Comments on: The Texas Petition against the U.S. EPA’s Endangerment Finding: A User’s Guide (Part II in a series)

By: Consumer Energy Alliance

Consumer Energy Alliance — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:25:52 +0000

Allowing access to domestic oil and natural gas resources as part of a comprehensive energy strategy would significantly reduce U.S. reliance on imports, improve domestic energy security, diversify supply, increase economic development and generate local, state and federal revenue. EPA policy should support a national energy policy that provides a comprehensive, long-term solution to help the United States meet ongoing and future global energy challenges by ensuring proper development of all available energy resources, long-term price stability for consumers, enhanced national energy and economic security, and a consistent regulatory structure for industry.

Want to learn more about balanced energy for America? Visit http://www.consumerenergyalliance.org to get involved, discover CEA’s mission and sign up for our informative newsletter.

By: Richard W. Fulmer

Richard W. Fulmer — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:19:30 +0000

I believe that Greg Abbott is wise to demand that the EPA make its own determination about the climate impact of man-made CO2 emissions before regulating those emissions.

For years, we were told that a mountain of scientific data existed conclusively proving that CO2 generated by human activity would bring about world-wide catastrophe. Any attempts to question that data or even to see it, however, were met with a wall of invective and moral posturing. Global warming scientists demanded that we consent to the expenditure of trillions of dollars in resources (and to the pollution that the production of those resources would entail) based on nothing more than our faith in the integrity of their research and on the hope that their untested solutions would make the problem better rather than worse.

We have recently learned that much of the evidence was made up of exaggerated claims, suppressed data, and computer projections generated from cherry-picked temperature readings. With amazing speed, the “mountain of data” has dwindled to a molehill, and it is upon this lump that the EPA plans to erect its CO2 emissions regulations.

If global warming does, in fact, place “Earth in the balance,” we cannot risk actions that are little more than nationwide, perhaps worldwide, experiments. The more serious the problem is, the less we can afford “solutions” that may only make it worse. Unfortunately, EPA regulations could do just that by driving energy-intensive industry out of the United States and into countries with less efficient industrial bases. The net effect could well be increased global CO2 emissions. Learning whether a response to global warming is warranted and, if so, how to respond effectively can only be done through honest research and open debate. EPA actions based on fraudulent data, doctored to meet preconceived notions, could lead to loss of life and squandered resources.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:43:00 +0000

The way I see it, the crux of the EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions, lies in the claim that AGW would have a negative effect on US wealth and health. Although AGW would have global effects, the US is more relevant in this case because the term “public health and welfare” obviously applies to the people and economy of the United States. Based on this it should be a simple matter of looking at the climate of the US in the last century and see if it has gotten “worse” and if that has effected our health and wealth with similar worsening trends. Death rates due to all sorts of weather have declined pretty dramatically, including heat waves as you know, and damages from weather events show trends until you account for increasing population and wealth and inflation after which upward trends always disappear. I’ve looked at the literature on everything I can think of and the climate in the US has not become “worse” in any measure nor are there evident trends in the effects which can be attributed to AGW. That should be case closed.

By the way Chip, I’ve been looking all over the place and I am wondering if you know whether Robert Davis has done any recent updates of his work on Nor’Easters from the 90′s.

[Andrew, I am pretty much in agreement with you. I don't think Bob Davis has updated his Nor'Easter work, but I'll check with him and let you know if it is otherwise. -Chip]

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:40:25 +0000

Windy City Kid-I get 0.12 degF / Decade, how did you get 0?

By: Windy City Kid

Windy City Kid — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:41:10 +0000

NCDC annual temperature data 1895 through 2009 show a warming trend of 0.0F degrees/decade. How is it that with a 35% increase in CO2 for that time period there is absolutely no increase in temperature?

By: Charles

Charles — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:47:27 +0000

It is good to see people as yourself Chip maintaining the pressure on this issue. What is really at stake is the integrity of scientists everywhere, and it is quite clear that the climate scientists have bastardised the scientific process for their own benefit, and this will cast a pall over scientists everywhere.

I do not think this abuse of scientific principles and processes is confined to climate scientists, but we have caught them out this time. Therefore, now we need to penalise them and bring them to account, so that other fields of science are less inclined to follow down this road.