Electricity Consumers File New Study in Their Call for EPA to Reopen its Endangerment Finding

Key Points:

  1. Just Released, new research findings demonstrate that Ten Frequent Climate Alarmists’ Claims have each been Rebutted by true experts in each Field by simply citing the most relevant and credible empirical data.
  2. The new results invalidate 10 very frequent Alarmist Claims in recent years, and thereby also invalidate the so-called “lines of evidence” on which EPA claimed to base its 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding.
  3. 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 CO2 regulation.
  4. This scientifically illiterate basis for regulation will raise U.S. energy prices thereby reducing economic growth, jobs and national security.


February 20, 2018

On February 9, 2018, The Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC) submitted a fifth Supplement to their Petition to provide additional new highly relevant and credible information. (See:EF CPP Fifth Supplement to Petition for Recon FINAL020918 ) It relates to variables other than temperature describing the Earth’s Climate System. With each of EPA’s three Lines of Evidence purporting to support their 2009 Endangerment Finding already shown in the CHECC petition and its first 2 Supplements to be invalid, EPA has no proof whatsoever that CO2 has had a statistically significant impact on global temperatures.

The Council’s original Petition (see https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ef-epa-petitionforreconsiderationof-ef-final-1.pdf) and First Supplement to Petition (see https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-checc-suppl-pfr-of-ef-050817-final.pdf) demonstrated that the Endangerment Finding is nothing more than assumptions that have each been disproved by the most relevant empirical evidence from the real world. The original Petition was substantially based on a major peer-reviewed 2016 scientific paper by James Wallace, John Christy and Joseph D’Aleo (Wallace 2016) that analyzed the best available temperature data sets and “failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important tropical and global temperature time series data sets analyzed.”  The full text of Wallace 2016 may be found at: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/ef-cpp-sc-2016-data-ths-paper-ex-sum-090516v2.pdf .

First Supplement to Petition was substantially based on a new April 2017 peer reviewed scientific paper, also from the same authors (Wallace 2017A). Wallace 2017A can be found at:  https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ef-data-research-report-second-editionfinal041717-1.pdf . Wallace 2017A concluded that once impacts of natural factors such as solar, volcanic and ENSO activity are accounted for, there is no “natural factor adjusted” warming remaining to be attributed to rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

The Second Supplement to the Petition relied on a third new major peer reviewed scientific paper from James Wallace, Joseph D’Aleo and Craig Idso, published in June 2017 (Wallace 2017B). Wallace 2017B analyzes the GAST data issued by U.S. agencies NASA and NOAA, as well as British group Hadley CRU. (Wallace 2017B can be found at: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062817.pdf ) In this research report past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, this result was nearly always accomplished by each entity systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

The Second Supplement to Petition states: Adjustments that impart an ever-steeper upward trend in the data by removing the natural cyclical temperature patterns present in the data deprive the GAST products from NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU of the credibility required for policymaking or climate modeling, particularly when they are relied on to drive trillions of dollars in expenditures.

The invalidation of the adjusted GAST data knocked yet another essential pillar out from under the lines of evidence that are the claimed foundation of the Endangerment Finding. As the Second Supplement to Petition stated: It is therefore inescapable that if the official GAST data from NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU are invalid, then both the “basic physical understanding” of climate and the climate models will also be invalid.

The scientific invalidity of the Endangerment Finding becomes more blindingly obvious and undeniable with each day’s accumulation of reliable empirical data -and, the willingness of more scientists to come forward with such new evidence. (See: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/pruitt-letter-press-release-1-pm-101617final-4.docx )

Perhaps recognizing this fact, Climate Alarmist have over time gone from focusing on Global Warming, to Climate Change to simply fear of Carbon. Thus, this research sought to determine the credibility of Ten (10) very frequently cited Climate Alarmists Claims.

Below are Rebuttals to each of these ten typical climate alarmists’ claims. The rebuttal authors are all recognized experts on their topic and each rebuttal demonstrates the claim fallacy by merely citing the most credible empirical data.

