• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials

    U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/climate/us-climate-report.html
    By LISA FRIEDMAN and GLENN THRUSHNOV. 3, 2017

    WASHINGTON — Directly contradicting much of the Trump administration’s position on climate change, 13 federal agencies unveiled an exhaustive scientific report on Friday that says humans are the dominant cause of the global temperature rise that has created the warmest period in the history of civilization.

    Over the past 115 years global average temperatures have increased 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, leading to record-breaking weather events and temperature extremes, the report says. The global, long-term warming trend is “unambiguous,” it says, and there is “no convincing alternative explanation” that anything other than humans — the cars we drive, the power plants we operate, the forests we destroy — are to blame.

    The report was approved for release by the White House, but the findings come as the Trump administration is defending its climate change policies. The United Nations convenes its annual climate change conference next week in Bonn, Germany, and the American delegation is expected to face harsh criticism over President Trump’s decision to walk away from the 195-nation Paris climate accord and top administration officials’ stated doubts about the causes and impacts of a warming planet.

    “This report has some very powerful, hard-hitting statements that are totally at odds with senior administration folks and at odds with their policies,” said Philip B. Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center. “It begs the question, where are members of the administration getting their information from? They’re obviously not getting it from their own scientists.”

    While there were pockets of resistance to the report in the Trump administration, according to climate scientists involved in drafting the report, there was little appetite for a knockdown fight over climate change among Mr. Trump’s top advisers, who are intensely focused on passing a tax reform bill — an effort they think could determine the fate of his presidency.

    The climate science report is part of a congressionally mandated review conducted every four years known as the National Climate Assessment. The product of hundreds of experts within the government and academia and peer-reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, it is considered the United States’ most definitive statement on climate change science.

    The White House put out a statement Friday that seemed to undercut the high level of confidence of the report’s findings.

    “The climate has changed and is always changing,” Raj Shah, a White House spokesman, said in the statement. “As the Climate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on ‘remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth’s climate’” to greenhouse gas emissions, he added.

    Despite the scientific consensus presented in the report, the Environmental Protection Agency has scrubbed references to climate change from its website and barred its scientists from presenting scientific reports on the subject.

    The E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, has said carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to warming. Rick Perry, the energy secretary, asserted Wednesday that “the science is out” on whether humans cause climate change.
    “It is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the report states.
    Their agencies referred questions to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversaw the research.

    The report has provoked consternation in scientific circles for months. Though the study has been in the works since 2015, several scientists said the election of Mr. Trump, who has labeled climate change a “canard” and appointed cabinet members who disputed the scientific consensus, caused them to worry the report would be blocked or buried.

    That did not happen. Scientists who worked on the report said none of the 13 agencies that reviewed it tried to undermine its findings or change its wording.

    “I’m quite confident to say there has been no political interference on the message,” said David Fahey, a NOAA scientist and a lead author of the report. “Whatever fears we had weren’t realized.”

    Responsibility for approving the report fell to Gary D. Cohn, director of the National Economic Council, who generally believes in the validity of climate science and thought the issue would have been a distraction from the tax push, according to an administration official with knowledge of the situation.

    One of Mr. Cohn’s top policy deputies, Michael Catanzaro, had the authority to block, delay or change the report. But Mr. Catanzaro, a former energy adviser to President George W. Bush and former Speaker John A. Boehner, chose instead to follow the lead of the Obama administration by referring the report back to more than a dozen federal agencies for feedback.

    That review, according to two people familiar with the process, went relatively smoothly, surprising some scientists who worked on the report who had expected more resistance.

    The only significant turbulence, according to one person familiar with the process, came from a midlevel political appointee at the Department of Energy who grilled the report’s authors on changes that had been made to temperature and other climate data over the years. The authors responded by adding a more detailed explanation of their methodology and all of the agencies then gave their approval, the person said.

    Mr. Trump was barely aware of the report’s existence, several White House officials said.

    Some critics of climate change science attacked the report as the product of holdovers from the Obama administration and chastised the Trump administration for allowing it to be published.

    “I’m saddened that they have decided they will let the permanent government, the civil servants, continue down this road without supervision,” said Myron Ebell, director of global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian advocacy group.

