Over the weekend, various ill-informed leftists marched around the world in support, ostensibly, of the Earth’s climate. As usual, ignorance was plentiful while knowledge of anything relevant to climate science was invisible.
If you want to learn something about climate science, as opposed to political propaganda, go here to read an important, just-released paper by Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo, which has been endorsed by a number of other prominent climate scientists.
The paper is titled “On the Existence of a ‘Tropical Hot Spot’ & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding.” As you likely know, the EPA’s outrageous finding that emissions of carbon dioxide, which is necessary for essentially all life on earth, endanger public health or welfare was the basis for the Obama administration’s war on affordable energy.
Like any legitimate scientific paper, it is hard to summarize. I will try, but you really should read the whole thing.
The models on which global warming alarmism is based all critically hypothesize a “tropical hot spot” which is the alleged “signature” of human-caused warming. In fact, however, no such tropical hot spot exists:
Adjusting for just the Natural Factor impacts, NOT ONE of the Nine (9) Tropical temperature time series analyzed above was consistent with the EPA’s [Tropical Hot Spot] Hypothesis.
That is, adjusting for just the Natural Factor Impacts over their entire history; all nine of tropical temperature data analyzed above have non-statistically significant trend slopes - which invalidates the THS theory. Moreover, CO2 did not even come close to having a statistically significant impact on a single one of these temperature data sets. From an econometric structural analysis standpoint, the generic model worked extremely well in all 9 cases.
These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot, caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 14 temperature time series that were analyzed.
Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in its CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA’s THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models they claim can be relied upon, are also invalid.
It is remarkable that anyone would argue for the superiority of a half-baked theory, as described in a model, over empirical observation. Certainly no competent scientist would do so. Yet that is what is happening in the global warming debate. As we have documented many times, leftists, knowing they are losing the argument, have resorted to altering surface temperature records, over which they have jurisdiction, to conform to their theory. This is, in my opinion, the worst scandal in the history of science.
If the principal natural factors - solar, volcanic and ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) activity are taken out of the equation, there has been no net global warming in recent years:
The conclusion, based on empirical evidence:
The above analysis of Global Balloon & Satellite atmospheric temperature as well as Contiguous U.S. and Hadley Global Average Surface Temperature data turned up no statistical support for suggesting that CO2, even taken together with all other omitted variables, is the cause of the positive trend in the reported U.S. and Global temperature data.
In fact, it seems very clear that the Global Warming that has occurred over the period 1959 to date can be quite easily explained by Natural Factor impacts alone. Given the number of independent entities and differing instrumentation used in gathering the temperature data analyzed herein, it seems highly unlikely that these findings are in error.
I have tried to excerpt understandable paragraphs, but there is plenty of raw science in the article, e.g. (footnotes omitted):
One final question remains that has not yet been explicitly dealt with herein. It is, can the existence of the CO2 equation really be confirmed so that simultaneous equation parameter estimation techniques must be utilized to confirm CO2’s statistically significant impact on temperature? In the Preface, the authors referred to a specific paper for a proof. Below very significant additional proof is provided.
With CO2 determined to be not statistically significant in the structural analysis of the 13 temperature data sets as summarized in Section XXIII immediately above, the equation system described in the Preface can be seen to be recursive which permits parameter estimation of the CO2 equation in the system by ordinary or direct least squares.
An explicit form of the CO2 equation referred to in the Preface is:
[1] (DeltaC - cfossil)t = a + b*Tt + c* CO2,t-1
Where
(DeltaC - cfossil)t, is the efflux of Net non-fossil fuel CO2 emissions from the oceans and land into the atmosphere and cfossil is CO2 emissions from Fossil Fuel consumption.
Tt is UAH Tropical TLT Ocean temperature. The expected sign is positive.
CO2,t-1 on the right-hand side is a proxy for Land use. The expected sign is negative, because as CO2 levels rise, other things equal, the CO2 absorption of the flora increase.
