ever-evolving understanding of the impact increasing greenhouse gases have on our changing climate. I will also adhere to the applicable statutory authorities to fulfill EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment consistent with the process and rule of law established by congress. I also believe the Administrator has an important role when it comes to the regulation of carbon dioxide, which I will fulfill consistent with Massachusetts v. EPA and the agency’s Endangerment Finding on Greenhouse Gases respective of the applicable statutory framework established by Congress. I believe the most effective path towards achieving these objectives is through close partnership with the states granting them regulatory leeway as ascribed by the rule of law.

Senator Merkley:

11.There are many groups within the Christian community — and groups from other faiths — in the United States who agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is a danger to our country, and who strongly support taking action to mitigate the causes and impacts of climate change. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention made a statement in 2007 saying that Christians are responsible for caring for creation, and emphasized the importance of acting to prevent climate change. The President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has also issued a statement echoing these views. As EPA Administrator, would you share the view that, in the interest of caring for creation, that action should be taken to prevent climate change?

I believe we can grow our economy, harvest the resources God has blessed us with, while also being good stewards of the air, land, and water by which we have been favored. If confirmed, I will work to advance the mission of EPA to protect human health and the environment within the framework established by Congress.

13. 97% of publishing climate scientists support the idea the climate change is real and man-made. You are an attorney, but have questioned the reality of climate change. Do you currently agree that climate change is real and manmade? If not do you believe the 97% of climate scientists that do hold that view are wrong, or lying?

The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of human activity on our changing climate, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue. If confirmed, I will make sure the agency’s regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective scientific data.

14.What scientific organizations do you personally trust when it comes to the science of climate change? Please explain why you trust any organization(s) you list.

If confirmed as EPA Administrator, I will adhere to the applicable statutory authorities to fulfill EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment and will base my decisions on sound science, including advice provided by agency experts and advisory personnel.

15.Below is a list of statements from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report. For each statement, please indicate your agreement or disagreement and explain your reasoning:
• “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”
• “The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.”
• “The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years.”
• “Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions.”
• “The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification.”
• “The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750.”
• “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
• “Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system.”
• “It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and that Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover will decrease during the 21st century as global mean surface temperature rises. Global glacier volume will further decrease.”
• “Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century…. [T]he rate of sea level rise will very likely exceed that observed during 1971 to 2010 due to increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets.”
• “Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.”

There is a diverse range of views regarding the key drivers of our changing climate among scientists. I believe that these differences should be the subject of robust and open debate free from intimidation. If confirmed, I will continue to encourage an honest debate on our changing climate, the role of human activity, our ability to measure the degree and extent of human activity, and what to do about it. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective scientific data. I will also adhere to the applicable statutory authorities to fulfill EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment consistent with the process and rule of law established by congress.

16.Are you aware that each of the past three decades has been warmer than the one before, and warmer than all the previous decades since record keeping began in the 1880s? This trend is based on actual temperature measurements. Do you believe that there is uncertainty in this warming trend that has been directly measured? If so, please explain.

I am aware of a diverse range of conclusions regarding global temperatures, including that over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has been a leveling off of warming, which some scientists refer to as the “hiatus.” I am also aware that the discrepancy between land-based temperature stations and satellite temperature stations can be attributed to expansive urbanization within in our country where artificial substances such as asphalt can interfere with the accuracy of land-based temperature stations and that the agencies charged with keeping the data do not accurately account for this type of interference. I am also aware that ‘warmest year ever’ claims from NASA and NOAA are based on minimal temperature differences that fall within the margin of error. Finally, I am aware that temperatures have been changing for millions of years that predate the relatively short modern record keeping efforts that began in 1880.

17.Is there a scientific basis, based on the best available science and the weight of scientific evidence, for revoking or revising the finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare?

To my knowledge, there is nothing currently pending before the EPA that would require I take any additional actions on the Endangerment Finding on Greenhouse Gases and if there were, it would not be wise to prejudge the outcome.

