President Trump does not buy the climate change alarmism and is committed to ending its ability to hamper the U.S. economy or absorb American tax dollars – and the New York Times does not like it.
In “Trump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science,” reporters Coral Davenport and Mark Landler contend things are bad now under President Trump, but they are about to get much worse.
Trump “has rolled back environmental regulations, pulled the United States out of the Paris climate accord, brushed aside dire predictions about the effects of climate change, and turned the term ‘global warming’ into a punch line rather than a prognosis,” Davenport and Landler wrote.
“Now, after two years spent unraveling the policies of his predecessors, Mr. Trump and his political appointees are launching a new assault.”
The new assault, scheduled to take place “over the next months,” will consist of the White House completing the “rollback of the most significant federal effort to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, initiated during the Obama administration,” they wrote.
Also, the administration will “expand its efforts to impose Mr. Trump’s hard-line views on other nations, building on his retreat from the Paris accord and his recent refusal to sign a communique to protect the rapidly melting Arctic region unless it was stripped of any references to climate change.”
Now, for the big blow, Trump will take “what could be [his] most consequential action yet … to undermine the very science on which climate change policy rests.”
His “contempt” for the Environmental Protection Agency is “an animating factor in trying to force them to abandon key aspects of the methodology they use to try to understand the causes and consequences of a dangerously warming planet.”
If the EPA can’t do that, “parts of the federal government will no longer fulfill what scientists say is one of the most urgent jobs of climate science studies: reporting on the future effects of a rapidly warming planet and presenting a picture of what the earth could look like by the end of the century if the global economy continues to emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution from burning fossil fuels.”
And how is the Trump administration going about destroying climate science? The head of the US Geological Survey “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.”
This means less attention paid to those who claim without evidence that, after 2040, temperatures will increase as much as 8 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century, which “would lead to drastically higher sea levels, more devastating storms and droughts, crop failures, food losses and severe health consequences.”
It then quotes the president of the Woods Hole Research Center, a leftist group, saying, “What we have here is a pretty blatant attempt to politicize the science – to push the science in a direction that’s consistent with their politics.”
The EPA responded that “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.”
Finally, the Times arrives at its real objection – the new committee headed by William Happer, a distinguished professor of physics at Princeton.
“However, the goal of political appointees in the Trump administration is not just to change the climate assessment’s methodology, which has broad scientific consensus, but also to question its conclusions by creating a new climate review panel. That effort is led by a 79-year-old physicist who had a respected career at Princeton but has become better known in recent years for attacking the science of man-made climate change and for defending the virtues of carbon dioxide – sometimes to an awkward degree.”