    “This new report simply confirms what we already knew. Human-caused climate change isn’t just a theory, it’s reality,” said Michael E. Mann, a professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University. “Whether we’re talking about unprecedented heat waves, increasingly destructive hurricanes, epic drought and inundation of our coastal cities, the impacts of climate change are no longer subtle. They are upon us. That’s the consensus of our best scientists, as laid bare by this latest report.”

    The report says the Earth has set temperature highs for three years running, and six of the last 17 years are the warmest years on record for the globe. Weather catastrophes from floods to hurricanes to heat waves have cost the United States $1.1 trillion since 1980, and the report warns that such phenomena may become common.

    “The frequency and intensity of extreme high temperature events are virtually certain to increase in the future as global temperature increases,” the report notes. “Extreme precipitation events will very likely continue to increase in frequency and intensity throughout most of the world.”

    In the United States, the report finds that every part of the country has been touched by warming, from droughts in the Southeast to flooding in the Midwest to a worrying rise in air and ground temperatures in Alaska, and conditions will continue to worsen.

    “This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the report states. “For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”

    The findings, other researchers said, create an unusual situation in which the government’s policies are in direct opposition to the science it is producing.

    “This profoundly affects our ability to be leaders in developing new technologies and understanding how to build successful communities and businesses in the 21st century,” said Christopher Field, director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. “Choosing to be dumb about our relationship with the natural world is choosing to be behind the eight ball.”

    Follow @NYTClimate on Twitter

    #2
    Yawn. Nothing but fake news let's move along.

    Comment


      #3
      Trump is off to asia for a few weeks.
      North Korea will likely be the topic we are all watching now.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by sofa.king View Post
        Yawn. Nothing but fake news let's move along.
        Yes the world will move on without the small minority of people who don't believe in science or human caused climate change.

        Comment


          #5
          Humans behind science change their minds, some even data points, all the time. I'm waiting for the next change in explanation because personally, and that is all that counts (Trumpian), I like the prospects of my location right up to when the next ice age kicks in.

          You worry too much, cc.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by chuckChuck View Post
            Yes the world will move on without the small minority of people who don't believe in science or human caused climate change.
            I am not going to debate climate change with you Chuck2 as I am niether a scientist or a politician(apparently the 2 most important qualifications). But I am curious how high you think government imposed carbon taxes will go and how they will affect farming?

            In Alberta we have a $20 per tonne tax at present. This adds 4.49 cents per litre of gas, 5.35 cents per litre of diesel and $1.011 per GJ of natural gas. Not a huge increase but an additional cost our closest competitors don't have just the same. As mandated by the federal Liberal's this will increase to $50 tonne by 2022. This will add 11.23 cents to a litre of gas, 13.38 cents to a litre of diesel and $ 2.53 per GJ of natural gas. These additional costs will become significant. There are many aspects of agriculture that will see increased costs due to this tax. Concrete and fertilizer both require natural gas to produce. Will this eliminate these products being manufactured in Canada? Will we become dependant on imports? A significant amount of concrete powder is already imported from countries like China. We are already seeing flight of foreign investment in oil and natural gas due to our inability to build marketing infrastructure in Canada.

            The next question is this, the federal Liberal's have already said that to see a significant decrease in fossil fuel consumption we would need a carbon tax closer to $200 a tonne. Chuck, are you ready to consume only imported food as it will become to expensive in Canada to produce? We only produce 1.6% of the C02 produced worldwide, are you in favour of eliminating many Canadian jobs to realistically have no effect on the environment? Can you respond without your wordy cut and pastes that I very rarely read?

            Comment


              #7
              As well we farmers in western Canada face the highest transport costs to ocean freight already in the world . Add carbon tax to already extreme cost of our farm business. All for nothing at the end of the day .

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Hamloc View Post
                I am not going to debate climate change with you Chuck2 as I am niether a scientist or a politician(apparently the 2 most important qualifications). But I am curious how high you think government imposed carbon taxes will go and how they will affect farming?

                In Alberta we have a $20 per tonne tax at present. This adds 4.49 cents per litre of gas, 5.35 cents per litre of diesel and $1.011 per GJ of natural gas. Not a huge increase but an additional cost our closest competitors don't have just the same. As mandated by the federal Liberal's this will increase to $50 tonne by 2022. This will add 11.23 cents to a litre of gas, 13.38 cents to a litre of diesel and $ 2.53 per GJ of natural gas. These additional costs will become significant. There are many aspects of agriculture that will see increased costs due to this tax. Concrete and fertilizer both require natural gas to produce. Will this eliminate these products being manufactured in Canada? Will we become dependant on imports? A significant amount of concrete powder is already imported from countries like China. We are already seeing flight of foreign investment in oil and natural gas due to our inability to build marketing infrastructure in Canada.

