I give President Trump partial credit for his excellent instincts that the coming climate change crisis was a hoax. It is a hoax. A fifty year old hoax. We have all lived with global warming for the past 45 years, and it has been beneficial -- with more CO2 in the atmosphere 'greening' our planet, and global warming most affecting areas with cold climates. The worst possible interpretation of the warming since the 1970s is "harmless".
Unfortunately, Donald Trump never learned anything about climate science. As a result, not once in his life has he ever made an intelligent statement about climate science, not even for one minute.
Carbon dioxide is the staff of almost all life on our planet. To call it a pollutant is anti-science.
The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually low, measured in geologic time.
Our planet has had CO2 levels up to seven times higher than today (415 parts per million today).
There have been significant increases of atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels in the past 100 years.
The global average temperature has also been slowly increasing since the 1970s.
No one was harmed.
In fact, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is 'greening' our planet, because plants love CO2 -- they would prefer double to triple the current CO2 concentration, as smart greenhouse owners know.
Smart greenhouse owners use CO2 enrichment systems inside their greenhouses to stimulate plant growth.
The warming since the 1970s is often blamed on CO2, but there is no proof of that -- natural causes of climate change, in progress for the prior 4.5 billion years, could have caused the same warming.
Lab experiments with CO2 suggest more CO2 in the atmosphere should cause mild warming.
We have had mild warming since the 1970s.
So the assumption that CO2 caused some of the warming is good enough for me -- but the warming has been harmless, and will remain harmless if it continues for another 45 years.
The "climate emergency" claim is fiction -- a hoax created by leftists to justify more government control of the private sector.
Weather satellites show us more details about the warming than a single global average temperature, that not one person lives in.
Satellite data show the actual warming has most affected colder area -- the northern half of the Northern Hemisphere, mainly during the six colder months of the year, and mainly at night.
That pattern of actual warming since the 1970s, 'promotes' global warming from harmless, to beneficial, in my opinion.
In spite of the evidence, and science, showing increasing CO2 has been harmless for the past 45 years, the Obama EPA used sub-standard science (actually junk science) to declare that CO2 was pollution that needed to be regulated.
“Our Endangerment Finding concluded on the basis of scientific evidence from the U.S. Global Climate Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], and the National Research Council that certain long-lived and directly emitted greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – the six well-mixed greenhouse gases – may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare.”
The "Endangerment Finding" was announced early in the Obama Administration, by a Democrat EPA administrator.
The EPA had no physical evidence that the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) endangered public health and welfare.
The so-called "studies" cited by the EPA made no attempt to separate human influence on climate, from natural influences, based on physical evidence.
There was just speculation.
No attempt to separate the climate effect of man made greenhouse gases from other human influences, such as economic growth in the vicinity of weather stations, and changes of land use, such as agriculture and irrigation.
The "studies" ignore the most relevant field of physics -- radiative transfer.
The EPA determination is not based on the best science, but on speculation.
The greenhouse effect is mainly in the troposphere.
The dominant greenhouse gas in the troposphere, by far, is water vapor.
Organizations cited by the EPA use speculation to separate the influence of water vapor from the influence of other greenhouse gases, such as CO2.
The "studies" failed to test troposphere temperature trends, measured with weather satellites, against what their climate models project.
In fact, the climate models greatly overestimate the warming effects of greenhouse gases.
The scientific method REQUIRES testing the hypothesis against all physical evidence.
That was not done.
The courts' trust in the EPA is misplaced.