In the Washington Examiner today, there is this: Op-Ed: EPA’s carbon regs not based on sound science.
It is published by Joe D’Aleo on behalf of a number of people. A longer more complete version of the essay is below, which could not be published for space reasons. Also included is a list of the 13 signers who drafted it. Please consider widely republishing this essay. – Anthony
EPA’s CO2 Regulations are NOT Based on Sound Science
The Supreme Court, in Mass v. EPA, stated that the EPA must treat CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), as “pollutants” and then carryout an analysis to determine whether the increasing concentrations in atmospheric CO2 may reasonably be anticipated to endanger human health and welfare. The Court did not mandate regulation; rather it mandated that EPA go through an Endangerment Finding process.
EPA did so and on December 15, 2009 issued its ruling that CO2 and other GHGs must be regulated. This EPA finding and associated rulings were immediately challenged in the DC Circuit Court. The DC Circuit ruled in favor of EPA, but given the two dissents from the December 20, 2012 decision denying rehearing en banc, the matter will very likely go to the Supreme Court.
If allowed to stand, the very existence of EPA’s Endangerment Finding requires regulation that significantly increases U.S. fossil fuel and electricity prices–negatively impacting job creation as well as energy, economic and national security.
To many scientists this situation seems incredible given the ample evidence that EPA’s finding is grossly flawed. In its finding, EPA claimed with 90-99% certainty that observed warming in the latter half of the twentieth century resulted from human activity. EPA bases its finding upon Three Lines of Evidence (LoE.)
Using the most credible empirical data available, it is relatively straightforward to soundly reject each of EPA’s Three LoE.
1.) EPA claims that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has been rising in a dangerous fashion over the last fifty years, in large part due to human- caused increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. But “Global Warming” has not been global and has not set records in the regions where warming has occurred. For example, over this time period, while the Arctic has warmed, the Tropical oceans had a flat trend, and the Antarctic was slightly cooling. The most significant warming during this period occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, north of the Tropics. But, as the figure shows, over the last 130 years, the decade of the 1930’s still has the most U.S. State High Temperatures records. And, over the past 50 years, there were more new State Record Lows set than Record Highs. In fact, roughly 70% of the current State Record Highs were set prior to 1940.
2.) EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Fingerprint Theory is that in the Tropics, the upper troposphere is warming faster than the lower troposphere, and the lower troposphere is warming faster than the surface, all due to rising CO2 concentrations. This is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently-derived empirical datasets, all showing no statistically significant positive (or negative) trend in temperature and thus, no difference in trend by altitude. Therefore, EPA’s theory as to how CO2 impacts GAST must be rejected.
3.) EPA relied upon Climate Models, all predicated on this Fingerprint Theory, that all fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests. The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000 although GAST has actually been flat. This is not surprising because EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests.
Bottom –Line: No scientist or team of scientists has come up with an empirically validated theory proving that higher Atmospheric CO2 Levels will lead to higher GAST–not EPA’s team and certainly not to the EPA’s 90-99% certainty. Moreover, if the causal link between higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and higher GAST is broken by invalidating EPA’s Three LoE, then EPA’s claim that higher CO2 concentrations also cause sea level increases and more frequent and severe storms, floods and droughts is also disproved. Such causality claims require a validated theory that higher CO2 concentrations cause increases in GAST. Lacking such a validated theory, EPA’s entire house of cards collapses.
More generally, EPA violated both the scientific method and the Scientific Advisory Board statute intended to enforce the scientific method when it made its highly influential scientific assessment in the Endangerment Finding.
EPA’s own Inspector General stated as follows:
“EPA did not conduct a peer review of the TSD [Technical Support Document] that met all recommended steps in the Peer Review Handbook for peer reviews of influential scientific information or highly influential scientific assessments. {—} The handbook provides examples of ‘independent experts from outside EPA,’ that include NAS, an established Federal Advisory Committee Act mechanism (e.g., Science Advisory Board), and an ad hoc panel of independent experts outside the Agency.”
EPA’s outsourcing of the science to international organizations beyond the reach of U.S. laws has also been challenged. Moreover, the ClimateGate saga is testimony to the dedication of some to subvert the science for their own agenda. And, a Hockey Stick is now famous as a symbol of temperature data manipulated to generate public alarm.
In summary, it is not incorrect to argue that further study of the role GHGs play in climate is in order. However, with what is known now, it certainly seems that a new Endangerment Finding analysis is required, using, for example, the far more rigorous Science Advisory Board process suggested by EPA’s Inspector General. A Remand of EPA’s Endangerment Finding by the U.S. Supreme Court would be appropriate.
