Ed note: The current debate regarding the 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding can be enriched by a historical review of climate alarmism and its critics. This repost on fair reporting on the climate issue, a rarity for the New York Times, is relevant in this regard.
“The skeptics contend that forecasts of global warming are flawed and overstated and that the future might even hold no significant warming at all. Some say that if the warming is modest, as they believe likely, it could bring benefits like longer growing seasons in temperate zones, more rain in dry areas and an enrichment of crops and plant life.”
…”’The expense [of climate policy] is patently obvious,’ said one of the most outspoken skeptics, Patrick Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and a former president of the American Meteorological Society.
“I’ve yet to meet a blue-collar worker at a cleantech conference, nor have I met one at cleantech dinner tables. The industry needs to ditch its self-righteous virtue signaling and stop relying on handouts.” (- a Cleantech veteran, below)
“Is this really the climate movement’s next chapter?” asked Stephen Lacey, cofounder and executive editor of Latitude Media, a publication “covering the new frontiers of the energy transition.”
…If so, it will end in nothing more than further alienating voters. The progressive approach to climate mobilization has largely failed to build durable coalitions and policies. The election of Trump clearly showed that kitchen table issues matter most. We are in an extraordinary moment where people are struggling to pay their energy bills — and this is the answer? I agree with Michael Liebreich that we need a deep, pragmatic climate reset.
“These are matters of public policy, not science alone. And in no case should a group of allegedly objective scientists attempt to shut down a public policy debate.” (-T. Fisher, below)
Travis Fisher, director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute, has rapidly become a trusted voice in the sustainability debates of our time. He recently reported on social media:
…The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) just declared the [prior] EPA’s endangerment finding on greenhouse gases “beyond scientific dispute.”
While the endangerment finding is the legal foundation for many of EPA’s climate regulations, NASEM’s unsolicited report crosses an important line — from providing objective scientific advice to advocating for a specific policy.
Science can inform policy, but it cannot make policy for us.