A Climate Science Team Report on the Scientific Validity of EPA’S 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding

From ICECAP

By ICECAP Climate Science Team

On December 11, 2023, the Supreme Court refused to examine the numerous science-based arguments contained in a Petition for Reconsideration of EPA’s 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding. (See) This court ignored the eight quite specific, but easy to understand scientific arguments contained in the Petition and simply denied the Petition claiming the petitioners did not have Standing – a well-known tactic to avoid decisions in a highly politically-charged situation.

Unfortunately, this Supreme Court decision denied scrutiny to the one regulation in the U.S. that is not only the single most economically significant, but also the single most scientifically flawed, of all of the regulations on the Federal books.The ramifications of this Supreme Court Denial will be enormous if an EPA GHG Endangerment Finding Reconsideration is not initiated very quickly. This fact should have been clear to the Court by the arguments quoted verbatim below:

“In short, based on the sum total of the eight validated arguments {contained in the Petition}, the currently contemplated Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) estimates are not only worthless; they are extremely dangerous to put forward to current U.S. energy, economic and national security-related policymakers as credible input to their analyses.

As clearly demonstrated by this body of research findings, climate alarmism has no basis in science. This alarmism is all driven and supported by fabricated temperature data as well as mathematical climate modeling and analytical incompetence. Motives of key scientists and other key players will be left to others to sort out. Based on the easily reproducible, peer-reviewed and published research cited herein, climate science now finds that there is no mathematically valid proof that past increases in atmospheric GHG concentrations have caused the officially reported global warming over the last 50 years or so. Therefore, there is no proof of any social costs related to such GHG emissions. In fact, these GHG emissions are beneficial to society no matter what processes by which they might occur. Typically, if the efficiency of the particular process involved can be improved, such GHG emissions will automatically be reduced through action by a competitive marketplace. If not, there is no cost to society in any case.

Finally, on-going fact checks of the 13 most common climate alarmist claims have consistently validated that absolutely nothing unusual is going on with the Earth’s climate system. Moreover, in the considerable research cited, changes in the Earth’s temperature have been shown to be readily explained by natural factors involving changes in solar, volcanic and oceanic/atmospheric activity.

These findings strongly suggest that America and its allies have already made extremely severe climate policy errors, the negative impacts of which will only grow exponentially. By taking these erroneous climate and energy policy actions, America is rapidly destroying its energy security to the detriment of its economic and national security but to the great benefit of all three of its major enemies: China, Russia and Iran.

This must stop immediately and America must now reverse course quickly – taking the following actions:

* All efforts by state and federal governments to subsidize in any way the use of any renewable energy sources must be immediately terminated.

* All current state and federal as well as private (e.g., financial) sector efforts to inhibit the finding, production and use of all fossil fuels must be immediately terminated.

* All U.S. government action and funding at all levels to take steps to regulate the emissions of all GHGs must be immediately terminated – since they are all beneficial gases. Regulation of Criteria Pollutants under the CAA has been very successful and must be continued.

* America must stay out of the Paris Agreement and encourage its key allies to get out if they are in it.

* This new information on climate science must be widely publicized via every possible credible channel targeting today’s relevant audiences, including: key federal and state leadership, financial, fossil fuel and auto sector leadership as well as key media outlets.

The utter lunacy of America’s Federal Government leadership continuing to take the unsuspecting American people on this ride over a cliff would certainly seem to be outrageous behavior on the part of those who know, or should know, the facts. Many of these key facts, e.g., the Global Average Surface Temperature data fabrication, have been provided to high level officials years ago without result. For the sake of all Americans, we pray that recipients of this transmission will behave differently.”

AUTHOR COMMENTS

All research by the authors of this document cited herein was peer-reviewed, published and purposely set up so as to be easily reproducible. No rebuttals have been received by the lead author from any person or entity. The research effort, that began in 2009, is all still being carried out on a pro bono basis. PART II provides an easy to understand, corroborated proof that EPA’s 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding is fatally flawed. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court saw fit to Totally Ignore the Science Team’s arguments provided verbatim in Appendix II denying consideration thereof based on “standing issues”.

See the full document here with the 8 validated arguments in the petition and the 13 most common climate alarmist claim fact checks as well as the list of authors and reviewers.

5 20 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

46 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
February 20, 2024 6:32 am

A return of the “political question doctrine”, rather like reapportionment prior to the early 1960’s, or the 2020 election disputes?

February 20, 2024 6:37 am

Article says:” No rebuttals have been received by the lead author from any person or entity.”

Richard Greene hasn’t read yet or hasn’t got out of bed yet.

Reply to  mkelly
February 20, 2024 7:57 am

“You are a Nutter” is not a rebuttal.