Opinion Piece Signer List (alphabetically)
Dr. Timothy Ball
Climatologist & Environmental Consultant
Ph.D. (Faculty of Science), University of London, England
Joseph S. D’Aleo
Chief Meteorologist
WeatherBell Analytics
Dr. Donald Easterbrook (Emeritus)
Professor of Geology
Western Washington University
Dr. Gordon J. Fulks
Astrophysicist
La Center, WA
Dr. Laurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics
University of Hartford
Dr. William M. Gray (Emeritus)
Professor of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
Professor of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Sciences
University of Missouri
Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Western Technology Inc.
Deer Park Maryland
Dr. S. Fred Singer (Emeritus)
Professor of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia
George H. Taylor,
Certified Consultant Meteorologist
President, Applied Climate Services
Dr. James P. Wallace III
President, & CEO, Jim Wallace & Associates LLC
Ph.D., Economics, Minor in Engineering, Brown University
M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown University
B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University
Anthony Watts
Former TV Meteorologist and founder of
SurfaceStations.org, Intelliweather, WattsUpWithThat
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Please consider widely republishing this essay
this means copy/paste (of course attributing and linking here) is ok to do correct?
I want to make sure I don’t do something wrong.
thanks.
REPLY: Yes, that is what it means. – Anthony
You haven’t got a fart in the wind’s chance – you’re against His Omnipitence The Obamighty, you know, the one the majority of the US of A voted for in November 2012….the stoopid majority.
On a lighter note though, impressive list of academics. This message breaking into some form of MSM might also help. Until this happens it’s us that are in the echo chamber my friends.
As the famous quote runs, “Don’t confuse me with the facts – my mind is made up”.
What are we claiming here — models don’t produce facts?
/sarc off
Go to. congress.org and register…it’s easy…
Then write one letter saying “EPA needs to examine its Endangerment
Finding…etc…”
It will go…pronto….to four Federal officials….again, easy.
Not sure how you get a balanced hearing without money from somewhere.
Nice try but no cigar.
We now all know that this is not about science but about politics.
It is pretty clear now, we are now in political waters ONLY.
If CO2 is such a danger to human health, why do we expect Nuclear Sub crews to live in and act rationally in an atmosphere which can have a CO2 concentration of 10,000 ppm?
Good work another necessary step in the push back against hysteria in public policy.
Of course its political, did those who protest this reality not read the IPCC’s own documents? Or the Teams “Cause” which runs through the CRU emails?
Science has never been more than a cloak of authority in the, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, SCAM.
This foul debasement of what amounts to my religion, is the reason I will see retribution or justice done to those involved.
While I wish they would , I suspect that the SCOTUS will take this up .
Good work but it isn’t going to be sufficient.
Seriously, a great deal more MSM support is going to be necessary before such analysis precipitates any action.
And since the MSM love scare stories so much, I’d like to see some scare stories concerning the economic impact of EPA’s current AGW policies. They can be supported by actual data that is really quite grim. In fact, I fear it might even be… worse than we thought!
It makes the IPCC AR’s less funny when you read references to them in EPA Endangerment findings. Pretty problem. IPCC builds the armor for the EPA, and the EPA runs bulletproof. Courts aren’t an objective scientific forum, so the game has already basically been lost by this stage.
While the IPCC ‘speaks for science’ in the eyes of jurists, we aren’t going to get anywhere. (Yeah I know, give me my shiny star sticker for elaborating on the obvious. :p )
I wish you good luck. I expect the Court to rule that the law gives the EPA the authority to decide when the EPA has done a thorough job and reached the best science-based decision. All the EPA has to show in court is that its scientists considered that evidence you present and reached a different conclusion from the the conclusion of the letter-writers.
I hate to sound downbeat, and I hope for the best, but the Supreme Court does not have as its authority or expertise to decide who is and who isn’t “scientific” enough to decide policy. That was written into the law by Congress.
Here’s hoping I am wrong.
john kelly.
Is that really so??
The EPA finding is false, and to build on falsehood leads to a structure that is unsound and will fall. Stand by the truth and the Truth will stand by you.
I suspect what is behind the “finding” is the wish to “regulate.” If so, it would be better if the people itching for this power were honest and simply said so. They should come out and say the general public is a bunch of fools, and need wiser people to boss them about. Honesty is the best policy. Be blunt, and let the chips fall where they may. (And the chips will fly.)
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
PROUD to do my little part in reposting this important Challenge
Naive I know but since the MSM love scare stories there must be a story in the danger of following the EPA line. We have experience here in Aus with the intro of Gillard’s carbon tax. People have lost jobs, companies have moved offshore, there is a strong liklihood of power shortages as coal fired power (85% of our electricity) stations are holding off maintenance/upgrades and the reality of pensioners and low income earners going without A/C. It gets hot here but the real problem is in winter when the same folk go without heating. You have far colder and longer winters and as the Russian cold snap has shown people die more readily when they are cold than when they are hot. Put some of your great intelligence and research into pointing out the consequences of the EPAs actions. Gillard is widely despised in Aus and will lose this years election. Much of that hate comes from her decision to introduce the carbon tax and the results of it’s introduction. If the debate is less about science and more about politics then make politicians worry about about their futures. I know you don’t want me telling you how to suck eggs but the hip pocket nerve drives most people and politicians react. After all Obama was elected by people who want more for less and some who want more for nothing. When they know all their benefits will be eaten up with higher utility charges they may not agree with the EPA’s saving the planet strategy.
Ingvar Engelbrecht says:
December 28, 2012 at 12:53 pm
john kelly.
Is that really so??
————————————
It’s technically correct that co2 concentrations in some compartments can and do reach over 10000 ppm under some operational conditions it’s more usual to see an average of around 3500 ppm in normal working conditions and venting is daily when allowable. the co2 concentration can vary by a great deal, as much as 10% in different compartments of the vessel.
US navy recommendations are to keep it under 8000 ppm whenever possible.
by contrast the International Space station operates at co2 levels averaging between 3000 and 7000 ppm with their upper limit preferred to be no higher than 10000 ppmm or 1%
Studies show that over a period of 26 days at concentrations of 0.7-1.2% CO2 in an enclosed space ( regulated ) humans show no adverse affects other than some experiencing slight headaches attributed to higher cerebral blood Double those concentrations, even for short periods start to mess with your depth perception and motion detection.
Your average family room with the family at home in the evening will have around 1000 ppm co2.
so it’s very interesting that doomsayers think a doubling of co2 to 800 ppm even should it happen, could be catastrophic to humanity. I don’t buy it.
“Not sure how you get a balanced hearing without money from somewhere.”
[snip. Dial it back, please. — mod.]
That said, I think the coal lobby, the most CO2 heavy energy producers, can’t complain much because for decades they’ve been playing the same regulatory games–big time. The best way now to game it is to let the drones point and scream about the “greens” or some kind of “wealth distribution” to poor people in Africa or elsewhere.
Interesting information ZootCadillac.
Thanks!
should of course have read “adverse effects” above. I’m not a complete dolt, although I might admit to some adverse effects of my own just now owing to elevated levels of blood alcohol. What? It’s 10pm on a Friday here and it’s xmas week, deal with it 😉
“There were 23,126,110 carbon allowances up for auction, each requiring a minimum bid of $10.00. Most bids were higher than that. After all, survival was on the line for many businesses. The highest bidder pays to emit in exchange for another business never emitting much at all.
Note that in this exchange, no CO2 is removed from the air, only moved to a different emitter. Carbon emissions do not change, nor are they reduced, not that reductions would affect global temperatures much anyway.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/12/giving-carb-credit-for-californias-death-spiral/
Ingvar & Zoot,
CO2 is not toxic in the same sense as some other gases. Being heavier than Oxygen it will settle towards the floor of the environments in a greenhouse or a sub, thus, needing to be mixed with fans and circulation. Otherwise it can reach such concentration as to reduce the oxygen necessary to keep one functioning. It is also the trigger that causes one to breath. All this is easily found on the web.
Nonetheless, the above is not the issue. The global warming issue is whether or not CO2 is a radiatively important component of the atmosphere, is the human contribution significant, can anything be done about it (if it is), and are other actions better than eliminating carbon based fuels from society. Concentrations well below the several thousand found in a sub or plant-growing experiment are of interest, not those very high values.
” john kelly says:
December 28, 2012 at 12:18 pm
If CO2 is such a danger to human health, why do we expect Nuclear Sub crews to live in and act rationally in an atmosphere which can have a CO2 concentration of 10,000 ppm?
”
I really think this is an important angle. If anyone who is in the navy knows some sub ppl or retired sub ppl being better. They should see if they can hooked up with CPI or some of the other groups and sue the VA and US government for endangering they’re lives while on subs. The government is always quick to throw regulations out that will cost them huge sums of money. The government would either be forced to pay them disability or throw out the EPA finding as non-science.
I think attacking the EPA from this kind of side angle has the best chance of success because it will basically pit two federal agencies against each other. Running the agent orange precedent should let them get the foot in the door and make the VA and EPA face off.