The White House is out to undermine the scientific consensus on man-made climate change.
The National Security Council initiative would include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which humans contribute to the problem, according to these individuals. The group would not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as a formal advisory committee.
It would represent the Trump Administration's most forceful effort to date to challenge the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are helping drive global warming and that the world could face dire consequences unless countries curb their carbon output over the next few decades.
Attendees at the session, which included acting interior secretary David Bernhardt and senior officials from throughout the government, debated how best to establish a group of researchers that could scrutinise recent federal climate reports.
More than one participant suggested that they might face a challenge establishing an independent outside panel that would question central findings of the National Climate Assessment and other landmark federal reports, said one official familiar with the discussion.
William Happer, who headed an advocacy group called the CO2 Coalition before joining the Administration, has challenged the scientific consensus on climate change inside and outside of government.
Public records show the coalition, which describes its mission as informing policymakers and the public of the "important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy," has received money from far-right organisations and donors with fossil fuel interests.So, at long last there's going to be an independent review of this so-called scientific consensus only its proceedings will not be public, it won't have the customary obligations of public disclosure and it will be made up of hand-picked, declared doubters with money ties to far-right organizations and the fossil fuel industry. I can't wait to see what they'll conclude, can you?
Probably something about how climate scientists are Nazis and CO2 molecules are Jews. I'm sure there are some very fine people in that committee, on both sides.
Actually, Cap, I have to correct you. There will be no "both sides" on this committee. The scientific consensus side will not be represented except through their reports and studies that will be roundly disputed as needs this president.
I'm not worried. They have a nearly insurmountable hill to climb. We are probably one breakthrough and one price drop away from the same avalanche that replaced the horse infrastructure of 1900 with the car system by 1925, except it will be much faster.
The only question is will the US be a part of it or will the rest of the world own the new technologies while the US gas cars become the only ones left, like rodeo horses.
I think this ship has sailed.
The Koch brothers managed to manipulate the market so their subsidiaries in Canada were selling to their subsidiaries in the US at rock bottom prices, because the price crossing the border is where the royalties are charged, so the subsidiaries here lose money but the ones in the US make higher profits.
Now they are behind the movement to "keep it in the ground", mainly to save it for when the high depletion rate fracking starts to run out. Canada instead wants to sell the bitumen. Instead of keeping it in the ground, the buyers will keep it on the ground, still not being burned so it's only emitting CO2 in its production and shipping, all to pave the Belt road from China across Asia.
The real degenerates are neoliberal weasels who pretend to care about global warming when all they care about getting kick-backs from "far right" corporations to peddle "far right" globalization ideology.
Carbon-tax the West, then export GHG-emissions (and jobs) to China which doesn't even pretend to take action on reducing emissions.
I imagine Western oligarchs and their lapdogs shake their heads at the pointless honesty of Emperor Xi. Why on Earth would he renege on his promise to start reducing emissions in 2030? (A decade after the world ends according to the hippies.)
Why would he not simply lie about it like everyone else?
Climate scientists are obviously right about global warming. But they don't know a thing about economics. And they make the mistake of thinking economists are their academic peers despite all evidence to the contrary.
If the eggheads can't get their shit together, you can't blame the people for what happens next.
Not that the doom-and-gloomers have any idea of what will happen next either.
There's a big movement against free-trade globalism building. And like the previous Anon mentions, technological shifts happen overnight.
The world's not dead yet. But the mounting chaos caused by free-trade and open borders will plunge the West into world war at lot sooner than global warming will destroy the biosphere.
The one is like smoking. The other is like playing Russian Roulette. (Out with a bang, not a whimper.)
Post a Comment