Posted on 08/13/2023 4:30:54 PM PDT by bitt
Physicist, meteorologist testify that the climate agenda is ‘disastrous’ for America
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.”
Citing extensive data to support their case, William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations are not based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.
“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, 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 actual 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.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/_next/image?url=https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2023/08/11/id5460761-Model-vs-Actual-600x412.jpg&w=1200&q=75
“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 then that the models were overpredicting the warming by a huge amount.”
He and his colleague argued that the EPA has grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on Earth.
Many who have fought against EPA climate regulations have done so by arguing what is called the “major questions doctrine,” that 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 that “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.”
...MORE
Won’t be long before garland names a special prosecutor for them.
They are not wrong.
Americans need to rise up and put a stop to this BS before they freeze in the dark.
Most excellent, bitt
These guys are emeritus status and, therefore, retired. That signals people whose jobs may be affected by truth-telling are being squelched.
Something tells me this article will not fare well under Google’s new “global censorship tool.”
When something suddenly happens to them, headlines will read “due to old age and natural causes.”
bttt
B
Actually there are a lot more than two. Check out co2coalition.org in the USA and thegwpf.org in the UK.
“Climate Science” is a big branch of “Political Science”.
Save
Of course it’s weakening. THEY DON’T CARE. They’ve accomplished their objective already. Capitalism is being destroyed worldwide. Why are conservative so damned stupid?
I'll add this..."Political Science" ain't science.
Heretics! Cancel them!
That’s great, but then what’s causing the record heat in AZ (130 degrees for a solid month, first time in hisgtory) or the wildfires we’ve never seen the magnitude of?
Seriously, looking for an answer not more political poop...
Have the leftards started gathering kindling wood for the stakes yet?
Now that they've gone after farmers you can freeze and starve in the dark.
TWO of them!
they have 600 million years of data? Hmmm
I clearly see the exaggeration of the red line but if I am reading the graph correctly, the 3 or 4 other methods also show a warming trend, albeit much slower.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.