As shown in Table XXIV-1, applying ordinary least squares to this equation yields a high Adjusted R square (0.64.) The coefficients have the correct signs and are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.
The science is fascinating, but you don’t have to be a scientist to understand why global warming hysteria is wrong. Here are the indisputable, basic facts:
* The earth’s climate has been changing for millions of years. We are currently living in a geologic era characterized by ice ages. I like to point out that 15,000 years ago - the blink of an eye - the place where I live was buried under ice somewhere between a half mile and a mile thick. Scientists have theories, but nothing approaching knowledge about why wild swings in the earth’s climate have occurred over the last million years. One thing we know for sure is that it had nothing to do with mankind’s emission of carbon dioxide.
* We are living in a relatively cool era. Since the end of the last Ice Age, the earth has been warmer than it is now most of the time - most experts say, about 90% of the time. So if temperatures rise a little, it is hardly a surprise.
* A reasonable (although debatable) scientific argument based on energy transfer can be made that a doubling of CO2 would raise the earth’s average temperature by 1 degree centigrade. Everyone agrees this would be a good thing.
* To generate scary headlines, alarmists speculate that various positive feedbacks would increase that possible 1 degree temperature gain to somewhere between 3 and 6 degrees. These feedback theories are speculative at best. Really, we know they are false, since higher temperatures over the past 500,000 years have not caused any sort of runaway temperature increase.
* Global warming alarmism is based solely on models, not on observation. But we know the models are wrong. They predict far greater warming than has been observed over recent decades. A model that has been proved wrong is worthless. It can’t be resuscitated by after-the-fact selective, politically-motivated tweaking.
That, really, is all you need to know.
--------
See how CO2, our vegetation’s best fertilizer changes with the season.
By Michael Bastasch Daily Caller in Truthfeed News
"97% Consensus on Climate Change” COMPLETELY DEBUNKED as a LIE
By now you’ve probably hear liberals complain about Trump’s cutting the EPA and not caring enough about “Climate Change.”
Some may throw out a popular fake talking point that there is a 97 percent scientific consensus that man made climate change is a fact.
There’s only one problem, that 97% statistic is a complete lie.
Journalist Michael Bastasch does a fantastic job of debunking the fallacy.
From DailyCaller:
We’ve heard it time and time again: “97 percent of scientists agree global warming is real and man-made.”
Question one aspect of the global warming “consensus” and politicians and activists immediately whip out the figure. “You disagree with 97 percent of scientists?”
The 97 percent figure was often used by the Obama administration to bolster its case for phasing out fossil fuels, and President Barack Obama himself used the figure to undercut his critics. NASA even cites studies purporting to show near-unanimous agreement on the issue.
More recently, Newsweek included this figure in an article fretting about “climate deniers” in state legislatures trying to influence science curriculum. The author couldn’t resist noting that “97% of scientists who actively study Earth’s climate say it is changing because of human activity.”
Liberals use the figure to shut down debate around global warming. Afterall, how can you disagree with all those scientists, many of whom have spent their lives studying the climate?
But how many proponents of “climate action” have actually bothered to read the research that underlays such a popular talking point? How many realize the “consensus” the research claims to find is more of a statistical contortion than actual agreement?
Probably not many, so let’s talk about the 2013 study led by Australian researcher John Cook claiming there’s a 97 percent consensus on global warming.
What Does The ‘Consensus’ Really Mean?
Cook and his colleagues set out to show just how much scientists agreed that humans contribute to global warming.
To do this, Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate.
Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the “consensus” that humans contribute to global warming, while just 1 percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it.
Cook goes on to claim that of those papers taking a position on global warming (either explicitly or implicitly), 97.1 percent agreed that humans to some degree contribute to global warming.
In terms of peer-reviewed papers, the “97 percent consensus” is really the “32.6 percent consensus” if all the studies reviewed are taken into account.
