oldephartte (oldephartte) wrote,
oldephartte
oldephartte

EPA to review CO2 Endangerment ?

The EPA can review the CO2 endangerment finding on Procedural Grounds

David Wojak, PhD

David Wojick is a journalist and policy analyst. He holds a doctorate in epistemology, specializing in the field of Mathematical Logic and Conceptual Analysis.

"One of my favorite legal maxims is “never argue substance when you can argue procedure.” The reason is that procedure is much easier for the Courts to rule on.

It looks like EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has a good procedural argument for reopening the Obama era false finding that CO2 emissions endanger human health and welfare. This in turn could lead to the correct finding — that it does not. Absent the finding of harm there is no longer a statutory mandate for EPA to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act.

What has emerged is something of a smoking gun. To push the metaphor, the gun was fired way back when the adverse Endangerment Finding was made, but it is still smoking.

The particulars are explained in a recent National Review article by the Cato Institute’s Dr. Ross McKitrick, a long time critic of EPA’s climate alarmism.

....... It now turns out that the IG issued a lengthy report saying that EPA had indeed violated the federal procedural rules for doing this sort of thing under the Data Quality Act. The key concept here is what is called a “highly influential scientific assessment” or HISA. It sounds big and it is.

A HISA is defined as an assessment that is likely to be used to support regulations that have a significant cost."

Comments






David Wojick Immortal600 a day ago




Indeed, but it was kind of a feel good time. Congress also created the US Global Change Research Program in 1990 and then the Senate ratified the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. Horrendous errors in retrospect.







    • opit David Wojick an hour ago




      "Errors" ?

      The very first Search I ran on the topic of 'global warming' ( that was Nov 30, 2009. The University of Guelph long ago issued a paper showing how such calculation was impossible - though I question if land temperature averages from scattered readings could accurately depict global trends on an ocean covered planet with regular convection effects - including water cycle storms-....or be meaningful anyway ) brought up a cached article ( LaRouche ) which was immediately jumped on as untrustworthy by online 'commenters'.

      But the implications were too dire not to investigate. That was, of course, the piece on a 1974 conference in which Margaret Meade pushed for a presentation that CO2 change would push warming trend, rather than the then current cooling promotion.

      If you look at the predictions for another cycle of mini ice age due to reduction in sun spots and dimming of the Sun, such a promotion could affect energy supply and increase costs, literally freezing out 'underdeveloped' countries which are systematically defrauded by foreign exchange hokum and dysfunctional edicts from the World Bank.

      People tend to forget the target of 9-11 was the same as when a tower was targeted for an explosion in a van in a parkade there - the Trade Center. The U.S. military is the biggest user of fossil fuels on the planet. Ensuring supply would be Job One.

      The IPCC is a UN bureaucracy pushing for a tax it would administer. Such control could involve trillions annually. No impartial assessment is possible in such circumstances - especially from a place dedicated to swaying government policies worldwide and formed with manmade climate perversion as an institutional assumption which it had no responsibility to investigate.




    New comment "Climate science is extraordinarily complex" on an entry in oldephartte.
    DeleteFreezeScreen
    Climate science is extraordinarily complex. It certainly cannot be explained by the simplistic, singular CO2 forcing. While the alarmist movement gives lip service to the complexity, they always come back to that singular cause and want to make drastic changes because of it. While the science is complex, Arctic amplification is easy to explain in an abstract.
    1. We have seen a 10% weakening of the magnetosphere in the last 150 years. That allows for increased bombardment of high energy particles in the polar regions. Recent research, published in 2013, involving the parameterization of high energy particles, does say that high energy particles do cause regional climate change. Regional climate change in the polar regions does have global effects.
    2. We have also seen quite a rapid movement of the magnetic poles away from the earths rotational axis, allowing greater bombardment of more high energy particles, again amplifying climate change in the polar areas.
    3. Then in 1999 a large explosive volcano erupted under the Arctic Ocean, caused by the release of enormous quantities of CO2. It now erupts along a large, new vent line under the Arctic Ocean, heating the water to 750 degrees Fahrenheit, again amplifying climate change in the North Polar regions. It is consistent with more newly published research showing the heat transfer from the core of the earth to be 9X higher than previously thought.
    The earth’s own nuclear engine, outside solar radiation is THE significant determinant of our climate and it has been totally discounted by the AGW world.
    CO2 has neither the quantum mechanical profile, the concentration, or the ability to be a climate determinant in the open and expanding atmosphere as it becomes warmer and shrinks as it becomes colder, and we have a long history of data from the geophysical changes of this earth to prove it. In fact, it has been shown that CO2 changes lagged behind climate change.
    Some “climate scientists” are now predicting catastrophic and irreversible climate change with CO2 levels at 400ppm. Pure lunacy. When the climate was at 4000-5000 ppm during the Cretaceous period, it reversed quite nicely without the help of man. Furthermore, life thrived during that time. CO2 climate forcing is junk science at its best.
    Tags: energy wars, global warming, un ipcc
    Subscribe
    • Post a new comment

      Error

      default userpic

      Your reply will be screened

      Your IP address will be recorded 

      When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
      You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
    • 0 comments