Connect with us

Economy

Obama chief scientist cools on climate crisis news coverage

Published

4 years ago

11 minute read

Article originally published at CFACT.org

President Barack Obama’s Energy Department Chief Scientist Steven Koonin’s soon-to-be-published book will discuss information that the public really needs to have regarding grossly overheated “climate crisis” media hype.

Titled “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What it Doesn’t, and Why It Matters,” a preview of it’s contents is provided in an April 16 Wall Street Journal interview with the author posted by Holman Jenkins, Jr.

Jenkins’ piece is titled “How a Physicist Became a Climate Truth Teller,” and I recommend it to readers who are interested in a fuller book content and author background account.

Having followed the science over more than a decade — and written a couple of pretty good books and likely a hundred or so articles on the subject — I find Koonin’s descriptive accuracy and candor enormously refreshing.

Sadly, few — if any — others in the Obama-Biden White House really cared about facts, paid attention, or learned anything from him at all.

First, because this is particularly relevant to me, Steven Koonin’s background as a physicist combines his technical understanding of applications and limitations of computer modeling of complex systems and practical experience in dealing with real-world realities such as assessing how we can most effectively and efficiently apply fundamental energy principles to meet complex human conditions and requirements.

Koonin taught physics at Caltech for nearly three decades, where he also served as provost; was recruited by the non-profit Institute for Defense Analysis which provided advisory services to military and congressional leaders; worked at JASON, another private scientific organization where he conducted and supervised cold-fusion energy and human genome mapping research; and later worked as chief scientist for British Petroleum (BP) which was later rebranded as “Beyond Petroleum.”

While at BP, Koonin created the multidisciplinary Energy Biosciences Institute at Berkeley which studies a wide range of scientific issues ranging from the isotopic composition of micro-fossils in the sea floor through regulation of industrial power plants.

Steven Koonin’s research into the world’s energy system led him to become convinced that the only “real climate crisis was a crisis of political and scientific candor,” and that the world “isn’t going to be able to reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions enough to make much difference.”

Koonin argues that while he supports responsible climate science, his issue is that what media and activist say about climate science has drifted so far out of touch with the actual science as to be absurdly, demonstrably false.

With reference to a 2019 report by presidents of the National Academy of Sciences which asserted that the “magnitude and frequency of certain extreme events are increasing,” for example, he notes that the “United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is deemed to compile the best science, advised that all such claims should be treated with “low confidence.”

The U.S. government’s 2017 Climate Science Special Report had claimed that, in the lower 48 states, the “number of high temperature records set in the past two decades far exceeds the number of low temperature records.” On closer inspection, Koonin points out, “that’s because there’s been no increase in the rate of new record highs since 1900, only a decline in the number of new lows.”

A 2018 U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment which relied on such “ovegged” worst-case emissions and temperature projections, Koonin concludes, “was written more to persuade than to inform.” He says, “It masquerades as objective science but was written — all right, I’ll use the word — propaganda.”

Koonin emphasizes the absurdity of basing climate change alarm on century-long forecasts claiming to know how 1% shifts in poorly understood variables will affect a future global climate that we don’t understand with anything even resembling that precision.

Nevertheless, the IPCC will issue a report next year that will purport to determine how much warming to expect by the end of this century based upon 40-plus computer model simulations which have been diverging in projections — not converging — coming together — as one would hope to enable determination of which one should be trusted.

Without tweaking, the modelers can’t even agree on a current simulated global average surface temperature — varying by 3 degrees Celsius – three times the observed change over the past century.

Koonin, both an experienced computer practitioner and modeling enthusiast, recognizes that they are wonderful where the simulation variables and their interactions being projected are well known and results can be empirically tested.

“But these are more controlled, engineered situations,” he adds, “whereas the climate is a natural phenomenon. It’s going to do whatever it’s going to do. And it’s hard to observe. You need long, precise observations to understand its natural variability and how it responds to external influences.”

Koonin, who has been building models and watching others do so over 45 years, cautions that climate models “are not to the standard you would trust your life or even trillions of dollars to.”

