Hey Joe, Â
No Spin Zone points out that your comment is an ad hominem attack on my character, and for sure, I'm a hypocrite when it comes to energy. Like almost everyone, I consume coal-fire electricity and fossil fuels. But scientists aren't hypocrites for doing their job. They have been warning about climate change since at least the 1960's--when LBJ mentioned it in an address to Congress. In the 1970's Exxon carried out an in-house study and determined also that climate change was legit and human-driven. Our soon-to-be Secretary of State was right there when the decision was made to keep shareholders in the dark and to fund public misinformation about climate science. But what's interesting about climate change, is how it reveals a person's moral orientation to others and the world at large. Do they, for instance, feel any obligation to children, to the non-human world, or to people in impacted areas? I mean, nearly 30 people drowned in North Carolina last October after Hurricane Matthew grazed the State. Not a direct hit but a glancing blow that nonetheless dropped enough rain on upland areas to flood rivers on the coastal plain and trap thousands who never saw it coming on their roofs. Hurricanes are a fact of life, a way that our planet dissipates and transfers heat. But Hurricane Matthew was a sustained Category 3 to 4 for nearly a week, it was huge, it made mince-meat of Haiti and killed 1,600 people in the Caribbean and that is exactly what climatologists have said climate change would do: not an increase in the number of hurricanes, but rather, an increase in their destructive force. Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey and NYC was another example. So call scientists hypocrites, but the irrefutable taxpayer-funded truth that Trump gagged this week at the EPA is that science offers remedies for climate change. It was geoscientists, after all, who discovered shale gas and coal methane beds and fracking. The reason CO2 emissions "have been falling in this country" as you say, "since the Bush Administration ," isn't some random triumph of the market. It's because Bush's Great Recession depressed growth and industry and CO2 emissions, and because fracked natural gas burns 50% cleaner than coal, and is now a cheaper energy source. Coal is dying not because of Obama's mythological "War on Coal," but because of basic economics. And as for China and India, here's a great picture of Obama and Xi Jinping in Paris agreeing to a global accord (along with the Indians) to cut carbon emissions. Now, almost certainly, the United States will abandon that effort, even though a majority of Americans support it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-climatechange-idUSKCN11901W