Climate change and global warming arguments are based on flawed data in an effort to fool the American people into thinking we are headed for catastrophic destruction.
Such a flawed analysis about fossil fuels allegedly was formulated by Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton nearly two decades ago. Mostly for reasons unknown. Perhaps it was a diversion tactic while fellow Democrats fleece the American public and destroy our nation through “the wildest” free spending since World War II.
Doubtless, the current administration in Washington has slowed the American economy and driven many workers to bankruptcy. Our own prices on energy are increasing as the government cuts back on oil and gas production. China, meantime, is opening new coal-fired furnaces every week.
Lies and more lies from the Democrats as they squat around Washington, D.C., partisan feasts, and cocktail parties, while many American families live from payday to payday.
Meanwhile, the supreme parliamentary puppet, Joe Biden, stumbles, and fumbles to find out what day it is. His brain is on perpetual lockdown. His speech is that of a 2-year old (no offense to children), his language gaffs demonstrate his muddled and confused state of mind while he plans to run for re-election in 2024.
God help us!
Two prominent climate scientists already have weighed in on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) controls that would cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in electricity generation; they argue 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), reasoned that claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations aren’t 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, media pundants, 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,” Dr. Happer and Dr. Lindzen wrote, “None of these studies provides scientific support, 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. The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”
The scientists’ research and views were published recently in a sterling article written by Kevin Stocklin, in the August 23-29U.S. edition of The Epoch Times.
Climate models such as the ones the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Dr. Happer told the publication. To illustrate his point, he presented the EPA with a table showing the difference between those models’ predictions and the observed data.
“That was already an embarrassment in the 90’s, when I was director of energy research,” 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 colleagues noted that the EPA has grossly overstatedthe harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits to life on earth.
Many who have fought against EPA climate regulations have done so by arguing what’s called the “major questions doctrine,” that the EPA doesn’t have the authority to invent regulations that have such an enormous effect on Americans without clear direction from Congress.
However, Dr. Happer and Dr. Lindzen have taken a different track, arguing that because the EPA regulations are “arbitrary and capricious,” they fail a test laid out in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
“Time and again, courts have applied ‘State Farm’s’ principals 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 wrote.
According to Happer and 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 temperatures and levels of CO2 than are observed today, with little correlation between the two. They also argue that current CO2 levels are at a low point historically.”
More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more plant growth and higher farming yields, they said.
Synthetic fertilizers, which are derivatives of natural gas, are responsible for nearly half of 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, according to the scientists.
In addition to disregarding the benefits of CO2, they stated, the EPA’s emission rules and global warming narrative that has been used to justify them are based on flawed data.
The global warming narrative argues that as people burn carbon fuels, they emit higher concentrations of carbon dioxide into the earth’s atmosphere, which creates a “greenhouse effect,” trapping the sun’s radiation and warming the earth.
But one aspect of CO2 emissions that global warming models fail to consider, according to Harper, is a phenomenon called “saturation,” or the diminishing effect of CO2 in the atmosphere at higher concentrations.
“At the current concentrations of CO2, around 400 parts per million, it decreases the radiation to space by about 30 percent, compared to what you would have if you took it all away,” he 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 will take a long time, the amount that you decrease radiation to space is only 1 percent. Very few people realize how hard it is for additional carbon dioxide to make a difference to the radiation, and it’s been well known for a century.”
God help us overcome the lies and deceptions that are being hurled daily into our living rooms.!
—
Top o’ the morning!
