CNN commentator Dana Bash said falsely that climate scientists and other experts claim that the world needs to eliminate all fossil fuels to prevent the “most catastrophic consequences” of climate change.
Bash asked former Rep. John Delaney (D-MD) a question regarding his thoughts on the Green New Deal, in which the CNN debate moderator said that many climate scientists claim that the world needs to eliminate all fossil fuel pollution by 2050 to avoid the most allegedly harmful effects of climate change.
Bash said, “Scientists say we essentially need to eliminate fossil fuel pollution by 2050 to avoid most catastrophic consequences.”
However, despite Bash’s claim, many studies show that drastically eliminating fossil fuel emissions would not avoid the supposed effects of climate change by avoiding rising temperatures.
The pro-climate change ClimateActionTracker.org illustrates that if all countries were to meet their Paris Agreement fossil fuel reductions, it would not come close to the limit in warming to the weaker benchmark of two degrees Celsius, not too much the more aggressive target of 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Many leftist politicians such as South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and others have claimed that we have 12 years to address climate change before it is too late to solve the problem.
However, it even appears in the United Nation’s own periodic reports and other experts, only a modest climate plan could be justified, or else it would cause too much damage to the world economy to address the alleged climate crisis.
Robert Murphy, a senior fellow at the Mises Institute and professor at the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech University, said in June, “The rhetorical framing of the issue is so far removed from the underlying research that this alone is heretical.”
Read more at Breitbart
This article has a flaw. First it talks about Dana Bash’s statement that the use of fossil fuels has to completely end by 2050. Then it accurately states that if all countries met their Paris Treaty goals (assuming CO2 is causing warming) the world would not come close to the limit in warming to the weaker benchmark of two degrees Celsius. Completely ending fossil fuel use and the Paris Treaty are not the same thing.
The article is correct when it says, “only a modest climate plan could be justified, or else it would cause too much damage to the world economy to address the alleged climate crisis.”
Of course the biggest error in the article is the assumption that releasing carbon dioxide is a problem. There is a poor correlation between CO2 levels and the earth’s temperature history.
Just another Nutcase calling for elminate the use of Fossil Fuels yes indeed this idea is Stupid Maybe she should take up living in either a cave or a grass hut and see what its like this nonsense has got to end