Now’s the Time to Restore Integrity to EPA Regulatory Science

By E. Calvin Beisner – Re-Blogged From

For decades the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has gotten away with creating regulations that lack sound scientific basis, costing Americans hundreds of billions of dollars without solid evidence that those costs were justified.

It’s done this in two ways.

Continue reading

Scientists vs Charlatans

[A Congressional Committee met to discuss The Scientific Method. The following is part of an essay reviewing the testimony. – Bob]

By Leo Goldstein – Re-Blogged From

…. There are at least two obstacles that prevent Republican statesmen from understanding that climate alarmism is completely wrong on natural sciences.

The big obstacle: managing bodies of the NAS, formerly respected academic societies, and foreign national academies adopted statements that either outright support or do not contradict climatist pseudo-science. This is an important fact. Of course, there are two causes for that: internal corruption that has been happening over decades and pressure from the Obama administration and its counterparts in other Western countries. Democrat Congresspersons might congratulate themselves for their contribution to shutting up opposition views. But it is hard to convince Republicans that this happened in front of their eyes and under the watch of many of them.

Continue reading

The Profiteers of Climate Doom

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon and David R. Legates

Re-Blogged From

Ten killer questions that expose how wrong and ideologically driven they are

A century or so from now, based on current trends, today’s concentration of carbon dioxide in the air will have doubled. How much warming will that cause? The official prediction, 1.5-4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7-8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) per doubling of CO2, is proving a substantial exaggeration.

Professor William Happer of Princeton, one of the world’s foremost physicists, says computer models of climate rely on the assumption that CO2’s direct warming effect is about a factor of two higher than what is actually happening in the real world. This is due to incorrect representations of the microphysical interactions of CO2 molecules with other infrared photons.


As if that were not bad enough, the official story is that feedbacks triggered by direct warming roughly triple the warming, causing not 1 but 3 degrees of warming per CO2 doubling. Here, too, the official story is a significant exaggeration, as demonstrated by Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, perhaps the world’s most knowledgeable climatologist.

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #204

The Week That Was: (November 7, 2015) – Brought to You by

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

Un-Validated Models: “The basic problem with the IPCC’s [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] extensive analysis of peer-reviewed, published research, from which it draws its conclusions regarding climate sensitivity to CO2 [carbon dioxide] and other GHG [greenhouse gases], is that it makes the critical mistake of giving any credence whatsoever to projections of future climate changes, and attribution of those changes, from output of un-validated climate simulation models. Moreover, in our opinion, the results of computer model studies should only be published in scientific journals if they are accompanied by supportive empirical observations. This conclusion is based on over a half-century of experience from many of our research team members, using models for critical decision-making in design and operation of spacecraft, where human safety was involved.

“Although computer models based on first principles are used extensively for design of commercial airplanes, bridges and buildings, engineers never base design decisions on output of un-validated computer models, and for good reasons supported by a grateful public. For what possible reason would it be appropriate to base public policy decisions regarding climate, with potentially severe unintended consequences, on un-validated climate simulation models, as the IPCC advocates and as adopted by the IWG [US Interagency Working Group] for SCC {Social Cost of Carbon] calculation?” (p.22)

“The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) research team is a volunteer group composed primarily of more than 25 retired NASA Apollo Program veterans, who joined together in February 2012 to perform an objective, independent study of scientific claims of significant global warming caused by human activity, known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).” (p.11)

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #195

The Week That Was: September 5, 2015 – Brought to You by

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

Divergence and the EPA: The August 28 TWTW discussed three forms of increasing divergence: 1) the surface temperatures record as reported by US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the atmospheric record; 2) the divergence between the global climate models and the atmospheric record; and 3) the divergence between what is being reported and discussed by the Climate Establishment and what is occurring in Nature.

Several readers inquired how do these forms of divergence impact on the US EPA’s Endangerment Finding (EF)? The EF is the EPA ruling that human emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2), endanger human health and welfare. The ruling is critical to the Administration’s plan to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants, making the American public more dependent on unreliable and expensive solar and wind. As being witnessed in Europe, those countries with the greatest expenditures, “investments”, in solar and wind have the highest electricity costs to consumers, led by Demark and Germany.

Continue reading

The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science

By Matt Ridley – Re-Blogged From
(Note: due to the length of this essay, I am only including paragraph excerpts here. See the link at the end for the full essay. – Anthony)

Thanks largely to climate science, bad ideas can persist for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they become intolerant dogmas. For much of my life I have been a science writer. That means I eavesdrop on what’s going on in laboratories so I can tell interesting stories. It’s analogous to the way art critics write about art, but with a difference: we “science critics” rarely criticise. If we think a scientific paper is dumb, we just ignore it. There’s too much good stuff coming out of science to waste time knocking the bad stuff.

Sure, we occasionally take a swipe at pseudoscience—homeopathy, astrology, claims that genetically modified food causes cancer, and so on. But the great thing about science is that it’s self-correcting. The good drives out the bad, because experiments get replicated and hypotheses put to the test. So a really bad idea cannot survive long in science. Or so I used to think. Now, thanks largely to climate science, I have changed my mind. It turns out bad ideas can persist in science for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they can turn into intolerant dogmas.

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #174

The Week That Was: March 28, 2015 – Brought to You by

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Number of the Week: 6.2%


Intellectual Freedom and Censorship: On her web site, Donna Laframboise, discusses an open letter to museums signed by 54 individuals who described themselves as “members of the scientific community. “ The letter objects to museums receiving funds from “those who profit from fossil fuels or fund lobby groups that misrepresent climate science.” The letter specifically discusses David Koch, who “is a major donor, exhibit sponsor and trustee on the Board of Directors at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, and the American Museum of Natural History.” The letter asserts that “Mr. Koch also funds a large network of climate-change-denying organizations, spending over $67 million since 1997 to fund groups denying climate change science.”

Continue reading