Claim #1: Heat Waves are increasing at an alarming rate and heat kills

For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_AC – Heat Waves

Claim #2: Global warming is causing more hurricanes and stronger hurricanes

For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_AC – Hurricanes

Claim #3: Global warming is causing more and stronger tornadoes

For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_CA – Tornadoes

Claim #4: Global warming is increasing the magnitude and frequency of droughts and floods.

For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_AC – Droughts and Floods

Claim #5: Global Warming has increased U.S. Wildfires

For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_AC – Wildfires

Claim #6: Global warming is causing snow to disappear

For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See:  EF_RRT_CA – Snow

Claim #7: Global warming is resulting in rising sea levels as seen in both tide gauge and satellite technology

For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_CA – Sea Level

Claim #8:  Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland ice loss is accelerating due to global warming

For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_AC – Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland 123117

Claim #9: Rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are causing ocean acidification, which is catastrophically harming marine life

For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_CA – Ocean pH

Claim #10: Carbon pollution is a health hazard

For Rebuttal and Author Credentials See: EF_RRT_AC – Health

The Conclusion of the Fifth Supplement

The invalidation of the three lines of evidence upon which EPA attributes global warming to human GHG emissions breaks the causal link between human GHG emissions and global warming. This in turn necessarily breaks the causal chain between human GHG emissions and the alleged knock-on effects of global warming, such as loss of Arctic ice, increased sea level, and increased heat waves, floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.

Nevertheless, these alleged downstream effects are constantly cited to whip up alarm and create demands for ever tighter regulation of GHG emissions involving all fossil fuels, not just coal. EPA explicitly relied on predicted increases in such events to justify the Endangerment Finding. But there is no evidence to support such Alarmist Claims, and copious empirical evidence that refutes them. The enormous cost and essentially limitless scope of the government’s regulatory authority over GHG emissions cannot lawfully rest upon a collection of scary stories that are conclusively disproven by readily available empirical data.

The scientific invalidity of the Endangerment Finding becomes more blindingly obvious and undeniable with each day’s accumulation of reliable empirical data. It is time for an honest and rigorous scientific re-evaluation of the 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding. The nation has been taken down a tragically foolish path of pointless GHG/CO2 regulations and wasteful mal-investments to “solve” a problem which does not actually exist. Our leaders must summon the courage to acknowledge the truth and act accordingly.

The legal criteria for reconsidering the Endangerment Finding are clearly present in this case. The scientific foundation of the Endangerment Finding has been invalidated. The parade of horrible calamities that the Endangerment Finding predicts and that a vast program of regulation seeks to prevent have been comprehensively and conclusively refuted by empirical data. The Petition for Reconsideration should be granted.

The Council brought its Petition because the Obama-era greenhouse gas regulations threaten, as President Obama himself conceded, to make the price of electricity “skyrocket.” But clearly CO2 regulation does not just raise electricity prices, it raises all fossil fuel prices. America can have, and must have, the lowest possible energy costs in order to attain and maintain its energy, economic and national security.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bruce Cobb
February 20, 2018 8:37 am

It isn’t what CO2 has done in the past; it’s what it will do in the future. 97% of climageddonists climate scientists agree, the debate is over, the time to act is now, think of the children.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 20, 2018 10:26 am

And grandchildren…

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Wharfplank
February 20, 2018 10:59 am

You guys forgot your sarcasm symbols. If you didnt then you are just repeating the mantra as those who believe in religion in “God Exists. Believe and repent or die”

Reply to  Wharfplank
February 20, 2018 12:27 pm

and great grandchildren, and great great grandchildren …
Sort of a “Life of Brian” moment I’m sure.

Reply to  Wharfplank
February 20, 2018 3:43 pm

There are more subtle indications than sarcasm symbols. The strike strike through clearly gave it away.

Reply to  Wharfplank
February 20, 2018 7:28 pm

aaannnddd their puppies and kittens…

Alastair Brickell
Reply to  Wharfplank
February 21, 2018 4:15 am

February 20, 2018 at 10:26 am
And the grant money.

Tom Halla
February 20, 2018 8:42 am

If the “harm” finding is reversed,it will at least have the salutary effect of having almost all the green groups spending most of their money trying to reinstate it. The most likely result is a plethora of lawsuits, eventually ending up in the US Supreme Court.

