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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

99 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
FTOP_T
October 4, 2017 5:25 am

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.

johchi7
Reply to  FTOP_T
October 4, 2017 10:24 am

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.

FTOP_T
Reply to  johchi7
October 4, 2017 6:01 pm

Agreed. The only thing that dwarfs its massive benefits is its scarcity.
Every CO2 sequestration folly is like trying to rid the desert of water. Truly a theater of the absurd.

johchi7
Reply to  FTOP_T
October 5, 2017 3:40 am

These links should be called How to kill Earths flora and fauna.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-rocks/scientists-say-peridotite-rock-can-soak-up-co2-idUSTRE4A59IB20081110
http://geology.com/minerals/calcite.shtml
On the other side of making CO2 a crime to emit it as a “pollutant” are the scientists that are searching to reduce it from the environment because they believe it is harming the environment. This is how crazy this ideology has become that takes a trace gas that is the building block of all forms life in the Carbon Cycle – of which no life would exist without it in the environment – and wanting to reduce it because of the lie that it has caused global warming and climate changes that are detrimental to the environment and all life.

lower case fred
October 4, 2017 7:44 am

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.

dennis avery
Reply to  lower case fred
October 5, 2017 5:01 am

Scott Pruitt’s team at EPA is certainly in a stronger position to reverse the argument.

TA
October 4, 2017 10:34 am

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

dennis avery
Reply to  TA
October 5, 2017 5:02 am

Amen.

4TimesAYear
October 4, 2017 12:37 pm

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.

dennisambler
October 8, 2017 2:50 am

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.

dennisambler
Reply to  dennisambler
October 8, 2017 3:00 am

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.