60 scientists call for EPA endangerment finding to be reversed


October 17, 2017

Electricity Consumers Fully Support Scientists’ Letter to EPA Calling for Immediate Reopening of its GHG Endangerment Finding

 Key Points: 

  1. This Letter from over 60 highly credentialed scientists states that: “We the undersigned are individuals who have technical skills and knowledge relevant to climate science and the GHG Endangerment Finding. We each are convinced that the 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding is fundamentally flawed and that an honest, unbiased reconsideration is in order.”
  2. The letter states further that: “If such a reconsideration is granted, each of us will assist in a new Endangerment Finding assessment that is carried out in a fashion that is legally consistent with the relevant statute and case law.  We see this as a very urgent matter – – – – “
  3. The Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council fully endorses the recommendations of these scientists because recent research has definitively validated that: once certain natural factor (i.e., solar, volcanic and oceanic/ENSO activity) impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “natural factor adjusted” warming remaining to be attributed to rising atmospheric COlevels. That is, these natural factor impacts fully explain the trends in all relevant temperature data sets over the last 50 or more years. At this point, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in atmospheric CO2concentrations have caused what have been officially reported as rising, or even record setting, global average surface temperatures (GAST.)
  4. Moreover, additional allnew, research findings demonstrate that adjustments by government agencies to the GAST record render that record totally inconsistent with published credible temperature data sets and useless for any policy purpose.
  5. These new results conclusively invalidate the claims based on GAST data of “record warming” in recent years, and thereby also invalidate the so-called “lines of evidence” on which EPA claimed to base its 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding.
  6. If the Endangerment Finding is not vacated, whether the current administration likes it or not, it is certain that electric utility, automotive and many other industries will face ongoing EPA CO2regulation.
  7. This scientifically illiterate regulation will raise U.S. energy prices thereby reducing economic growth and jobs as well as our National Security.
  8. The Electricity Consumers Council therefore, based on this new scientific evidence, must insist that the EPA grant the “very urgent” request of these scientists“that an honest, unbiased reconsideration is in order.”

Finally, we know that many more scientists would have been pleased to sign this letter if they had only known about it. Scientists may ask to have their name added by simply sending their info to THSResearch@aol.com.

Full Letter with signatories at link below:


October 16, 2017

The Honorable Scott Pruitt


Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Pruitt:

You have pending before you two science-based petitions for reconsideration of the 2009

Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse Gases, one filed by the Concerned Household Electricity

Consumers Council, and one filed jointly by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Science

and Environmental Policy Project.

We the undersigned are individuals who have technical skills and knowledge relevant to climate

science and the GHG Endangerment Finding. We each are convinced that the 2009 GHG

Endangerment Finding is fundamentally flawed and that an honest, unbiased reconsideration is

in order.

If such a reconsideration is granted, each of us will assist in a new Endangerment Finding

assessment that is carried out in a fashion that is legally consistent with the relevant statute and

case law.

We see this as a very urgent matter and therefore, request that you send your response to one of

the signers who is also associated with a petitioner, SEPP.

Thank you,

Kenneth Haapala, President

Science and Environmental Policy Project

P.O. Box 1126

Springfield, VA 22151


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
October 17, 2017 10:38 pm

Nicely succinct.

Reply to  Tom Halla
October 18, 2017 4:38 am

IMO the big credit should go to Tony Heller. His fact checking has changed the game. The statistical nonsense put out by BEST and Nick S has been revealed to be a stinking pile, yet unfortunately is still believed by luke-warmists on this BB.

“At this point, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in atmospheric CO2concentrations have caused what have been officially reported as rising, or even record setting, global average surface temperatures (GAST.)”

The Rick
Reply to  sailboarder
October 18, 2017 6:29 am

Yep, now only if we can get warmists to understand that COLD does further ‘heat up’ WARM. If that was the case, we would be pumping CO2 (instead of insulation) in our attic to further warm up our house underneath – ponderous man, ponderous

Reply to  sailboarder
October 18, 2017 6:39 am

Society owes a great debt of gratitude to Tony Heller. He single handedly sourced historic accounts of weather events, developed a program to analyze the entire US historic climate data, analyzed the sitings and number of US weather stations and brought us the facts on Arctic ice cover. But most importantly, simply by comparing what NOAA and NASA historically claimed to be temperature trends to their current versions, he has called out the gov’t sponsored fraud foisted on citizenry by these two agencies. Finally, he made me aware of the work of the late Dr. Bill Gray. In point of fact, nobody has done more to out the scammers more than Tony Heller. He is a giant among men. I’ll sing his praises any day. God Bless him. Now, Tony has had some personal setbacks and I pray for his well being. I hope he receives the proper recognition for all he has done. He should be given a professorship in one of our finest so called institutions of higher learning.

Barry Cullen
Reply to  sailboarder
October 18, 2017 7:10 am

+1 for Tony Heller

Reply to  sailboarder
October 18, 2017 9:21 am

+ 1,000,000

Reply to  sailboarder
October 18, 2017 1:24 pm

Well, it’s 100% of the signatories.
Surely that trumps [?? Trumps? Ohhhh. Watch it!] a measly 97%.
Looks statistically valid to me – and my degree is in Maritime Studies, but studies included meteorology [at Second Mate, Mates and Master] . . . .