Reply to  Tom Halla
February 20, 2018 1:26 pm

I’m not at all sure you aren’t underestimating their bottom-feeder survival instinct here. I think they innately know when one of their warships gets fatally holed and have the sense to abandon ship without drawing attention to it.
Not going to look too good trying to refloat that wreck – totally sans evidence of course – in the new era of Trumponomics. I think these rats are more likely to swim over to the newest ship. Perhaps the SS Dissolving Starfish. Who knows? But these days the more pertinent question is – who even cares?

February 20, 2018 8:47 am

It’s well beyond the time that the climate change sc@m was finally and irrecoverably killed off.

February 20, 2018 8:52 am

Division and disarray are the objectives for some teams out there…

February 20, 2018 8:56 am

” President Obama himself conceded, to make the price of electricity “skyrocket.”….
one of the most amazing things I ever heard come out of his mouth…
the amazing part….was no one was calling for his head

Paul Courtney
Reply to  Latitude
February 20, 2018 4:48 pm

Lat: Well, he was saving the planet, and he was the one we had been waiting for (even their slogans are bad grammar), and calling for his head would have got you labelled racist, so not that amazing. What I found amazing was his dumb luck. He WANTED prices to skyrocket, and made war on coal to make them skyrocket, only to be undermined by fracked gas. He didn’t see that coming, and wanted to stop it but couldn’t (fancy that- he could stop the seas from rising, but couldn’t stop the price of gas from falling). If NG price had gone up back then (likely so, some plants would have converted from coal to NG even without fracking boom) and the war on coal thing, price of electricity WOULD have skyrocketed. Then folks would have called for his head, and the press would have had to cover … something else!

Thomas Homer
February 20, 2018 8:57 am

The Carbon Cycle of Life cannot complete without atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.
Life consumes Carbon Dioxide.
Carbon Dioxide feeds life.
Carbon Based Life Forms necessarily require Carbon.
How does the “Endangerment Finding” reconcile this?

David L. Hagen
Reply to  Thomas Homer
February 20, 2018 8:43 pm

ergo Carbon Dioxide is essential to our life on earth.

February 20, 2018 9:17 am

Not to mention cooking the books. A look at the January 2018 NOAA records for the bitterly cold Northeast. The only way to stop this is to file charges for altering US government data and have a public trial on this.

Reply to  rbabcock
February 20, 2018 9:25 am

sorry this was for Jan 2014 not 2018 .. article was posted in 2018

February 20, 2018 9:21 am

The rebuttal to Claim 8 cites Antarctic temperature data to claim that Antarctica’s ice sheet is growing. Satellite data on the amount of ice in the ice sheet (such as Icesat and Grace) is available but not mentioned.

February 20, 2018 9:30 am

Regarding the rebuttal to Claim 7: The rebuttal does not show that increasing CO2 is not causing sea level rise, but merely not yet causing sea level rise to accelerate. Also, the rebuttal’s claim that sea level rise according to geologically stable tide gauges is only 1-1.5 mm/year sounds low to me, in light of https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/16/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/ indicating 1.85 mm/year according to 23 geologically stable tide gauges.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
February 20, 2018 11:04 am

Sea level rise has been going on for the last 14000 years. If there is no acceleration then nothing has changed. Therefore CO2 is doing nothing to sea level rise. A lot of people need to take logic courses Sheeeshhhhhhhhhhhh.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
February 20, 2018 9:49 pm

Sea level rise since the Holocene Thermal Maximum/Optimum has been less than 1 mm/year. 1 mm/year as well as anything more than that is an acceleration since the Little Ice Age. The honest debate is about the cause of post-Industrial-Revolution and current sea level rise rate which is 1.85-2.8-3 mm/year with some recent WUWT pages recently claiming 1-1.5 mm/year, and whether future warming (or warming since only a few years ago) will melt polar ice sheets enough to cause an acceleration of sea level rise.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
February 20, 2018 3:09 pm

Can you measure the difference between 1.5 mm and 1.85 mm ? It’s less than the width of my pencil lead.