For the record, Koonin agrees — as many of my well-informed climate scientist friends also do — that the world has warmed by about 1 degree Celsius since 1900, and it will likely warm by another degree by the end of this century.

There is no dispute I’m aware of that temperatures began warming at the end of the last “Little Ice Age” in the mid-1800s — before the Industrial Revolution — and will likely continue to do so in fits-and-starts with little or no influence from us until Mother Nature once again changes her mind.

Neither Koonin nor any real-world scientific climate or economic studies, however, have seen anything in the offing which he says “would justify the rapid and wholesale abandoning of fossil fuels, even if China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and others could be dissuaded from pursuing prosperity.”

Even John Kerry, Joe Biden’s “climate czar,” recently admitted that the current administration’s “net-zero” climate plan will have zero effect if developing countries don’t go along, and as Koonin notes, “they have little incentive to do so.”

In any case, Koonin believes that any warming that occurs will emerge slowly and with modest effect — not a runaway crisis that alarmists such as Al Gore and John Kerry hype. To the extent that reduced CO2emissions will make any measurable difference, the solutions should let technology and markets work together at their own pace.

“The climate might to continue to change at a pace that’s hard to perceive, but society will adapt.”

Konnin adds, “As a species, we’re very good at adapting.”

Perhaps the biggest challenge will be to survive the current political climate crisis.

 

Author: CFACT Advisor Larry Bell heads the graduate program in space architecture at the University of Houston. He founded and directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture. He is also the author of “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax.”

Article originally published at CFACT.org

In 1985, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) was founded to promote a much-needed, positive alternative voice on issues of environment and development. Its co-founders, David Rothbard and Craig Rucker, strongly believed the power of the market combined with the applications of safe technologies could offer humanity practical solutions to many of the world’s most pressing concerns. A number of leading scientists, academics, and policy leaders soon joined them, along with thousands of citizens from around the U.S. and around the world.

Today, CFACT is a respected Washington D.C.-based organization whose voice can be heard relentlessly infusing the public-interest debate with a balanced perspective on environmental stewardship and other important issues.  With an influential and impressive scientific advisory board, effective collegiate program on U.S. college campuses, CFACT Europe, official United Nations’ NGO representation, Adopt-A-Village project, Global Social Responsibility program, and “Just the Facts” daily national radio commentary, CFACT continues to offer genuine solutions to today’s most important global challenges.

CFACT has been termed “invaluable” by the Arizona Republic, it has been lauded for its “effort to bring sound science to the environmental debate” by a former president of the National Academy of Sciences, and has been praised by a respected Boston Herald columnist for “a record of supplying absolutely solid information.”

Related Topics:

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

More from this author
armed forces / 1 day ago

Canada’s Military Can’t Be Fixed With Cash Alone

International / 4 days ago

CBS settles with Trump over doctored 60 Minutes Harris interview

Crime / 3 weeks ago

Former Tim Walz appointee wanted for Minnesota shootings

Business

Canada’s loyalty to globalism is bleeding our economy dry

Published on July 4, 2025

By

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Sylvain Charlebois

Trump’s controversial trade policies are delivering results. Canada keeps playing by global rules and losing

U.S. President Donald Trump’s brash trade agenda, though widely condemned, is delivering short-term economic results for the U.S. It’s also revealing the high cost of Canada’s blind loyalty to globalism.

While our leaders scold Trump and posture on the world stage, our economy is faltering, especially in sectors like food and farming, which have been sacrificed to international agendas that don’t serve Canadian interests.

The uncomfortable truth is that Trump’s unapologetic nationalism is working. Canada needs to take note.

Despite near-universal criticism, the U.S. economy is outperforming expectations. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta projects 3.8 per cent second-quarter GDP growth.

Inflation remains tame, job creation is ahead of forecasts, and the trade deficit is shrinking fast, cut nearly in half. These results suggest that, at least in the short term, Trump’s economic nationalism is doing more than just stirring headlines.