But Cook also invited the authors of these papers to rate their endorsement of the “consensus.” Cook emailed 8,574 authors to self-rate their papers, of which only 1,189 authors ended up reviewing their work.
Again, 35.5 percent, or 761, of those self-rated papers took no position on the cause of global warming. Some 62.7 percent, or 1,342, of those papers endorsed the global warming “consensus,” while 1.8 percent, or 39, self-rated papers rejected it.
Twisting the numbers a bit, Cook concludes that 97.2 percent of the self-rated papers with a position on global warming endorsed the idea humans were contributing to it.
Other studies written before and after Cook’s attempted to find a consensus, but to varying degrees, finding a range of a 7 to 100 percent (yes, no disagreement) among climate experts, depending on what subgroup was surveyed.
Cook’s paper is probably the most widely cited, having been downloaded more than 600,000 times and cited in popular media outlets.
---------
See this earlier post on this phony claim here. See one here on Watts Up With That showing a peer review paper why Cook’s paper was totally wrong.
The great Michael Crichton MD and author wrote”
“Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. (Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc)
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
Abstract
Objectives - This report examines heat-related mortality, cold-related mortality, and other weather-related mortality during 2006-2010 among subgroups of U.S. residents.
Methods - Weather-related death rates for demographic and area-based subgroups were computed using death certificate information. Adjusted odds ratios for weather-related deaths among subgroups were estimated using logistic regression.
He writes: Here’s their money graph. It shows the number of deaths by the age of the person dying.
--------
Here was the story Allan and I wrote in 2015 on a Lancet study of mortality.
Warmists and their compliant media reporters continue to stress the danger of heat and ignore cold in their papers and in stories.
The danger associated with this misdirection is that cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings were published in The Lancet.
“It’s often assumed that extreme weather causes the majority of deaths, with most previous research focusing on the effects of extreme heat waves,” says lead author Dr Antonio Gasparrini from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in the UK.
The study analyzed over 74 million (74,225,200) deaths between 1985 and 2012 in 13 countries with a wide range of climates, from cold to subtropical. Data on daily average temperature, death rates, and confounding variables (eg, humidity and air pollution) were used to calculate the temperature of minimum mortality (the optimal temperature), and to quantify total deaths due to non-optimal ambient temperature in each location.
Around 7.71% of all deaths were caused by non-optimal temperatures, with substantial differences between countries, ranging from around 3% in Thailand, Brazil, and Sweden to about 11% in China, Italy, and Japan. Cold was responsible for the majority of these deaths (7.29% of all deaths), while just 0.42% of all deaths were attributable to heat.
According to Dr Gasparrini, “Current public-health policies focus almost exclusively on minimizing the health consequences of heat waves. Our findings suggest that these measures need to be refocused and extended to take account of a whole range of effects associated with temperature.”
THE UK
The UK Guardian looked at Excess Winter Mortality after the 2012/13 hard winter.
They used data from the ONS. Each year since 1950, the UK Office for National Statistics or ONS has looked at excess winter mortality. The ONS take an average of deaths in winter (those in December to March) and subtract the average of non-winter deaths (April to July of the current year and August to November of the previous year). The result is considered ‘excess’.
Like other European countries, more people die in the UK in winter than in summer. Some 58% of winter excess deaths were women, a trend that has been quite consistent over the past three years. Circulatory diseases were cited as the biggest cause of winter deaths (accounting for 37%), closely followed by respiratory diseases (32%). Unsurprisingly, the majority of deaths occur with older people - specifically those aged 75 and above.
“The impact of cold weather on health is predictable and mostly preventable. Direct effects of winter weather include an increase in incidence of: heart attack; stroke; respiratory disease; flu; falls and injuries; hypothermia. Indirect effects of cold include mental health illnesses such as depression, and carbon monoxide poisoning from poorly maintained or poorly ventilated boilers, cooking and heating appliances and heating.” Department of Health (2012) Cold Weather Plan for England.
