Michael Medved, President Trump, Noah Rothman discussed on Michael Medved
Some. Of it. And it's fine. I don't believe it. No, I don't believe it. And here's the other thing. You're gonna have to have China, and Japan, and all of Asia, and all of these other countries, you know, it dr- addresses our right dour at the cleanest. We've ever been very important, but if went clean, but every other place on earth is thirty. That's not so good. So I want clean air. I want clean water. Very important. Okay. Rhino. President Trump is not often at his best when he's about to board the helicopter. But he's right. I mean, basically, there's a terrific piece today in the Wall Street Journal by Stephen Kuehnen, who as I mentioned is a theoretical physicist. He's university professor at New York University, and he served as under secretary of energy. During all of President Obama's first term. He's not some right winger. He worked in the Obama administration. And he has a piece that basically takes the piece by piece by piece by piece this report from our federal government and just rips it apart. It's it's completely ridiculous conclusion is that the worst case scenario. In other words, the worst it could be if everything goes wrong, and we don't do anything. We don't mitigate and we don't develop any new source of green energy and everything goes just to Helena Handbasket, then our annual GDP growth. Will be slower over the next eighty years. By five one hundredths of one percent. Okay. That's so infinitesimal. We're talking about not one percent not half of one percent but point zero five percentage points decrease in growth. I mean, really. One eight hundred nine five five seventeen seventy six is our phone number. Noah rothman. Actually had something to say that. I think explains some of the reasons that people get a report like this report from the government that projects things out to two thousand one hundred. So you're talking about eighty two years from now and does so with all this certainty and specificity. Yeah, he has some questions about that a projection of specific impacts is something we should look on with skepticism because it has been proven in the past that these projections are very specific impacts failed to meet expectations. The IPCC's nine thousand nine hundred report was wrong on temperatures and rates have increased the two thousand one report was wrong about snowstorms being more or less intense than normal and just last week. We had a consensus opinion about ozanich temperatures rising being retracted not because of the rigors of peer review because a skeptic with a blog observed and dissected the numbers and pointed out the errors in this collective judgment. So no these projections. It takes us literally got century out. Should be looked on. With some skepticism and the president says having a very ordinary way. But he's not wrong about. That's okay. The point that professor Conan makes is experts know that worst case climate projections show, minimal minimal impact on the overall economy buried in the intergovernmental panel on climate change is two thousand fourteen report is a chart showing that a global temperature rise of five degrees Fahrenheit would have a global economic impact of about three percent in twenty one hundred negligibly diminishing projected global growth over that period to three hundred eighty five percent growth from four hundred percent. Now, it's still means Bjorn Lomborg made very clear on this show that you have tremendous overall growth. And is that a problem? Let's go quickly to Perry and Sugarland, Texas. You're on the Michael Medved Show. Hello, Michael, thanks for letting me be on your show here. Sure. Go ahead. Yeah. I've got a question for experts. I've never been able to find any numbers on this. But. How much CO two is produced by human activity. That's what we're concerned with the only thing we can mitigate read is human activity. Right. Well, you can mitigate the rest of it to there are. But you're very right to point out that I believe that. It's it's the minority of overall CO two because. There's a again, I don't know. And I don't have an answer to that. I'm not sure that we have a definitive answer on that. But the point is that the climate is a very very complex system and the projections that we've had in the past have gone up they've gone down. They've been this way. They've been that way. The climate is warming. I think most people agree with that. But there are some people who are now argue that climate warming slightly slight global warming is actually beneficial because it means that places like Iceland and Mongolia are actually going to be doing very well because they'll have more moderate climates does that speak disaster for our future. What do you say about this question of economic growth and things getting better? We'll be right back on the Medved show. That's our news. I'm Keith Peters in Washington.