Reply to  DonM
February 20, 2024 9:23 am

For some rare people it is 😀

Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 20, 2024 12:18 pm

100% of scientists agree !! 😉

John Pickens
February 20, 2024 6:53 am

These EPA findings will, at minimum, triple my electric bills, but I don’t have “standing”, Nice.

Reply to  John Pickens
February 20, 2024 7:56 am

Well, at least SCOTUS is consistent – none of us had standing according to them when a number of ‘swing states’ unconstitutionally changed their election laws prior to the 2020 elections – see Texas vs Pennsylvania.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 20, 2024 9:38 am

The election ‘laws’ will decide who the next president is.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 21, 2024 2:40 am

Yes, that was Dereliction of Duty by the U.S. Supreme Court.

And look what their refusal to act gave us: Four years of Joe Biden Destruction of our Republic.

They better do their job in the future, or this nation may be headed down an unknown path.

February 20, 2024 6:57 am

Sounds familiar. The SC saying FU after the 2020 election scam. Fighting the left in this country is becoming “like a drowning man clutching at a razor blade”. ‘Witness for the Prosecution’

Richard Page
February 20, 2024 7:14 am

And did the court mention, perhaps as an afterthought, who exactly might have ‘standing’ considering the US EPA endangerment finding materially affects every man, woman and child within the entire USA? It’s an absurd argument.

Reply to  Richard Page
February 20, 2024 1:39 pm

materially affects every man, woman and child within the entire USA?

The impact goes beyond USA as well. Building Weather Dependent Generation is highly inflationary. It consumes a massive amount of resources for a negative return. More energy going in than can come out.

The USA is in the unique position of creating the world currency so inflation in the USA gets exported globally. If USA is not living within its means then it is getting a free ride and an impost on the rest of the world.

Fiscal irresponsibility in the USA goes beyond its borders. It is the reason China is planning to displace USA as the global banker.

USA owes the rest of the world close to USD20tr with no sign of it being paid down:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_international_investment_position
Inflation in the USA gets exported to the rest of the world and lowers the value of savings globally.

If UN worked in the interests of all nations rather than its own survival, it would be requiring the USA to live within its means. Mick Dunford in this video gives good insight on the US privilege:
https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/05/27/china-economic-alternative-us-led-financial-order/

Tom in Florida
February 20, 2024 8:02 am

I do not think that the SC can make any decisions on scientific facts, it is not their purpose and it should not be. They can only rule on constitutional questions. The approach should have been the method of the endangerment decision and whether it followed the law. If it did, whether it is correct ore not, is something the Congress must take up to change the law if needed. We do not need another legal entity passing judgement of scientific questions that are far beyond their knowledge.

February 20, 2024 8:11 am

“Hence, for CO2, the Best Estimate of its ECS is zero.”

(from page 16 of the pdf at the “full document” link.)

This makes good sense. How so? Energy conversion in the general circulation of the atmosphere. Lorenz wrote about it as a fundamental concept in the development of Numerical Weather Prediction. ERA5 (the current reanalysis model from ECMWF) specifically computes it. The radiative “warming” effect of incremental GHGs disappears as kinetic energy is converted from/to [internal energy + potential energy]. This is important to understand.

More here at this short video. See the description box on Youtube for a complete explanation and references.

https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY

Reply to  David Dibbell
February 20, 2024 12:20 pm

“Hence, for CO2, the Best Estimate of its ECS is zero.””

Certainly, any ECS value is immeasurably small.

Otherwise, after some 40+ years , someone would have some actual measurements.

Reply to  bnice2000
February 20, 2024 1:41 pm

“Certainly, any ECS value is immeasurably small.” Agreed. Another way to say it is that the climate system response to 2XCO2 cannot be reliably shown to differ from zero.

Rud Istvan
February 20, 2024 8:13 am

The way to solve the endangerment finding is not through the court system. It is through Congress, to rewrite the circular definition of a pollutant in the Clean Air Act so that CO2 isn’t one.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 20, 2024 8:32 am

Congress can fix Mass vs EPA by clarifying the Clean Air Act. Fixing the EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding requires an Administration willing to fire every bureaucrat in the EPA, or any other Federal agency for that matter, who had a hand in promoting the junk science of climate alarmism.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 20, 2024 8:39 am

We will get that administration Jan 20 2025. But we also need to take Congress to fix the Clean Air Act.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 20, 2024 9:15 am

I hope so. The Left has been throwing rocks at the hornets nest for 7 years now. I’m looking forward to seeing the expression on their faces when it lands on their head.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 20, 2024 9:41 am

Will Trump have the testicles? I wonder…

Reply to  Gregory Woods
February 21, 2024 2:57 am

It’s either Trump, or nobody.

Noone I know of is willing to take on the Human-caused climate change narrative other than Trump.