In normal milder western and southern Europe, the Excess Winter Mortality is greater than in the colder northern climates, where people are more accustomed to colder winters and homes are built to keep the residents warmer (better insulated, central heating). Also energy costs there are far higher thanks to the early adoption of the inefficient and much more expensive renewable energy.
The UK reported 50,000 excess deaths in the UK in 2012/13. Excess Winter Mortality was 31,100 in England and Wales in up 29% from the previous year. Figures for Scotland showed a much smaller increase in winter deaths, up 4.1% to 19,908. In Northern Ireland meanwhile, the raw numbers were low but the increase was large, a rise of 12.7% to 559 deaths.
Similarly, the USA death rate in January and February is more than 1000 deaths per day greater than in July and August.
Indur M. Goklany wrote in 2009: “Data from the US National Center for Health Statistics for 2001-2008, shows that on average 7,200 Americans died each day during the months of December, January, February and March, compared to the average 6,400 who died daily during the rest of the year. In 2008, there were 108,500 ‘excess’ deaths during the 122 days in the cold months (December to March).”
Despite claims that extreme heat in increasing and cold decreasing, the data says the un-manipulated state extreme temperature data shows the opposite.
The graph shows that the death rate in January is more than 100 deaths/day greater than in August. See more here.
AUSTRALIA
Even down under in Australia we see the same story. Queensland University of Technology found (Source Science Daily) Australians are more likely to die during unseasonably cold winters than hotter than average summers.
Across the country severe winters that are colder and drier than normal are a far bigger risk to health than sweltering summers that are hotter than average.
QUT Associate Professor Adrian Barnett, a statistician with the Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation and the lead researcher of the study, said death rates in Australian cities were up to 30 per cent higher in winter than summer.
The researchers analyzed temperature, humidity and mortality data from 1988 to 2009 for Adelaide Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney.
Professor Barnett said the finding that hotter or more humid summers had no effect on mortality was “surprising.” “We know that heat waves kill people in the short-term, but our study did not find any link between hotter summers and higher deaths,” he said.
EXCESS WINTER ECONOMIC IMPACT
There’s something that befudles economists and the administration about the U.S. economy in the first three months of every year: It frequently grows at a much slower pace than in the other nine months. The below academic paper, authored by the Federal Reserve Of Chicago, validates the growing link between advancing cold and its impact on economies. From slowing money velocity to low bond yields and reduced consumer spending, behavioral economics are well documented here and offer implicit confirmation that not only is the planet not warming but that cold weather is partially responsible for the slow economic recovery following the 2008 economic crisis. As the Federal Reserve grapples with interest rate policy, the credibility of U.S. dollar may be at stake. Investors worldwide evaluate it’s health with the U.S. treasury market a proxy, roiled recently by a sequence of Federal Reserve revised Gross National Product numbers. We ask this question: were initial strong first quarter GDP numbers during the past several years skewed by faulty reporting of mild winter weather, then later adjusted lower by the impact of under reported cold weather? The implications of such divergences are enormous to world markets.
Alec Phillips, an economist at Goldman Sachs, noticed that from 2010 through 2014, growth in the first three months of the year has averaged 0.6 percent, while it has averaged 2.9 percent in the other three quarters.
And Macroeconomic Advisers, a forecasting firm, has found that the pattern goes back further: Since 1995, outside of recessions, the first quarter has grown at half the pace of the other three.
The government agency charged with calculating the economy’s growth rate said it would adjust its methods in an effort to resolve the problem. While other economists, including at the Federal Reserve in Washington, have concluded that the government’s figures are largely accurate. The first-quarter weakness over the years is in part due to to harsh winter weather. Source
See the new Federal Reserve study on the effect of cold on the economy here. See also here how BofA and some FED divisions had scoffed at cold weather impacts but are seriously lobbying to have government adjust GDP numbers to come better in line with their bad forecasts.