Canada, by contrast, is slipping behind. The economy is contracting, manufacturing is under pressure from shifting U.S. trade priorities, and food
inflation is running higher than general inflation. One of our most essential sectors—agriculture and food production—is being squeezed by rising costs, policy burdens and vanishing market access. The contrast with the U.S. is striking and damning.

Worse, Canada had been pushed to the periphery. The Trump administration had paused trade negotiations with Ottawa over Canada’s proposed digital services tax. Talks have since resumed after Ottawa backed away from implementing it, but the episode underscored how little strategic value
Washington currently places on its relationship with Canada, especially under a Carney-led government more focused on courting Europe than securing stable access to our largest export market. But Europe, with its own protectionist agricultural policies and slower growth, is no substitute for the scale and proximity of the U.S. market. This drift has real consequences, particularly for
Canadian farmers and food producers.

The problem isn’t a trade war; it’s a global realignment. And while Canada clings to old assumptions, Trump is redrawing the map. He’s pulling back from institutions like the World Health Organization, threatening to sever ties with NATO, and defunding UN agencies like the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the global body responsible for coordinating efforts to improve food security and support agricultural development worldwide. The message is blunt: global institutions will no longer enjoy U.S. support without measurable benefit.

To some, this sounds reckless. But it’s forcing accountability. A senior FAO official recently admitted that donors are now asking hard questions: why fund these agencies at all? What do they deliver at home? That scrutiny is spreading. Countries are quietly realigning their own policies in response, reconsidering the cost-benefit of multilateralism. It’s a shift long in the making and long resisted in Canada.

Nowhere is this resistance more damaging than in agriculture. Canada’s food producers have become casualties of global climate symbolism. The carbon tax, pushed in the name of international leadership, penalizes food producers for feeding people. Policies that should support the food and farming sector instead frame it as a problem. This is globalism at work: a one-size-fits-all policy that punishes the local for the sake of the international.

Trump’s rhetoric may be provocative, but his core point stands: national interest matters. Countries have different economic structures, priorities and vulnerabilities.

Pretending that a uniform global policy can serve them all equally is not just naïve, it’s harmful. America First may grate on Canadian ears, but it reflects a reality: effective policy begins at home.

Canada doesn’t need to mimic Trump. But we do need to wake up. The globalist consensus we’ve followed for decades is eroding. Multilateralism is no longer a guarantee of prosperity, especially for sectors like food and farming. We must stop anchoring ourselves to frameworks we can’t influence and start defining what works for Canadians: secure trade access, competitive food production, and policy that recognizes agriculture not as a liability but as a national asset.

If this moment of disruption spurs us to rethink how we balance international cooperation with domestic priorities, we’ll emerge stronger. But if we continue down our current path, governed by symbolism, not strategy, we’ll have no one to blame for our decline but ourselves.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country

Continue Reading

Business

Carney’s spending makes Trudeau look like a cheapskate

Published on July 4, 2025

By

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Gwyn Morgan

The Carney government’s spending plans will push Canada’s debt higher, balloon the deficit, and drive us straight toward a credit downgrade

Prime Minister Mark Carney was sold to Canadians as the grown-up in the room, the one who’d restore order after Justin Trudeau’s reckless deficits. Instead, he’s spending even more and steering Canada deeper into trouble. His newly unveiled fiscal plan will balloon the deficit, drive up
interest costs and put Canada’s credit rating and economic future in jeopardy.

When Trudeau first ran for office, he promised “modest short-term deficits” of under $10 billion annually and a balanced budget by 2019. Instead, he ran nine consecutive deficits, peaking at $62 billion in 2023–24, and nearly doubled the national debt, from $650 billion to $1.236 trillion. That
reckless spending should have been a warning.

Yet Carney, presented for years as a safe, globally respected economic steward, is proving to be anything but. The recently released Main Estimates (the federal government’s official spending blueprint) project program spending will rise 8.4 per cent in 2025–26 to $488 billion. Add in at least $50 billion to service the national debt, and the federal tab balloons to $538 billion.

