Francis Menton
If you read this blog regularly, you are probably a follower of the global warming wars – the ongoing political struggle over government efforts in the United States and elsewhere to transform energy economy to eliminate fossil fuels and their associated “carbon emissions. More recently, those wars have focused less on what might be called the “science” of global warming — i.e. how much human carbon emissions can cause warming of the atmosphere and whether that warming is dangerous – and more on the practical issues and costs of the proposed energy transition. After all, on “scientific” issues, we are constantly told by politicians and the media that the science of global warming is “solved”. So what else is there to argue about?
In the real world, the “science” behind the claim that human carbon emissions are pointing us towards some kind of planetary disaster is not only unresolved, but actually doesn’t exist. However, arguing on that topic can quickly lead to arguments that are condensed in technical and mathematical terms that very few people will attempt to follow. In contrast, almost anyone can quickly understand why wind and solar power generation just can’t work to power the modern economy and will multiply electricity bills. one step.
But don’t understand that people have just given up on exposing the fake “science” behind fears of global warming. In fact, the Manhattan Contrarian is doing the work – along with a group of intrepid warriors I’m affiliated with. This Friday, I and my co-consultant, on behalf of a small group of plaintiffs, will file an opening appeal in the DC Circuit challenging the EPA’s 2009 “detection” of CO2 emissions. and other greenhouses. gas constitutes a “hazard” to human health and safety. I will use this post to provide a brief preview, with more details to follow once the summary is made public.
You’ll have to wait until Friday to get the full story. But today, I’ll start with an appetizer of some background information about our position, plus some insight into the serious nature of our team and support.
The night of June 3, 2008 was the occasion when Barack Obama spoke at the Democratic convention accepting the party’s nomination for President. The famous line of the giant battle that night was “This is the time when the rise of the oceans begins to slow down and our planet begins to heal.” After Obama became President in 2009, his EPA was empowered to embark on the work of “healing the planet” (really, how stupidly arrogant can a person be?), and in December. That year, the organization issued a document called Detect riskdeclares CO2 a “hazard” to human health and safety.
The Endangered Detection, in its own language, is claimed to be based on three “lines of evidence”. (Two of the three are in fact not lines of evidence as that term is normally understood, but that’s a story for another post.). During the Obama administration, a team of scientists led by a man named James Wallace investigated what the EPA considered the basis of its findings, and began publishing a series of Reports. Research results.
On January 20, 2017 (the first day of the new Trump administration), a group of plaintiffs known as the Concerned Household Electrical Consumers Council (CHECC), represented by me and my colleague My identity Harry MacDougald, submitted a Request EPA request the cancellation of Risk Search. The recommendation, which you can read at the link, is based on research done by Wallace and his co-authors to that point, as well as on publicly available economic data showing the amount of wind energy and increasing solar power has driven up costs and made energy unaffordable for low-income people.
But the Trump administration never got a chance to review and cancel the Threat Detection. During Trump’s tenure, the CHECC team submitted no fewer than seven supplements to its Petition, citing new and evolving scientific research as it came into use. But we could never push the Trump EPA to act on the EF. Even after President Biden took office, our Petition and numerous supplements languished without action. Finally, in April of this year, the Biden EPA denied the Petition. We filed an appeal in a timely manner, and a summary of that appeal is currently underway.
And that’s why it’s only now, almost 13 years after the Endangered Findings were issued, that we’re going to a trial as to whether the finding has any scientific basis, or as we assert, is “arbitrary and capricious”.
I will save a review of the arguments made in our summary until it is made public. But in the meantime, I’m learning about some eminent scientists who are putting together a compendium of amicus to support our point. The CO2 Alliance is a group of scientists that actually support the idea that CO2 is a beneficial gas. The chair is William Happer, a senior atmospheric physicist at Princeton. Tom Sheahen is the leader Environmental Science and Policy Project (SEPP) and is also a member of the CO2 Alliance. Sheahen and the Confederacy are collaborating on a brief.
SEPP’s October 8 newsletter contains a summary of a main newspaper in 2021 by Happer and co-author William van Wijngaarden completely debunk the fake “science” of the IPCC and EPA used to support the climate alarm case. It would be a reasonable bet that some of these could make it into amicus. Some interesting quotes:
Sheahen specifically discusses the efforts of Professors William van Wijngaarden and William Happer in their pioneering work in calculating the real-world Global Warming Potential (GWP) of the Green House Gas (GHG) year. most popular and explains why the approach used by the IPCC is faulty but is still used by its followers such as the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the EPA. These flawed methods lead to large greenhouse gas exaggerations of carbon dioxide, methane and other small greenhouse gases. . . .
Sheahen shows a striking agreement between the calculations by van Wijngaarden and Happer (W&H) with satellite observations of infrared radiation emitted by the earth entering space. . .
Sheahen’s main point is that because there is an exceptionally good agreement between the observed data and the W&H calculations, we conclude that their model is now validated. It is the embodiment of the scientific method. In that case, it makes sense to use it to study other hypothetical cases. It is not possible to do so with IPCC models that have never reached observational unity. . . .
The gist of the Happer/van Wijngaarden work is that the greenhouse effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is almost completely saturated, so the additional CO2 can have almost no warming effect. Here is a chart prepared by Sheahen to illustrate Happer/van Wijngaarden’s results:
Related