39.The 2014 U.S. National Climate Assessment concludes that climate change will impact every community in the United States, and that low-income communities and communities of color will be the hardest hit. These vulnerable communities will feel the impacts of climate change more severely due to lower quality housing, which is often less equipped to safely weather severe storms, severe heat, and freezing temperatures. How will you work to reduce climate change risks in low-income communities and communities of color?

I believe environmental justice for low-income and minority communities is an important role of the EPA Administrator. If confirmed, I will adhere to the applicable statutory authorities to fulfill EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment for all of our nation’s citizens.

Senator Sanders:

12.As Administrator, will you recognize the findings of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program/U.S. Global Change Research Program and the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences on the science of climate change, including its anthropogenic causes?

If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective scientific data, including the ever-evolving understanding of the impact increasing greenhouse gases have on our changing climate.

14.Do you support the Paris Climate Agreement?

The role of the United States in the Paris Agreement is a State Department matter. If confirmed, I will work to advance the mission of the EPA, which is to protect human health and the environment, consistent with the State Department’s strategy for international engagement on climate change.

15.What are your plans for implementing the Paris Climate Agreement?

Should the government decide to continue to participate in the Paris Agreement and if I am confirmed as Administrator, I will collaborate with all involved agencies to ensure that commitments made on behalf of the United States are achievable and consistent with requisite legal authorities delegated by Congress.

16.You have written that the climate change “… debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.” What would it take for you to admit that all three of these allegations are incorrect?

If confirmed, I will work to ensure that any regulatory actions are based on the most up to date and objective scientific data, including the ever-evolving understanding of the impact increasing greenhouse gases have on our changing climate.

18.If Harold Hamm told you he was no longer a climate change denier, would you believe him?

I do not believe he is a climate change “denier.”

19.President Elect Trump’s Secretary of State nominee, Rex Tillerson, is no longer a climate change denier. Why do you disagree with Tillerson?

There is a diverse range of views regarding the key drivers of our changing climate among scientists, policy-makers and President Trump’s nominees. I believe that these differences should be the subject of robust and open debate free from intimidation. If confirmed, I will continue to encourage an honest debate on our changing climate, the role of human activity, our ability to measure the degree and extent of human activity, and what to do about it.

Senator Whitehouse:

6.Do you accept the science of ocean acidification that has directly connected the increase in human-caused carbon dioxide emissions with decreases in ocean pH?

First, I would note that the oceans are alkaline and are projected to remain so. Second, it is my understanding that the degree of alkalinity in the ocean is highly variable and therefore it is difficult to attribute that variability to any single cause.

7.Do you accept that the oceans are currently acidifying at a rate unprecedented in tens of millions of years?

First, I would note that the oceans are alkaline and are projected to remain so. Second, it is my understanding that the degree of alkalinity in the ocean is highly variable and therefore it is difficult to attribute that variability to any single cause. I am unaware of tens of millions of years of data on the pH of oceans.

11.Both states and some Members of Congress have for years criticized EPA for “one-size-fits-all approaches” and failing to give adequate flexibility to states. Yet in challenging EPA’s Clean Power Plan, you attacked EPA for just that – giving states and regions too much latitude in administering the Clean Air Act. Wouldn’t that take the Agency in the wrong direction?

I, along with the Supreme Court, which issued a stay against the Clean Power Plan in February 2016, believe the EPA exceeded the bounds of authority established by Congress in the Clean Air Act. In particular, the Rule attempted to supplant decisions traditionally preserved for the states, including the establishment of intrastate energy policies, for agency mandated alternatives that would have increased the price of electricity for local citizens and reduced reliability. The notion of flexibility in the Clean Power Plan was conceptual at best. If confirmed, I will work to achieve the objectives of EPA-administered laws consistent with the process and framework established by Congress abiding by the bedrock principle of cooperative federalism, which relies on meaningful collaboration between the EPA and the states to achieve important environmental objectives.

