The EPA CO2 endangerment finding endangers the USA

President Trump must reverse EPA’s climate change “Endangerment Finding”

Foreword by Paul Driessen:

The Obama EPA’s infamous “Endangerment Finding” declared that carbon dioxide and methane from fossil fuel operations cause global warming and climate change that pose imminent dangers to the health and wellbeing of every American. In this insightful article, climate history author Dennis Avery explains why this finding is based on bad science and should not be the basis for bureaucratic regulations or court decisions.

As Avery notes, computer climate models have predicted far more warming than has actually occurred in the Real World. Contrary to EPA claims, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts have not become more frequent or severe. Natural forces and phenomena explain the various climate and weather fluctuations we have observed over the centuries – and demonstrate that CO2 is only a “bit player” in determining these changes. Moreover, new research convincingly shows that solar activity determines the number of cosmic rays hitting the Earth, and thus the extent of low-lying clouds that periodically cool the planet … and at the other end of the cycle bring sunnier skies that warm it.


Guest opinion by Dennis T. Avery

Nine years ago, the Obama Environmental Protection Agency issued an “Endangerment Finding.” It claimed that methane leaks from natural gas production and pipelines, and manmade carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, cause dangerous global warming that poses an imminent danger to the health and wellbeing of Americans. However, the Finding was based on computerized climate models that couldn’t even successfully hind-cast the weather we’d had over the past century – much less forecast Earth’s climate 100 years into the future. In fact, Earth’s climate has changed frequently, often abruptly.

EPA essentially asserted that the 80% of our energy that comes from coal, oil and natural gas caused all our planet’s recent warming and any more warming is a long-term threat. Obama’s team thus bet in 2009 that Earth’s warming from 1976–98 would continue. But it didn’t. Never mind all those recent NOAA and NASA claims that 2016 was our “hottest year” ever. Satellites are our most honest indicator, and they say our planet’s temperature has risen an insignificant 0.02 degrees C (0.04 degrees F) since 1998.

That 20-year non-warming clearly shows that the models are worthless for prediction. But the Federal Appeals Court in Washington nevertheless recently cited methane emissions to block regulatory approval for a new natural gas pipeline. The ruling will encourage radical greens to keep thinking they can regulate gas and oil production and transport into oblivion. Alarmists across the country are already citing the new precedent in other cases, in effect demanding re-hearings on Trump’s entire energy plan.

If the courts decree that pipelines cause dangerous methane emissions, the U.S. will be forced to generate electricity increasingly via the infamous whimsies of wind and sunshine. But the models’ prediction of dangerously rising temperatures have proven wrong. The disparity between the models’ predictions and the thermometer readings is growing wider by the day. We should not base regulations on them.

In science, if your theory doesn’t take account of all the relevant data, you need a new theory.

Meanwhile, thousands of new coal-fired power plants are being built around the world – even in Europe. (Many Third World power plants are being built with Chinese financing.) The CO2 from this new coal-fired power will dwarf whatever emissions the judges hope to prevent in America.

The President now risks losing the economic growth and millions of new jobs that abundant, affordable energy could and should create. Without new pipelines, our “miraculous” fracked gas will be trapped in the semideserts and mountains where the gas is found.

What danger can today’s EPA find in earth’s current 20-year non-warming? What ice-melt will that trigger? What sea level rise? World food production has just set a new record, in large part because higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere act like fertilizer for crop plants (as well as for forests and grasslands).

Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court should strongly encourage a Trump Endangerment reversal. Gorsuch stated in a 2016 opinion that the so-called Chevron Precedent is “difficult to square with the Constitution.” Chevron says courts should defer to federal judges on laws that are ambiguous. He believes it shifts too much power from Congress to unelected bureaucrats.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will need to build a strong case for the reversal, however, because the Supreme Court still does not have a reliable 5–4 conservative majority. Pruitt’s current approach of setting up competing red-teams vs. blue teams must help convince Justice Kennedy that the world today looks much different from when the EPA rubberstamped the IPCC and its failed climate models.

The science was not settled in 2009; and, fortunately, the weight of evidence has since shifted importantly toward the skeptics. It starts with the still-continuing 20-year non-warming. The best “answer” the alarmists can find is that “extra” CO2 heat is hiding in the deep ocean depths. But cold water is heavier than warm water, so the warm water would have warmed the depths on its way down. NASA’s newer and more-accurate data comes from ARGO floats that periodically dive to sample water temperatures 2100 feet below the surface. They find no hidden heat.

Moreover, Earth has been warming, erratically but persistently, since 1715. How much of this warming was due to natural cycles, and how much was man-made? Of any manmade portion, how much was due to CO2, and how much to expanding Urban Heat Islands and cutting down forests? Climate realists say CO2 added barely one degree C; alarmists claim it will increase temperatures by up to 12 degrees C!