Apparently, MIT which benefits greatly for climate change funding didn’t like its name being used in petition to Trump. Dr. Richard Lindzen responds to that letter.
March 9, 2017
President Donald Trump
The White House
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
On 2 March, 2017, members of the MIT Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate (PAOC) sent a public letter to the White House, contesting the Petition I circulated. The Petition, signed by over 330 scientists from around the world so far, called for governments to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Since MIT’s administration has made the climate issue a major focus for the Institute, with PAOC playing a central role, it is not surprising that the department would object to any de-emphasis. But the PAOC letter shows very clearly the wisdom of James Madison’s admonition, in the Federalist, 10:
“No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.”
For far too long, one body of men, establishment climate scientists, has been permitted to be judges and parties on what the “risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide” really are.
Let me explain in somewhat greater detail why we call for withdrawal from the UNFCCC.
The UNFCCC was established twenty five years ago to find scientific support for dangers from increasing carbon dioxide. While this has led to generous and rapidly increased support for the field, the purported dangers remain hypothetical, model-based projections. By contrast, the benefits of increasing CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever, and they are supported by dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth.
We note that:
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming,
It has long been acknowledged by the IPCC that climate change prior to the 1960’s could not have been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Yet, pre-1960 instrumentally observed temperatures show many warming episodes, similar to the one since 1960, for example, from 1915 to 1950, and from 1850 to 1890. None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2.
Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed,
The modeling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments.
Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide,
Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans.
Calls to limit carbon dioxide emissions are even less persuasive today than 25 years ago. Future research should focus on dispassionate, high-quality climate science, not on efforts to prop up an increasingly frayed narrative of “carbon pollution.” Until scientific research is unfettered from the constraints of the policy-driven UNFCCC, the research community will fail in its obligation to the public that pays the bills.
I hope these remarks help to explain why the over 300 original signers of the Petition (and additional scientists are joining them every day) have called for withdrawal from the UNFCCC.
Respectfully yours,
Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences
SUPPORTING SIGNERS:
Most of signers of the Petition, agree with my remarks above. In the limited time available to prepare the letter, it has been reviewed and approved by the following:
ABDUSSAMATOV, Habibullo Ismailovich: (Dr. sci., Phys. and Math. Sciences. ); Head of space research of the Sun sector at the Pulkovo observatory, head of the project The Lunar Observatory, St. Petersburg, (Russian Federation).
ALEXANDER, Ralph B.: (Ph.D. ,Physics, University of Oxford ); Former Associate Professor, Wayne State University, Detroit, author of Global Warming False Alarm (2012).
BRIGGS, William M.: (Ph.D., Statistics & Philosophy of Science); Author of Uncertainty: The Soul of Modeling, Probability & Statistics.
CLOUGH, Charles: (MS., Atmospheric Science); Founder and Retired Chief of the US Army Atmospheric Effects Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, Retired LtCol USAF (Res) Weather Officer.
D’ALEO, Joseph S.: (BS., MS. Meteorology Wisconsin, ABD., Air Resources, NYU, Honorary Ph.D. VSC ); AMS Fellow, CCM Chairman Department of Meteorology, Lyndon State College First Director of Meteorology The Weather Channel Chief Meteorologist WSI, Co Chief Meteorologist WeatherBell Analytics
DOIRON, Harold H.: (Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston 1970 ); Retired VP Engineering, InDyne, Inc.; Senior Manager, McDonnell Douglas Space Systems; and former NASA Apollo, Skylab and Space Shuttle Engineer Chairman, The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, composed of NASA manned space program retirees.
EASTERBROOK, Donald J.: (Ph.D.); Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University; former president of the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division of GSA, Associate Editor of the GSA Bulletin for 15 years, and many other professional activities. He published four books and eight professional papers in the past year.
