The Trump administration is taking aim at climate change zealots who consistently use the most extreme statistics to fuel their agenda. As The New York Times reports:
… the White House-appointed director of the United States Geological Survey, James Reilly, a former astronaut and petroleum geologist, has ordered that scientific assessments produced by that office use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040, rather than through the end of the century, as had been done previously.
James Hewitt, a spokesman for the Environmental Protection Agency, stated, “The previous use of inaccurate modeling that focuses on worst-case emissions scenarios, that does not reflect real-world conditions, needs to be thoroughly re-examined and tested if such information is going to serve as the scientific foundation of nationwide decision-making now and in the future.”
The administration has decided not to include estimates from the National Climate Assessment, which is delivered every four years. In addition, the Trump administration is creating a new climate review panel supervised by Princeton scientist William Happer, President Trump’s deputy assistant for emerging technologies on the National Security Council. Happer is the emeritus Eugene Higgens professor of physics and Cyrus Fogg Brackett professor of physics at Princeton University.
As E&E News reported, Happer has stated, “The public in general doesn’t realize that from the point of view of geological history, we are in a CO2 famine,” adding that higher concentrations of CO2 would aid plant life as he cited satellite data. He continued, “There is no problem from CO2. The world has lots and lots of problems, but increasing CO2 is not one of the problems. So [the Paris accord] dignifies it by getting all these yahoos who don’t know a damn thing about climate saying, ‘This is a problem, and we’re going to solve it.’ All this virtue signaling.”
Last November the second volume of the National Climate Assessment was released. White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters stated, “The report is largely based on the most extreme scenario, which contradicts long-established trends by assuming that, despite strong economic growth that would increase greenhouse gas emissions, there would be limited technology and innovation, and a rapidly expanding population.”
Walters noted that carbon dioxide emissions related to energy production in the U.S. declined 14% since 2005, while global emissions kept rising.
The report itself admitted it considered extreme scenarios, stating, “For example, given this assessment’s emphasis on using a risk-based framework, authors were asked to consider low-probability, high-consequence climate futures. Addressing this potential future, in addition to more probable futures, is facilitated by considering the Upper Bound USGCRP scenario. These outcomes will often pose the greatest risks to society and thus must be considered in any comprehensive risk assessment.”
Myron Ebell from the Competitive Enterprise Institute said of the administration, “They’ve started talking about how they can produce a report that doesn’t lead to some silly alarmist predictions about the future.” He suggested focusing on the variability of the climate in previous eras and dropping the apocalyptic predictions of increased carbon dioxide emissions that do not take into account current efforts restraining emissions.