How did hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria destroy so much property with only 0.02 degrees C of warming? Britain’s wooden-ship logbooks from 1700 to1850 confirm that there were twice as many major landfalling Caribbean hurricanes per decade during the cold Little Ice Age as during the far warmer years from 1950 to 2000. Nor has the post-1998 weather produced more frequent to intensive storms, longer droughts, or any of the other climate impacts that Obama’s EPA insisted would happen.

The simple truth is that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has given the world a climate scare every 25 to 30 years since we got thermometers around 1850 (even though the PDO wasn’t even recognized until 1996). In 1845, the ships of Sir John Franklin’s Arctic expedition were crushed by ice. Just 64 years later, in 1909, Roald Amundsen sailed through a relatively warm, ice-free Northwest Passage. In the 1970s, we were warned urgently of a new Ice Age. And then came the “overheated” Al Gore years, 1976–1998.

The huge Pacific Ocean’s 60-year oscillation raises ocean temperatures – and thus the world’s – by 1 to 2 degrees C (1.8 to 3.6 degrees F) for about 30 years, then shifts back again for another 30 years. Every time it shifted in the past, alarmists extended the latest reading in a straight line for five or 20 years and screamed: “ Global Disaster!” This time, the alarmists claim the non-warming isn’t real!

Today, there’s no doubt the models have predicted more than twice as much warming as we’ve observed. Given the high number of official thermometers that are located in urban areas and near airport tarmac, the models may be overpredicting by three-fold!

Another major new scientific finding also goes against the alarmists. Last year CERN (the multi-billion-dollar Institute for European Nuclear Research) told CERN Courier subscribers that all the climate models must be re-done. CERN reported that its CLOUD experiment had used its huge particle accelerator and a giant cloud chamber to demonstrate that the sun and cosmic rays are the real “mystery factors” in earth’s climate. The research supports the contention that CO2 is only a bit player.

CERN says the sun was weak during the Little Ice Age (indeed, during all the “little ice ages”). This allowed far more cosmic rays to hit our atmosphere. Those extra hits shattered millions more molecules into zillions of tiny “cloud seeds.” Each cloud seed carried an electric charge that attracted other molecules to form clumps – and gave us up to ten times as many low clouds. Earth cooled for centuries under overcast skies, as if under a giant awning. Then the sun became more active, there were fewer cosmic rays, the skies got sunnier, and Earth warmed – for centuries.

History says the Modern Warming is likely to last at least another two centuries. The Medieval Warming (350 years long) was the shortest past warming we can find. But first, CERN says, we will have to go through a 60-year Solar Sunspot Minimum that will drop Earth’s temperatures even lower than today for the next 60 years. The Minimums are another recently-recognized cycle: up to 200 years long.

How will a century of non-warming possibly endanger Americans? Trump should be eager to take on Obama’s outdated and ill-informed Endangerment Finding.


Dennis Avery is a former U.S. State Department senior analyst and co-author with astrophysicist Fred Singer of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.

Advertisements

99 thoughts on “The EPA CO2 endangerment finding endangers the USA

  1. My recollection is that the Supreme Court’s finding that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” (per the Clean Air Act) and that the EPA must therefore regulate it, was a result of both sides wishing for regulation. That is, the EPA intentionally put up a weak defense.

    Dennis, is that right?

    • SCOTUS ruled that if the EPA determined that it was harmful, they had to regulate it under the Clean Air Act. SCOTUS left it up to the EPA to determine if an endangerment finding was warranted. It was unwarranted until January 20, 2009.

      The EPA put up a decent defense. Unfortunately, Justice Kennedy was on the wrong side of a 5-4 decision.

    • No, that’s not correct. In Mass. v. EPA the Court said that EPA could not refuse to make an endangerment finding for any of the reasons it had given for refusing to do so. They ordered EPA to make a finding one way or the other without requiring any particular finding. That was 2007. In 2009, EPA issued the Endangerment Finding. Once the finding of endangerment was made, regulation became mandatory under the Clean Air Act.

      • You are correct, Quin. However, this has been translated into the Supreme Court “required” CO2 to be regulated. I say this means they only opened to door to the endangerment finding, which could, in theory, have gone either way,

    • It was a Massachusetts three-judge panel deciding that CO2 could be considered a “pollutant” under the clean air act. It was up to EPA to decide whether CO2 needed regulation, and of course they went for it.

    • If I’m not mistaken, the Supreme Court did NOT rule that CO2 is a pollutant but rather, that if it was, then the “Clean Air Act” gave the EPA the authority to regulate it.
      Two things need to be done.
      Use unbiased science to debunk the political science behind the endangerment finding.
      Strip the EPA and other Fed bureaucracies of the authority to issue a “regulation” that has effect of “law” without being approved by Congress.
      The job of The Executive Branch is to enforce the Laws, not make them.