FORBES, Vivian R.: (BSc., Applied Sciences); FAusIMM, FSIA, geologist, financial analyst and pasture manager, author of many articles on climate, pollution, economic development and hydrocarbons. (Australia).
HAPPER, William: (Ph.D., Physics); Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics (emeritus) Princeton University; Director of the Office of Energy Research, US Department of Energy, 1990-1993.
HAYDEN, Howard “Cork”: (PhD.); Professor Emeritus, University of Connecticut.
IDSO, Craig: (PhD, B.S., Geography, Arizona State University, M.S.,Agronomy, the University of Nebraska - Lincoln in 1996 ); Chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
LEGATES, David R.: (PhD, Climatology, University of Delaware); Certified Consulting Meteorologist.
LUPO, Anthony: (Ph.D., Atmospheric Science); Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri.
MARKO, Istvan E.: (PhD,Organic Chemistry, Catholic University of Louvain); professor and researcher of organic chemistry at the Catholic University of Louvain ( Belgium).
MOCKTON, Christopher: ; The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (United Kingdom).
MOORE, Patrick: (PhD., Ecology, University of British Columbia, Honorary Doctorate of Science, North Carolina State University); National Award for Nuclear Science and History (Einstein Society).
NICHOLS, Rodney W.: (AB Physics, Harvard); Science and Technology policy Executive Vice President emeritus Rockefeller University President and CEO emeritus, NY Academy of Sciences Co-Founder CO2 Coalition.
SINGER, Fred S.: (Ph.D., Physics, Princeton University, BA, Electrical Engineering, Ohio State University); professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. He directs the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), which he founded in 1990 and incorporated in 1992 after retiring from the University of Virginia.
SOON, Willie: (PhD); Independent Scientist.
SPENCER, Roy W.: (Ph.D., Meteorology ‘81; M.S., Meteorology, ‘79; B.S., Atmospheric & Oceanic Science, ‘78); Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville; co-developer of method for satellite monitoring of global temperature; author of numerous papers on climate and satellite meteorology.
STEWARD, H. Leighton: (MS., Geology); Environmentalist, No. 1 New York Times Best Selling Author, Recipient numerous national environmental awards or directorships including the EPA, Louisiana Nature Conservancy, Audubon Nature Institute, the National Petroleum Council and the API. Former energy industry executive and chosen to represent industry on Presidential Missions under both Democratic and Republican Administrations.
MOTL, Lubos: (PhD., Physics ); former high-energy theoretical physics junior faculty at Harvard University (Czech Republic).
WYSMULLER, Thomas H.: (BA, Meteorology ); Ogunquit, Maine, NASA (Ret.); Chair, Water Day 2013, UNESCO IHE Water Research Institute, Delft, The Netherlands; Chair, Oceanographic Section, 2016 World Congress of Ocean, Qingdao China; NASA TRCS charter member.
ZYBACH, Bob: (PhD., Environmental Sciences, Oregon State University); http://www.ORWW.org, author of more than 100 popular articles and editorials regarding forest history, wildfire mitigation, reforestation planning, and Indian burning practices.
From SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY and the “department of lost funding” comes this gloomy prediction.
Trump Action on Clean Power Plan threatens air quality, health, and economic benefits
The Trump Administration is expected to release signed an executive order on Tuesday March 28, 2017, directing the EPA to roll back the Clean Power Plan.
In response, Dr. Charles Driscoll, Distinguished Professor of Environmental Systems Engineering at Syracuse University & member of the National Academy of Engineering, made this statement:
“Our research shows that a power plant standard like the Clean Power Plan could save thousands of lives in communities across the United States every year. The health gains from a standard like the Clean Power Plan yield net economic benefits that would far outweigh the costs. The economic benefits tend to be greatest in highly populated areas near or downwind from coal-fired power plants that experience a shift to cleaner sources with the standards. If we overturn the Clean Power Plan we will forfeit important health benefits and undermine the longstanding American tradition of energy innovation and clean air progress, at a time when we need it most.”