Chuck in Houston
Reply to  Hivemind
February 22, 2018 2:01 pm

Hivemind: Bingo. And none of this is a “measured” value. Take a micrometer down to the beach and tell me how that works out.
On the other hand, it all sounds pretty “sciency”.

Joel O’Bryan
February 20, 2018 9:35 am

Trillions of dollars of economic development and hundreds of billions of renewable energy monies are put at risk by threatening the Endangerment Finding (EF).
The CO2 EF has never been about CO2 itself to anyone who understands all the actors involved. The Green Blob may outwardly claim it is about Climate Change, and they have many billions of dollars spent on over 30 years of pseudoscience computer model outputs and they have their tampered temperature data sets. With those sleight of hand science corruptions in hand, the core of the EF unites 3 very separate entities in a common cause, each with their own interests in securing the EF.
The CO2 EF is about altering the very foundations of Western economic systems (political), disrupting current capitalist economic systems to provide higher-yielding investments for virtuous Green entrepreneurs (elitists economic), and stopping human development (radical environmentalism).
Climate Change with its CO2 EF underpinning is the Trojan Horse that contains in it those 3 separate interests united in what is essentially a globalist neo-Marxist movement to capture wealth for a small ruling class of elites and their oligarch friends. The environmentalists and the corrupt scientists are essentially Lenin’s “useful idiots.”
The Green Blob will spare no expense or means to Protect the Endangerment Finding (EF). And I do mean there will be no “means” off limits for this amorphous group if the EF itself becomes seriously endangered.
One last Quote from the original Bolshevik-Marxist Vladimir Lenin, who Vladimir Putin clearly is emulating, with an amendment to bring it to the 21st Century of Environmental neo-Marxist movement:

“To speak the truth is a petit-bourgeois habit. To lie, on the contrary, is often justified by the lie’s aim. The whole world’s capitalists and their governments, as they pant to win the Soviet market climate change virtues, will close their eyes to the above-mentioned reality and will thus transform themselves into men who are deaf, dumb and blind. They will give us credits . . . they will toil to prepare their own suicide.”
see more at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

Sadly, the climate change activist-pseudoscientists have abandoned the “petit-bourgeois habit” of speaking the truth about anthropogenic CO2.

February 20, 2018 9:36 am

As for alarmists claiming that tornadoes are getting worse: Although I heard that a lot during and shortly after the horrible tornado season of 2011, I have not heard alarmists making such claims in the past few years. I’m sure a few still making such claims can be found, but not many nowadays, now that this claim has been rebutted a lot already by the fact that tornadoes stronger than F0/EFO have no upward trend according to National Weather Service records.

February 20, 2018 9:38 am

Climate Alarmist have over time gone from focusing on Global Warming, to Climate Change to simply fear of Carbon.

Are you suffering from carbonphobia? Are you afraid that a harmless trace gas that is essential for all life on Earth is going to destroy all life on Earth? Do you have suicidal urgings to destroy modern civilization in order to save it? Are you burdened with guilt about your privileged modern life and feel you must repent in sackcloth and ashes, and flagellate yourself with a more primitive life? You don’t have to suffer alone. Help is available. Call 1-827-CO2isOK to get the help you need – and deserve as a sentient carbon life form! Don’t delay. Counselors are standing by to take your call.

February 20, 2018 9:39 am

The link above to https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ef-data-research-report-second-editionfinal041717-1.pdf has two extra spaces in it. If I copy and paste the link, it results in 404 – Not Found unless I manually remove those two spaces after pasting it in my browser.

AGW is not Science
February 20, 2018 9:48 am

Long overdue for the AGW nonsense to be challenged and revealed to be what it is and always has been – a steaming pile of bovine feces.
The objective of the Climate Fascists has always been to codify their CONTROL over energy sources into law, thereby gaining CONTROL of EVERYTHING. There was never a “crisis” and they were never going to “solve” it if there was. That is why it must be stopped.