      • I would suggest there is a 3rd option.The various courts concluded that the Clean Air Act as writtenallowed the EPA to regulate CO2 “as a pollutant” (despite what seemed to be the intent at the time it was passed, which was to remove particulates and toxins from our air and water.)
        Of course the Clean Air Act is not part of the Constitution, and therefore Congress can revise the wording to align with the original intent of the law.
        However, based on their recent performance on other promises, I think the cowardly GOP would be very reluctant to put themselves in a position that they could be accused by the Democrats and the MSM of “selling our grandchildren down the river” to please big business.

      • “Of course the Clean Air Act is not part of the Constitution”

        The Clean Air Act was voted by both houses of Congress, and signed into law by the president. Please tell me what part of the Constitution was violated in passing this law????

      • Please tell me that you aren’t actually this stupid.
        In your opinion, any law passed by congress and signed by the president is de facto, constitutional?

      • Actually MarkW, you obviously display your ignorance when dealing with constitutionality. Any/every law passed by Congress and signed by the President is in fact constitutional until / unless a court says otherwise afterwards.

      • Nice of you to move the goal posts.
        Then again, correcting your past mistakes does seem to be a major life activity for you.

      • At Mark S. Johnson, Article I Section 8 as written was violated. Unfortunately all acts of the branches are *presumed* to be done Constitutionally, but they are not and have not done this in the last 120 years to a greater or lesser degree.

      • Well it certainly never was the intent of our founding fathers for administrative rules that have the force of law to be passed by unelected bureaucrats. Of course the founding fathers would be SHOCKED to find out that we have allowed the federal government to get so huge. It would help if any administrative rule with the force of law be required to get Congressional approval. In Florida they have a joint House and Senate Legislative Committee that reviews all administrative rules. That doesn’t mean necessarily that Congress would re-write the rule or have to pass some act to approve it. However at least we would know who did and who didn’t support various agency actions. Here we deal primarily with stuff related to AGW yet there are a huge number of administrative rules that affect our daily lives, can get you thrown in jail or put you out of business and cost billions to create and enforce.

      • Except…they didn’t find that CO2 was a hazard to human health. They did an end run around that because they knew atmospheric CO2 was not a hazard to humans – they instead said (without proof) that climate change was a hazard to human health. This is how they violated their mission:
        1. They have failed to show how atmospheric levels of CO2 are harming plants and/or the environment (and I’m not talking about some nebulous, amorphous, possible future climate change they assume will happen and they assume will be harmful; they cannot prove any of that. Moreover, the EPA was not charged with controlling the climate. That is beyond their purview and also beyond the jurisdiction of the U.S. government)
        2. They have failed to show how atmospheric levels of CO2 are harmful to human health.
        3. They cannot quantify any of their claims.
        4. The EPA calls CO2 emissions “carbon pollution” – proving they don’t know anything about science. CO2 is not carbon.
        The truth: Atmospheric levels of CO2 are not a health hazard to anyone or anything.
        Ergo, atmospheric CO2 cannot be classified as a pollutant.
        Lowering CO2 emissions will deprive plants of the CO2 they need to grow.
        Crops will not produce as well, and they will also need more water as a result of lower amounts of CO2.

        Conclusion: The EPA is no longer “protecting” the environment, they are harming it.

    • Certainly the EPA wanted to regulate CO2. The skeptics mostly did not. There’s no question what Obama wanted.

  2. Thank you, Dennis Avery!
    I couldn’t agree more. What can we do to bring effective pressure to bear on the Trump EPA, to reassess this travesty of faux-science?

  3. The problem with relying on SCOTUS is that Justice Kennedy sided with the Court’s liberals in Massachusetts vs EPA..

    The easiest way to kill climate regulations is to force the EPA to use a realistic discount rate when running their cost-benefit analyses. If an averted metric ton of CO2 emitted is worth $260 in 2100 (a HUGE if), it’s only worth about $10 today at a 5% discount rate (the highest used by the EPA).

    In the real world, the discount rate is 7-10%. At a 7% discount rate, that ton of CO2 averted is worth…

    … or less

  4. As I commented on CFact, it is true that the endangerment finding needs to go. However, the ruling on the Florida pipeline is misrepresented in this post. It is worse than what Avery says. If you read the ruling and especially the dissenting opinion by Justice Janice Brown, it is clear the majority mistakenly decided the pipeline’s environmental acceptance depends on the downstream emissions, that is the emissions that come from burning the gas in the electrical power plants after delivery from the pipeline.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/08/23/judiciary-climate-confusion/

  5. “But cold water is heavier than warm water, so the warm water would have warmed the depths on its way down. NASA’s newer and more-accurate data comes from ARGO floats that periodically dive to sample water temperatures 2100 feet below the surface. They find no hidden heat.” You left out another way the missing heat got down there: Immaculate Convection.
    \s down there in the South Seas abyss along with Bathybius haecklii and Polywater.