Dr. Driscoll led a 2015 study on air quality and health benefits of carbon standards similar to the Clean Power Plan, published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Dr. Driscoll and colleagues showed that strong carbon standards provide widespread clean air and health benefits throughout the United States. They calculated state-by-state air quality and health outcomes, and determined the greatest health gains occur in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, and New York.
Dr. Driscoll is available to comment on the clean air, health, and ecosystem consequences of the anticipated Trump Administration executive order on rolling back the Clean Power Plan.
For more information:
Driscoll, CT, Buonocore, JB, Levy, JI, Lambert, KF, Burtraw B, Reid, SB, Fakhraei, H, Schwartz, J. 2015. US Power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits. Nature Climate Change. doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2598.
Buonocore, JB, Lambert, KF, Burtraw, D, Sekar, S, Driscoll, CT. 2016. An Analysis of Costs and Health Co-benefits for a U.S. Power Plant Carbon Standard. Plos One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156308.
The claim: “Our research shows that a power plant standard like the Clean Power Plan could save thousands of lives in communities across the United States every year”.
Might be credible if there were some death certificates that said: died of lung failure/lung disease due to power plant emissions.
I challenge any of the paid ecochondriacs to show me just one.
Two of the comments from Nick Stokes:
“And, the wailing begins”
Some wailing here too, about the endangerment finding. From Politico today:
But Pruitt, with the backing of several White House aides, argued in closed-door meetings that the legal hurdles to overturning the finding were massive, and the administration would be setting itself up for a lengthy court battle.
A cadre of conservative climate skeptics are fuming about the decision - expressing their concern to Trump administration officials and arguing Pruitt is setting himself up to run for governor or the Senate. They hope the White House, perhaps senior adviser Stephen Bannon, will intervene and encourage the president to overturn the endangerment finding.
I see that David Schnare has stormed off in a huff.
-----
“… here’s David Schnare, quoting from an email he wrote to E&E:
“The backstory to my resignation is extremely complex. I will be writing about it myself. It is a story not about me, but about a much more interesting set of events involving misuse of federal funds, failure to honor oaths of office, and a lack of loyalty to the President,” Schnare said.”
Doesn’t sound like just discovering the transition is over.
Here is Delingpole, in Breitbart:
Delingpole, who first reported that Pruitt advocated against reopening the endangerment finding, even suggested that the EPA administrator should resign.
“But what President Trump needs now more than ever are administrators with the political will to do the right thing - which is, after all, the reason so many Americans voted for him,” he wrote. “If Scott Pruitt is not up to that task, then maybe it’s about time he did the decent thing and handed over the reins to someone who is.”
--------
See this overview executive summary and full analysis showing how the endangerment finding has been invalidated by analyzing the data and including the effects of natural factors.
Today the WSJ had two articles on Trumps EPA agenda. One by Paul Tice advised:
To accomplish that, the Trump administration, led by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, needs to target the EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding,” which labeled carbon dioxide as a pollutant. That foundational ruling provided the legal underpinnings for all of the EPA’s follow-on carbon regulations, including the CPP.
It also provided the rationale for the previous administration’s anti-fossil-fuel agenda and its various climate-change initiatives and programs, which spanned more than a dozen federal agencies and cost the American taxpayer roughly $20 billion to $25 billion a year during Mr. Obama’s presidency.
The endangerment finding was the product of a rush to judgment. Much of the scientific data upon which it was predicated- chiefly, the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - was already dated by the time of its publication and arguably not properly peer-reviewed as federal law requires.
With the benefit of hindsight - including more than a decade of actual-versus-modeled data, plus the insights into the insular climate-science community gleaned from the University of East Anglia Climategate email disclosures - there would seem to be strong grounds now to reconsider the EPA’s 2009 decision and issue a new finding.