Trump’s main focus is: Drill, baby, Drill!, which in itself refutes the CO2-is-dangerous meme. He was ridiculing Biden’s insistence on everyone driving an electric car (Trump says people should have choices), and he ridiculed the concept of making an all-electric Main Battle Tank for the U.S. military, among other things.

Trump is looking to do a LOT of reform to the way the federal government operates and I imagine that includes all federal agencies including the EPA.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 20, 2024 8:36 am

Thanks Rud. I seem to recall you saying once before here at WUWT that the CO2 Endangerment Finding can be taken off the books by Congress.

Obviously, the Republicans would have to get control of both houses of Congress for that to happen along with Trump winning a second term in the White House. Trump and Congress took no action in an attempt to discredit CAGW in Trump’s first term. Here’s hoping that they will in his second term.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 21, 2024 3:10 am

I’ve recommended that Trump pick U.S. Senator Tim Scott, as his running mate, but that would give Republicans one less senator and we need all the senators we can get.

Trump, at a Townhall Meeting last night seemed to be favoring Scott, who was there at the Townhall Meeting. He praised Tim Scott profusely.

Maybe South Carolina can elect a Republican to replace Tim Scott.

I would also recommend Trump choose Florida Representative Byron Donalds as his vice president.

Trump said the main requirement for picking a vice president was that they would make a good president if they had to take over. I would have confidence in both Tim Scott and Byron Donalds to make good presidents.

Laura Ingraham, the host of the Townhall Meeting on Fox News, tried her best to get Trump to denounce American funding of the Ukraine war, but again, Trump did not do so. He turned the conversation to the failure of the European nations to contribute their fair share to the Ukraine war.

Trump is smarter than some people think he is.

And some people complain that Trump has not come out and called Putin a murderer over Mr. Navalny’s death.

You know, if you were thinking about trying to negotiate a peace deal in Ukraine, it probably wouldn’t be a good idea to call one of the parties you are negotiating with, a murderer, even if he is.

Rick C
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 20, 2024 8:41 am

Rid, your the lawyer so maybe you can comment on this.

SCOTUS will soon rule on the Chevron Deference Doctrine in the Fisheries case. A ruling in favor of the fishermen and dismantling Chevron Deference would apply to EPA’s regulation of CO2 emissions as well since the clean air act specified “criteria pollutants” that did not include carbon dioxide. In addition SCOTUS already ruled in the West Virginia v EPA case on the major questions doctrine that EPA could not go beyond the legislative intent of congress when the result would have a major impact on the economy – as I understand it. Surely the West Virginia major questions decision along with a Chevron Deference overturning would invalidate the Endangerment Finding.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Rick C
February 20, 2024 10:03 am

Chevron deference will either be gone or severely curtailed in the Fisheries case—pretty clear cut violation of 8th Amendment. And WV v EPA certainly added substance to the major questions doctrine. Unfortunately, neither applies to the EPA endangerment finding. The Clean Air Act defined a pollutant “as that which pollutes”. Mass v EPA simply held the CCA enabled the EPA to make those calls. So they made CO2 a pollutant based on the IPCC. Only fix IMO is legislative.

Silver lining to Biden cloud is that he and Kamala are so bad we have a shot at House, Senate, and WH on Nov. 5 2024.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 20, 2024 2:40 pm

Hi Rud,
I don’t want to start a different discussion but just to comment on your last sentence. I really don’t see Trump winning because of the scenario I believe will play out.
The Dems will allow Biden to be cannon fodder and take all the focus and hits right up until mid October when he will have a sudden major health crisis and be replaced. By whom you ask? Michelle Obama. It will be too late for debates or vetting, she will run solely on the platform the only she can save the Country from Donald Trump. That will be the sole basis for asking for everyone’s vote and that will give all the independents who are torn between having to chose between Mr Potato Head and the evil Mr Trump (not my feelings) a way out without considering the consequences of that vote.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 21, 2024 3:29 am

If Michelle runs, maybe she will explain to all of us why she said she had never been proud of the United States until the night they elected her husband president.

Michelle spent her entire adult life not being proud of her nation. Do we want a person like that leading the nation? I certainly do not.

I think Michelle’s potential candidacy is “much ado about nothing”. She has nothing to offer. Hardcore Democrats would vote for her just because she is a Democrat, but she couldn’t count on votes from any other group, imo.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 21, 2024 3:24 am

Speaking of the 8th Amendment, Trump cited it last night as a defense against his being fined $355 million by partisan Democrats in New York.

Gums
February 20, 2024 8:16 am

Salute!

Sorry, but only way to get EPA outta the way, is to specifically kill the endagerment finding use by EPA , and not attacking “the science” in a court ala Scopes monkey trial, is to change the law.

