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
I think most scientists DO agree that there has been warming, but most view it in the context of normal cycles of cold/warm weather that have been occurring for the last 600,000 years.
And the temperature measurements (including the derived ones from tree rings and such) bear that out, that we are entering a warming cycle. It is completely in tune with what we have seen in the past.
Where thinking people differ is not that the climate might or might not be getting warmer, it is the notion that man caused all of it, that it is going to be catastrophic, and that we can actually do something about it, which is nonsense.
And that was the point of the dissenting scientists that used this graph to buttress their position-that these models used completely overestimate the projected change in temperature, are not to be used to guide policy.
“Where thinking people differ is not that the climate might or might not be getting warmer, it is the notion that man caused all of it, that it is going to be catastrophic, and that we can actually do something about it, which is nonsense.”
Totally agree.
Yes. Most sensible scientists or policy people who look at it say “Spending tens of trillions of dollars, destroying economies, subjecting people to privation and even starvation, all for a 1.5 degree Celsius reduction (and I simply do not believe even that) is abject stupidity because we CANNOT control it any more than we can control what the sun does.
We should simply adapt and mitigate as the climate cools or warms, as we, as humans, always have.
Incorrect. Highest temperature ever recorded in Arizona was 128°F at Lake Havasu City during the summer of 1994. This summer in Arizona there was a 30-day stretch of above-110° high temps with the hottest day reaching 118°.
wildfires we’ve never seen the magnitude of
No total acres burned yet for 2023, but here's some history:
Year . . . Acres Burned
2022 -- 7,577,183
2021 -- 7,125,643
2020 -- 10,122,336
2019 -- 4,664,364
2018 -- 8,767,492
2017 -- 10,026,086
2016 -- 5,509,995
2015 -- 10,125,149
2014 -- 3,595,613
2013 -- 4,319,546
2012 -- 9,326,238
Later in the article there are quotes from other scientists who refute CC BS. They were cancelled for it.
Very good post. Right on!
Thanks for saying so, laplata. These people are going to be the death of all of us.
Industrial processes
Power generation
Transportation
Heating/Cooling for homes and workplaces
Some Worldwide Increases, 1970 to 2022:
Population -- 215%
Oil Consumption -- 220%
Electricity Usage -- 267%
We've all heard about urban heat islands. Well, now there's more of them and they're larger than ever.
I don’t think the heat produced by those processes is as much of a problem in and of itself, since that heat would be included as a small part of the general planetary heat dissapation.
The bigger problem that when they take the measurements, I think they completely underestimate the effects of the urban heat islands, taking satellite measurements, or on the ground measurements that don’t take the urban heat island effect into account, and thus consistently overestimate the measurements from those sources, thus the red line that goes way up on their “models”.
I was a big fan of the website that archived photos of terrestrial measurement stations, that showed a measuring station in the middle of a large asphalt parking lot, another one next to air conditioning units that shed heat, and my favorite, a measurement station with a metal trashcan used for burning refuse right under the heat sensor. The alarmists put the kibosh on that website, as I recall.
“....you can freeze and starve in the dark....”
Well there is THAT too.
We’re being driven to a bad place.
Yes, they are pure evil. I think Divine Intervention is our only hope.
It’s disgusting and very disturbing that so many people have no ability to discern or think critically to see them for what they are.
EVERY word you said!! God help us
The climate (change) hoax is based on fake science.
Go read how NOAA and NASA describe climate, paraphrasing: climate is a function of weather patterns over a time span, and weather is a function of climate.
If Einstein was alive he’d laugh himself into a fatal coma on that nonsense.
Northern Canada and Siberia will become quite nice places to live.
LOL, your post, while funny, does indeed highlight a problem with approach of the Climate Alarmists-they deliberately ignore the possible benefits of a warming climate.
That comment would likely make the ignorant, sheep-like climate alarmists spit with rage and indignation, but the ones in the know are like to either shut up, or shout louder, deliberately avoiding the issue and continuing with propaganda.
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.