EPA Issues 57-State Climate Warning!

Not quite the end of the world, but close.

By William M Briggs Published on October 7, 2016

Strike that. It’s a 50-State warning. That 57 came from elsewhere in the Obama administration.

Well, 50 is less than 57, so the warning is not as dire as you might have thought. Yet it’s still serious. Everybody knows that our beneficent government knows best and that all its cautions should be heeded. This is why you should listen to its bureaucratic experts, who are saying “climate change” will have “impacts.”


Very real impacts,” says the EPA. And what is real is not a fantasy. So get ready to rumble, weather wise. But before thinking about that, we have to understand what “climate change” is.

Here is a scientific fact. In 1936, a typical year, the climate of the earth was perfect. Every afternoon everywhere was sunny and a clement 78 degrees on Mister Fahrenheit’s scale, even in winter. The rain fell in amounts sufficient to water every crop, fill every stream, and extinguish every forest fire — and then it stopped. Floods didn’t happen. There was just enough wind to loft every kite, and no more.

Of course, it’s true that an anomalous heatwave killed over 12,000 Americans in 1936. But still, since there was quite a lot less carbon dioxide in the air then than now, the climate was necessarily better.

The climate was also better in 1886, long before people were burning gasoline on their commutes to work. It was better because there was less atmospheric carbon dioxide, even less than in 1936. And it was better even though the USA was hit by seven hurricanes, the most since records began to be kept (which wasn’t that long ago).

The climate continued to be better than it is now, right up through the 1960s and 1970s when the consensus was that global cooling was going to kill many people. Good thing it never happened (the government had not yet reached its current state of perfection).

Then the climate changed sometime in the mid 1980s into what it is now, with death, doom, destruction on every side. Consult the media for the latest horror. Why did this happen? As hinted at above, a miniscule increase in the atmospheric trace gas carbon dioxide caused the climate to change.

Scientifically speaking, all climate change is bad. Nothing good can ever come of the climate changing. The climate in the past was always better than it is now. The government and environmentalists are in agreement that any change whatsoever to the climate must necessarily be towards greater evil. This is why we must “fight” climate change.

So it’s 2016 and the climate has changed, and will continue to change unless the government can control all aspects of the economy. Sure, you might not think it’s so bad where you live, and that the weather hasn’t been anything unusual. But if you concentrate only on the good news, you’ll miss the important scientific fact that things could be worse. And they will be if the climate continues to change.

And that’s where the EPA comes in, to tell of the “implications of climate change.” The outlook is bleak.

For instance, the climate has changed since 1980, and all climate change is bad. Corn production in 1980 was about 7.5 billion bushels, changing to around 14 billion bushels in 2015 amidst the changing climate. Statisticians call this kind of signal a “correlation.” The EPA warns that climate change in corn-growing Michigan could exacerbate the risk of increased production. Farmers might run out of bushels if the correlation persists, a disaster caused by climate change.

The EPA warns of climate change in Iowa. They say “Hot days can be unhealthy — even dangerous.” Cold days can be unhealthy and dangerous, too. Climate change puts Iowans in danger of both, whereas before climate change such calamities were not possible; or at least they were not caused by climate change. A significant problem, as in Michigan, are “bumper crops” of corn, soybeans, and other foodstuffs. This is causing prices for food to drop. Climate change is thus bad news for those wanting higher prices.

It isn’t only agriculture. Take Texas, where the state GDP was $815 billion in 1997, a time of rapid climate change, according to the EPA. By 2015, amidst a still-changing climate, the GDP had changed to $1,475 billion. The EPA warns “Texas’s climate is changing.” If the observed correlation between GDP and climate change holds, we could see even more changes like these to the GDP.

We could do each state, but you have the picture now. Ravage after ravage. This is why it is a good thing the EPA warned of the dire consequences of climate change a month before the election. Voters will have the chance to choose between Hillary, who has vowed to cease climate change, and Trump, who has said climate change is not especially worrisome.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Like the article? Share it with your friends! And use our social media pages to join or start the conversation! Find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, MeWe and Gab.

The Habit of Nearness
Robert J. Morgan
More from The Stream
Connect with Us