Major climate science reports usually pass by largely unnoticed, but in the wake of the latest IPCC report a number of journalists laudably grilled Republican lawmakers about its findings. While their responses were predictably terrible, it’s nevertheless crucial for journalists to hold GOP politicians accountable for their climate denial and policy inaction. Donald Trump’s answers were particularly ignorant and nonsensical in his 60 Minutes interview with Lesley Stahl.
None of the Republicans exhibited Stage 1 climate denial (denying that it’s happening), but several remain in Stage 2 (denying humans are responsible). Trump was the worst of the lot, telling Stahl:
Something’s happening [with the climate] and it’ll change back again … I don’t know that it’s manmade.
Earth’s climate isn’t magical. Each of its changes has physical causes and will only “change back” if something causes them to do so. Trump’s claim is akin to arguing that if he gains 50 lbs by eating McDonald’s fast food every day he’ll eventually ‘change back’ to his less obese self. Doing so would require a physical cause, like a change in diet. Fossil fuels are the climate’s greasy fast food.
Similarly, Trump’s top economic advisor Larry Kudlow said to George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week:
how much of [climate change] is manmade, how much of it is solar, how much of it is oceanic, how much of it is rain forest and other issues? I think we’re still exploring all of that.
And Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) told CNN’s Jake Tapper:
I can’t tell you to what percentage of [climate change] is due to human activity
Climate scientists can. It’s 100% since 1950.
Gavin Schmidt?@ClimateOfGavinFor @marcorubio @jaketapper and anyone else, it’s a good thing that scientists have indeed already looked at how much recent trends in climate are due to human activity. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ …
[narrator: it was all of it]
This is settled science, about which there’s a 97% expert consensus. But of course, Republican politicians prefer the beliefs of the less than 3% of contrarian climate scientists.
When Stahl pressed Trump on the conclusions of expert climate scientists, Trump cited some “scientists” whose opinions he prefers.
We have scientists that disagree with [human-caused global warming] … You’d have to show me the [mainstream] scientists because they have a very big political agenda
The only ‘political agenda’ of the climate scientists writing the IPCC reports is to accurately communicate our understanding of climate science to policymakers. The latest IPCC report cited over 6,000 scientific studies. Marco Rubio used the same tactic as Trump, saying:
And I think many scientists would debate what percentage is attributable to man versus normal fluctuations
Trump’s Fox friends also echoed this sentiment:
Bobby Lewis@revrrlewisKilmeade on Stahl’s climate change question: “She really believes in global warming, and that’s fine,” but “I don't think you should bring your point of view” in b/c “there’s other scientists” and “the role of man has not been unveiled to a way in which the president accepts.”
There are of course “other scientists.” The question is why we should believe the tiny minority of contrarians are right and the 97% of climate science experts who are convinced by the evidence that humans are driving global warming are wrong.
For example, one of deniers’ favorite contrarian scientists is Richard Lindzen, formerly of MIT. Last week, Lindzen told the Daily Mail “Warming of any significance ceased about 20 years ago.” That’s Stage 1 climate denial and a ludicrously wrong assertion:
Dana Nuccitelli?@dana1981Richard Lindzen tells @DailyMailAU, "Warming of any significance ceased about 20 years ago" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6259555/Climate-scientist-says-climate-claims-nonsense-coral-reefs-not-danger.html …
Reality tells a very different story:
So yes, there are scientists who disagree with the magnitude of the human contribution to global warming. And those scientists often deny even the most basic facts and data. They’re the fringe who reject the vast majority of the available scientific evidence.
After denying that we know humans are driving climate change, the Republican politicians shifted to economics denial, with Trump again the worst of all:
I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs. I don’t want to be put at a disadvantage.
Rubio similarly said “I’m also not going to destroy our economy.” But Trump and Rubio seem to think that any efforts to cut carbon pollution will destroy the economy, and that’s just willful ignorance. As Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) said:
We ought to be talking about the things that we can do and still maintain a strong economy, because we’re not going to be able to address it unless we keep a strong economy
Rounds is right. Republicans ought to be looking for policies to address climate change that will maintain a strong economy. But with a few exceptions, they (including Mike Rounds, who’s voted against the climate 100% of the time) are not. Kudlow noted:
Bill Nordhaus from Yale got a Nobel Prize on his own economic work with respect to climate change … I respect that he’s a really brilliant guy.
In 2012, Nordhaus wrote an editorial entitled, “Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong.” In that piece, he noted:
the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions … is $4.1 trillion … Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes … The claim that cap-and-trade legislation or carbon taxes would be ruinous or disastrous to our societies does not stand up to serious economic analysis.
It’s ironic that Trump says he’s worried about losing trillions of dollars as the economist who his top economic advisor cites as a brilliant expert says that waiting to cut carbon pollution would cost trillions of dollars.
The latest IPCC report cited a study finding that 1.5°C global warming would lead to climate damage costs of $54tn, 2°C of $69tn, and 3.7°C of $551tn. We’re currently on track for 3.4°C warming by 2100, and the Trump administration is doing everything in its power to increase carbon pollution and global warming. For perspective, the $551tn estimated cost of climate damages at 3.7°C far exceeds the current global wealth of around $100tn.
On the other hand, climate policies need not be expensive. Studies have shown that a revenue-neutral carbon tax could grow the economy and create jobs, for example. And as California has demonstrated, smart climate policies are entirely compatible with economic growth.
Posted by dana1981 on Wednesday, 17 October, 2018
 |
The Skeptical Science website by Skeptical Science is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. |