13.In 2014, four Republican former EPA Administrators – Bill Reilly, Bill Ruckelshaus, Lee Thomas, Governor Christine Todd Whitman – testified before EPW that climate change is real, EPA regulations do not end up costing as much as industry initially estimates, and EPA has clear authority under the Clean Air Act to curb carbon pollution. In a 2015 interview with Climate Progress, Governor Whitman said: “The idea the EPA is a job killer is false” and with regard to the Clean Power Plan “what EPA did was to allow as much flexibility as frankly I’ve ever seen them be able to create in a regulation.” Do you think that the former Administrators are correct in their assessment that regulations do not cost as much as industry initially estimates? If not, can you explain why not?

I am not sure what specific regulations the former EPA Administrators were referring to and accordingly lack sufficient information to answer the specific question. Generally speaking, if confirmed, I will work to ensure that EPA regulatory actions accurately account for the costs and benefits across all impacted stakeholders.

14.Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage is a bipartisan policy area that I am working on with my Republican colleagues. Senator Graham and I visited the world’s first Carbon Capture project in Canada that has been operational since 2014. In 2016, SaskPower successfully captured and injected 800,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide and the facility has operated nearly 85 percent of the time. Recently, Petra Nova in Texas became the first United States first post-combustion carbon capture project to begin operation. SaskPower and Petra Nova are listed in the Clean Power Plan as viable options for helping states reach their Clean Power Plan targets. Do you believe that CCUS is a viable technology for reducing emissions from power plants?

I believe CCUS technology can play an important role in the development of our future coal fleet, however it is not yet a viable option. Both the SaskPower and Petra Nova plants referenced in your question relied on significant support from their respective governments to become operational. Forcing private businesses to use unproven, expensive technology would be unfair, which is why Congress provided for protections against the EPA embracing such a practice in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

18.According to the Wind Energy Association and Solar Energy Industries Association, in 2016 the United States had 400,000 wind and solar jobs–310,000 solar, 88,000 wind. In contrast, according to 2016 DOE Energy Employment Report, employment in oil and gas extraction was 388,000 and 53,000 in coal mining. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) just found that coal production continued to decline in 2016 down nearly 17% from 2015 production. Its Annual Energy Outlook in 2017 reports that declining cost of natural gas is still encouraging utilities to shift away from coal over the long-term. The change is expected under our existing policies regardless of the Clean Power Plan. Do you believe that dismantling the Clean Power Plan and cutting back on environmental regulations will bring back the coal industry? Specifically, will it bring back coal jobs and make coal the dominate source of electricity in the U.S. again?

I am unable to say whether United States utilities and electric cooperatives would or would not return to coal as a predominant portion of their fuel mix if the Clean Power Plan were revoked or other regulations were cut back. The federal Energy Information Administration projects that coal will be an important part of the American fuel mix for the foreseeable future.

20.Improved environmental quality and economic growth aren’t mutually exclusive. Since 2009, the states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) have seen carbon pollution fall by 18% while their economies grew by 9.2%. Emissions in the other 41 states fell by 4% while their economies grew by 8.8%. Do you agree that RGGI has developed a successful model for growing our states’ economies and cutting carbon pollution at the same time? Will you commit to maintaining funding levels for EPA grant programs that fund state level initiatives to reduce their emissions?

While the agreement between the states participating in RGGI appears to be successful, what works for the Northeast may not achieve the same success in, for example, the Southwest. If confirmed, I look forward to working with EPA’s budget staff and program offices to develop a budget focused on protecting human health and the environment for all populations. I will work to ensure that the limited resources appropriated to EPA by Congress are managed wisely in pursuit of that important mission and in accordance with all applicable legal authorities.

32.The State Department and others have assessed life-cycle emissions for various crude oils and found tar sands crude is one of the dirtiest crudes on the planet from a GHG perspective. Do you agree tar sands crude has significantly higher life-cycle emissions than Oklahoma Sweet and most other crude oils?

The lifetime emissions of any energy source should be considered in the context of necessary extraction techniques as well as transportation of the fuel, among other issues. For example, transporting crude via pipeline clearly creates fewer emissions than transporting it via other sources in terms of fossil fuel energy. Without knowing the specifics of all of these factors in a given instance, it is difficult to identify which sources may result in greater emissions.