A fan of Abe Lincoln/Benjamin Disraeli/Mark Twain/A.J. Balfour/even the 1st Duke of Wellington, and his ‘Lies, Dam’ Lies. And Statistics’

Mike Maguire
Reply to  sailboarder
October 18, 2017 6:37 pm

While you have a right to your opinion and me to disagree, I think the position that increasing CO2 has not played a role in the increasing global temperature is against what we know with some confidence in physics.

We can agree that the warming has been exaggerated and the projections of warming and effects have been greatly exaggerated, I don’t think that anybody can know with certainty how much of the current warming was caused by the increase in CO2.

What I am confident in is that the last 40 years of weather/climate have been the best in the last 1,000 years for life on this massively greening planet and much of that life, if we allowed it to testify, would be asking for a bit more warmth and a lot more CO2.

And the effects of warming from CO2, whatever they have been are logarithmic(the more and more you add, the less and less the effect for each ppm), along with negative feedbacks in the climate system, suggests that going to 600 ppm CO2 might not even warm us more than another 1 Deg. C.

I doubt we could even get to 600 ppm but at 500 ppm, we would see the planet greening up even more with crop yields and world food production making new records.

One of the things that separates us Lukewarmers and those on the more extreme ends is that we are willing to acknowledge that we can’t possibly know how much of recent warming was from increasing CO2 and how much from natural forces……….but that’s not why we are in the middle. The physics of CO2 make a good case for some warming and there has been an increase in water vapor in the higher latitudes, where the % of water vapor is extremely low and the increase counts more.

More low clouds in the high latitudes, where solar radiation is weak to absent will result in a net increase in heat. This is one reason that the Arctic Winters have been milder. In the low latitudes, the reflection of more powerful short wave radiation means a decrease in heat.

Maybe most of the increase of water vapor in the higher latitudes was also what happened 100 years ago, when the Arctic suddenly warmed and during the Medieval Warm Period and has little to do with CO2. This is possible. I am open to lowering my sensitivity and there are people way smarter than me(and probably you) that can make an objective case for going higher or lower than me.

Reply to  sailboarder
October 19, 2017 5:21 am

Mike, I believe it was Happer that said that the energized CO2 molecule usually gives up its energy via thermalisation, ie, bumping into other molecules, ie, water vapour, which surround it, within 20 pico seconds. IIRC. The actual trapping in an open system thus is near zero. A doubling is two times near zero.

I would appreciate some physcist going me clarity on this.

M Montgomery
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 18, 2017 2:56 pm

Long-time follower of signor, Ed Berry. Doesn’t get any more succinct than Ed. Sticks to the point and shreds the warmist’s. Haven’t seen him lose an argument yet. It always, ALWAYS resorts to name-calling on the part of the alarmists. … Just thrilled with this kind of progress.

David Grange
October 17, 2017 10:50 pm

Excellent initiative. Go for it guys!

October 17, 2017 10:54 pm

I hope we’ll be watching the signatories piling on. Sadly I cannot sign, I only have a Degree in Business, so what would I know, right?

Reply to  TimiBoy
October 17, 2017 11:17 pm

More than 97% of “climate scientists”.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
October 18, 2017 1:35 am

True, though I’d put the quote around scientists, as: climate “scientists” – as 97% of them are actually leftist activists not actual truth seeking scientists.
comment image

Reply to  TimiBoy
October 18, 2017 2:26 am

TimiBoy my degree is Economics with a major in Statistics and I have felt inadequate to comment in many circumstances. Having said who is really qualified?
I have to say there are many senior guys that had the balls to shout out and I thank them and those younger that had the guts as well although the threat to career must have been frightening.
I have had a simple statistical issue and have been asking the question of correlation (CO2/Temp) for the best part of a decade and I have been gobsmacked that we are where we are now on what are largely redefinitions of probability theory, or in many cases, false attributions to probability theory and just plain opinions.
Please we need to remedy this quickly. I hope this is a good shot across the bows!!

Reply to  nankerphelge
October 18, 2017 3:29 am

The major in statistics gives you an insight into how public services lie, as you have indicated.

I have a chemistry degree, and for me, a symmetrical trace molecule’s infrared effects will get completely swallowed up in water and other atmospheric noise.

I extend my best wishes to Mr Haapala and his efforts.

Solomon Green
Reply to  nankerphelge
October 18, 2017 5:49 am


One does not need to be a scientist to comment on CAGW.

Lord Stern, who authored the notorious Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, is an economist with a first degree in mathematics. Unless the maths tripos has changed considerably, I would be very surprised if his knowledge of statistics and understanding of probability theory matched the level that you had to achieve to obtain your degree in economics.

Mark Fife
Reply to  nankerphelge
October 18, 2017 6:13 am

An interesting exercise is to look at the correlation between GAST and the number of stations reporting per year from about 1900 to present. I did that very thing. I also compared that to the correlation between temperature and CO2. My temperature data came from Berkeley Earth. My data on global CO2 comes from the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science (IAC) at Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zürich, Switzerland.

I found the two correlations to be nearly identical. Yet, upon examination the correlation to CO2 fell apart because it was not supported by any data set from an individual station. However, the correlation to number of stations reporting held up quite well. Prior to 1970 the vast majority of stations reporting were located in the US and Canada. Through the 60’s and 70’s most of those stations went silent while through the 80’s, 90’s and 2000’s hundreds of other stations appeared outside of the US and Canada in warmer climates.

This is a good video on the subject.

