Last week I explained in general terms why the basic methodology used by the UN to justify its climate alarmism is hopeless for the purpose and proves nothing other than how gullible the Climate-industrial Complex (CIC) thinks the world is. This week Fox News has published an analysis showing how the Draft National Climate Assessment Report publicized by the New York Times as a great “scoop” last week really has long been available on the Web. The analysis explains how the Assessment’s main “contribution” is that the authors are being bolder in hyping their personal opinions as to how much of the “global warming” is attributable to human activity (they claim 100%, which is farcical given the huge emissions of carbon dioxide from natural sources) even though they do not cite any new basis for going beyond the more cautious but unsupportable alarmist conclusions of the most recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2013.
The Fox analysis speculates that the CIC is planning to use the Congressional “due date” (August 18) for the Report to hype the alleged perfidy of the Trump Administration in not agreeing with this most recent extension of all the previous outrages attempting to justify the unjustifiable in terms of climate alarmism. That this is even under discussion is a result of the decision of the Trump Administration not to directly confront the bad science employed by the CIC and exemplified by the Draft Assessment Report. Rather, the EPA Administrator’s current position is that he does not know what contribution humans make to climate change. This appears to be a political rather than a scientific conclusion since I suspect that he knows better.
It is long past time for the Trump Administration to directly confront the climate “science” exemplified by this Draft Report for what it is: bad science. Stalling further or waiting for a “red/blue” confrontation will not make the ultimate debate any more palatable politically. The climate alarmists have too much invested in their scientific scam to ever admit that their “science” is what Richard Feynman characterized as “cargo cult science,” regardless of how much EPA invests in either time or effort in “red/blue” debates. The most likely result of red/blue debates would be to decrease the likelihood that sufficient time will remain during the Trump Administration to revoke the GHG Endangerment Finding (EF), the legal underpinning for most EPA attempts to impose the climate alarmism ideology.
The Extreme Importance of Revoking the GHG Endangerment Finding
Revoking the EF is the only way to bring the climate alarmism scam to the untimely end it so richly deserves in the US and hopefully indirectly elsewhere. Until that happens the CIC will continue to pursue its bad science through reports such as the National Climate Assessment with the recommended disastrous policies that would seriously damage the environment, impoverish the less wealthy, and bring economic disaster for our Nation by raising the prices and decreasing the availability and reliability of fossil fuel energy which is so central to our way of life and economy. If a genuine debate is desired, it would best be undertaken as part of a reconsideration of the GHG Endangerment Finding where the outcome would have some practical and important consequences. Each day that this reconsideration is postponed increases the risks that EPA will be forced by court decisions to impose unjustified carbon dioxide emission reduction regulations based on implementing the EF.
[…] The reason repeal is so urgent is summed up by Alan Carlin in his posting “Why Revoking the EPA GHG Endangerment Finding Is the Most Urgent Climate Action Needed”: […]
[…] http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/3816 […]
I find it amazing that with billions of dollars spent on modeling and the claim that global average temperature can be measured to a hundredth of a degree, that the attribution of CO2 to warming is only as precise as “probably more than half”. I understand the marketing reasons of “more than half”, but mathematically it makes no sense. Why not a specific best estimate? Why not a probably density function? Because they started with the conclusion and then worked backwards.
Gentlemen, the foxes (government/fake scientists) have been in the hen house for 30 years. What makes you hope that the same approaches at rational discussion and reason could now suddenly prevail regardless of who dons red and blue attire. That has been our failing all along. The problem goes much deeper; our universities turn out apparently large numbers with imppressive strings of titles after their names who apparently lack the fundamental education, intelligence or sense of morality to face up to reality which has been presented to them repeatedly over these past 30 years. Our problems are institutional; academia, press, uneducated government and the political system inhearant in it supported by a large majority of useful idiots driven by fear and environmental myopia Add to this the industrial complex necessarily driven by government law, power and money and you have a recipe for disaster.
I’m sorry to leave you with such a negative diatribe but suggesting a solution appears to be a little above my pay grade.
If you ask a four year old what makes him or her hot during summer, the child will know it’s the Sun.
But after years of advanced study in scientific disciplines, adults holding doctorates think it’s CO2. They join the herd of other lemmings.
Except for Doc Carlin!
It would seem to me that Mr. Pruitt should be able to declare the endangerment finding invalid because of the legal deficiencies in the proceses that were used to enact it. If he could just put it on hold until the process underwent the required review that was skipped by the Obama EPA I am quite certain it would fail for lack of merit or evidence. I am further convinced that the Obama EPA officials that oversaw that process should be dismissed for allowing that invalid process to occur if they are still in the ranks of the EPA.
In the interest of timeliness, maybe revocation on procedural grounds would be helpful. Pruitt is a lawyer and mcomfortable upholding legal requirements..
In parallel, the administration could also convene a red versus blue debate for policy makers. This debate can address the science.
No reason not to follow both tracks a sap.
As a matter of science, the case for global warming, or climate change or whatever they are market it as this week, is pathetically non existent. It fails on so many grounds. Yikes is this stuff stupid.
I have sympathy for Pruitt. He would like a red team to demolish the nonsense, so he has grounds to move on and reverse the endangerment finding.
Maybe it’s important to take public whacks at the Fake Science and this is more important than the timing of undoing endangerment?