35.The State Department found that the emissions associated with the production, refining and combustion of the tar sands in Keystone XL would result in 147 to 168 million metric tons (MMT) CO2e per year (equivalent to the emissions from as many as 35.5 million cars). The State Department also found that by displacing conventional crude with dirtier tar sands, the project would result in 1.3 – 27.4 MMT CO2e of additional emissions (equivalent to the emissions from as many as 5.7 million cars). Do you agree? If you disagree, please identify any research studies or experts you have consulted to form your opinion.

I am familiar with multiple State Department determinations that the Keystone XL pipeline would not significantly impact climate change.

36.In a recent study, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that diluted bitumen—the type of crude that would be primarily transported by Keystone XL—has a series of properties that, taken together, make tar sands spills of greater concern for spill responders than spills of other, commonly transported crude oils. Both EPA and the Coast Guard advised the scientists on the NAS committee. Do you agree with their conclusion that tar sands spills pose greater risks and challenges for spill responders than other crude oil spills? If you disagree, please identify any research studies or experts you have consulted to form your opinion.

Diluted bitumen has been transported safely by pipeline in the United States for more than 40 years. It is my understanding that he NAS report did not infer that the Keystone XL pipeline posed significant concerns or that diluted bitumen could not be safely transported via pipelines or other forms of transportation.

42.Based on the climate change implications, spill potential, and other factors, the Obama Administration determined Keystone XL isn’t in our nation’s best interest. Do you agree? If not, why?

While the Obama Administration failed to grant the cross-border permit required to complete the Keystone XL pipeline, much of the pipeline was built in accordance with applicable laws and permits both federal and state. A large portion of the Keystone XL pipeline safely operates through Oklahoma and I believe that safely and efficiently moving natural resources through the country is very important.

Footnote:  If you want to run the whole gauntlet, the complete set of Pruitt responses is (here).  Again, H/T to Junk Science

Summary

This is the closest thing to a debate on climate change since 2008. Debates stopped when alarmists discovered audiences came away more skeptical from the experience. These hearings are not really a fair and open discussion of the topic, since the Senators have nothing to lose while the Nominee faces rejection.

In 2010 the Hartwell paper observed:

Climate change was brought to the attention of policy-makers by scientists. From the outset, these scientists also brought their preferred solutions to the table in US Congressional hearings and other policy forums, all bundled. The proposition that ‘science’ somehow dictated particular policy responses, encouraged –indeed instructed – those who found those particular strategies unattractive to argue about the science.

So, a distinctive characteristic of the climate change debate has been of scientists claiming with the authority of their position that their results dictated particular policies; of policy makers claiming that their preferred choices were dictated by science, and both acting as if ‘science’ and ‘policy’ were simply and rigidly linked as if it were a matter of escaping from the path of an oncoming tornado.

The Senate hearings show that nothing has changed. Leftist politicians invest into their climate beliefs way more certainty than the facts support. They quote from the IPCC as though presenting Scriptural references. Even the Bible is invoked in support of their environmentalist agenda.  They seem unable to process new information this century casting doubt upon their assumptions.

In the face of this, it is good to see Scott Pruitt maintaining his balance and moving ahead. Many of his responses would win debating points in an open dialogue. Pruitt was once owner and general manager of the Oklahoma Redhawks, a AAA professional baseball team. Maybe he has some Chickasaw blood in his veins equipping him to be such a Brave running this gauntlet.

The Climate Change Teapot

Posted on by Ron Clutz

The confirmation hearings with questions from global warming zealots reminded me of Bertrand Russell’s teapot analogy.

The notion of global warming/climate change resembles closely that mythical teapot.  People like Lewandowsky and Oreskes psychoanalyze unbelievers.  And public hearings are conducted to uncover unseemly heresy inside political appointees.  At least when religion is recognized as such, and not confused with science, modern societies understand it is a matter of opinion and freedom of thought and expression is accepted.