February 20, 2018 9:58 am

Once I got the link to Wallace 2017 to work, what I found includes the MEI (multivariate ENSO index). However, the MEI has an upward trend due to increasing air temperature and increasing sea surface temperature. The source of MEI (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/) says the MEI includes sea surface and air temperatures without any mention of those being detrended. So subtracting MEI from global temperature would remove some global warming trend that actually exists.

Bob Denby
February 20, 2018 10:02 am

A good report, here, on some very good work! While it’s essential to take this on legally, it’s equally essential to give this as much notice (in the public at large) as possible — there can be no such thing as ‘too much’! ALL public school science teachers need to be held accountable for teaching ‘true science’ (and advising their illiterate counterparts).

Lance Wallace
February 20, 2018 10:05 am

Pruitt did a good thing in convincing Trump that the Paris Agreement was a bad deal. However, even then he appeared timid and reluctant to understand that it is necessary to reverse the Endangerment Finding, which underlies almost all subsequent environmental decisions. He talked a good game with the Red Team/Blue Team approach, but has apparently sat on his hands when it comes to implementing that. He then got swept up in his enthusiasm for the failed Superfund approach, and has frittered away his opportunity. Now he is weakened, possibly fatally, by the luxury air travel costs.
He does not understand that a few good men (such as Alan Carlin) could rewrite the Endangerment Finding, put the arguments into the Federal Register, and start the process (which will end in the Supreme Court a few years from now). The Supreme Court has traditionally been reluctant to overturn an Agency ruling such as this, and the new Supreme court would follow tradition, or, if not, respond to their conservative principles and accept the new “Non-Endangerment” finding.
The “three pillars” of the argument are not completely overturned by the Wallace (no relation) et al paper, but they would be overturned rather simply by recalculating the Social Cost of Carbon. Such a recalculation incorporating the 96% greening of the earth, the 4th year in a row new record in food production, etc. would turn the Social Cost into a Social Benefit (negative cost) and knock all three pillars from under the feet of the Endangerment finding.

February 20, 2018 10:09 am
Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  kakatoa
February 20, 2018 6:19 pm

And middle class folks who can are starting to leave in droves.

Alan Tomalty
February 20, 2018 11:15 am

I have just been doing some digging into how climate science operates and have discovered that the problem is that the climate scientists that were using the models infiltrated the Atmospheric Science faculties at major universities that had super computers. I guess these days most universities have super computers, but this wasnt the case in the early days of computing. After infiltration of the Atmospheric Science departments, they were able to eventually get to be the chair of these departments. After that they bred like rabbits and soon were putting out PhD after PhD so that Atmospheric Science became essentially another name for The Department of AGW. Then they easily spread to all the government agencies. After that the media was chickenfeed to convince. This has dire consequences for not only science (50% of science papers are fraudulent and 99 % of atmospheric science papers are fraudulent) but the whole world because of the $ spent on a non problem. I am focusing on 2 individuals Aaron Donohue and his mentor David Battisti both PhDs in Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington in Seattle. That university is very important because of its proximity to Microsoft …etc. You understand where I am going with that train of thought so I wont say more on that. If you look at their CVs you will realize that these are dangerous men. They callaborated on a Study called “SHORTWAVE AND LONGWAVE RADIATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO GLOBAL WARMING UNDER INCREASING CO2” I have only read the abstract but I am now reading the main body and am shocked as to how deep these men are into the results of their models . Of course they have a team of programmers behind them plus other staff but only the names of PhDs get to be named in their reports as is common practice. You might want to read their report because it claims that the LWIR isnt the culprit but instead it is the SW radiation that causes global warming. I almost choked on my food when I read that. Dont forget that there are 4 PhDs named in that report but the others are bit players compared to Battisti and Donohue. It is interesting that Battisti let Donohue put his name 1st on the report. I guess since Battisti has many peer reviewed reports he doesnt always need the limelight anymore. Battisti sat as the chairman on the commttee to grant Donohue his PhD.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
February 20, 2018 3:44 pm

Horizontal spacing would be appreciated.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
February 20, 2018 3:46 pm

Crap, I meant “vertical spacing” — you know, lines of white space every so often, breaking up into paragraphs, to give the eyes “breathing room”.