Reply to  nankerphelge
October 18, 2017 8:40 am

Having said who is really qualified?

That’s obvious; only the True Believers!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  nankerphelge
October 18, 2017 9:36 am

Mark Fife,
Surely you aren’t suggesting that the alarmists are comparing apples and oranges? /sarc

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  nankerphelge
October 18, 2017 7:27 pm

re nankerphelge
**TimiBoy my degree is Economics with a major in Statistics and I have felt inadequate to comment in many circumstances. Having said who is really qualified?**
It is not who is really qualified, but who has the integrity and honesty in doing proper science.
Look at Mann – he is not a “climate scientist”,stuck his nose into control.
Then look at Steve McIntyre – not a “climate scientist” but worlds ahead of the AGW people directing the propaganda. His knowledge of meteorology and especially statistics and tree rings easily surpasses that of the ones faking it. Oops, and I almost forgot – Integrity and Honesty.

Mark Fife
Reply to  nankerphelge
October 19, 2017 5:52 am

Oh no! Not at all. I am suggesting they pulled apples out of the apple basket while throwing oranges in the orange basket while nobody was looking so they could say “Look! It’s getting worse!”.

October 17, 2017 11:01 pm

This is pulling the weed up by its roots. Bout time….

October 17, 2017 11:04 pm

No evidence of ghg endangerment

Reply to  chaamjamal
October 18, 2017 9:05 am

There’s no evidence of GHG endangerment because there’s no evidence [pdf] there is any such thing as a greenhouse gas.

The linked to paper by Dr. T. Allmendinger, makes several interesting conclusions:
1. All atmospheric gases behave similarly to solar insolation.
2. There is no noticable influence from the trace gases
3. If anything, the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere actually has a slight cooling effect.

His experiment is simple, if not elegant, and should have done by the IPCC over twenty years ago. At least someone has now done it. It needs replication to prove. It should be easy for even Nick Stokes to replicate.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  sophocles
October 18, 2017 5:16 pm

Look Sophocles, I M a long standing critic of CAGW, but please, there is no need to try to prove that CO2 isn’t a ghg. It does absorb LWIR rising up into the atmosphere thereby slowing the process of radiation of heat to space and therefore have some heating effect. They can quote convincing and abundant literature that predated the Climateering game by more than a century, based on experimental fact.

Dэиуiиg it is a green house gas gives the climateers an easy case. They just have to show that you are a knuckle dagger and are spared the need to demonstrate that the heating effect of CO2 is a significant effect, larger than natural variation and negative feedbacks. Give them the argument that it is a green house gas but that it small effects are countered by other factors.

Many argue the fool’s notion that a mere trace gas of only 0.04% is insignificant and all the climateer has to do is point out that this whincey gas, supports all of life on earth and in the oceans. Accept that this gas is a miracle substance of Grand proportions and go to the heart of the matter: “Show me the unadulterated proof that the earth is warming beyond that arising from natural variation. Show me a” tipping point” that caused the earth to suffer a runaway warming that nearly ended life, which has an unbroken record 2.5 billion years long and has had atmospheric CO2 more than 10x that of today. Tell me why the growth of 15% more forest area on the planet and crop yields that have doubled in 30yrs because of CO2 rise is a negative thing….

Argue smart. We need your help.

Andy Pattullo
October 17, 2017 11:20 pm

I fully support this. The finding is political, not scientific. The large amount of available evidence fully invalidates the finding. It is an all cost-no benefit tool which only enriches a small cadre of government rent sneakers at the expense of everyone else, and which has net negative impacts on the environment.

Reply to  Andy Pattullo
October 18, 2017 12:03 am

. . . government rent sneakers . . .
The usual term is “rent seekers“. But I really like your variation, whether intentional or otherwise.

Nigel S
Reply to  Dav09
October 18, 2017 1:32 am

‘Sneakers’ is good, they certainly smell bad.

Reply to  Dav09
October 18, 2017 6:15 am

Or the other sense of sneak, quiet and covert.

Leo Smith
October 17, 2017 11:29 pm

Moreover, additional allnew, research findings demonstrate that adjustments by government agencies to the GAST record render that record totally inconsistent with published credible temperature data sets and useless for any policy purpose.

Succinct? That’s the longest way to spell ‘fräudulent’ I have ever seen!

October 17, 2017 11:31 pm

And how many of those names are people Trump has been talking to ? 😉

Would not surprise me at all that this is the planned method of doing it.

Reply to  AndyG55
October 18, 2017 1:40 am

On the contrary, Andy, in some sense I would be surprised based on what Trump’s Sec of State said in June:

Tillerson: Trump isn’t ‘walking away’ from climate change issue: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/05/trump-climate-change-paris-rex-tillerson-reacts-239130


Reply to  AndyG55
October 18, 2017 11:24 am

Eric, no question that Exxon Mobil would support the Paris agreement as it is more likely to result in less use of coal. Less use of coal primarily benefits one alternative – natural gas. Want to guess which of these energy sources XOM sells? It was the XOM purchase of XTO (primarily a shale gas player) in 2009 which resulted in XOM becoming more exposed to gas prices and prompting a change in their stance.

October 17, 2017 11:35 pm

Even if our miniscule emissions contributed to climate change, it’s far from certain that it would have been a hazard – there isn’t a climate that humans don’t live in on the planet already. And the EPA was not commissioned to control the climate.

