The agency’s carbon dioxide climate “endangerment finding” was a kangaroo court process
Guest opinion by Paul Driessen
Suppose a crooked prosecutor framed someone and was determined to get a conviction. So he built an entire case on tainted, circumstantial evidence, and testimony from witnesses who had their reasons for wanting the guy in jail. Suppose the prosecutor ignored or hid exculpatory evidence and colluded with the judge to prevent the defendant from presenting a robust defense or cross-examining adverse witnesses.
You know what would happen – at least in a fair and just society. The victim would be exonerated and compensated. The prosecutor and judge would be disbarred, fined and jailed.
What you may not know is that the Obama EPA engaged in similar prosecutorial misconduct to convict fossil fuels of causing climate chaos and endangering the health and wellbeing of Americans.
EPA then used its carbon dioxide “Endangerment Finding” to justify anti-fossil fuel regulations, close down coal-fired power plants, block pipeline construction, and exempt wind and solar installations from endangered species rules. It put the agency in control of America’s energy, economy, job creation and living standards. It drove up energy prices, killed numerous jobs, and sent families into energy poverty.
EPA’s egregious misconduct inflicted significant harm on our nation. Having acted to repeal the Obama Clean Power Plan, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt must reverse carbon dioxide’s conviction and scuttle the Endangerment Finding that serves as the foundation and justification for the agency’s war on coal, oil and natural gas. Any harm from fossil fuels or carbon dioxide is minuscule, compared to the extensive damages inflicted by the decision and subsequent regulations.
President Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson took office determined to blame carbon dioxide for “dangerous” and “unprecedented” manmade global warming and climate change. They then used that preordained decision to justify closing coal-fired power plants and dramatically restricting fossil fuel use. Mr. Obama had promised to “bankrupt” coal companies. Ms. Browner wasted no time in decreeing that CO2 from oil, natural gas coal burning “endanger” human health and welfare. It was a kangaroo court.
Their Environmental Protection Agency did no research of its own. It simply cherry-picked UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and wrote a Technical Support Document to make its case. The TSD ignored studies that contradicted its predetermined Endangerment Finding – and relied on circumstantial evidence of climate and extreme weather disasters generated by computer models.
The models were programmed on the assumption that rising atmospheric CO2 levels are the primary or sole factor determining climate and weather. They assumed more carbon dioxide meant more planetary warming and worsening climate chaos. The role of the sun, cosmic rays, changing ocean currents and numerous other powerful, interconnected natural forces throughout Earth’s history was simply ignored.
The models predicted steadily increasing global temperatures and more frequent and intense storms. Instead, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continued to rise, except for a noticeable temperature spike during the 2015-2016 super El Niño, there has been no planetary warming since 1998. Harvey finally ended a record 12-year drought in Category 3-5 hurricanes making landfall in the USA.
Tornado deaths are far less frequent than in the 1950s. Floods and droughts differ little from historic trends and cycles. Antarctic land ice is at record highs, and Arctic sea ice is again within its “normal” levels for the past 50 years. Seas are rising at just seven inches per century, the same as 100 years ago.
The models also assumed more warming meant more clouds that trapped more heat. They ignored the fact that low-lying clouds trap heat but also reflect solar heat back into the atmosphere. Humans might be “contributing” to temperature, climate and weather events, at least locally. But there is no real-world evidence that “greenhouse gases” have replaced natural forces to cause climate chaos or extreme weather – and no evidence that humans can control Earth’s fickle climate by controlling emissions.
In fact, with every passing year, climate model temperature forecasts have been increasingly higher than those actually observed over most of the lower atmosphere.
The EPA approach amounted to saying, if reality conflicts with the models, reality must be wrong – or to deciding that real world evidence should be homogenized, adjusted and manipulated to fit model results.
Indeed, that’s exactly what EPA, the IPCC and other alarmist researchers have done. Older historic records were adjusted downward, modern records got bumped upward a bit, and government-paid scientists ignored satellite data and relied increasingly on measurements recorded near (and contaminated by) airport jet exhaust, blacktop parking lots, and urban areas warmed by cars, heating and AC vents.
The IPCC also claimed its referenced studies were all peer-reviewed by experts. In reality, at least 30% were not; many were prepared by graduate students or activist groups; and some of its most attention-getting claims (of rapidly melting Himalayan glaciers, for example) were nothing more than brief email messages noting that these were “possible” outcomes. Moreover, most IPCC peer reviewers were scientists who fervently promote catastrophic manmade climate change perspectives, receive government and other grants for writing reports confirming this thesis, and take turns reviewing one another’s papers.
Despite these inconvenient facts, a steady barrage of Obama EPA press releases and statements from alarmist regulators and “experts” insisted that fossil fuels were causing planetary cataclysms. Anyone who tried to present alternative, realistic data or views was ridiculed, vilified and silenced.
Even one of EPA’s most senior experts was summarily removed from the review team. “Your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision,” Alan Carlin’s supervisor told him.
Two additional facts dramatically underscore the kangaroo court nature of EPA’s 2009 proceedings.
First, oil, natural gas and coal still provide over 80% of America’s and the world’s energy. The International Energy Agency says they will be at least this important 25 years from now. Indeed, fossil fuels are the foundation for modern industries, transportation, communication, jobs, health and living standards. Emerging economic powerhouses like China and India, developing countries the world over, and even industrialized nations like Germany and Poland are using more of these fuels every year.
The Obama EPA studiously ignored these facts – and the tremendous benefits that fossil fuels bring to every aspect of our lives. Those benefits outweigh any asserted dangers – by orders of magnitude.
Second, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, as defined by the Clean Air Act – and was never listed in any legislation as a pollutant. It was turned into an alleged pollutant by dishonest, ideological EPA prosecutors, who needed to justify their anti-fossil fuel regulatory agenda.
In reality, carbon dioxide is the miracle molecule without which most life on Earth would cease to exist. It enables plants of all kinds to convert soil nutrients and water into the fibers, fruits and seeds that are essential to humans and animals. The more CO2 in the air, the faster and better plants grow, and the more they are able to withstand droughts, disease, and damage from insects and viruses. In the process, crop, forest and grassland plants, and ocean and freshwater phytoplankton, exhale the oxygen we breathe.
In rendering its endangerment decision, EPA ignored these incalculable CO2 benefits. It ignored experts and studies that would have provided vital information about the tremendous value to our planet and people from fossil fuels and carbon dioxide.
Finally, having a slightly warmer planet with more atmospheric CO2 would be hugely beneficial for plants, wildlife and humanity. By contrast, having a colder planet, with less carbon dioxide, would be seriously harmful for arable land extent, growing seasons, crops, people and wildlife habitats.
The EPA Endangerment Finding is the foundation for the Obama era Clean Power Plan and other rules. Reversing it is essential to moving forward with science-based energy and climate policies.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and other books on public policy.
I would like to point out that combustion of fossil fuels does create global warming. When you burn coal, or oil, or gas, heat is released. This warms the environment. Knowing the characteristics of the particular fuel, and the quantity burnt, together with the specific heat of air and the total mass of the atmosphere, it should be possible to calculate the actual warming due to the combustion of fossil fuels. Whether it is more or less than one millionth of a degree Celsius I cannot say, there are numerous subscribers to this site who are well qualified to do the calculation.
If they do, and there can be some degree (pun not intended) of unanimity amongst them, I should be very pleased to hear it so that it can be used in evidence against alarmists.
Regards
Dudley Horscroft
…You know what would happen – at least in a fair and just society. The victim would be exonerated and compensated. The prosecutor and judge would be disbarred, fined and jailed….
And then we would all ride into the sunset on unicorns.
Do you know of ANY society in the world where that would happen? Humans just don’t work like that. It doesn’t matter if the society is Communist, Capitalist, Democratic or a Dictatorship – what will happen is that a person in power will do what he thinks he can get away with, and his colleagues will support him up to a point where it becomes impossible to do so any further. They will then turn on him – but typically only when he is no longer able to support them from his position of power. Often, this is only after he is dead.
In science, you see this as Kuhn’s ‘normal paradigm’. In the media world, you see it when sex scandals occur with an old celebrity. Happens everywhere. Don’t think it isn’t going to happen in Climate Change…
Unfortunately, the process by which the endangerment finding can be reversed is extremely arduous. So much so, in fact, that Scott Pruitt has said he won’t pursue it. He is a highly qualified attorney, and understands what a massive undertaking it would be, and that it’s probably a losing battle that will suck all the air out of the room on other matters in which the EPA overreach has to be addressed. If we get one or two more SCOTUS appointments and 100 or more decent placements on district and circuit courts it might make sense to try, but in the current environment it would take years and probably lose. The groundwork should be laid carefully and, assuming a Trump (or other climate rationalist) reelection, pursued when it has a realistic chance. Reversing Chevron is possibly more ‘doable’ and would be a great place to start weakening the endangerment finding, along with a host of other agency overreaches.
The Environmental Protection Agency has nothing else left than to turn against greenhouse and its inhabitants.
This was published a few minutes ago…
http://www.westfargopioneer.com/opinion/4342458-port-completely-perverse-wind-energy-subsidies-arent-reducing-emissions
Paul, not “most life on earth”. All life on earth depends on, and is made of fundamental carbon based molecules.
Excellent essay! So many important points covered in so few words.
When read the first paragraph I thought ‘how does he know about my divorce?’
:0-)
Driessen is a bit vehement, but does describe the situation with the CO2 endangerment finding accurately. Pruitt should get radical, in the original sense of “radical”, and refuse to accept the precedent of the finding.Starting out by agreeing to play by rules the opposition set up is a losing game.
I dunno’ but for some inexplicable reason the first thought that comes to my mind right now is … Mueller.
You missed an important aspect of the endangerment finding. EPA used Ethyl Corp v EPA as the legal basis. That is an old, early environmental law decision that gave EPA the power to make a regulation WITHOUT regard to the science. EPA admitted by using that legal basis for the Endangerment Finding that the science was irrelevant. Ethyl Corp v EPA granted EPA the power to make arbitrary & capricious regulations. And that means that not only must the CPP be withdrawn, not only must the Endangerment Finding be withdrawn, but the flawed legal basis must be overturned.
Perhaps abolishing the EPA altogether would make more sense:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443186/scott-pruitt-abolish-epa
Tag: Education, Law, Insanity and Musical Arts.
Bill and Chelsea were in Boston at Northeastern university last night. Chelsea fled reporters when asked about Weinstein.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/10/14/chelsea-…
Meanwhile, at the same time, Hillary was in Wales having a law school named…after her.
Hillary Clinton has received an honorary doctorate from Swansea University during a visit to the city.
The former US secretary of state and 2016 American presidential candidate was presented with the award during a ceremony at Swansea University’s Bay Campus.
She said the honour “meant the world to her”.
The university’s College of Law was also renamed the Hillary Rodham Clinton School of Law.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-41611316
—-
This gives higher education a really bad name.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5ApYxkU-U
if some entity where charged under carbon endangerment, why not name every other entity in America as co-defendants? including cows (while technically not CO2 emitters). If CO2 endangers the climate, sure coal emits more per ton or MW generated than oil or natural gas, but these other sources still emits CO2,
Other than eliminating the EPA, perhaps WWS’s suggestion that congress could pass a bill to the effect that the Clean Air Act was never meant to include co2 would solve the problem — How can WUWT readers help make this happen?
The Endangerment Finding should be replaced with a Finding of Benefit.
I will be SO glad when Mother Nature takes up the slack and we get hit by the snolwine reaching further south and not melting back.
It can happen in our lifetime. All sorts of things are underway, you know. The people who get hit the hardest now sit in enclosed offices, staring at computer screens and never going outside unless they have to.
Actually, this is analogous to something much more shocking — particularly for the prosecution.
After they’ve gained a murder conviction, the victim shows up alive.
In relation to an IPPC logo when comparing prediction and reality they should change it to: “Oh Bugger”
Tom Judd,
“Hindenburg went ballooey was because it was filled with highly flammable hydrogen that lit up in the presence of oxygen”
It wasn’t the Hydrogen, which burns rapidly and invisibly, but the Doping on the fabric which ,by accident of admixture, became a nearly explosive compound, that combusted near a H2 vent and obliterated the Airship.
Paul,
excellent post but I think you misspelled the Headline it should read “Crooked Persecutors”
Crooke to the core.
If the burning of fossil fuels is so bad then governments world wide should ban all goods and services that make use of fossil fuels but they have not done that yet. All forms of hydrocarbon based life are CO2 emitters and should be held responsible for their actions. I admit that I am one of those responsible. From conception my body has been taking up O2 which it uses to burn hydro carbons to produce mostly CO2, H2O and the energy that my body uses to survive. I freely admit that I am phycically adicted to this problem. I have been told by my doctor that If I stop taking up O2 by brething, I could die.
Great article Mr Driessen. I always enjoy reading your no-nonsense put-downs of this, the biggest scientific fr@ud in history.
Very much a fake news….considering no creditable evidence has been supplied to support the authors assertion. All the effort to discredit another person’s genuine work …such farce…wasted talent…why not write something that helps bring unity….