Currently no scientific or logical basis for regulation of CO2 emissions, logician tells EPA
Guest essay by Terry Oldberg
Submitted to the EPA’s Public Listening Session on 111(d) Carbon Pollution Standards For Existing Power Plants November 5, 2013 in San Francisco, California:
I’ve come to this hearing to play the role of logician. Logicians are interested in whether or not arguments reach valid conclusions. Consideration by the EPA of carbon pollution standards for existing power plants is based upon an argument whose conclusion is that an intolerable level of global warming would result from continued emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from combustion of fossil fuels. Earlier this year, I published a peer-reviewed article which proves this conclusion to be scientifically and logically unfounded.
The title of this article is “A Common Fallacy in Global Warming Arguments”; the article is available on the World Wide Web at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 .
In brief, the above referenced conclusion is drawn from an “equivocation,” that is, an argument in which a term changes meaning in the midst of this argument. By logical rule, to draw a conclusion from an equivocation is logically improper. To draw such a conclusion is the “equivocation fallacy.”
The equivocation fallacy is the source of the conclusion that an intolerable level of global warming would result from continued emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from combustion of fossil fuels. Scientific research is not the source of this conclusion though this is commonly assumed.
Currently, there is neither a logical nor a scientific basis for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions by the EPA. The EPA’s staff can and should learn the logical basis for this conclusion by reading the article at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 and carefully digesting its content. Then it should reverse regulations already on the books. Finally, it should halt efforts toward promulgating new regulations until a basis in science and in logic exists for them.
The federal government has spent 100 billion dollars on global warming research without producing a product that is useable for its intended purpose. Federally supported researchers have, however, made it seem to political leaders, journalists and members of the general public as though there is a useable product; they have done so through applications of the equivocation fallacy. Massive amounts of money have been spent on the assumption that the basis for federal, state and local regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is both scientific and logical. This state of affairs suggests the need for changes among the ranks of those individuals who plan and manage global warming research for the federal government.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Unhelpful argument. The EPA has already determined that it can and should regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The hearings were only to determine the regulation methods and amounts. These arguments should have been presented 3 years ago (and were) during the “endangerment finding” phase. What the EPA needs to hear at this point is that carbon dioxide emissions have dropped dramatically since 2009 and continue to do so despite a growing economy and no regulation to date. It’s likely that’s why the EPA postponed their regulations for a year. We’re on track to achieve all the Kyoto Protocol goals (CO2 emissions 6% less than 1998 levels) in the next few years if the trend continues; something no nation that signed the treaty can say. With this in mind, does it make sense for the EPA to enact anything more than very modest restrictions on CO2 emissions? The argument should be made, if it can be, that anything more aggressive than what is already taking place by itself may have an adverse effect and result in increasing CO2 emissions. My suggestion would be that the EPA adopts minimal regulations that can be met with very little expense and no (costly and unproven) carbon-capture requirement, then adopt a wait-and-see approach.
“Currently, there is neither a logical nor a scientific basis for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions by the EP
The equivocation fallacy is the source of the conclusion that an intolerable level of global warming would result from continued emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from combustion of fossil fuels. Scientific research is not the source of this conclusion though this is commonly assumed.”
Models show that when more CO2 is added to the atmosphere the temperature will get warmer.
The temperature in recent years has gotten warmer.
I would say that the this does not support the hypothesis that CO2 does not cause warming.
Water is necessary for life. Tell that to someone who is drowning.
“Earlier this year, I published a peer-reviewed article which proves this conclusion to be scientifically and logically unfounded.
The title of this article is “A Common Fallacy in Global Warming Arguments”; the article is available on the World Wide Web at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 .”
Is this some sort of joke? Peer reviewed? By yourself? Am I missing something here? Where was it peer reviewed? A peer reviewed article without a bibliography? Come on, wuwt, what’s up?
It’s not a model unless it can be wrong in both directions. Error must exist both in an additive AND subtractive form. Most of the “model” lines I’ve seen in the charts NEVER go down.
Pippen Kool says:
“Models show that when more CO2 is added to the atmosphere the temperature will get warmer.
The temperature in recent years has gotten warmer.”
Wrong, as always. The real world shows that as CO2 rises, temperatures are flat to declining.
But since the alarmist crowd is composed of True Believers like Pippen, facts mean nothing to them. They Believe. That is enough.
Pippen Kool
“Models show that when more CO2 is added to the atmosphere the temperature will get warmer.
The temperature in recent years has gotten warmer.”
Two separate statements. If Pippen Kool understood logic he would know that even if both his statements were true the second statement does not validate his “models”. Nor even if it did would it validate CAGW.
I have devised a model which stipulates that when continents move the weather will get warmer. The temperature in last 150 years has gotten warmer. And continents have moved during this period. Would any rational person give any credence to my model?
Its very nice explanation. I’m only afraid that the last thing EPA wants and understands is logic. Oh, perhaps one logic they follow well after all, the logic of power.
“The equivocation fallacy is the source of the conclusion that an intolerable level of global warming would result from continued emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from combustion of fossil fuels. Scientific research is not the source of this conclusion though this is commonly assumed.”
Intolerable? No, but there would be serious implications to human civilization if/when ocean levels rise to the point where land is reduced by just 5%. I’m not talking about rich people losing their summer homes on the Jersey shore, but rather low-lying countries (i.e. Bangladesh, Japan, Indonesia, etc.) that would have to be evacuated en masse and/or see most of their farm lands destroyed.
I read the link on equivocation. Very interesting. It gets worse though, because in the recent IPCC Working Group 1 press conference for AR5, the SPM.10 graph they presented showed the ‘historical’ portion of the temperature plot which climbed a nice, healthy 0.33 degrees between 2000 and 2010 before being projected to 2100:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615
(SPM.10 presented at 1:30)
That ‘historical’ plot was not the instrument record as you might reasonably expect as you sat there taking in their carefully crafted 30 second sound bite on the news. It’s a hindcast, a model projection from 1860 to the present. It’s patently inaccurate, especially over the last 17 years but was left in there because they could swipe out the fig leaf excuse that they are projecting to 2100 and the ‘historical’ plot is the ‘historical’ portion of that 240 year plot.
That press conference was seen all over the world and that graph has indoctrinated hundreds of millions of viewers who don’t have the time to check the details.
Scute
The water on the desk will warm because the glass it is contained in warms from the air.
The sea is not surrounded by glass so how it warms from air I do not know
You are spot on. A warmer atmosphere does not warm the ocean because surface tension blocks physical heat. Only radiation penetrates the surface.
Pippen Kool says:
November 7, 2013 at 6:43 pm “Am I missing something here?”
+++++++++++
YES YES YES YES YES…
There now get lost. You’re unable to have a cogent conversation when you make such wrong headed claims.