Reply to  4TimesAYear
October 18, 2017 12:59 am

No one lives in the coldest parts of our planet…mountain tops, Antarctica, the Arctic ocean near the pole.
People can visit those places if they are very well prepared and very well supplied, otherwise they would live there for as long as it took to die there.
But people can survive naked in the hottest places, and with sufficient water can walk out of those places.

Reply to  menicholas
October 18, 2017 9:14 pm

Well, unless a part of nature eats you.

Reply to  menicholas
October 19, 2017 1:06 am

Yeah, they do – there may be few of them, and they may be researchers, but they live there temporarily in shifts and are replaced by others. I think there may even be competition to have the opportunity.

Reply to  menicholas
October 19, 2017 2:04 pm

Climate zones go from 1 to 10. Arctic to tropic. You’re talking about desolated parts of a particular climate, zone 1. There is no difference in climate once you get into arctic/antarctic circle, indeed past the tree line and people live in this zone 1 just fine.
As to surviving in the very hottest climates; There are many places that people cannot carry enough water to walk out of or through. The SW of the US is a classic example. Illegals die of thirst all the time in summer, as would we.

Russ R.
Reply to  menicholas
October 23, 2017 9:23 pm

@USExpat.. So more people live in the Antarctic circle, than live in the SW USA?
People live in zone 1 just fine?? Do you have any idea what the winters are like in the interior of Antarctica?
There is a reason we cling to the coastlines, and shutdown most outdoor activities when winter sets in. It is the most inhospitable place on Earth. One of the few places where complex lifeforms have been completely rejected!!

October 17, 2017 11:40 pm

Meanwhile, back in Ontario, the government busies itself in the basement and deep sixes the bleeding evidence on “the problem facts of the free wind renewable energy promise ” with an election looming on the horizon…


john harmsworth
Reply to  the old man
October 18, 2017 6:41 am

As I’ve said before, the most corrupt and incompetent government I have ever seen in Canada.

Reply to  john harmsworth
October 18, 2017 7:36 am

What can you say about a provincial government who’s leader lets the work of a convicted paedophile still stand as the sex education standard for the province?
Corrupt with an agenda that is sick.

James Bull
October 18, 2017 1:23 am

Oh dear I can foresee more heads exploding and much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Beer and popcorn futures are very good though.

James Bull

Bob Turner
October 18, 2017 1:24 am

People here frequently (and correctly) say that arguing on the basis of appeals to authority are wrong, and that in all cases links to facts are required. It’s interesting to apply that logic to this letter – no facts, just unsupported opinions and a statement that it comes from ’60 highly credentialed scientists’.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Bob Turner
October 18, 2017 1:32 am

They ask for a reassessment. They do not prejudge the outcome of such, they only say that an honest reassessment is in order. That is politics. In politics opinions and authority rule the roost.

Nigel S
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
October 18, 2017 1:37 am

They also say they will to get involved in any reassessment so their credentials are relevant and not an appeal to authority.

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 18, 2017 1:26 am

Where do I sign?

Quinn the Eskimo
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
October 18, 2017 4:11 am

“Finally, we know that many more scientists would have been pleased to sign this letter if they had only known about it. Scientists may ask to have their name added by simply sending their info to THSResearch@aol.com.”

October 18, 2017 1:44 am

It was obviously illegitimate based on the fact that the EPA’s mandate is not to protect the planet, but to protect US citizens.

It was also illegitimate based on the fact that its actions made no impression on global emissions.

Not only did the finding and subsequent action fail to protect citizens from anyhthing that was a threat to their health and well being, it also, even more absurdly, failed to make any impression on global emissions, so even if these are a global threat, it could not protect against it.

Absurd. Its post-modern policy making in action. What happens is that the whole notion of cause and effect has been discredited in the minds of a substantial section of the population. Do it because it feels good. Effects are all in the mind of the actor. Dissent is all political, gender based, interest group based, class based….

Don Perry
Reply to  michel
October 18, 2017 6:03 am

“It was obviously illegitimate based on the fact that the EPA’s mandate is not to protect the planet, but to protect US citizens.”
No, to protect the interests of those who want to destroy capitalism and US energy foundations. To further the ideologies of extreme leftist “greens”, globalists and wealth-redistributionists.

Reply to  michel
October 18, 2017 6:18 am

The EPA is also supposed to do a cost/benefit analysis of any proposed regulation.
These regulations are all cost with no benefit.

john harmsworth
Reply to  michel
October 18, 2017 6:52 am

With the connections between the EPA and environmentalist groups the functioning of this department amounts to rule by special interest groups. This is a step around of democracy by those who think they know what’s good for the rest of us.
This is really how modern western democracies operate. The squeaky wheels get what they want and are even funded and assisted by government when they actually subvert democracy.

October 18, 2017 2:32 am

While a worthy cause, this may prove to be more of an uphill battle for now since it is quasi law that would have to withstand a new Supreme Court ruling. For now, new EPA Director Scott Pruitt is doing an end run on the legislation by President Trump signing his executive order calling on the EPA to review and revise the Clean Power Plan.

The endangerment finding stemmed from a 2007 Supreme Court decision in which 12 states sued the EPA, calling on the agency to regulate carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of those states, ordering EPA to determine if greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. After considering the ‘scientific’ evidence, including the latest IPCC report at that time, national climate science assessments, etc., the EPA issued its endangerment finding concluding that ‘carbon pollution’ clearly endangers public health and welfare via its climate change impacts. As a result, the EPA is legally required to regulate carbon pollution.

