As I argued in an August post, the most important thing that USEPA could accomplish is the revocation of their 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding (EF). Last week EPA proposed to accomplish some of what needs to be done by proposing the repeal of its “Clean” Power Plan (CPP), but this is just one of the things that would be accomplished by revoking its EF.
Today, two of the groups encouraging the revocation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the Science and Environmental Project (SEPP), released a joint letter to EPA Administrator Pruitt from individuals who have technical skills and knowledge relevant to climate science and the GHG Endangerment Finding. They “each are convinced that the 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding is fundamentally flawed and that an honest, unbiased reconsideration is in order.”
Administrator Pruitt has pending before him two science-based petitions for reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse Gases, one filed by the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC), and one filed jointly by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Science and Environmental Policy Project.
CHECC issued a Press Release this morning on the Letter to Administrator Pruitt, which picks out what it believes to be the key points concerning this Letter from over 60 highly credentialed scientists:
o “We the undersigned are individuals who have technical skills and knowledge relevant to climate science and the GHG Endangerment Finding. We each are convinced that the 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding is fundamentally flawed and that an honest, unbiased reconsideration is in order.”
o The letter states further that: “If such a reconsideration is granted, each of us will assist in a new Endangerment Finding assessment that is carried out in a fashion that is legally consistent with the relevant statute and case law. We see this as a very urgent matter….“
o The CHECC fully endorses the recommendations of these scientists because recent research has definitively validated that: once certain natural factor (i.e., solar, volcanic and oceanic/ENSO activity) impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “natural factor adjusted” warming remaining to be attributed to rising atmospheric CO2 levels. That is, these natural factor impacts fully explain the trends in all relevant temperature data sets over the last 50 or more years. At this point, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have caused what have been officially reported as rising, or even record setting, global average surface temperatures (GAST.)
o Moreover, additional all new, research findings demonstrate that adjustments by government agencies to the GAST record render that record totally inconsistent with published credible temperature data sets and useless for any policy purpose.
o These new results conclusively invalidate the claims based on GAST data of “record warming” in recent years, and thereby also invalidate the so-called “lines of evidence” on which EPA claimed to base its 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding.
o If the Endangerment Finding is not vacated, whether the current administration likes it or not, it is certain that electric utility, automotive and many other industries will face ongoing EPA CO2 regulation.
o This scientifically illiterate regulation will raise U.S. energy prices thereby reducing economic growth and jobs as well as our National Security.
o The CHECC therefore, based on this new scientific evidence, must insist that the EPA grant the “very urgent” request of these scientists “that an honest, unbiased reconsideration is in order.”
o Finally, CHECC believes that many more scientists would have been pleased to sign this letter if they had only known about it. Scientists may ask to have their name added by simply sending their info to THSResearch@aol.com.
Administrator Pruitt may well act favorably upon these meritorious petitions.
It is important to undo erroneous scientific opinions and to document reasons why the alarmist hypothesis is poorly supported. This would uphold reason over unfounded fears, a civic service.
Ultimately science is not about the number of signatures on the petitions, but about the quality and reasonability of evidence supporting the alarmists.
The onus is on those supporting the alarmist hypothesis to make their best case. However if there are fatal flaws and massive uncertainties in their case, skeptics can note these, thereby justifying revocation of the 2009 opinion.
I wish you success with this important initiative. Surely Scott Pruitt will take not of this petition signed by so many well-qualified scientists. I only wish we were able to find as many scientists to pressure our government to repeal the UK Climate Change Act. Maybe we will follow your lead in time.