                The next question is this, the federal Liberal's have already said that to see a significant decrease in fossil fuel consumption we would need a carbon tax closer to $200 a tonne. Chuck, are you ready to consume only imported food as it will become to expensive in Canada to produce? We only produce 1.6% of the C02 produced worldwide, are you in favour of eliminating many Canadian jobs to realistically have no effect on the environment? Can you respond without your wordy cut and pastes that I very rarely read?
                Excellent post Hamloc. I too would like to hear the answers however the Silence is speaking volumes

                Comment


                  #9
                  Taxes by the useless Liberals will increase till farmers in Canada are Third world farmers with a Hoe and rake and starving.
                  Taxing bullshit is wrong and JT knows that but he doesn't care its about votes.

                  When Canada is in the tank from the Useless Trudeau he will be living it up on the Kahns island or somewhere else.

                  Useless bullshit not science.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Hamloc View Post
                    I am not going to debate climate change with you Chuck2 as I am niether a scientist or a politician(apparently the 2 most important qualifications). But I am curious how high you think government imposed carbon taxes will go and how they will affect farming?

                    In Alberta we have a $20 per tonne tax at present. This adds 4.49 cents per litre of gas, 5.35 cents per litre of diesel and $1.011 per GJ of natural gas. Not a huge increase but an additional cost our closest competitors don't have just the same. As mandated by the federal Liberal's this will increase to $50 tonne by 2022. This will add 11.23 cents to a litre of gas, 13.38 cents to a litre of diesel and $ 2.53 per GJ of natural gas. These additional costs will become significant. There are many aspects of agriculture that will see increased costs due to this tax. Concrete and fertilizer both require natural gas to produce. Will this eliminate these products being manufactured in Canada? Will we become dependant on imports? A significant amount of concrete powder is already imported from countries like China. We are already seeing flight of foreign investment in oil and natural gas due to our inability to build marketing infrastructure in Canada.

                    The next question is this, the federal Liberal's have already said that to see a significant decrease in fossil fuel consumption we would need a carbon tax closer to $200 a tonne. Chuck, are you ready to consume only imported food as it will become to expensive in Canada to produce? We only produce 1.6% of the C02 produced worldwide, are you in favour of eliminating many Canadian jobs to realistically have no effect on the environment? Can you respond without your wordy cut and pastes that I very rarely read?


                    Most provinces will directly exempt agriculture from a carbon tax. So lets take that off the table.

                    As for industries that serve agriculture and pay carbon taxes they will likely get more efficient and so additional costs may be less than anticipated.

                    You certainly remember the run up in prices of energy prior to the bust in 2008 and 09? Retail gasoline was in the 1.40 / litre range which is much higher than current prices. How many farmers and businesses went out of business because of high energy prices during this time period? http://www.albertagasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

                    How much of a historical competitive disadvantage do we have because US farmers have often had lower priced fuel primarily because of lower taxes?

                    You are speculating as to how many jobs will be lost or created because of a carbon tax. If carbon taxes are recirculated in each province then what will be the net change?

                    There are going to be lots of new jobs in retrofitting housing and other buildings to be more energy efficient. There will be new jobs in renewable clean energy and other technologies. What are the estimates as we transition away from fossil energy?

                    What are the various projections on the economic impact of a carbon tax? Where are you getting your estimates from?

                    A carbon tax is supported by a wide number of experts as the best way to use a market based tool to change energy usage.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Unless the "climate" and "world Temp" get COLDER real fast...this bullshit will KILL Canadian industry including ALL OF US. Hoping/wishing/praying it is a LONG COLD WINTER to shut the F*ckers up! Let's make the hockey stick break downward!
                      Everyone STOP CO2 emissions right now... no engines, no home heating, no exhaling, and for heaven's sake NO FARTING!

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Yea chick your a typical liberal all will change and help the climate. Sprinkle fairy dust now.

                        Farmers will be exempt ha ha ha hahahahahah maybe day one but day three they hit us.