  6. This post and comments misunderstand the law. Mass v. EPA ruled that IF CO2 was a pollutant, then EPA had via CAA power to regulate it. There are two issues left unresolved. 1. Did CAA statutorily ever confer this ability to EPA?. Mass. V. EPA did not directly address bcause of how cleverly and narrowly framed to avoid the statutory circular definition of a pollutant in CAA. 2. SCOTUS can never challenge EPA fact findings unless Chevron is also reversed. Appelate courts do not do facts unless there is procedural error– they can only rule on matters of law. The procedural fact law issue is the heart of Chevron. Which might be found sometimes unconstitutional in future cases.

    • One way forward:

      1.EPA-organized red team/blue team exercise tests key pillars on which the 2009 Endangerment Finding was built, using 2017 data and science.

      2, Having established that up-to-date data shows that Americans are not endangered by CO2 emissions,(and that ‘greening’/warmth improves their health outlook) the EPA formally withdraws its 2009 document.

      3. By the time green activists appeal this decision as far as SCOTUS, there will be a second Trump appointee on that Court.

      4. Meantime, the Republican-majority Congress amends the CAA to clarify its intent.

  7. President Trump and EPA Director Scott Pruitt are dealing with 3 Hurricanes on USA soil and the Bureaucracy of it takes time out of his hands to do much else. Add North Korea’s “Rocketman” flexing his mentality incapacitated muscle by ignoring the UN. Trying to get whenever for healthcare, the Wall funded and taxes reduced…as well as having some nut case shoot up Las Vegas… I think he’s got a lot on his plate and no time to eat it. I can only hope he can address this BS CO2 problem ASAP to MAGA sooner than later.

  8. Satellites are our most honest indicator, and they say our planet’s temperature has risen an insignificant 0.02 degrees C (0.04 degrees F) since 1998.

    The coldest winter months in the far north warmed from – 30C to -20 C on the average when comparing 1998 with 2016 on the surface. Assuming the lower troposphere is comparable, that alone is more than enough to give 2016 the record over 1998.

      • Not if it cooled enough elsewhere. The Arctic is not that big.

        With the circumference of Earth being about 40000 km, the distance from 80 to 90 would be 10/90 x 10000 = 1100 km. This area is then pir^2 = 3.8 x 10^6 km2. Dividing this by the area of the earth, 5.1 x 10^8 km2, we get about 0.75% or 0.0075. Let us assume this area is responsible for a 10 C rise in the anomaly, If everything else stayed the same, the anomaly would go up by 0.0075 x 10 = 0.0745. However since only 6 months saw this rise, dividing by 2 gives 0.037, which is still greater than 0.027. So ignoring error bars for now, It appears that an increase in temperature in the coldest and driest air in the north was more than enough to give the anomaly record to 2016 instead of 1998.

  9. In the scheme of things…what would be the immediate economic benefit of dumping this Endangerment Finding? What would get ramped up (or down) to the benefit of the country – what would get moving again?

    • what would be the immediate economic benefit of dumping this Endangerment Finding?

      If I am correct, coal mines may have to spend billions for carbon capture if CO2 is indeed a pollutant. Of course it is not.

  10. Congress can reverse the endangerment finding. Relying on the courts is dangerous. My understanding of the initial ruling was simply that the SC said you can regulate CO2/CH4 if you want to.
    Maybe I am wrong.

      • I notice that as usual, you don’t attempt to refute the data. We both know that it’s because you can’t.
        BTW, have they ever fixed the upside down proxy?

      • Mark’s johnson proves it has ZERO comprehension of the purpose of peer-review.

        Well done. Your ignorance is duly noted.

      • Mark S. Johnson you obviously don’t understand that those thet are the people whom “peer review” are like minded to the indoctrination passed down through institutions of indoctrination professor’s whom say “the science is settled” to thereby end the discussion and any submitted papers that do not conform to their ideologies is rejected. Peer Review is a farce that has allowed people like Al Gore and Bill Nye publish the garbage they have without rebuke.

      • So, Mark S., if someone writes “CO2 not a pollutant, period”, and it passes peer review, gets published; you are prepared to (compelled to, right?) agree and go tr0ll some other site?

  11. The reality is that the climate change that has been going on for eons is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero.

    In their first report the IPCC published a wide range as to their guess as to the climate sensivity of CO2. Only one value can be correct. In their last report the IPCC published the exact same wide range of values. So over more than two decades of effort the IPCC has learned nothing that would allow them to reduce the range or their climate sensivity of CO2 guestamates one iota. It is as if the climate sensivity of CO2 was really zero.

    One researcher has points out that the original calculations of the climate sensivity of CO2 is too great by more than a factor of 20 because the calculations neglect the fact that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a slight but very significant increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. So instead of a climate sensivity before feedback effects of 1.2 degrees C, the value should really be less than .06 degrees C. Then there is the issue of H2O feedback. The AGW conjecture theorizes that an increase in CO2 causes warming that causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere that causes even more warming because H2O is really the primary greenhouse gas. Proponents of the AGW conjecture like to assume that an H2O positive feedback amplifys the climate sensivity of CO2 by a nominal factor of 3. However they completely neglect the fact that H2O is really a net coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere as evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate so that the H2O feedback is really negative so a better value for the H2O feedback gain would be 1/3 instead of three yielding a climate sensivity of CO2 of less than .02 degrees C which is a rather trivial amount.

    The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere provided for by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. It turns out that the warming in a real greenhouse has nothing to do with a radiant greenhouse effect. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. It is entirely a convective greenhouse effect and not a radiant greenhouse effect. So too on Earth where gravity provides a convective greenhouse effect. As derived from first principal’s, the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect keeps the Earth’s surface 33 degrees C warmer then if there were no greenhouse effect at all. 33 degrees C is the derived amount and 33 degrees C is what has been observed. Any additional warming caused by a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is sceince fiction and because the AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect, the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. Modeling based upon the AGW conjecture is nothing more than make believe. This is all a matter of science.

    But for those who still believe in a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands, the primary greenhouse gas by far is H2O and not CO2 or methane. So if the EPA thinks that a reduction in greenhouse gases will cause needed cooling they should concentrate first on reducing H2O in the atmosphere. H2O is added to the atmophere as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. Man’s use of H2O in agriculture and for other purposes adds more H2O to the atmosphere. Any Manmade bodies of water as well as canels adds H2O to the atmosphere. Use of H2O in cooking and in washing adds H2O to the atmosphere. Maybe it would be more effective if the EPA concentrated on reducing H2O in the atmosphere instead of worrying about CO2. The EPA should require that all bodies of water be covered with plastic and make it illegal to own or make use of H2O in any way. The EPA should prevent people from exhaling which adds both CO2 and H2O to the atmosphere.

    Actually more heat energy is held by N2 then any other gas in the Earth’s atmophere. Actually a significantly reduction in the amoung to N2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will lower temperatures at the Earth’s surface. Maybe if would be better for the EPA to work on reducing the amount of N2 in the Earth’s atmosphere rather than a reduction in trace gases. Another concern is albedo. Dark colors decrease albedo and hence bring on warming and light colors increase albedo and hence bring on cooling. Maybe the EPA’s effort might be more effective if they reqired that all surfaces be painted white or with a highly reflective coating. They can demand that all roof tops, hard surfaces wild areas, forests, and farm land be covered in concrete and painted white so as to increase the Earth’s albedo. All water surfaces should be covered with highly reflective mylar sheets. The EPA should submitt their estimate as what all of this would cost.

  12. “Moreover, new research convincingly shows that solar activity determines the number of cosmic rays hitting the Earth, and thus the extent of low-lying clouds that periodically cool the planet … and at the other end of the cycle bring sunnier skies that warm it.”

    “CERN reported that its CLOUD experiment had used its huge particle accelerator and a giant cloud chamber to demonstrate that the sun and cosmic rays are the real “mystery factors” in earth’s climate.”

    “Each cloud seed carried an electric charge that attracted other molecules to form clumps – and gave us up to ten times as many low clouds. Earth cooled for centuries under overcast skies, as if under a giant awning. Then the sun became more active, there were fewer cosmic rays, the skies got sunnier, and Earth warmed – for centuries.”

    The cosmic ray theory of climate cooling is as poor science as the CO2 theory of warming.

    It is irregularly variable total solar radiation that warms or cools, not CRs or CO2.

    The more active sun warms because of higher solar radiation – TSI, not because there’s less clouds from fewer cosmic rays. Conversely, a less active sun cools via less solar radiation, not because of more clouds from more cosmic rays.

    Cosmic ray radiation is most potent over northern latitudes, varying in intensity inversely with variable solar activity. Its logical to expect the greatest cloud cover from CRs to be located in this area, but is that true, and who has any evidence of that? All major clouds I’ve ever seen originate in the tropical and sub-tropical zones and move poleward.

    Minor low level clouds do show up in water vapor imagery over the ocean, but that doesn’t prove CRs caused them, as they come from low level evaporation into progressively colder air the closer to the pole; air colder from progressively lower insolation at higher latitudes, like fog from warm water into cold air.

    I am amazed that any of my fellow skeptics would latch on to another ‘atmospheric’ climate controller idea after all that’s been done to show the atmosphere via CO2 (or anything) doesn’t warm the ocean, for example.

    CERN’s experiment is no more applicable to climate than Bill Nye’s CO2 experiments. CERN is wrong!

    The tail does not wag the dog – neither CO2 nor CRs control the climate. TSI & insolation control it.

    CDAS Nino 3.4 temps lag TSI 0-10 days in this example. June TSI was 1360.8148. A week ago today it was 1360.8301, high enough for evaporation off Nino34 and Nino12, driving some warmth and clouds north.

    Trump should to take on Obama’s outdated and ill-informed Endangerment Finding, but not with cosmic ray theory.

  13. ‘Providing 100% Clean Electricity Through The Spread Of Renewables’, January 22, 2015

    This is what is taking place now and facts don’t matter in the 100% renewable energy agenda.

    http://blogs.worldwatch.org/providing-100-clean-electricity-through-the-spread-of-renewables

    RTO Insider, Sept.28, 2017

    MISO Study to examine the impact of incremental renewable penetration.

    Re: 100% renewables

    https://www.rtoinsider.com/miso-study-renewable-penetration-63097

    Article has links to related information.

    100% renewables leglislation has now been introduced in the U.S. Senate

    Known as the “Clean Energy Economy”
    .

  14. The Endangerment Finding is wrong on so many levels. It is a distorted application of Principle 15, UN 1992 Rio Declaration that states: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” The EPA interprets Principle 15 to mean if one can hypothesize a one percent probability of an environmental threat, measures to respond to that perceived threat are justified, hence, the Endangerment Finding. Compelling scientific evidence of a threat of serious damage becomes a moot point.

    The fallacy of the EPA interpretation is that probability distributions have two ends, and the EPA only considered the high end of the distribution to justify the “Finding.” The probability of environmental issues caused by a warming earth is no greater than the probability of environmental issues caused by a cooling earth. Policies appropriate for the warming case would be diametrically opposite to those appropriate for the cooling case. Under this reality, applying the Endangerment Finding and promulgating any environmental regulation logically makes no sense whatsoever. The damage that would be done by acting based on the wrong premise, a warming or a cooling planet, nullifies arguments to for either action until the science is right.

    The technical argument that led to the EPA Endangerment Finding and the Supreme court ruling is demonstrably flawed. The U.S. is on the verge running off a cliff if we do not make drastic changes in the direction of climate research and environmental policies. The Endangerment Finding should be nullified for lack of merit.

  15. The Endangerment Finding is wrong on so many levels. It is a distorted application of Principle 15, UN 1992 Rio Declaration that states: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” The EPA interprets Principle 15 to mean if one can hypothesize a one percent probability of an environmental threat, measures to respond to that perceived threat are justified, hence, the Endangerment Finding. Compelling scientific evidence of a threat of serious damage becomes a moot point.

    The fallacy of the EPA interpretation is that probability distributions have two ends, and the EPA only considered the high end of the distribution to justify the “Finding.” The probability of environmental issues caused by a warming earth is no greater than the probability of environmental issues caused by a cooling earth. Policies appropriate for the warming case would be diametrically opposite to those appropriate for the cooling case. Under this reality, applying the Endangerment Finding and promulgating any environmental regulation logically makes no sense whatsoever. The damage that would be done by acting based on the wrong premise, a warming or a cooling planet, nullifies arguments for either action until the science is right.

    The technical argument that led to the EPA Endangerment Finding and the Supreme court ruling is demonstrably flawed. The U.S. is on the verge running off a cliff if we do not make drastic changes in the direction of climate research and environmental policies. The Endangerment Finding should be nullified for lack of merit.

  16. Having carefully read ‘The Steel Greenhouse’ by Willis Eschenbach and ‘The Warm Earth: Greenhouse Effect, or Atmospheric Pressure?’ by Dr. Roy Spencer, I feel I have done enough homework to offer an opinion on the CO2 greenhouse effect.

    A thought experiment:

    Imagine a planet with a steady surface temperature of 15 degrees and no atmosphere, travelling through space. The planet is heated from within and there is no sun to heat it. Then, an alien spaceship arrives and places a shell of ice one foot thick, all around the planet, a mile above the surface. What happens to the surface temperature of the planet?

    Willis and Roy would both argue that the surface temperature would go up because, although it is cold, ice does still emit some infrared radiation so the ‘energy budget’ concept means the planet would lose less head and so its temperature would go up.

    Clearly this is incorrect as can be demonstrated with another question: Take a pan of water with a temperature of 15 degrees and surround it with a pile of ice cubes, how many ice cubes would you have to add to make the water boil? The answer is of course that you could surround the pan with infinity ice cubes and it would never boil. A body cannot raise the temperature of an adjacent body above its own temperature (second law of thermodynamics).

    The CO2 in the atmosphere has a temperature well below zero yet somehow it is supposed to increase the temperature of the Earth’s surface?

    I would give the EPA this thought experiment and ask them to explain it.

  17. Do we really need a climate theory at all? Right from the start some engineers specialising in data transfer and signal analysis did a study on the climate data to analyse the patterns and showed that the climate science estimation of normal was hopelessly out. It failed to pick up the patterns at all let alone adequately.These patterns showed cyclic behaviour so at the very least they should not have used 180 years ago as a reference point as it was the low point in the cyclic pattern so of course we would have warming compared to it.
    Who is the expert, someone who does a simple job well or one who tries the impossible and fails miserably based purely on predicting the future?
    The end of global warming was accurately predicted by the signal analysts back in the sixties but of course got near zero attention as climate scientists were the “experts”.
    Why are we still expected to listen to self styled experts after is has been proved they do not produce the right answer ans the self proclaimed beyond question science was clearly wrong?
    The big changes it is now clear come from sudden transient events not from any slow changes which natural negative feedback not positive as claimed by a group, ignorant of real world applied science, who have reversed cause and effect to create this myth.

  18. Avery’s comments seem to contradict or are different from the article found at the URL link he gives to CERN.
    http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/66876

    The only reference to cosmic rays in the article from the URL above states:
    > The results also show that ionisation of the atmosphere by cosmic rays accounts for nearly one-third of all particles formed, although *small changes in cosmic rays over the solar cycle do not affect aerosols enough to influence today’s polluted climate significantly.*

    Avery says:
    > CERN says the sun was weak during the Little Ice Age

    The article from CERN says nothing of the sort.

    The article does suggest that:
    > Already, results from CLOUD suggest that estimates of high climate sensitivity may have to be revised downwards.”

  19. The magnetic field over North America is weakening. Therefore, the jet stream will be unhindered flowed from the Canada to the South.
    This will especially be the case during periods of low magnetic activity of the Sun.
    Changes in Earths magnetic field from January to June 2014 as measured by the Swarm constellation of satellites. These changes are based on the magnetic signals that stem from Earths core. Shades of red represent areas of strengthening, while blues show areas .
    https://www.facebook.com/Sunclimate-719393721599910/?ref=bookmarks

  20. I am an Australian and I am concerned that we may have our own” endangerment finding” shortly.
    The story so far.
    In 1995 the Australian Government commissioned a panel of scientists and bureaucrats to draw up an inventory of pollutants for recognition in industrial and commercial usage throughout the nation.
    After appropriate deliberation, they did so and the National Pollution Inventory came into being.
    There are 93 elements compounds and substances listed.
    Among them are Carbon monoxide,carbon disulphide and the expected list of toxic substances.
    Neither Carbon nor Carbon dioxide are listed.
    I believe that at the time, the greenhouse effect was still highly contentious and I suspect that the decision was taken to shelve carbon and carbon dioxide as potential pollutants but I do not have access to the relevant minutes of the Commission.
    Early this year there was an announcement by the Department that there is to be a review of the list.
    I have put my name down on the distribution list from the government Department to follow the debate.
    Perhaps I am being paranoid here but I fear that carbon and carbon dioxide may become “ pollutants” after a quick vote of some activist scientists.
    Can Eric or Anthony have a look at this, please.
    As I am not Richard Lindzen or Freeman Dyson, I doubt whether any submissions I might make will carry any weight.

  21. Have I understood the situation correctly? With the power given by SCOTUS, EPA has decided to make believe they can influence global outside air temperature? If so and whether EPA can/do or not, how can they avoid being sued for crop loss damages in case of shorter/colder growing season for any reason anywhere? EPA would be better off limiting their mandate more locally to e.g. assessing carbonless UHI/albedo altering solutions in places like NYC and Furnace Creek and publishing their opinions for the world to read. Going further seems unwise in my opinion.

  22. Here’s a wonderation..

    If me, you or anyone (yes NASA, looking at you) wanted to measure the CO2 in the atmosphere, why not ‘just measure it’?
    It’s supposed to be (re)radiating anything up to 5 or 6 watts per square metre down to the ground.
    It’s doing this at known frequencies (the resonances of the molecule) and somewhere not far above out heads. Why not measure it?
    We can (can we?) still see a signal coming from Voyager (1 or 2) – that is a microwave signal probably a good 200dB below the greenhouse gas signal so why does OCO satellite use the convoluted method it does?

    As I understand, OCO looks at sunlight reflected from the surface – comparing it to the sunlight it sees up there in space and it measures the difference.
    OCO looks for the energy CO2 has subtracted from the sunlight bouncing off the surface.

    Surely, the sunlight OCO sees coming from the surface has had 2 trips through the atmosphere.
    So, if some energy is removed from the (reflected) sunlight coming up to OCO, the same or similar must have been removed by CO2 when the sunlight went down to the surface.

    Is it inconceivable the 2 things cancel each other – effectively meaning that CO2 is working to keep outer space as equally warm as it’s working to keep Earth warm(er)

    No net effect

  23. The simple relevant scientific question for enforcement under the CAA is

    6CO2 + 6H2O —> C6H12O6 + 6O2

    Which one of these elements is a pollutant that should be eliminated? Particularly in regards to the left side of the equation, which chemical compound should we strive to completely remove from the atmosphere and why?

    With CO2 representing four(4) molecules per 10,000, at what point is it innocuous?

    Three (3), Two (2), One(1), Zero(0).

    How come the EPA hasn’t shut down every indoor greenhouse for violation of the CAA through CO2 enrichment. If their position is valid, this is a simple and immediate way to curb man made emissions.

    We are truly living in an Idiocracy.

    • If you want to get picky. No more dry ice, carbonated soda or beer or champagne, no more baking with baking soda, no more doughnuts, we must all stop breathing…or wear carbon dioxide capturing device’s from birth to death…no more food storage that uses CO2 in dry food’s to prevent bugs… There are so many uses for Carbon Dioxide that people take for granted or by ignorance.

  24. I was at a recent conference where we were told that fighting the endangerment finding would take years and cost billions, so the power industry was not going to fight it. The consequence is that over 500 coal-fired units (that’s boilers, not plants) would go off line in the next few years.

    The American people would not know what hit them until natural gas prices started going through the roof. By then it will be too late.

  25. I guess this is timely:

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/04/trump-will-soon-unveil-his-own-global-warming-policy-heres-what-that-might-look-like/

    Trump Will Soon Unveil His Own ‘Global Warming’ Policy — Here’s What That Might Look Like

    “The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing to repeal and replace the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s global warming agenda, according to an agency document.

    Reuters obtained an EPA document, detailing how the agency “is issuing a proposal to repeal the rule” many feared would further hurt the coal and nuclear industries. The document was given to members of EPA’s Regulatory Steering Committee.

    The Obama administration finalized the Clean Power Plan (CPP) in 2015, which aimed to cut carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants. The rule was expected to force coal plants to shut down, and was almost immediately targeted by the Trump administration for repeal.

    “We have been working on a CPP repeal rule from day one,” EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “It is still going through the interagency process and we will provide more information to all interested parties when it is ready for release.”

    end excerpt

  26. Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog and commented:
    HOW THE EPA HAS VIOLATED THEIR MISSION

    1. They have failed to show how atmospheric levels of CO2 are harming plants and/or the environment (and I’m not talking about some nebulous, amorphous, possible future climate change they assume will happen and they assume will be harmful; they cannot prove any of that. Moreover, the EPA was not charged with controlling the climate. That is beyond their purview and also beyond the jurisdiction of the U.S. government)
    2. They have failed to show how atmospheric levels of CO2 are harmful to human health.
    3. They cannot quantify any of their claims.
    4. The EPA calls CO2 emissions “carbon pollution” – proving they don’t know anything about science. CO2 is not carbon.
    The truth: Atmospheric levels of CO2 are not a health hazard to anyone or anything.
    Ergo, atmospheric CO2 cannot be classified as a pollutant.
    Lowering CO2 emissions will deprive plants of the CO2 they need to grow.
    Crops will not produce as well, and they will also need more water as a result of lower amounts of CO2.

    Conclusion: The EPA is no longer “protecting” the environment, they are harming it.

  27. The Endangerment Finding was purportedly based on the EPA Endangerment Finding Technical Support Document, (TSD.) Reviewers included Gavin Schmidt, Tom Karl and Susan Solomon

    This is from that document, examined in some detail here: “The United [Nations] States Environmental Protection Agency” http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/originals/the-un-states-epa

    “This document provides technical support for the endangerment analysis concerning greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that may be addressed under the Clean Air Act.

    The conclusions here and the information throughout this document are primarily drawn from the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

    This document itself does not convey any judgment or conclusion regarding the question of whether GHGs may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, as this decision is ultimately left to the judgment of the Administrator.”

    Comment:
    “The EPA authors of the Endangerment Technical Support Document are mainly economists and environmental policy specialists, with qualifications like Masters in International Affairs or Public Policy and Management, although there are a couple of chemists, engineers and one meteorologist. Some are also IPCC authors and many are involved in the production of the proposed regulations,”

    The administrator was of course Lisa P Jackson and there is a discussion of her politics and her role as EPA head here: “Lisa P Jackson, EPA Administrator – Fulfilling the UN Mission”
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/originals/lisa-p-jackson-epa-administrator-fulfilling-the-un-mission

    At a Gore-related youth activist event in 2009, called Power Shift, she spoke to the crowd:

    “The new Administrator…also promised the (2009) crowd, that she would seek to overturn the Bush administration “midnight regulations”. The most critical of these to the environmental lobby was the memorandum by outgoing EPA chief Stephen Johnson, which stated that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant to be regulated and officials assessing applications by utilities to build new coal-fired power plants could not consider their greenhouse gas output when approving power plants.

    Jackson also revealed the administration’s pre-determined policy on CO2, when she said that:
    “Our first steps on taking office were to resume the CO2 endangerment finding and to seek fuel efficiency standards to reduce carbon pollution. The Law says Greenhouse Gases are pollution.”

    Lisa Jackson boasted at a “40 years of EPA” celebration at Harvard, about the fact that:

    “the lead author of Massachusetts vs. EPA, came to work at the agency she once sued – to see through the work she sued it to do.

    Lisa Heinzerling, who with my colleagues here today including Gina McCarthy, Bob Perciasepe and Bob Sussman helped EPA follow the science and follow the Supreme Court to finalize our endangerment finding on greenhouse gases last year.”

    She was a disciple of Carol Browner, Bill Clinton’s head of EPA and “Climate Czar” in Obama’s first administration. She was and became again, a director of Podesta’s Center for American Progress, of which Joe Romm’s Climate Progress is an offshoot.

    • Browner of course is the one referred to in the last sentence. She was director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2011.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s