Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based On A 'Hoax'

Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based On A 'Hoax'

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/two-princeton-mit-scie...

BY TYLER DURDEN

Authored by Kevin Stocklin via The Epoch Times 

.

Two prominent climate scientists have taken on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”

.

The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, flawed, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen stated. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”.

.

All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus measured data,” they stated. “The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”

.

Climate models, like the ones that the EPA is using, have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times. He presented the table below to the EPA to illustrate his point.

.


Modeled climate predictions (average shown by red line) versus actual observations (source: J.R. Christy, Univ. of Alabama; KNMI Climate Explorer)

.

“That was already an embarrassment in the ‘90s, when I was director of energy research in the U.S. Department of Energy,” he said. “I was funding a lot of this work, and I knew very well at that time, the models were over-predicting the warming by a huge amount.”

.

He and his colleague argued, the EPA has grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions, while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on Earth.

.

CO2 IS A LIFE GAS; NO CO2 = NO FLORA AND NO FAUNA

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-c...

.

Many who have fought against EPA climate regulations have done so by arguing what is called the “major questions doctrine,” i.e., the EPA does not have the authority to invent regulations that have such an enormous impact on Americans without clear direction from Congress.

.

Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen, however, have taken a different tack, arguing that the EPA regulations fail the “State Farm” test because they are “arbitrary and capricious.”

.

“Time and again, courts have applied ‘State Farm’s’ principles to invalidate agency rules where the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or cherry-picked data to support a pre-ordained conclusion,” they stated.

.

The case they referred to is the 2003 case of State Farm v. Campell (pdf), in which the Supreme Court argued, “a State can have no legitimate interest in deliberately making the law so arbitrary that citizens will be unable to avoid punishment, based solely upon bias or whim.”

.

According to Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen’s testimony, “600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.”

.

They present CO2 and temperature data indicating much higher levels of both CO2 and temperatures than today, with little correlation between the two.

They also argue, current CO2 levels are historically at a low point.

.




This chart shows CO2 levels (blue) and temperatures (red) over time, indicating little correlation and current levels of both at historic lows. (Source: Analysis of the Temperature Oscillations in Geological Eras by Dr. C. R. Scotese; Earth's Climate: Past and Future by Mark Peganini; Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations During the Paleocene, Science magazine vol. 309.)

.

“The highly emphasized 140 parts per million increase in CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Age is trivial compared to CO2 changes over the geological history of life on Earth,” they stated. 

.

In addition, the scientists' testimony to the EPA stated, the agency’s emissions rules fail to consider the fact, CO2 and fossil fuels are essential to life on earth, particularly human life.

.

“Increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere create more food for people worldwide, including more food for people in drought-stricken areas,” they stated.

“Increases in carbon dioxide over the past two centuries since the Industrial Revolution, from about 280 ppm to about 420 ppm, caused an about 20 %increase in the food available to people worldwide, as well as increased greening of the planet, and a benign warming in temperature.”

.

GLOBAL WARMING IN VERMONT

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/global-warming-in-vermont

.




Synthetic fertilizers (dotted line) have increased crop yields dramatically since their introduction. (Source: crop yields from USDA; fertilizer usage from Food Agriculture Organization).

.

More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more plant growth and higher farming yields, they argued.

In addition, synthetic fertilizers, which are derivatives of natural gas, are responsible for nearly half the world’s food production today.

“Net zero” goals would reduce CO2 emissions by more than 40 gigatons per year, reducing the food supply proportionally, they said.

.




The world's population is increasingly dependent on synthetic fertilizers, a derivative of fossil fuels. (Source: ourworldindata.org)

.

In addition to disregarding the benefits of CO2, they stated, the EPA’s emission rules and the global warming narrative that has been used to justify them are based on flawed data.

In addition to teaching physics at Princeton, Mr. Happer’s decades of work in physics has focused on atmospheric radiation and atmospheric turbulence, and his inventions have been used by astronomers and in national defense.

“Radiation in the atmosphere is my specialty,” Mr. Happer said, “and I know more about it than, I would guess, any climate scientists.” 

His expertise, he said, “involves much of the same physics that’s involved in climate, and none of it is very alarming.”

The global warming narrative argues, as people burn fossil fuels, they emit higher concentrations of carbon dioxide into the earth’s atmosphere, which absorbs sunlight and creates a “greenhouse effect,” trapping the sun’s radiation and warming the earth. 

But one aspect of CO2 emissions, flawed global warming models fail to take into account, Mr. Happer said, is a phenomenon called “saturation,” or the diminishing effect of CO2 in the atmosphere at higher concentrations.

“At CO2 concentrations of about 400 parts ppm, it decreases the radiation to space by about 30 percent, compared to what you would have, if you took it all away,” Mr. Happer said. “So that’s enough to cause quite a bit of warming of the earth, and thank God for that; it helps make the earth habitable, along with the effects of water vapor and clouds.”

.

“But if you could double the amount of CO2 from 400 to 800, and that would take a long time, the amount that you decrease radiation to space is only one percent,” Mr. Happer said.

“Very few people realize how hard it is for additional carbon dioxide to make a difference to the radiation to space.

That’s what’s called saturation, and it’s been well known for a century.”

.



The "greenhouse effect" of additional CO2 does not increase in proportion to the amount of CO2 added (source: William Happer).

.

In addition to scientific arguments about why global warming is overblown, the scientists also cite data showing large discrepancies between global warming models and actual observations.

In some cases, Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen say, data has been disingenuously manipulated to fit the climate-change narrative.

.

“The most striking example of that is the temperature record,” Mr. Happer said. “If you look at the temperature records published 20 years ago, they showed very clearly, in the United States, by far the warmest years we had were during the mid-1930s. 

“If you look at the "adjusted" data today, that is no longer true,” he said. “People in charge of that data, or what the public sees, have gradually reduced the temperatures of the ‘30s, then increased the temperature of more recent measurements.” They artificially created global warming in the US

.

An example of misleading data used by the EPA as proof of global warming is shown in the chart below, Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen claimed. 

.



EPA data shows an increasing ratio of daily record high-to-low temperatures in order to indicate rising global temperatures (Source: NOAA/NCEI).

,

“This chart does not actually show ‘daily temperatures,’” as they state.

“Instead it shows a ‘ratio’ of daily record highs to lows - a number that appears designed to create the impression that temperatures are steadily rising.”

,

By contrast, the scientists presented the following table, which indicates significantly higher temperatures in the 1930s versus today. The chart show a slight heat wave increase from about 1970 onward



This data indicates that heat waves were more severe in the 1930s than today. (Source: EPA).

Thermometer record shows global warming starting long before the 1950’s

.

We had warming from the 1910’s to the 1940’s, and then cooling from the 1940’s to the 1970’s, and then warming from the 1980’s into the 2000’s, where the temperatures have peaked, as they did in the 1930’s, and now  a cooling trend has appeared.

.

Here’s the U.S. chart (Hansen 1999) showing warming and cooling before 1979, and then the UAH satellite chart showing the warming and cooling from 1979 to present.

.

As you can see, there was warming in North America in the recent past.

You don’t have to go back hundreds or thousands of years to find a period that was just as warm, or warmer, than today.

The Early Twentieth Century was just as warm as today, as recorded in numerous written temperature charts from all over the world.

Hansen chart of 1999:

comment image

.

The Scientific ‘Consensus’ for Climate Change

.

Proponents of the global warming narrative often state, 1) it is “settled science” and 2) nearly all scientists agree global warming is real and the result of human activity.

According to an official NASA statement, “the vast majority of actively, publishing climate scientists—97 percent—agree, humans are causing global warming and climate change.

Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, and a host of reputable scientific bodies around the world.”

.

A report by Cornell University states, “more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree, climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.”

.

But Mr. Happer argues that consensus is not science, citing a lecture on the scientific method by renowned physicist Richard Feynman, who said, “if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”

.

“Science has never been made by consensus,” Mr. Happer said. “The way you decide something is true in science is you compare it with experiment or observations.

“It doesn’t matter if there’s a consensus; it doesn’t matter if a Nobel Prize winner says it’s true, if it disagrees with observations, it’s wrong,” he said.

“And that’s the situation with the flawed climate models. They are clearly wrong because they don’t agree with observations.”

,

The National Library of Medicine cites a speech by physician and author Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology in 2003 in which he said, “consensus is the business of politics.”

“Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world,” Dr. Crichton said. “In science, consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results.”.

.

The initial predictions of climate disasters had New York flooded by now, no ice left at the North Pole, England would be like Siberia by now,” Mr. Happer said. “Nothing that they predicted actually came true. You have to do something to keep the money coming in, so they changed ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change.’”

.

The Price of Dissent

.

Regarding the consensus in published literature cited by Cornell University, some experts counter, academic publications routinely reject any submissions that question the global warming narrative. 

.

“I’m lucky because I didn’t really start pushing back on this (academic freedom) issue, until I was close to retirement,” Mr. Happer said.

.

He had already established himself at that point as a tenured professor at Princeton, a member of the Academy of Sciences, and director of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy.

.

“If I’d been much younger, they could have made sure I never got tenure, that my papers would never get published,” he said.

,

“They can keep me from publishing papers now, but it doesn’t matter, because I already have status. But it would matter a lot, if I were younger, and I had a career that I was trying to make and a family to support.”

.

In an interview with John Stossel, climate scientist Judith Curry said, she paid the price for contradicting the narrative and called the global warming consensus “a manufactured consensus.”

.

Ms. Curry, the former chair of Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, said, when she published a study claiming hurricanes were increasing in intensity, “I was adopted by the environmental advocacy groups and the alarmists and I was treated like a rock star; I was flown all over the place to meet with politicians and to give these talks, and lots of media attention.”

.

When several researchers questioned her findings, I investigated their claims and concluded that my critics were correct.

Part of it was bad data; part of it was natural climate variability,” she said.

.

But when she went public with that fact, she was shunned, she said and pushed out of academia. 

.

Mr. Lindzen tells a similar tale, once he began to question the climate narrative.

“Funding and publication became almost impossible,” he said, “and I was holding the most distinguished chair in meteorology,” which was MIT’s Sloan Professorship of Meteorology. 

Nobel Prize-winning physicist John Clauser told The Epoch Times , he, too, was abruptly canceled from giving a speech on climate at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on July 25, 2023.

.

Mr. Clauser had stated during a previous speech at Quantum Korea 2023 that “climate change is not a crisis.”

He said, climate is a self-regulating process and more clouds form when temperatures increase, resulting in a compensatory cooling effect.

Although he agrees that atmospheric CO2 is increasing, he argued, the gas's effect on global warming is swamped by the natural cloud cycle.

.

However, only days before his IMF discussion was to take place, Mr. Clauser received an email indicating, the IMF's Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) director, Pablo Moreno, didn't want the event to happen.

An assistant who was coordinating the event wrote to Mr. Clauser: “When I arranged this, the Director was very happy about it, but things have evidently changed.”

.

The IMF’s current policy on climate change is, “large emitting countries need to introduce a carbon tax that rises quickly to $75 a ton in 2030, consistent with limiting global warming to 2 C or less.”

.

The Climate Money Machine

.

Asked why there would be a need to censor, alter, and cherry-pick data to support the global warming narrative, Mr. Lindzen said “because it’s a hoax.”

Mr. Clauser said of the climate consensus, “We are totally awash in pseudo-science.”

“There is this huge fraction of the population that has been brainwashed into thinking, this is an existential threat to the planet,” Mr. Happer said. “I don’t blame the people; they don’t have the background to know they are being deceived, but they are being deceived.”

The World Bank announced in September 2022, it paid out a record $31.7 billion in 2022 to help countries address climate change, a 19 percent increase from the $26.6 billion it paid out over the previous fiscal year.

.

And according to Reuters, the United States is projected to spend about $500 billion to fight climate change over the next decade, including $391 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act, $98 billion from the Infrastructure Act, and $54 billion from the CHIPS law.

NOTE: The “Inflation Reduction Act”, which CBO estimated at $391 billion, but Goldman Sachs estimated at $1.2 trillion, due to Biden’s handlers “liberally interpreting” the various open-ended measures.

This deficit spending will be added to the national debt, which would increase inflation. See URL for explanation.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-s-green-energy-policy-may-end-in-tears-1

What would happen to sustainable energy, the worthless windmills and solar panels, if suddenly there were no climate change emergency,” Mr. Happer said. “They’re really not very good technology and they’re doing a lot more harm than good, but nevertheless people are making lots of money, because of the subsidies.”

US/UK 56,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY  

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...

.

BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...

.

Many investors, most notably BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, have cited government regulations and subsidies as a key reason why investments in “green” energies are profitable for multi-millionaires with lucrative tax shelters. 

.

Research grants to study climate change are offered by many government agencies, including the EPA, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as well as by non-profits including Bloomberg Philanthropies and the MacArthur Foundation, which paid out $458 million since 2014.

.

Going back to about 1990, (Kyoto), funding went up by a factor of 15,” Mr. Lindzen said. “A whole new community was created.”

.

“This was a small field in 1990; not a single member of the faculty at MIT called themselves a climate scientist,” he said.

“By 1996, everyone was a climate scientist, and that included climate change impacts.

If you’re studying cockroaches and you put in your grant, ‘cockroaches and climate,’ you are a climate scientist.”

.

Asked to respond to the professors’ comments, an EPA spokesperson stated: “The Agency will review all comments we received as we work to finalize the proposed standards.”

Kevin Stocklin is a business reporter, film producer and former Wall Street banker. He wrote and produced "We All Fall Down: The American Mortgage Crisis," a 2008 documentary on the collapse of the mortgage finance system. His most recent documentary is "The Shadow State," an investigation of the ESG industry.

Views: 109

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

© 2024   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service