Even assuming tax revenues stay flat, we’re looking at a $40-billion deficit. But that’s optimistic. The ongoing tariff war with the United States, now hitting everything from autos to metals to consumer goods, is cutting deep into economic output. That means weaker revenues and a much larger shortfall. Carney’s response? Spend even more.

And the Canadian dollar is already paying the price. Since 2015, the loonie has slipped from 78 cents U.S. to 73. Carney’s spending spree is likely
to drive it even lower, eroding the value of Canadians’ wages, savings and retirement funds. Inflation? Buckle up.

Franco Terrazzano of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation nailed it in a recent Financial Post column: “Mark Carney was right: He’s not like Justin Trudeau, he spends more,” Terrazzano argues. “The government will spend $49 billion on interest this year and the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects interest charges will be blowing a $70-billion hole in the budget by 2029. That means our kids and grandkids will be making payments on Ottawa’s debt for the rest of their lives.”

Meanwhile, Canada’s credit rating is under real threat. An April 29 report by Fitch Ratings warned that “Canada has experienced rapid and steep fiscal deterioration, driven by a sharply weaker economic outlook and increased government spending during the electoral cycle. If the Liberal program is implemented, higher deficits are likely to increase federal, provincial and local debt to above 90 per cent of GDP.”

That’s not just a red flag; it’s a fire alarm. A downgraded credit rating means Ottawa will pay more to borrow, which trickles down to higher interest rates on everything from provincial debt to mortgages and business loans.

But this decline didn’t start with tariffs. The rot runs deeper. One of the clearest signs of a faltering economy is falling business investment per worker. According to the C.D. Howe Institute, investment has been shrinking since 2015. Canadian businesses now invest just 66 cents of new capital for every dollar invested by their OECD counterparts; only 55 cents compared to U.S. firms. That means less productivity, fewer wage gains and stagnating living standards.

Why is investment collapsing? Policy. Regulation. Taxes. Uncertainty.

The C.D. Howe report laid out a straightforward to-do list, one the federal government continues to ignore:

Reform corporate taxes to attract capital investment.
Introduce early-stage investment incentives.
Tear down regulatory barriers delaying resource and infrastructure projects, especially in energy (maybe then Alberta won’t feel like seceding).
Promote IP investment with targeted tax credits.
Bring stability and predictability back to the regulatory process.

Instead, what Canadians get is policy chaos and endless virtue-signalling. That’s no substitute for economic growth. And let’s talk about Carney’s much-touted past. Voters were bombarded with reminders that he led the Bank of Canada during the 2008–09 financial crisis. But it was Jim Flaherty, Stephen Harper’s finance minister, who made the hard fiscal decisions that got the country through it. Carney’s tenure at the Bank of England? A different story. As former U.K. Prime Minister Liz Truss put it: “Mark Carney did a terrible job” at the Bank of England. “He printed money to a huge extent, creating inflation.”

Fast-forward to today, and Canada’s performance is nothing short of dismal. Our GDP per capita sits at just $53,431, compared to America’s $82,769. That’s not just a bragging-rights statistic. It reflects real differences in productivity, competitiveness and national prosperity. Worse, over the past 10 years, Canada’s per capita GDP has grown just 1.1 per cent, second worst in the OECD, ahead of only Luxembourg.

We remain a great country filled with capable people, but our most significant fault may be how easily we fall for image over substance. First with Trudeau’s sunny ways. Now with Carney’s global banker persona. The reality? His plan risks stripping Canadians of their prosperity, downgrading our creditworthiness and deepening long-term decline.

It pains me to say it, but unless something changes fast, Canadians face continued erosion in their standard of living and inflation-driven losses in their savings. The numbers are grim. The direction is wrong. And the consequences are generational.

Trudeau fooled voters with promises of restraint. Carney’s now asking for the same trust, with an even bigger bill attached. Canadians can’t afford to make the same mistake twice.

Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who has been a director of five global corporations

Continue Reading

Trending

X