The White House has established a page on their official website dedicated to climate change. Naturally, it ignores evidence to the contrary because, after all, there is this alleged scientific consensus that the world is warming, that man is causing it by the creation of increased carbon dioxide emissions, that the Obama administration is the only ones doing anything about it, and that if we do not do more, the world will over-heat and we are all toast. The first assertion is that 2012 was the most extreme year on record for the Nation. The key words here are "on record." The United States has been keeping records for only a portion of our history plus the nation has expanded over the years since our founding. For example, because records were not kept on temperatures further back in our history, we just don't really know that 2012 was the most extreme year. We do know from the newspapers at the time that Philadelphia did experience a particularly hot, humid summer during the Constitutional convention and we also know that there were no motorized vehicles or coal-fired plants spewing carbon dioxide into the air then. Furthermore, the US land area has expanded over the years into areas much warmer than the original 13 colonies. When you add more of this warmer land mass to your "nation," obviously the average temperature of that nation increases.
This is akin to the Soviet Union's closing of temperature recording stations in the wake of their break up, but in reverse. When they shut down the stations in outlying areas, like Siberia which happens to be cold, does that mean the old Soviet Union got "warmer?" Likewise, if we add states that are traditionally hot and have large desert areas, can we truly state the United States got warmer? We simply moved the goal posts into warmer areas. All this talk about "record heat" is only as good as the recording itself. Native Americans, who occupied this land before the colonists, did not keep meticulous temperature records. Another claim is that one-third of the US population experienced 100 degree temperatures for ten or more days in 2012. Of course, as the US population pushes south and west into states like Arizona, Texas and Florida-three states, to the best of knowledge, known for their heat way before the global warming apocalypse- the chances are that a greater proportion of the US population will experience hot temperatures. It is a price you pay at times for living in the extreme south or southwest.
The next set of evidence was that the average precipitation in the United States was 2.57 inches below the 20th century average in 2012. And so what? What was it in 2011 or 2013? Judging from the amount of snow and rain New Jersey alone received this past winter (2013-2014) I believe that state alone may have made up for this 2012 deficit. Rainfall amounts fluctuate annually and are more driven by El Nino and La Nina patterns which, to the best of my knowledge, occurred prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine and large fossil fuel burning power plants. The website also states that 2012 was the 15th driest year on record. Again, "on record." Regardless, who cares? What explains the 14 other years ahead of 2012? And as for the acreage burned by wildfires in 2012 (9.3 million), from 1960 to 1970- a period of alleged global cooling- over 48 million acres were lost to wildfires. The website leaves out where these wildfires occurred. I would be more worried if they occurred in areas not prone to wildfires. Also, their causes are left out. It is one thing if the fire was caused naturally (by lightning, for example) or by human arson or carelessness. As the population pushes into and vacations in wildfire prone areas, the chances of wildfires increases. This is like saying sharks are more aggressive these days because more people are swimming in shark-infested waters.
Then there are the costs allegedly associated with climate change. The website asserts that droughts in 2012 cost the US $30 billion. How the government responds to droughts now versus in years past is very different and more expensive due to agricultural policy. Regardless, the drought that created the Dust Bowl during the Depression is estimated to have cost over $56 billion (in 2012 dollars) in 1933 alone. Again, do carbon dioxide emissions explain that calamity in the 1930s? And what would any climate change scare story be without mentioning "Superstorm" Sandy? The only "super" aspect of this storm is that it struck a highly populated area thus increasing its cost. Hurricanes are judged on their strength by their barometric pressure. Admittedly, these measurements were not taken prior to the 1900s thus it is very possible that there were stronger hurricanes pre-1900. Regardless, Sandy does not even rank in the top 20 hurricanes in recorded history in terms of barometric pressure. The only thing that elevates Hurricane Sandy to "super" status is where it made landfall. There are likely innumerable Atlantic hurricanes stronger in terms of "cost," barometric pressure, wind speed, rainfall and storm surge than any in the official NOAA record books in the distant past when there were no cars and no power plants emitting carbon dioxide.
The White House's website is concerned with costs to the United States and this ignores the "global" aspect of global climate change. For example, one of the predictions of the doomsday prognosticators is that the oceans will rise by a certain number of feet or inches in the next century unless we act. They leave out the fact that absent carbon dioxide emissions, the oceans have risen and fallen over the centuries. For example, I live about 8 miles west of the eastern coast of the United States, yet if I dig deep enough in my backyard I find sea shells. This phenomena- absent carbon dioxide emissions- also explains why the fossils of sea life are found in the interior of the country. There are reports that the polar ice caps in the Arctic are decreasing in size while ignorant of the fact that those in the Antarctic are increasing. Apparently these carbon dioxide emissions are not spreading themselves throughout the atmosphere and affecting only the northern ice caps for reasons unexplained, or ignored. There was a little scare a few years ago about a huge chunk of the Antarctic that had broken off and was drifting towards Australia. This was conveniently used by the global warming crowd of the calamity about to ensue. However, they ignored other evidence that (1) this usually happens when the southern ice cap encroaches on the relatively warmer parts of the southern Indian, Atlantic or Pacific oceans and (2) the ice at the center of the Antarctic was actually thickening. There, the ice cap forms at the center and migrates out until it can not migrate any further and then breaks off. And guess what? This has been happening for eons without vehicles or power plants.
Nobody on the Right denies the fact that the earth can warm up and cool down and that we may just be in a period of warming up. Furthermore, nobody on the Right is for air pollution, but it defies explanation how a naturally occurring gas even qualifies as "pollution." Even if carbon dioxide can be classified as an air pollutant, there is scientific evidence from ice core samples that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were considerably higher than the present in our very distant past when humans were not even existent. It is estimated that the eruption of a good sized volcano can emit more carbon dioxide than all that emitted by humans in the totality of human history. Are we to plug up volcanoes? Furthermore, nobody on the Right is against renewable energy sources, just the federal subsidization of such efforts. Personally, removing government subsidies from the fossil fuel industry- which is more reliable and cheaper than these renewable sources- is something that should be examined, but given the surge in that industry killing the goose that laid then golden egg is a consideration also. The Obama administration's "all of the above" energy policy places the more reliable sources low on their list of acceptable options and, frankly, almost totally ignores nuclear energy. I behooves me to understand how a country like France can produce over 80% of their energy needs from nuclear sources and the United States cannot do the same. The only thing holding that back are the scare-mongering environmentalists who occupy the Left. These are the same people with a visceral hatred of capitalism and free market solutions to our energy needs. And they stop at nothing to scare others along the way. But, when a White House website adopts these very tactics, the scenario becomes less funny and more scary.