1. The U.S. government never has and never will have “power to fight climate change.” If the United States ordered everyone back to the caves, it would have minuscule effect on global climate, if any. This is the propaganda that the public has been regularly fed by the news media and environmental hysterics for decades now.
David Muir, the ABC news host who proved himself to be a shameless partisan hack throughout the 2024 Presidential campaign, parroted the same Axis talking point yesterday: “Tonight, President Trump has repealed U.S. power to regulate climate in this country.” Wait, the government has the power to regulate the climate, and still let the weather in my part of the country hit the lowest temperatures in over a century? Why aren’t citizens protesting that?
The news telling the public that such power exists is, quite basically, a lie.
2. Trump didn’t “erase” any “scientific finding.” What he did was have the EPA drop its Obama-era “Environmental Protection Agency’s “endangerment finding,” which was, like most of the climate change “consensus,” politically motivated and dubious science delivered as fact.
3. It is misleading to state that “greenhouse gasses” are dangerously heating the planet. It is dishonest to say that “scientists say” those gasses “are supercharging heat waves, droughts, wildfires and other extreme weather.” Some scientists say that, and those who have based predictions on this conclusion have ended up looking foolish. (Wher are all those hurricanes?) The claim that the Maui and Los Angeles wildfires were caused by climate change (rather than bad luck and human incompetence) has been persuasively debunked as confirmation bias.
4. The Times’ use of that smokestack and traffic in an article about greenhouse gases is deliberately misleading.
Over at Instapundit, Ed Driscoll gives us an amusing flashback of the crazed scaremongering the news media is addicted to on this issue:
“In January of 2007, “Good Morning America” ran a Chyron that read “Will Billions Die from Global Warming?”, while then-GMA weatherman Sam Champion breathlessly told Robin Roberts:
‘That’s what’s in this report and why everyone is trying to jump this report that officially comes out Friday, Robin. There are big, new headlines and some of them are coming out of Australia in media reports. Now, they say that those scientists in Paris will estimate that between 1.1 and 3.2 billion people will suffer from water shortage problems by 2080. That’s not your grandchildren, that’s your children. And between 200 million and 600 million more people will be going hungry.’
“The following year, ABC News was back at it: Quick Reminder: Nobody at ABC Personally Takes Their Global Warming Doomsday Predictions Seriously, Either.
“New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on “Good Morning America” in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.
The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, “It’s June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99.” (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: “Gas reached over $9 a gallon.” (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)
“On June 12, 2008, correspondent Bob Woodruff revealed that the program “puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015.”
“As one expert warns that in 2015 the sea level will rise quickly, a visual shows New York City being engulfed by water. The video montage includes another unidentified person predicting that ‘flames cover hundreds of miles.’”
Then-GMA co-anchor Chris Cuomo appeared frightened by this future world. He wondered, “I think we’re familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That’s seven years from now. Could it really be that bad?”
Driscoll concludes, “As I wrote back in 2015, “Obviously, no one at ABC thought so, since the network never moved their corporate headquarters from its tony Upper West Side address, despite attempting to scare the crap out of gullible low information viewers that Manhattan would be flooded in seven years.”
How many billions of dollars has the United States added to its doomsday debt with policies, regulations and restrictions that were just virtue signalling to the environmental fanatics in the Democratic Party’s voting base and accomplished nothing substantive except that they allowed the party to claim they were “doing something”? How many billions of dollars have these grandstanding measures cost consumers and businesses?
Ethics Alarms 
It’s a great thing the the EPA to withdraw that finding.
First, it will make it harder for a future EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as though it was a pollutant.
Second, it’ll be appealed and with any luck the Supreme Court will reverse its decision to let the EPA classify carbon dioxide as a ‘pollutant’. On Major Questons alone, I think it’ll fail — if Congress wanted to include carbon dioxide, it could have done so.
Bully!
Jack wrote: “Wait, the government has the power to regulate the climate, and still let the weather in my part of the country hit the lowest temperatures in over a century?”
Yup. Climate control is just like the thermostat in your house. You can dial it up or down, above or below St. Barack’s 72 degrees, depending on your privilege and economic tolerance.
jvb
“(Where are all those hurricanes?)”
To paraphrase the former texagg04: After 2005’s Katrina, 2006 will be the Year Of The SUPER HURRICANES!
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017: see! We told you so!!!!
PWS
It’s so strange to see the way the mainstream press is talking about this. They speak of Trump rescinding a scientific finding, as if scientific findings were established or rescinded by decree. They also speak of him erasing the government’s authority to fight climate change, as if the limits of government authority were likewise set by executive decree.
I love the classic misdirection of that headline. There are eight billion people living on this planet. If the average lifespan is seventy-five years (and that might be slightly high for the world average, but it’s nice for the math, so…) then 1.5% of the world’s population dies every year, give or take. That’s 120,000,000 people dying each year from all causes.
So guess what?…every 8-9 years, a billion people die.
Billions of people are already dying, and climate can’t do a thing about it one way or the other.
I suspect that every country (e.g., Western Europe) which has shown any progress toward cutting the emissions of carbon dioxide has done so by exporting their heavy industry to India and China, who go on to pollute without restraint. By buying steel, instead of ore, they outsource the blast furnace. By buying appliances, instead of steel, they outsource the forging, rolling, stamping, plating, and painting of the components. And then they complain that other countries don’t care about the environment as much as they do. And then they wonder why they can’t build weapons to defend themselves from their favorite natural-gas supplier.
Lathechuck
That Gina McCarthy woman that Obama put in charge of the EPA was evil. Obama let her and her minions run amok for eight years causing immeasurable damage. The “endangerment finding” preposterously declared CO2 to be a pollutant that the EPA could regulate. What a joke. A naturally occurring, inert gas comprising .04 percent of the atmosphere. The idea that trashing the endangerment finding strips the EPA of all its authority is ridiculous.
“(Where are all those hurricanes?)”, 2.0:
(bolds/caps/italics mine throughout) BBC (January 2018): “A warmer world IS BRINGING US a greater number of hurricanes and a greater risk of a hurricane becoming the most powerful category 5.”
Paul Homewood at notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com informed them of their ascientific assertion, and POOF that sentence mysteriously disappeared.
Seems they forgot to add the necessary ingredient of COULDIFMAYMIGHT.
Anywho, in its stead: “Scientists are still analysing what this data will mean, but a warmer world MAY bring us a greater number of more powerful category 4 and 5 hurricanes and could bring more extreme rainfall.”
And: ”Correction 29 January 2018: This story has been updated to clarify that IT IS MODELLING RATHER THAN HISTORICAL DATA that predicts stronger and wetter hurricanes.
Retraction of an unsupportable claim by Global Warming, Inc?
PWS