February 20, 2018 11:29 am

Or you could simply refer back to the vaunted IPCC Fifth Assessment (AR5, 2013) to demonstrate that climate scientists concluded there was little to no evidence of several of these claims. Look at Chapter 2, “Observations: Atmosphere and Surface” where they assure us that bad things will come to pass because their infallible (just kidding) global circulation models predict they will, but then admit that they can’t find evidence of those bad things as of 2013.
(PDF) https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf
Some fun quotes:
>confidence is low for an increasing trend in global river discharge during the 20th century (p.205)
>it is likely that since 1951 there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events (e.g., above the 95th percentile) in more regions than there have been statistically significant decreases, but there are strong regional and subregional variations in the trends (p.213)
In other words, we got bupkis.
>there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale. (p.214)
>More recent assessments indicate that it is unlikely that annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have increased over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin. (p.217)
>confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low (p.220)
>there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century (p.215)
And just for fun, enjoy the graph of climate model predictions of temperature compared to observations in the “Technical Summary”:comment image
It’s always fun to confound alarmists with the report from their own team.

Bryan A
Reply to  stinkerp
February 20, 2018 12:12 pm

Sorry Stinkerp but you are using outdated graphics, The “Team” has already adjusted that pause away.

February 20, 2018 12:27 pm

We have a recent, discouraging, Supreme Court decision in Murray Energy Corp. v. Pruitt.

Supreme Court Denied Certiorari in Coal Companies’ Case Seeking to Compel Clean Air Act Jobs Study. On January 8, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari filed by the coal company Murray Energy Corporation and related companies, in which the companies sought review of the Fourth Circuit’s dismissal of their action that sought to compel the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a study of the Clean Air Act’s effects on employment, particularly in the coal industry. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because EPA had “considerable discretion” to decide how to manage the Clean Air Act’s statutory mandate that EPA “shall conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss or shifts of employment.”

It seems to as if the EPA is beyond Scott Pruitt’s control. Surely he would not, personally, have opposed Murray Energy’s motion. Am I missing something?

February 20, 2018 5:27 pm

These people have either incredibly short memory retention, or they have never heard of a horrifying tornado season, which happened in 1974, with a storm that moved northwest, picking up steam and generating more and more tornadoes as it went, creating an unheard-of tornado swarm that completely destroyed Xenia, Ohio, among other places.
Have they ever heard of that dreadful episode in May, 2007, that completely destroyed Greensburg, KS? I guess not.
Tornadoes know no master and do whatever they want to. They can be mild little twisters that flatten part of a cornfield and uproot a few trees in the row of hedge apples, or they can move through a major city like Dallas, TX and nearly wipe out the center of the city. They are capricious and violent and that’s part of what the planet does. And yes, you can get whirlwinds in the winter. They’ve been given a clever, catchy title by the Greenbean weather people: snownadoes. There’s also thundersnow, with lightning now.
Anyone who attributes these things to some silly CAGWer alarmist propaganda speech is trampling on the lives of the people who were hit by that devastation. Shameful indeed, but I guess the grasping for attention is more important.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Sara
February 20, 2018 6:23 pm

1970’s was cold decade. Stronger tornadoes should be expected in colder decades. 2020’s is likely to be a cold decade. Insurance companies are not going to like that.

Snarling Dolphin
February 20, 2018 7:39 pm

Clearly no one at the EPA has ever actually been endangered to any degree whatsoever. EPA privilege.

David L. Hagen
February 20, 2018 8:49 pm

Under what law are these submitted?
What force do they have to require EPA to address the issues raised, vs dismiss them?

Dr. Strangelove
February 21, 2018 5:06 am

Abolish the EPA (Endangerment Propaganda Agency)
Put the Endangerment Finding to good use

February 21, 2018 6:22 am

So that’s that then. Time to piss on the fire, call off the dogs and go home.

David Cage
February 21, 2018 8:35 am

Just finished Bill Bryson’s book on America 1927. The floods then seem to make recent ones seem not even worthy of page ten of a local rag in comparison. Also his comments on the reporting of deaths seems to cast doubt on the use of reported figures then compared to figures now.
So much for bigger and better storms and floods because of CO2.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights