https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060713373
White House won’t review climate science before election
By Scott Waldman, E&E News reporter
The proposed White House panel that would conduct an “adversarial” review of climate science is dead for now, as President Trump grapples with negative perceptions of his environmental record at the outset of his reelection campaign. The monthslong push from within the National Security Council to review established science on climate change divided White House advisers and generated sharp opposition from researchers across the country. The effort, led by a physicist overseeing technology issues at the NSC, William Happer, stalled indefinitely amid internal disagreements within the White House, according to two sources.
…
“It’s been totally stymied by the forces of darkness within the administration, but also by the looming election campaign,” said Myron Ebell, a senior fellow at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute who led the EPA transition team under Trump. “The reelect campaign has been completely taken over by the usual cast of Republican establishment consultants who are primarily concerned with making very large amounts of money on the campaign,” Ebell said.
…
Happer initially wanted Trump to issue an executive order to create the “Presidential Committee on Climate Security.” He wanted the panel to review assertions within the National Climate Assessment related to risks from climate change on national security. Happer briefed Trump on climate science at least twice (Climatewire, June 24).
The idea to create the panel has caused strife within the White House. Among its critics are deputy chief of staff Chris Liddell; Kevin Hassett, the outgoing chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council; and Kelvin Droegemeier, the president’s science adviser. Those supporting the plan include Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner and Brooke Rollins, assistant to Trump in the Office of American Innovation.
An official at NSC disputed the characterization that the panel was dead, even while confirming that it had been indefinitely delayed. The plan has suffered several downgrades over the months. It was initially proposed as a rapid response team of climate science critics who would challenge government publications on human-caused warming. Recent discussions have centered on the idea of forcing government climate scientists to participate in a debate with critics of their work who deny that humans are causing widespread changes on Earth (Climatewire, June 6). Most recently, the plan was diminished to creating dueling white papers that would elevate climate denialism to the level of consensus science.
#
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano statement: (Author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change)
Morano: “President Trump could have made this federal challenge to man-made climate claims happen, but sadly, it appears to have not been one of his priorities. I don’t blame the Republican establishment for a federal committee, I blame President Trump himself. This will go down as one of the biggest missed opportunities in modern times to challenge Al Gore, The UN IPCC and the National Climate Assessment. Without this federal challenge led by Dr. Will Happer , the best opportunity has been lost for a federal pushback to the absolute scientific crap coming from reports like the National Climate Assessment. “See: Fed climate con job : Obama’s UN Paris negotiator & green activists helped prepare dire federal climate report & Scientists rip new federal climate report as ‘tripe’ – ’embarrassing’ – ‘systematically flawed’ – Key claim based on study funded by Steyer & Bloomberg
Larry Kudlow and science advisor Kelvin Droegemeier — like many in officials Washington — view challenging climate science as a quagmire like the Vietnam War — best avoided at all costs. As for Droegemeier, he has proven to be a wasted pick for Trump. Droegemeier is a science bureaucrat who is best known for dodging any opportunity to go on record with his views on climate change. Droegemeier clearly does not want to be associated with any Administration that would dare challenge the so-called climate ‘consensus.’
A federal climate committee could have been the greatest official challenge to climate change claims since the UN IPCC was formed in 1988. (see: UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report)
The only way this climate committee could have received the green light was from Trump himself to overrule the expected opposition from the fearful DC establishment. I suspect that none of Trump’s cabinet heads would have publicly supported the climate committee, as they appear to be too timid to even contemplate a public challenge to climate claims. I am specifically referring to Energy Dept’s Perry, EPA’s Wheeler, NASA’s Bridenstine, etc. Even if Trump is re-elected, the same forces will reconvene to argue against any climate challenge.
The well-funded climate establishment has successfully ensured that anyone challenging any aspect of the ‘global warming’ narrative face a barrage of insults, ridicule and bad media. The only Trump cabinet member willing to challenge climate change was former EPA chief Scott Pruitt. And for his efforts, Pruitt was run out of DC and held to a higher standard than anyone else in official Washington. The message was clear after Pruitt left DC — challenge the climate narrative and you will be punished.
President Trump’s otherwise awesome ‘climate legacy’ — EPA reforms, UN Pairs exit, pro-energy policies, etc. — could all mostly be reversed within a few months of a future climate activist presidential administration.
President Trump, we were hoping for more from you on climate change. I have been one of your biggest supporters. See: Trump Aces Climate Change Debate on ’60 Minutes’
Mr. President, you have done very well on climate and energy policy, but you have fallen significantly short by failing to establish this badly needed federal climate commission.”
End statement of Marc Morano.
#
Related Links:
Media Attacks Should Be a Signal to Trump: Focus on Flawed Climate Science
Marc Morano, the publisher of the influential Washington D.C.-based Climatedepot.com, agrees that the results of such a panel would be tumultuous. But that, says Morano, is exactly why the panel should go ahead.
“Activists want to silence any skepticism that would encourage the public to think about the huge problems in the science,” said Morano. “And some frightened Republicans want to avoid a conflict on this issue. But conflict is inevitable if we are to have any chance of getting the best science used to inform policymakers.”
Morano continued, “We need an official report with the seal of the U.S. government that would lay out the arguments against the groundless climate change fears being promoted by Al Gore and the UN. Then, federal judges would have a solid foundation on which to base their deliberations in climate-related cases.”
Trump moves to de-fang global warming science with ‘climate review panel’ led by Princeton physicist
EPA Chief Wheeler: Trump admin might ‘re‑examine’ climate science
Some in GOP shrinking from climate skepticism? Morano explains & urges Presidential climate commission – In support of his position, Graham argued that Republicans need to appeal to young people who support the climate scare. Marc Morano, the publisher of the influential Washington DC-based Climatedepot.com, responded, “I can’t imagine that any millennial who cares about this is going to be voting Republican because they are activists at their core. If you’re a millennial and you’re skipping school and all excited about the Green New Deal (GND), there is no way Republicans can appeal to them with some sort of lite version of the GND.”
“You don’t capitulate to young voters because they have been brainwashed into believing that mankind is driving a climate ‘crisis,’” said Morano. “You lead and reveal to them that what they think they know just ain’t so.”
Morano explains why so many Republican support climate alarmism: “They just don’t want to be seen as ‘evil deniers’ and they are prepared to give in wherever they can. They want to have less toxicity in the media, in town halls, in social circles around the Washington establishment. By supporting the climate scare, they’re going to be better liked, less embarrassed by their positions and can say, ‘you can’t call us deniers anymore!’ That gives them a level of comfort at parties, campaign events, speeches and town halls.”
Clearly, what is now urgently needed is for the Trump administration to go ahead with the President’s Commission on Climate Security. Then there would be an alternative federal climate change report with the seal of the U.S. government on it. Morano summed up, “We’ve never had a challenge to the UN from an official source. A Presidential Commission report would be the first one ever. Let’s just hope that it goes through.”
Skeptics argue that federal research has become tainted by the involvement of activists and a grant process that rewards climate-disaster scenarios. “The only way to get a truly independent review of climate science is to go outside the government and allow a truly independent review of climate science,” said Climate Depot’s Marc Morano, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.”
“When you have groups like the National Academy of Sciences, which are nearly 100 percent dependent on government funding, it is very difficult to ever expect unbiased reviews,” he said. “When you have reports like the National Climate Assessment that was coordinated by Obama’s lead UN Paris negotiator and activists from the Union of Concerned Scientists, you can’t expect unbiased reports on the science.”
