In Pennsylvania, it has become evident that there is no consensus on the role human activity plays in climate change. In fact, scientists who have testified before the state legislature have informed elected officials that natural influences are largely responsible for recent warming trends. They have also called attention to flawed methodology used in climate models that greatly exaggerate the level of warming that is likely to take place over the next several decades.
That’s not what Gov. Tom Wolf wants to hear as he continues to push for new regulations that would enroll Pennsylvania into a multistate climate change agreement known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. But that’s what geologists and climatologists made clear during a Pennsylvania House hearing in July.
The members of the CO2 Coalition who took part in the hearing presented the findings of a new report they released that takes aim at what they describe as the “faulty data” standing behind Wolf’s regulatory proposals. The nonprofit group includes roughly 70 scientists who are devoted to “educating thought leaders, policy makers, and the public” about the benefits of carbon dioxide. The CO2 Coalition report debunks the forecasts and predictions made by the Wolf administration to rationalize restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions. The greenhouse gas initiative, which is often referred to as RGGI, includes 11 New England and Mid-Atlantic states.
“There is no climate crisis and no need for RGGI,” Gregory Wrightstone, a geologist and executive director of the CO2 Coalition, said during his testimony. “Historical data show the Wolf administration’s prediction of climatic disaster is blatant fearmongering meant to advance a destructive anti-science agenda. Instead of imposing a program that would destroy Pennsylvania’s billion-dollar fossil fuel industry and tens of thousands of associated jobs, government bodies tasked with reviewing Gov. Wolf’s proposal should follow the science and reject RGGI.”
Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow and climatologist with the coalition and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, discussed the problems with modeling during his part of the testimony. Pennsylvania’s Climate Action Plan, which has been used by the Wolf administration, did not follow “best scientific practices,” Michaels explained, because the plan “used the wrong emissions scenario” to make future projections.
He also told lawmakers that it was a mistake to average up the results of computer models that did not produce results in line with what was observed by satellites and weather balloons. Out of the 102 models that are part of the “observed data,” Michaels identified just one that corresponded with what occurred with climate. “Best scientific practices” would involve doing “what weather forecasters do every day,” Michaels said. “They look at the model that works, not all of them. They don’t average them up.”
With regard to global warming, Wrightstone said this trend began more than 300 years ago before carbon dioxide levels increased in response to human fossil fuel use. “The first 250 years of that warming had to have been naturally driven,” he observed. “And now, we’re being asked to believe that the last 50 or 60 years, all of a sudden, it’s now caused by CO2. … That’s not how science works.”
The testimony disputing Wolf’s climate change prognostications comes at a time when a growing number of lawmakers are questioning the economic feasibility of RGGI and the legality of unilateral executive actions on climate change.
The House hearing was held just a few days after the state Senate voted to pass legislation that prohibits Wolf from joining RGGI without legislative approval. The House is expected to vote on a similar bill when it reconvenes in late September. Lawmakers who are opposed to Pennsylvania’s involvement with RGGI have argued that the “cap and trade” arrangements and quarterly auctions that figure into the multistate initiative would result in the imposition of carbon taxes on residents that only the state legislature has the authority to approve.
“Pennsylvania has become a premier energy state in the past decade, and the benefits of that distinction redound across the commonwealth,” Jordan McGillis, the deputy director of policy with the Institute for Energy Research, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, said in an interview. “That this bill was supported by six of Gov. Wolf’s own Democrats in the state Senate speaks to the broad appreciation Pennsylvanians have for the ability to produce, refine, and, of course, utilize affordable energy products. RGGI would cut the legs out from under Pennsylvania’s strongest industry, reducing employment security and economic competitiveness.”
Kevin Mooney (@KevinMooneyDC) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an investigative reporter in Washington, D.C., who writes for several national publications.