The Obama EPA followed that legal requirement by crafting the Clean Power Plan. Early in his presidency, Trump signed an anti-climate executive order calling on EPA to review and revise the Clean Power Plan. In effect, it’s currently on hold. However, that review process takes years, and in 2020 the next president’s EPA could make the carbon pollution regulations even more aggressive. As long as the endangerment finding is in place, there is a legal requirement for the EPA to regulate ‘carbon pollution’. But President Trump is not playing ball, as evidenced by his executive order calling on EPA to review and revise the Clean Power Plan.

It is a complicated legal process that has to undo the 2007 Supreme Court decision. The current Supreme Court is much the same court that it was in 2007, with former President Obama having appointed a few new members since which may be sympathetic to this cause, albeit with a new appointee by Trump (Neil M. Gorsuch) that may be sympathetic to the cause. If several older members of the court retire or die and Trump gets to fill those positions, then perhaps a new kick at the cat could commence before 2020. If Trump or the Republicans retain the White house after 2020, then it is conceivable that the Endangerment Finding could not only be reversed, but also stand up to a new test before a new Supreme Court.

If challenged and lost prematurely in the Supreme Court now, then the Endangerment Finding would legally stand. A delicate position to be in, and not sure that EPA Director Scott Pruitt wants to make that test just yet. Probably wants to keep his powder dry until there are more Republican appointed Supreme Court members.

Reply to  Earthling2
October 18, 2017 6:24 am

Earthling2. Nice summary of the background and legal basis for the Endangerment Finding. This is a most complex issue, and I think Scott Pruitt has been wise not to jump into a legal challenge.

Also, I don’t think it’s a good idea to challenge the Supreme court ruling. It likely would be upheld given the makeup of the Court. The Court clearly gave the authority to the EPA to rule under the Clean Air Act and it’s difficult to find fault with the Supreme Court finding. The correct avenue of challenge, I think, is the Trump Executive order and a reconsideration of the Finding.

And there’s nothing easy about reconsidering the Endangerment Finding. The scientific evidence cited by the Scientist’s Letter is not as clear as they say it is. That’s what makes this subject so difficult.

And let’s remember that the Endangerment Finding represents the majority view on carbon dioxide’s effect on warming. It will take political courage to take on the IPCC view given their political credibility, and it would take a very solid analysis to withstand a future effort to simply reverse it when a new set of characters inhabit the White House.

So, Scott Pruitt should persist in his approach. The chief risk in my view is that Trump won’t be in office long enough for Pruitt to do decent job.

Reply to  scraft1
October 18, 2017 6:46 am

“Also, I don’t think it’s a good idea to challenge the Supreme court ruling.”

The only ruling the Supreme Court made was to tell the EPA to look into the matter. Which they did, so no challenge of the Supreme Court’s ruling is in the offing, nor is it necessary since the EPA complied with the ruling.

john harmsworth
Reply to  scraft1
October 18, 2017 6:55 am

If the scientific evidence is insufficiently clear to overturn the ruling then it must be insufficient to support it as well. Throw in the economic evidence as an aspect of harm and it is a slam dunk to overturn it.

Reply to  Earthling2
October 18, 2017 8:15 am

The Supreme Court ruling was conditional on EPA’s determination that man produced emissions of CO2 was harmful to health and/or the economy as specified by the clean air act. Natural emissions of CO2 are at least 20 times greater than fossil fuel burning and there is no way we would be able to control them. Their is no direct health effect of airborn levels of CO2 so they indirectly correlate health to heat and heat to burning of fossil fuel based on the false findings of the IPPC.So the endangerment findings is key in the legal argument. EPA did not follow the requirements of the Clean Air Act when they used the “science” of the IPPC in their findings…

October 18, 2017 2:40 am

Michel I hope you are right.
I naively thought that the higher Courts were put in place to handle poor policy and Legislation and the un-elected ever bloating Public Service that seems to be running our lives, however I have noted some incredible decisions from, for example the Ninth Circuit Court, that felt they could order an Australian registered ship to not go within, I recall, 500 yards of the Japanese Whaling Fleet sailing in Australian waters in the Southern Ocean!
Go figure!!! We need to drain the swamp!!

Reply to  nankerphelge
October 18, 2017 4:45 am

The court put the ULTRA in ultra vires.

October 18, 2017 3:28 am

There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. Over the eons CO2 has very significantly decreased in the Earth’s atmosphere because of the seruestering of Carbon by the biosphere including fossil fuel and in the formation of carbonate rocks such as lime stone. Considering how low the amount of CO2 actually is in the earth’s atmospher. releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere that has been locked up in fossil fuels can only be a good thing for plant life and all other life that depends on plant life.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  willhaas
October 18, 2017 5:39 am

Carbon – it’s what’s for dinner

October 18, 2017 4:24 am

Two emeritus chemistry professors from my alma mater, Southern Connecticut State University and the author of my geomorphology text book, Don Easterbrook… Cool! 😎

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Middleton
October 18, 2017 9:29 am

Did you say you graduated from Rabble Rouser U? 🙂

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 18, 2017 9:35 am

Their motto: Hit em high, Hit em low, blood makes the grass grow.

