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 A longer more complete version of the essay is below, which could not be published for space reasons.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
The following from http://www.icecap.us today, written by By Joseph D’Aleo, Op Ed Contributor
It is one several excellent summaries of the political side of this crisis based on lies and exaggerations.
Even if the hot spot were conceded, it is not really evidence to support the EPA statement. A 30% attribution to CO2 or solar warming amplified by the GHG water vapor could explain it. It would merely show that GHG warming is present, not the proportion of its responsibility. It is a signature of SOME GHG warming.
Martin Lewitt:
Your post at December 29, 2012 at 12:59 pm says in total
1.
The ‘hot spot’ is the ‘signature’ of of warming from “well mixed greenhouse gases”: only warming from “well mixed greenhouse gases” produces the ‘hot spot’.
Other forcings do not produce the ‘hot spot’: see IPCC WG1 Chapter 9 Figure 9.1 at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
2.
The ‘hot spot consists of warming at altitude in the tropics which is 2 to 3 times larger than warming at the surface.
3.
The observed warming at altitude in the tropics is not larger than at the surface: the two warming rates are the same..
i.e. The ‘hot spot’ is missing. It does not exist in the independent satellite (MSU) data since 1979 and weather balloon (radiosonde) data since 1958.
The missing ‘hot spot’ is direct evidence that there has been NO discernible warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases since 1958.
Nothing needs to be – and nothing should be – “conceded”.
Richard
Anyone with any scientific sense knows that EPA ceased being a science-based agency, many moons ago. It goes clear back to the formaldehyde controversy in the 80’s, if not before. The Second Hand Smoke “science” is a perfect example of the smoke and mirrors “science” at EPA, second now only to the CO2 “endangerment” finding! Now, we have CO2 designagted as a POLLUTANT! WOW!
THERE IS NO SCIENCE LEFT AT THE EPA MANAGEMENT LEVEL; EPA HAS BECOME A PURELY POLITICAL AGENCY, AND THAT IS REALLY BAD NEWS FOR AMERICA! WAKE UP! And Lisa Jackson just got caught in a typical leftist hypocritical manouver, with her “hidden emails.” Does anyone wonder why she is resigning? LOL!
The Supreme Court, in Mass v. EPA, stated that the EPA must treat CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), as “pollutants”.
Someone has to say it … that the Supreme Court made an ass of itself about treating CO2 as a pollutant. It shows that the Court, on occasions, cannot be relied upon to accept a scientific truth, and is not qualified to make a scientific judgement.
Didn’t anyone argue in Court why this “pollutant” is not a pollutant and is not a health hazard… how it sustains life on the planet… and that the worst to be said about it is that it is an asphyxiant when in very high concentrations?
This reminds me of the words of that Bee Gees’ song – “I started a joke … and the joke turned on me.” Well, the joke was started by the Supreme Court has turned on the Supreme Court. It just isn’t funny! The Supreme Court should be ashamed of itself.
richardscourtney,
Perhaps “conceded” was a poor choice of words. Just because the first step in an argument is unsupported is not a reason to let an unjustified second step stand. “Hypothetically”, even if the hot spot were there, it would not be diagnostic of the proportion of the warming that should be attributed to well mixed GHGs, the direct effects of CO2 that would account for less than a third of the recent warming could explain it, making it consistent with the CO2 contribution being less than natural variation.
When regarding something as a “pollutant”, you have to ask what would happen if it were entirely removed from the environment. What would happen if all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere?
Ask THAT question of someone who wants to regulate the gas.
Unfortunately, the consequences of agreeing with this letter are a demand to fire the top members of EPA for reckless endangerment of economic prosperity.
If you think that EPA, the US Administration are going to welcome that, you’d be wrong.
If this is decided in a court of law, how many Supreme Court Judges were appointed by Obama??
Justice is bought right up to the highest jurisdictions in most western countries, mostly by picking the right judges, so any campaign of this nature needs to factor that in when deciding whether what is taking place is expiating egos, covering backsides or really, really thinks that it can overturn a juggernaut of vested interests.
The most likely way to succeed with this is to engage directly with people, not trying to influence the media, the government etc etc.
When people stop believing what they are told unless it stacks up, then you have a chance, because the power of the people is always supreme, eventually. Ask yourselves how long the American Constitution will remain valid if the rich perceive their interests are threatened by the people rising peacefully. Not so long in my opinion…….
The other thing you might like to think about is to ask why climate rationalism is solely associated with Republicans, who are unfortunately tainted, rightly or wrongly, with being a party of gun-toting, warmongering rich American supremacists, which is why a large number of people around the globe won’t have anything to do with them.
The world is indeed a complicated place and adult life appears to be about charades, masks and lies being told as smokescreens for behind the scenes stitch ups.
When the rich have bought their land cheap near the equator, they’ll tell the truth.
At that point, it doesn’t matter to them, because they will leave if necessary to leave the rest to die.
This whole campaign has been about big oil vs the people. The simplest way to carry the people isn’t to lie about climate change, it’s to engage with what big oil has done, does do. If it were ever truly the case that Big Oil ordered wars to maximise profits, paid for by other folks’ taxes, well that’s something which won’t see the survival of Big Oil as independent entities. If the wars were all doing the Saudi’s bidding to maintain the Dollar as reserve currency, well, think about how much longer that will be true. The Saudis will jump to the Chinese if it suits them, but that will only be when America couldn’t invade Saudi without a Chinese response they would fear. You’d better think about how longer into the future it might be before such a scenario might pertain. I heard the whole thing started when Maggie Thatcher wanted a justifiaction to go nuclear in the late 1980s. You could argue that oil-poor countries are doing it to try and break the control of oil rich nations. Little of it is actually about climate is all I would say…….
Strip out all the lies and get down to brass tacks I say.
Then maybe this whole thing will get sorted out.
But rely on the good will of vested interests??
Forget it………
It was never about the science, it was always about power and control.
There used to be a fairly popular “model” that said black men couldn’t control their sexual urges and would commit rape. Many innocent men died because that “model” was given credence, even in the absence of any real evidence.
Using a “model” instead of a theory that has been validated by experimental evidence deserves to be called by its proper name: PREJUDICE.
Martin Lewitt:
re your post at December 30, 2012 at 12:42 am which replies to my post at December 29, 2012 at 1:46 pm.
No! You are wrong.
As I explained in my post at December 29, 2012 at 1:46 pm
The EPA Endangerment Ruling is based on the unsupported assertion that emission of CO2 (i.e. the major well-mixed greenhouse gas) will induce global warming. There is no empirical evidence of any kind to support that assertion, but the missing ‘hot spot’ is direct empirical evidence that the assertion is wrong.
Please note that ~80% of CO2 emissions from human activities (i.e.anthropogenic CO2) have been since 1958 and atmospheric CO2 concentration has continuously risen since 1958. But there has been no discernible effect on global temperature of that rise in atmospheric CO2.
Also, the effect of each unit addition of CO2 has less effect on global temperature than its predecessor: this reducing effect is logarithmic.
The IPCC says 2 deg.C rise in global temperature would be dangerous so should be avoided. But if the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1958 has had an effect then that effect is so small as to be indiscernible. If one assumes that rise in atmospheric CO2 was entirely caused by anthropogenic CO2, then the logarithmic effect decrees that it is not possible for additional anthropogenic CO2 to produce 2 deg.C of global warming.
Therefore, the empirical evidence indicates that there is no reason – so no scientific justification – for the EPA Endangerment Ruling.
That fact is important and, in my opinion, its importance should not be diminished in any way.
Please note that I am only commenting on the science pertaining to the EPA Endangerment Ruling. I am not commenting on the EPA or the Ruling because I am not an American and it would be impudent for me to comment on the EPA or any other US government Agency and its decisions.
Richard