                        Industry will change and pass it on to us farmers who will pay way more,

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by chuckChuck View Post
                          Most provinces will directly exempt agriculture from a carbon tax. So lets take that off the table.

                          As for industries that serve agriculture and pay carbon taxes they will likely get more efficient and so additional costs may be less than anticipated.

                          You certainly remember the run up in prices of energy prior to the bust in 2008 and 09? Retail gasoline was in the 1.40 / litre range which is much higher than current prices. How many farmers and businesses went out of business because of high energy prices during this time period? http://www.albertagasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

                          How much of a historical competitive disadvantage do we have because US farmers have often had lower priced fuel primarily because of lower taxes?

                          You are speculating as to how many jobs will be lost or created because of a carbon tax. If carbon taxes are recirculated in each province then what will be the net change?

                          There are going to be lots of new jobs in retrofitting housing and other buildings to be more energy efficient. There will be new jobs in renewable clean energy and other technologies. What are the estimates as we transition away from fossil energy?

                          What are the various projections on the economic impact of a carbon tax? Where are you getting your estimates from?

                          A carbon tax is supported by a wide number of experts as the best way to use a market based tool to change energy usage.


                          Go copy and paste an article explaining the Haber-Bosch process will ya?

                          All costs - from fert and chem production - to freight of our grain to Port will increase.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Not in chucks world it's all fairy dust sprinkles and magic all will change and not cost farmers a dime.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by chuckChuck View Post
                              Most provinces will directly exempt agriculture from a carbon tax. So lets take that off the table.

                              As for industries that serve agriculture and pay carbon taxes they will likely get more efficient and so additional costs may be less than anticipated.

                              You certainly remember the run up in prices of energy prior to the bust in 2008 and 09? Retail gasoline was in the 1.40 / litre range which is much higher than current prices. How many farmers and businesses went out of business because of high energy prices during this time period? http://www.albertagasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

                              How much of a historical competitive disadvantage do we have because US farmers have often had lower priced fuel primarily because of lower taxes?

                              You are speculating as to how many jobs will be lost or created because of a carbon tax. If carbon taxes are recirculated in each province then what will be the net change?

                              There are going to be lots of new jobs in retrofitting housing and other buildings to be more energy efficient. There will be new jobs in renewable clean energy and other technologies. What are the estimates as we transition away from fossil energy?

                              What are the various projections on the economic impact of a carbon tax? Where are you getting your estimates from?

                              A carbon tax is supported by a wide number of experts as the best way to use a market based tool to change energy usage.
                              Where do I start Chuck2. First, farm fuel exemption from carbon tax. Yes you are correct, at present marked fuel is carbon tax exempt. Natural gas is not exempt, shop heat and drying grain are certainly users of natural gas. Our NDP government is planning on switching electrical generation over to natural gas, I have to assume this will apply. As for diesel, at $100 a tonne carbon tax this will amount to 26.75 cents per litre. Hard to believe we will still be exempt at this level of tax and I believe this will also make us a political target of the enviros. As for retail gas prices I believe in Alberta this weekend they were $1.27 a litre but oil is only $54 a barrel, someone is milking the system. The last price I heard this week in Montana was $2.55 a U.S. Gallon, converted to a litre in CAD that is 88 cents a litre, explain the differential.

                              Probably your biggest failing is your inability to see all the upcoming implications. Do you really believe that nitrogen emissions will not become a target of environmentalists. I recently read that Bill Gates et al have invested $300 million in research into growing meat in the lab. Grassfarmer this applies to both you and me, the end of farms raising beef, too much methane. As for lost jobs you didn't address the potential end of domestic fertilizer and cement powder production. Nor did you speculate on how high carbon taxes will go. In my opinion $100 a tonne by 2030 and that is best case scenario could be higher. I have no problem matching an U.S. carbon tax but at present there isn't one. Sorry Chuck have to quit the more I write the more pissed off I get. Look forward to your response.

                              Comment

                              • Reply to this Thread
                              • Return to Topic List
                              Working...
                              X

                              This website uses tracking tools, including cookies. We use these technologies for a variety of reasons, including to recognize new and past website users, to customize your experience, perform analytics and deliver personalized advertising on our sites, apps and newsletters and across the Internet based on your interests.
                              You agree to our and by clicking I agree.