I don’t see a clear constitutional issue if Congress changes just a few areas of the act empowering EPA to rule our society in a way never, by any stretch, imagined when the act became law.

We must have a few legal beagles here that know where to look and find precedent and ….and.

So we strip EPA of the power to wipe out entire elements of commerce, trade and transportation aspects of our society. Do this in Congress, and don’t try to eat the elephant in one big bite like ICECAP seems to want. No gross “repeal” movement. As Justice Ruth Ginsberg said over a decade ago concerning the “endangerment finding”, the court should not be ruling on scientific matters. Surely, there are subsection portions of the EPA act that can be eliminated or moderated to limit the agency’s power, yeah POWER. Our Senators and Representatives do not need “standing” to change laws!!! Just start nibbling and we can eat the elephant faster than you think.

Gums sends…

“I may have to modify and extend my remarks” But will just rejoin the discussion versus editing this one.

Reply to  Gums
February 20, 2024 8:38 am

You’re correct. Unfortunately, too many Republicans don’t have the fortitude to take on the agencies, because they’re afraid of the media.

Gums
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 20, 2024 10:47 am

Thanks, Frank…..I hope Rud has this right
.
Back then I figured the administration lawyers were as good as required to keep Co2 outta the hands of EPA or any other agency except for things like Co monitors and outright health impacts upon humans. The Republican administration did not go after the plaintiffs’ basic assertions and well-funded green/agw supporters. I was with the conservative gang and “everybody” laughed that the court would rule EPA had some authority because Co2 was a “polutant”. But that was the dagger in the heart of scientists, farmers, the petro chemical industry, miners, transportation companies and the beat goes.

Even with a more conservative bunch in EPA and other departments/agencies than we had in the late 90’s, I predicted an “endangerment finding” within a week or two of when comments closed. Shoulda bet at Vegas.

Only way I can see choking the “endangerment finding” is as Rud and I suggest – limit EPA authority over the gas itself and stick to particulates, proven toxic gases and such.There may even be wording as to what means “polutant”.

Gums sends….

Reply to  Gums
February 20, 2024 11:29 am

‘The Republican administration did not go after the plaintiffs’ basic assertions and well-funded green/agw supporters.’

I’m sure you know more than I do, but I never took W’s ‘compassionate conservatism’ as a rallying cry for limited government. In retrospect, we got stupid nation-building wars, a lot of debt, an entrenched surveillance state and two terms of Obama.

Gregory Woods
February 20, 2024 9:00 am

‘but to the great benefit of all three of its major enemies: China, Russia and Iran.’ ??? Enemies? Only we because we make them so.

Reply to  Gregory Woods
February 20, 2024 9:22 am

C’mon Greg, our Federal government may have shredded the Constitution to curtail our rights and impoverish us, but certainly any moron can see that their foreign policy is flawless!

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
February 20, 2024 9:35 am

C’mon Frank, flawless, like our energy policies? (I know sarcasm when I see it)

Reply to  Gregory Woods
February 21, 2024 3:36 am

Yes, enemies. If you act like an enemy, then you are an enemy.

Tom_Morrow
February 20, 2024 9:07 am

Well, to be fair, stupid policies that are detrimental to our prosperity are not Constitutional issues, but election issues.

The solution is to stop electing Democrats and other assorted idiots.

That is all.

Reply to  Tom_Morrow
February 21, 2024 3:42 am

“The solution is to stop electing Democrats and other assorted idiots”

Yes, that is the solution.

The question is how do we do that within a blizzard of Democrat political propaganda and lies?

The Democrat propaganda machine says Republicans should not be elected. The Democrat propagada machine is composed of about 90 percent of the Mass Media. They have a Big Megaphone.

The one thing that might save us is the current crop of Democrat politiicans, with Joe Biden at the top, are so bad, and it is so obvious, that maybe the Democrat propaganda machine won’t be enough to keep them in office.

Let us hope.

Bob
February 20, 2024 1:13 pm

The court system is a branch of government and just as susceptible to politics and influence as any other branch. I put damn little value in the court system, it is a necessary but not infallible part of government.

The EPA on the other hand has long outlived is purpose for being. We would be better off dumping it and starting over, I don’t think it can be fixed. Every government department must be held accountable, if the EPA’s procedures, science or any action is suspect it should automatically have to prove beyond a doubt that it’s actions are proper.

Our government is too big and completely out of control. Every part of it needs to be downsized and maybe eliminated. For elimination considerations start with the newest departments and work back in time.

Reply to  Bob
February 21, 2024 3:44 am

“Our government is too big and completely out of control.”

Yes.

Our government needs a wrecking ball taken to it. His name is Donald Trump.

roaldjlarsen
February 21, 2024 5:43 am

The US Supreme Court is obviously corrupt, how much evidence do people need??

Verified by MonsterInsights