Tom Judd
October 18, 2017 5:15 am

Despite many claims to the contrary here I think Trump has been very wrong so far.

He said there’s going to be so much winning in his administration that we would get tired of winning all the time.

I don’t think so.

Reply to  Tom Judd
October 18, 2017 6:50 am

The U.S. stock market just broke 23,000 yesterday. Stock market value has increased about five TRILLION dollars since Trump took Office.

I would call that winning.

And there are lots of other areas where Trump and we are winning, too. I’ll not go into all of them here unless you insist.

Reply to  Tom Judd
October 18, 2017 7:21 am

I call dumping the Paris accord, withholding large sums of $$$ from the UN (hopefully for at least the next 4 if not 8 years) and having the lowest unemployment figures in 17 years, Winning.

Reply to  Tom Judd
October 18, 2017 9:24 am

Doesn’t mattter what he’s does…or does not do…..he beat Hillary

Michael S
October 18, 2017 6:13 am

Actually, I do not believe the courts have any role to play here. The EPA can periodically review its rule making and findings through a public process. If it concludes that earlier findings are not correct, it can adjust them through its process without a need to go back to the Supreme Court — or any court for that matter. A process to review an endangerment is not a legal issue.

That said, I do think the Supreme Court erred in not considering that the Congress did not explicitly give the power to regulate CO2 to the EPA. In addition, the “science” used to support a need for an endangerment finding in Mass v. EPA was the worst type of science imaginable. But we should not expect judges to be arbiters of science. That is not their role nor should it ever be. It IS the responsibility of the EPA to review this finding and Pruitt wouldn’t be caught in a legal morass if he did so — except to the extent that we all know the environmental NGOs will sue early and often regardless.

More than vitiating the Clean Power Plan or getting out of the Paris Accorrd, a review and proper assessment of this Endangerment Finding is the single most important thing that Pruitt and the EPA can do during this administration. They have the opportunity to 1) get rid of the bad science that supports the current finding and 2) establish an evaluation process/standard that will force any future reviews to live up to. This second point will at least make it more difficult for the next administration to abuse its bureaucratic power and force many in the green community (both inside and outside of government) to argue on the merits, not on the models.

Reply to  Michael S
October 18, 2017 6:52 am

“Actually, I do not believe the courts have any role to play here. The EPA can periodically review its rule making and findings through a public process. If it concludes that earlier findings are not correct, it can adjust them through its process without a need to go back to the Supreme Court — or any court for that matter.”


Reply to  TA
October 18, 2017 11:50 am

Until the same 12 States bring their complaint back to pretty much the same Supreme Court as already ruled in 2007. What is at stake is whether the ‘97% consensus’ on CO2 and the other trace GHG gases mentioned in the Endangerment Finding has changed. If that happens, and it is legally overturned, them the Red Team wins, at least in the good old USA. But in the mean time, things are complex…we are winning the long game, but ultimately the climate itself will present the final facts.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Earthling2
October 18, 2017 3:11 pm

The climate itself has already “presented its final facts,” Earthing2. It’s just that politicians and rent seekers just don’t acknowledge that fact.

Janice Moore
Reply to  TA
October 18, 2017 2:04 pm

Earthlng, you are well-informed about much, but, are misinformed as to what options the current head of the EPA has. The previous EPA’s “endangerment” rulemaking was clearly ultra vires for EPA excluded from the record for that rulemaking, without any rational basis, significant, highly credible, counter-testimony that strongly tended to make the “endangerment finding” clearly erroneous.

That is, the improper rule-making by EPA gives Pruitt an administrative option to re-visit the “endangerment” finding.

No lawsuit needed.

Reply to  TA
October 18, 2017 2:36 pm

“What is at stake is whether the ‘97% consensus’ on CO2 and the other trace GHG gases mentioned in the Endangerment Finding has changed.”

You mean to tell me that they actually used the “97 percent” LIE as
part of their argument for CO2 being evil!?

So they use the Hockey Stick temperature chart LIE and the 97 percent LIE to justify declaring CO2 dangerous! Unbelievable!

Dave Fair
Reply to  TA
October 18, 2017 3:17 pm

Your government at work.

Reply to  TA
October 18, 2017 3:16 pm

Thank you Janice. If it was possible to just undo the Endangerment Finding, then why not just go ahead and get it done, or revisit it and change the finding? Because it is not just that easy to unwind this as easily as it was (fraudulently) put together. It is a legal land mine which Scott Pruitt understands very well, having visited the subject several times as AG for Oklahoma, suing the EPA at least 14 times as AG. As of June 2014, all of Pruitt’s lawsuits against the EPA had failed. Now that he is Director of the EPA, he knows better than anyone that risking another judgement by the Supreme Court, especially after that SCOTUS ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), when the Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. To totally ignore this ruling by changing the framework around the Endangerment Finding ignoring the 6 GHG’s (mainly CO2) is fraught with legal nightmares that will take years to unravel.

How SCOTUS arrived at their decision that CO2 is ‘carbon pollution’ is dubious at best, and maybe represented fraud at worst. However, it is a decision that is currently on the books, and must be tread on lightly so as not to completely lose legal standing within the law. The question is, if it could be revisited again and the finding changed, would it survive a legal challenge to SCOTUS again? I wish a legal scholar such as ristavin could comment if this is as complicated as I think it may be. Maybe Trump and Pruitt go for broke, and change the Endangerment Finding. Or reframe the answer so as to still be in compliance with the SCOTUS decision of 2007. I wish them well…And you too.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Earthling2
October 19, 2017 12:36 pm

Just calculate an honest Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) and the whole problem goes away. And use a reasonable RCP (not 8.5) to estimate future temperatures.

Reply to  TA
October 19, 2017 12:53 pm

“And use a reasonable RCP (not 8.5) to estimate future temperatures.”

Using ANY of the climate model scenarios to estimate anything is so ANTI-SCIENCE as to be a total nonsense.

They are a load on non-validated clap-trap that have been shown to bear very little resemblance to reality.

Dave Fair
Reply to  AndyG55
October 19, 2017 1:11 pm

Unfortunately, Andy, that’s the rules of the game; they will not change. I propose using their own rules against them, but with realistic economic analyses at proper discount rates.

Dr. Bob
October 18, 2017 6:49 am

This situation reminds me of a scene in “Quigley Down Under” where the employees of Marsden were riding on a wagon and meet up with a troop of British soldiers hauling a dead cattle rustler back to town:
Bog Irish Scum on Wagon: “Bugger’s Dead!”
British Captain: “The trial won’t be Lengthy”

CAGW is dead as an issue as there are few facts to back it up. But the NGO’s and liberals just don’t know it yet.

October 18, 2017 6:56 am

From the article: “These new results conclusively invalidate the claims based on GAST data of “record warming” in recent years, and thereby also invalidate the so-called “lines of evidence” on which EPA claimed to base its 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding.”

So it looks like the Obama EPA based their endangerment finding solely on the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart.

What else could they base it on? Nothing I can see.

Michael Mann strikes again.

Reply to  TA
October 18, 2017 9:07 am

Is Michael Mann a descendant of Horace Mann?

Dave Fair
Reply to  TA
October 18, 2017 10:37 am

I’ve often wondered what the “multiple lines of evidence” of CO2’s effect on climate were, outside of unvalidated climate models, that is. All other evidence simply point to the metrics of a gently warming world coming out of the Little Ice Age, much of such warming occurring in the absence of current CO2 levels.

If the lack of significant warming in the 21st Century, compared to CO2 climate model predictions, doesn’t change anyone’s perceptions, then the battles will grind on.

Bruce Cobb
October 18, 2017 7:02 am

Mann and company are probably already writing a counter-letter, replete with Appeals to Authority and to “Consensus”, lots of emotional fake-hurt posturing and Ad-Homs, ending with a plea to “stay the course” because “the planet” and “the children” need us to.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 18, 2017 8:12 am

Oh I’m sure their “rebuttal” letter is being composed right now even as Stephen Lewandowsky invents a new psychological trait and writes a paper ascribing that trait to everyone who signs the Pruitt letter. Or reads it. Or hears about it. Or posts on WUWT…
(My predictions may or may not be more accurate than the IPCC’s)

60 scientists sign a public statement in support of repealing the Endangerment finding.
Zero scientists will sign anything in support of Michael Mann in court.

That must sting.

Tom H
October 18, 2017 7:45 am

Dr. Roy Spencer?

October 18, 2017 8:44 am

I propose that the climate cult compose a similar letter to Pruit supporting the science illiterate CO2 endangerment finding. I would love to see the signatures, both whom and how many. It would be interesting to see how many quality signatures from STEM degree earners they could scrounge together.

October 18, 2017 8:52 am

Man made climate change is REAL, it just has NOTHING to do with “greenhouse” gasses

Google “Climate Change Deciphered ” for the facts.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Burl Henry
October 18, 2017 9:15 am

I don’t believe SO2 is as much of a control knob as you believe, however it seems reasonable that its reduction has had a far greater warming effect, by an order of magnitude, than CO2 might have.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 18, 2017 9:36 am

Bruce Cobb:

You need to study my referenced essay.

Temperature changes since circa 1975 can be precisely (within .02 deg. C, or less) predicted/projected based solely upon the amount of reduction in SO2 aerosol emissions..

Clyde Spencer
October 18, 2017 9:26 am

It strikes me that many of the signatories on the petition, like many of the commenters here on WUWT, are retired. Is it that being retired allows one more time to be an activist? Or is it that we have less concern about retribution from our employers? Or, does it have something to do with wisdom gained with the years? Or, does it say something about how education has changed through the decades? Or are all of the above factors in the participation of retiree?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 18, 2017 9:37 am

I suspect it has more to do with no longer having to worry about protecting your career.
It doesn’t take much wisdom to see through this nonsense.

Reply to  MarkW
October 18, 2017 9:58 am

Those born closer to the theoretical year of total computer dependance are more willing to accept non-reality output from software.

“If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it.”
– Pierre Gallois

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 18, 2017 12:08 pm

I suspect all of the above. Furthermore, I would happenstance a guess that most of us are from the ‘hard’ and factual sciences like engineering, or physics and chemistry etc. Or retired farmers/ranchers and self employed business people who have plenty of observation and common sense under their belt. I notice a big difference in comments from a Monday to Friday early morning/day view point than weekends possibly confirming a large retired viewership here on weekdays. Of course, WUWT is now a global presence so I may be out by a day…especially from OZ and NZ in the overnight time slots. But there is certainly a wealth of information and wisdom here and I enjoy reading and commenting here.

