In a post last week, I’ve announced that the fight is about to be joined with the EPA over what it claims is the “science” behind the global warming alarm. The case is called Relevant Household Electrical Consumers Council (CHECC) v. EPA, which is currently pending in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. CHECC challenges EPA 2009 Found that CO2 and other greenhouse gases constitute a “hazard” to human health and welfare. Early in the Trump administration, CHECC filed a Petition to Reconsider and Repeal the Hazard Detection. That petition was ultimately denied by the EPA on April 20, 2022, after more than a year of Biden’s administration, and subsequent appeal. I am one of the attorneys for CHECC.
The opening summary on behalf of CHECC was filed on October 14 and a week later on October 21 an amicus curiae brief was submitted in favor of CHECC by the CO2 Coalition, along with Professors William Happer of Princeton and Richard Lindzen of MIT. I will start by reviewing the CHECC summary, which I helped prepare, but fortunately, our CHECC summary was “returned” by staff at DC Circuit. For those of you who have never worked with a court clerk, there is a very similarity to the DMV, or perhaps to the old Soviet bureaucracy. The alleged basis for objecting to our summary was that we used too many acronyms – things like EPA, IPCC, GHG (greenhouse gas), GAST (global average surface temperature) ). of the summary. Instead of confusing things by mentioning a summary that will soon change in small ways, today I’m going to start by presenting some highlights of the CO2 Coalition amicus summary.
First, we are extremely honored to have outstanding scientists who seriously support our point of view. For those who haven’t heard of them, Professors Happer and Lindzen are senior atmospheric physicists in the departments of Princeton and MIT, respectively. The list of their titles, awards, and honors is nearly endless, and takes up several pages in the summary. The CO2 Alliance is a large group of leading scientists and people in related fields with disciplines related in one way or another to the topic of global warming and with a skepticism bias. suspect. Happer is the President of the CO2 Alliance, and Lindzen is a member.
You might think that addressing the “science” of CO2-induced atmospheric warming is just too heavy a proposition to concern a court, and perhaps that is where it will end up. . But this summary shows why the topic isn’t really that complicated. On page 18, briefly quote physicist Richard Feynman’s famous aphorism, “If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” In other words, it’s just a matter of finding a few, or even an example, where the theory based on the EPA is contradicted by the data.
The succinct summary is wordless in distinguishing real science from the government-ordered polity and consensus on which the EPA relies. Here is the summary of the argument:
Scientific knowledge is determined by the scientific method, by which theoretical predictions are confirmed or disproved by observations. If the theoretical predictions do not work, the theory will be rejected. That is real science. Scientific knowledge is Not determined by government-controlled opinions, consensus, peer review, or theoretical models that don’t work. Those are false sciences. This summary applies the scientific method to the Hazard Findings and its supporting Technical Support Documents and demonstrates that both are scientifically broken and should therefore be destroyed. … . .
In the following sections, the summary compares the IPCC model’s predictions for catastrophic warming – specifically based by the EPA in the Hazard Detection Technical Support Document – with temperature observations. so far in the real world. These include this famous chart from Congressional testimony given by John Christy in 2017:
From the summary, comment on the theory’s divergence from the observations:
We now know that the IPCC’s theoretical climate models, the original version used in the Technical Support and Hazard Detection Document, failed the basic test of the scientific method. study and therefore should not be used. Without a valid theoretical model, the IPCC’s future climate projections and scenarios have no scientific value. For this reason alone, the Technical Support and Detection Documentation should be destroyed.
And the summary doesn’t just end after demonstrating that the EPA’s theoretical predictions of climate catastrophe have been scientifically invalidated. Pages 30-32 are then devoted to the presentation of new work by Professor Happer and co-author William van Wijngaarden demonstrate why the ability of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to warm the atmosphere is largely saturated at present concentrations, so that further increases in concentrations are only likely to cause negligible additional warming. tell. Happer/van Wijngaarden’s article is certainly technical and confusing. However, in the context of this dispute, it is just an unnecessary additional argument to win. The bottom line is that the EPA’s “scientificity” has been invalidated by evidence.
The full article can be read here.
Related
