Comments

You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Government Corruption

Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax'

2023-08-15

[Epoch Times] "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."

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."

"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," Mr. Happer 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 one percent," Mr. Happer said. "Very few people realize how hard it is for additional carbon dioxide to make a difference to the radiation to space. That’s what’s called saturation, and it’s been well known for a century."

A report by Cornell University states that "more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies."

But Mr. Happer argues that consensus is not science, citing a lecture on the scientific method by renowned physicist Richard Feynman, who said, "if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong."

*Snicker*

"Science has never been made by consensus," Mr. Happer said. "The way you decide something is true in science is you compare it with experiment or observations. "It doesn’t matter if there’s a consensus; it doesn’t matter if a Nobel Prize winner says it’s true, if it disagrees with observations, it’s wrong," he said.

"And that’s the situation with climate models. They are clearly wrong because they don’t agree with observations."
Seven charts/graphs at the link - secret science.

Posted by:Bobby

#4 Many scientists have been saying this for years.

Posted by: Silentbrick 2023-08-15 22:17

#3 All of Trump's indictments fail the "State Farm" rule.

Posted by: EMSArtifact 2023-08-15 08:28

#2 Interesting that atheists who call Western Religion a hoax have no problem embracing this hoax. When the numbers and data don't add up, they fall back upon 'faith'.

Posted by: Procopius2k 2023-08-15 07:39

#1 relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data

Much like medicine.

Posted by: Skidmark 2023-08-15 00:12

00:00