Warren Blair
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 18, 2017 1:27 pm

In Australia for 10-years+some not one scientist or academic who is an overt AGW sceptic has been hired in any Government or academic position directly or indirectly related to weather or climate or environment.
All departments and institutions and fully controlled by left-leaning heads.
Money is only available for pro AGW research and tenured positions.
Not one study or research program has been funded to critically check any AGW theory or data.
Any scientist that harbours AGW doubts does so in complete secrecy and fear.
Not one right-leaning graduate enters the field as they all know the consequences.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Warren Blair
October 18, 2017 3:15 pm

Which will lead to CAGW-theory’s own destruction. Without intellectual vigor, all falsehoods die.

October 18, 2017 9:31 am

Only those properly anointed by the existing cabal are entitled to call themselves “climate scientists”.

October 18, 2017 10:23 am

Pat Michaels completely convinced me that step 1 in bringing sanity to the debate is to reopen the CO2 endangerment finding. With that still in place you face a serious impediment to any progress on taking a realistic approach to the so called dangers of climate change.

Dave Fair
October 18, 2017 10:43 am

All of the above comments really point to the necessity of a Red Team.

October 18, 2017 10:57 am

Key words: VERY URGENT!!

J Mac
October 18, 2017 11:15 am

A re-evaluation of the ‘science’ behind the Endangerment Finding is exactly the right thing to do!
I sincerely hope this effort gains traction and ultimately nullifies the ‘Endangerment Finding’ with irrefutable data and analyses.

Oh Happy Days!!!

October 18, 2017 11:49 am

Reopening the Endangerment Finding is a great idea so long as the EPA is comfortable with flying in the face of the “consensus”. Has the scientific debate reached the point where the scientific community would support a new Finding? I don’t mean a new consensus, but enough respect of the skeptical view that such a contrary finding would be viewed as a credible scientific effort and not just a crank kneejerk attack on the establishment that has characterized so much of Trumpism.

Let me put it another way. Leaving the Paris Accord can be justified on several grounds, without getting into consensus science or without even being critical of it. With the Endangerment Finding, there’s no reversing it without a rejection of the IPCC and its legions of scientific supporters. This may be a fight that the Trump Administration may not want to take on directly.

A more savvy finding in my view, and a more honest one, would be for the EPA to overturn the Finding on the basis of there being not enough scientific evidence to support an endangerment finding. This would eliminate the existing Endangerment Finding and would satisfy the Supreme Court ruling. It could also be the basis of a coherent public policy on the climate issue.

Janice Moore
Reply to  scraft1
October 18, 2017 2:13 pm

1. The “consensus” you refer to is a myth propped up by only a very flimsy piece of balsa wood of a “study” and soundly refuted dozens of scholarly articles: in http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html .

And here are some more articles — soundly refuting AGW:

2. Yes! Excellent idea — EPA should revisit the ultra vires, without sound basis in bona fide science, “endangerment” finding immediately.

Reply to  Janice Moore
October 18, 2017 6:11 pm

I think it may be difficult to use the Ultra Vires argument when it was SCOTUS who found that CO2 was carbon pollution. We need to prove that the information used in 2007 was insufficient to find the conclusion definitively in favour of CO2 causing problems to the climate that was dangerous to present and future generations. Perhaps that could be an angle of attack is to question the evidence given in 2007, since we now have 10 more years of data showing no statistical warming, i.e. The Pause. I am with you Janice, but I think it is tied up in legal knots.

The EPA clearly enacted the Endangerment Finding with authority and direction by the court and government to do so after SCOTUS ruled that CO2 and 5 other trace GHG’s were ‘carbon pollution’. (2007 Decision by SCOTUS and 2009 Decision by EPA for Endangerment Finding). That someone now could accuse the EPA of exceeding its authority in making their decision as Ultra Vires, could not stand because the EPA only regurgitated what the Court already ruled about CO2 being ‘carbon pollution’. The one thing that Obama did understand was how to tie something up in a knot that would be very difficult to untie.

While the same baloney we debate here every day with alarmists was used to convince SCOTUS to accept the notion of ‘carbon pollution’, that doesn’t reverse the courts 2007 decision. Skeptics are still the minority view point, at least as far as the majority of the scientific, political and media thinks. The skeptic argument is much more refined now compared to 10 years ago with the assistance of information sites like WUWT which only started this blog in 2006. Evidence is gathering with time that the sensitivity of CO2 as a warming agent is probably less than the benefits that CO2 supplies the planet overall, as in slightly higher more stable temperatures and beneficial for all vegetation and life on Earth. The tides are turning, and I have no doubt that all this will be over turned some day, and future generations will say, what were they thinking? Somedays I hope I live another 30 years, just so as I will know how this all turned out and what the weather/climate/ice did until 2047.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Earthling2
October 19, 2017 12:39 pm

Take good care of yourself, Earthling2. I’m shooting for 99 at the end of the 30-year period.

October 19, 2017 12:22 am

Ahem, didn’t these scientists get the memo . The science fiction is settled .
The audacity to challenge two non scientists Al (Ice free Arctic ) Gore
and Uncle Billy the comedian mechanical engineer .
Don’t you get the feeling the adults have re-entered the room and they aren’t to inclined to take crap any longer . It’s about time the damage from the worlds largest scam was reversed .
Don’t leave town climate charlatans .

October 22, 2017 11:32 am

It’s about time someone stood up for the other side of the debate!

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights