The EPA’s crooked prosecutors

It is time to rescind the finding Obama and Jackson used to sentence the coal industry to die

Suppose a crooked prosecutor framed someone and was determined to get a conviction. So he built an entire case on tainted, circumstantial evidence, and testimony from witnesses who had their reasons for wanting the guy in jail.

Suppose the prosecutor ignored or hid exculpatory evidence and colluded with the judge to prevent the defendant from presenting a robust defense or cross-examining adverse witnesses.

You know what would happen – at least in a fair and just society. The victim would be exonerated and compensated. The prosecutor and judge would be disbarred, fined, and jailed.

What you may not know is that the Obama EPA engaged in similar prosecutorial misconduct to convict fossil fuels of causing climate change and endangering the health and well-being of Americans.

The EPA then used its carbon dioxide “Endangerment Finding” to justify anti-fossil-fuel regulations, close down coal-fired power plants, block pipeline construction, and exempt wind and solar installations from endangered species rules. It put the agency in control of America’s energy, economy, jobs creation, and living standards. It drove up energy prices, cost numerous jobs, and sent families into energy poverty.

The EPA’s egregious misconduct inflicted significant harm on our nation. Having now terminated the Obama Clean Power Plan, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt must reverse carbon dioxide’s conviction and scuttle the Endangerment Finding that is its foundation. Any harm from fossil fuels or carbon dioxide is minuscule, compared to the extensive damages inflicted by the decision and subsequent regulations.

President Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson took office determined to blame carbon dioxide for “dangerous” and “unprecedented” man-made global warming and climate change. They then used that preordained decision to justify closing coal-fired power plants and dramatically restricting fossil fuel use. Mr. Obama had promised to “bankrupt” coal companies. Ms. Jackson wasted no time in decreeing that CO2 from oil, natural gas, and coal burning “endanger” human health and welfare. It was kangaroo justice.

The EPA did no research of its own. It simply cherry-picked UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and wrote a Technical Support Document (TSD) to make its case. The TSD ignored studies that contradicted its predetermined Endangerment Finding – and relied on circumstantial evidence of climate and extreme weather disasters generated by computer models.

The models were programmed on the assumption that rising atmospheric CO2 levels are the primary or sole factor determining climate and weather. They assumed more carbon dioxide meant more planetary warming and worsening climate chaos. The roles of the sun, cosmic rays, changing ocean currents, and numerous other powerful, interconnected natural forces throughout Earth’s history were simply ignored.

Tornado deaths are far less frequent than in the 1950s. Floods and droughts differ little from historic trends and cycles. Antarctic land ice is at record highs, and Arctic sea ice is again within its “normal” levels for the past 50 years. Seas are rising at just 7 inches per century, the same as 100 years ago.

The models also assumed more warming meant more clouds that trapped more heat. They ignored the fact that more low-lying clouds reflect more solar heat back into the atmosphere. Humans might be “contributing” to temperature, climate, and weather events, at least locally. But there is no real-world evidence that “greenhouse gases” now dominate over natural forces or are causing climate chaos or extreme weather – nor that humans can control Earth’s fickle climate by controlling emissions.

In fact, with every passing year, climate model temperature forecasts have been increasingly higher than those actually observed over most of the lower atmosphere.

The EPA approach amounted to saying, if reality conflicts with the models, reality must be wrong – or to deciding that real-world evidence should be homogenized, adjusted, and manipulated to fit model results.

Indeed, that’s exactly what the EPA, the IPCC, and other alarmist researchers have done. Older historic records were adjusted downward, modern records got bumped upward a bit, and government-paid scientists ignored satellite data and relied increasingly on measurements recorded near and contaminated by airport jet exhaust, blacktop parking lots, and other urban heat from cars, heating, and A/C vents.

The IPCC also claimed its referenced studies were all peer-reviewed by experts. In reality, at least 30% were not; many were prepared by graduate students or activist groups; and some of its most attention-getting claims (of rapidly melting Himalayan glaciers, for example) were nothing more than brief email messages noting that these were “possible” outcomes.

Moreover, most IPCC peer reviewers were scientists who fervently promote catastrophic man-made climate change perspectives, receive government and other grants for writing reports confirming this thesis, and take turns reviewing one another’s papers.

In the face of these inconvenient realities, a steady barrage of Obama EPA press releases and statements from alarmist regulators and “experts” insisted that fossil fuels were causing planetary cataclysms. Anyone who tried to present alternative, realistic data or views was ridiculed, vilified, and silenced.

Even one of the EPA’s most senior experts was summarily removed from the review team.  “Your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision,” Alan Carlin’s supervisor told him.

Two additional facts dramatically underscore the kangaroo court nature of EPA’s 2009 proceedings.

First, oil, natural gas, and coal still provide over 80% of America’s and the world’s energy. The International Energy Agency says they will be at least this important 25 years from now. Indeed, fossil fuels are the foundation for modern industries, transportation, communication, jobs, health, and living standards. Emerging economic powerhouses like China and India, developing countries the world over, and even industrialized nations like Germany and Poland are using more of these fuels every year.

The Obama EPA studiously ignored these facts – and the tremendous benefits that fossil fuels bring to every aspect of our lives. Those benefits outweigh any asserted dangers by orders of magnitude.

Second, CO2 is not a pollutant, as defined by the Clean Air Act – and was never listed in any legislation as a pollutant. It was turned into an alleged pollutant by dishonest, ideological EPA prosecutors, who needed to justify their anti-fossil fuel regulatory agenda.

In reality, CO2 is a miracle molecule – without which most life on Earth would cease to exist. It enables plants of all kinds to convert soil nutrients and water into the fibers, fruits, and seeds that are essential to humans and animals. The more CO2 in the air, the faster and better plants grow, and the more they can withstand droughts, disease, and damage from insects and viruses. In the process, crops, forests, and grassland plants, and ocean and freshwater phytoplankton, exhale the oxygen we breathe.

In rendering its endangerment decision, the EPA ignored these incalculable CO2 benefits. It dismissed experts and studies that would have provided vital information about the tremendous value to our planet and people from fossil fuels and carbon dioxide.

Finally, having a slightly warmer planet with more atmospheric CO2 would be hugely beneficial for plants, wildlife, and humanity. By contrast, having a colder planet, with less CO2, would be seriously harmful for arable land extent, growing seasons, crops, people, and wildlife habitats.

The EPA Endangerment Finding is the foundation for the Obama era Clean Power Plan and other rules. Reversing it is essential to moving forward with science-based energy and climate policies.

Categories

About the Author: Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for CFACT and author of Cracking Big Green and Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death.

  • MichaelR

    So as usual a number of factual errors to correct here.

    The easiest one to spot is the RSS data used in the graph of temperature. Of course the authors had used the uncorrected version of the data which RSS themselves admitted was flawed due to their sloppy methodology and re-released after correction.
    https://www-carbonbrief-org.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/RSS-tlt-v3-v4-diffs-768×658.png

    And here is how that correlates alongside NASAs data
    https://www-carbonbrief-org.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/NASA-Satellites-2016-1-768×658.png

    For an explanation go here
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

    Embarrassingly for the author, the corrected RSS data as well as NOAA, NASA and the Met office do record a 1 degree rise in temperatures whoch is exactly in the middle of the yellow predicted band in the graphic shown above.

    So cfact not off to a good start in terms of credibility when they are still citing old, know-bad, data to come to erroneous conclusions.

    “The more CO2 in the air, the faster and better plants grow, and the more they can withstand droughts, disease, and damage from insects and viruses. ”
    If that was the case, how come the natural world was doing just fine on 280ppm and of more was needed, then why have farmers used nitrogen fertilisers on the crops rather than pumping CO2 all over them? Because nitrogen is the rate limiting resource for crops, not CO2. All the plants we grow evolved to use 280ppm.

    “The models were programmed on the assumption that rising atmospheric CO2 levels are the primary or sole factor determining climate and weather. “

    Don’t be ridiculous. They factor in many factors such as aerosols, water vapour, volcanic activity and solar activity as well as things such as land surface usage changes and ice melt.

    “They assumed more carbon dioxide meant more planetary warming and worsening climate chaos”

    Of course they did. That’s because the theory and fact that CO2 warms the atmosphere has been understood in theory for over a century and has been proved in fact by observations of the current atmosphere and the geological record beyond doubt. If you can cite a recent peer reviewed paper published in a reputable journal that proves the opposite then, if they are right, they will be getting a nobel prize.

    “Moreover, most IPCC peer reviewers were scientists who fervently promote catastrophic man-made climate change perspectives, receive government and other grants for writing reports confirming this thesis, and take turns reviewing one another’s papers.”

    Of course climate scientists peer review other climate scientists papers! The clue is in the name “peer” review. Tell me, maybe your dentist would be better equipped to understand and check a paper on climate science, or your accountant perhaps? Or maybe your gas station attendent. Peer review is the way that the scientific community stops bullshit getting into the published literature. If you don’t like it in climate science, why is it ok in medicine, geology, physics, chemistry and literally EVERY FIELD OF SCIENCE. And why has it been proven to work for literally centuries?

    If lots of scientists agree about something that is because it is backed by very reliable evidence. Just like smoking causing cancer was, or lead in petrol causing numerous harmful effects to humans was. The only people who fought the scientific consensus were those with something to lose financially from its consequences.
    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me three times…

  • MichaelR

    So as usual a number of factual errors to correct here. And the cfact site admin does not like to see corrections it appears as this is the second time I have had to post this.

    The easiest one to spot is the RSS data used in the graph of temperature. Of course the authors had used the uncorrected version of the data which RSS themselves admitted was flawed due to their sloppy methodology and re-released after correction.
    https://www-carbonbrief-org.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/RSS-tlt-v3-v4-diffs-768×658.png

    And here is how that correlates alongside NASAs data
    https://www-carbonbrief-org.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/NASA-Satellites-2016-1-768×658.png

    For an explanation go here
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

    Embarrassingly for the author, the corrected RSS data as well as NOAA, NASA and the Met office do record a 1 degree rise in temperatures which is exactly in the middle of the yellow predicted band in the graphic shown above.

    So the author not off to a good start in terms of credibility when they are still citing old, know-bad, data to come to erroneous conclusions.

    “The more CO2 in the air, the faster and better plants grow, and the more they can withstand droughts, disease, and damage from insects and viruses. ”
    If that was the case, how come the natural world was doing just fine on 280ppm and of more was needed, then why have farmers used nitrogen fertilisers on the crops rather than pumping CO2 all over them? Because nitrogen is the rate limiting resource for crops, not CO2. All the plants we grow evolved to use 280ppm.

    “The models were programmed on the assumption that rising atmospheric CO2 levels are the primary or sole factor determining climate and weather. “

    Don’t be ridiculous. They factor in many factors such as aerosols, water vapour, volcanic activity and solar activity as well as things such as land surface usage changes and ice melt. The list is a long one.

    “They assumed more carbon dioxide meant more planetary warming and worsening climate chaos”

    Of course they did. That’s because the theory and fact that CO2 warms the atmosphere has been understood in theory for over a century and has been proved in fact by observations of the current atmosphere and the geological record beyond doubt. If you can cite a recent peer reviewed paper published in a reputable journal that proves the opposite then, if they are right, they will be getting a nobel prize.

    “Moreover, most IPCC peer reviewers were scientists who fervently promote catastrophic man-made climate change perspectives, receive government and other grants for writing reports confirming this thesis, and take turns reviewing one another’s papers.”

    Of course climate scientists peer review other climate scientists papers! The clue is in the name “peer” review. Tell me, maybe your dentist would be better equipped to understand and check a paper on climate science, or your accountant perhaps? Or maybe your gas station attendent. Peer review is the way that the scientific community stops bullshit getting into the published literature. If you don’t like it in climate science, why is it ok in medicine, geology, physics, chemistry and literally EVERY FIELD OF SCIENCE. And why has it been proven to work for literally centuries?

    If lots of scientists agree about something that is because it is backed by very reliable evidence. Just like smoking causing cancer was, or lead in petrol causing numerous harmful effects to humans was. The only people who fought the scientific consensus were those with something to lose financially from its consequences.
    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me three times…

    If you would genuinely learn about this field, then I suggest finding a more reliable source than this author. His tricks and deception are well known.
    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2017/01/paul-driessen-and-cfact-promote-climate.html?m=1

  • Immortal600

    Another great article that the AGW zealots won’t be able to comprehend.

    • lil coy

      It’s their religion! You can’t talk them off the edge of the cliff. Although, if they jump, I could care less. The freaks better not take the rest of us with them. Remember #CLIMATEGATE. Haha!

      • MichaelR

        If I am the religious one then why are you not bothered that the author has used known bad temperature data in this article to prove his erroneous conclusion?
        Is he just sloppy or is he trying to deceive you?
        Either way, I wonder why you would still consider him a reliable source when he can’t even quote the basic data correctly. Unless you are the one with a “religious” faith in him rather than an evidence-based position.

  • MichaelR

    So as usual a number of factual errors to correct here. And the cfact site admin does not like to see corrections it appears as this is the third time I have had to post this.

    The easiest one to spot is the RSS data used in the graph of temperature. Of course the authors had used the uncorrected version of the data which RSS themselves admitted was flawed due to their sloppy methodology and re-released after correction.
    https://www-carbonbrief-org.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/RSS-tlt-v3-v4-diffs-768×658.png

    And here is how that correlates alongside NASAs data
    https://www-carbonbrief-org.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/NASA-Satellites-2016-1-768×658.png

    For an explanation go here
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

    Embarrassingly for the author, the corrected RSS data as well as NOAA, NASA and the Met office do record a 1 degree rise in temperatures which is exactly in the middle of the yellow predicted band in the graphic shown above.

    So the author not off to a good start in terms of credibility when they are still citing old, know-bad, data to come to erroneous conclusions.

    “The more CO2 in the air, the faster and better plants grow, and the more they can withstand droughts, disease, and damage from insects and viruses. ”
    If that was the case, how come the natural world was doing just fine on 280ppm and of more was needed, then why have farmers used nitrogen fertilisers on the crops rather than pumping CO2 all over them? Because nitrogen is the rate limiting resource for crops, not CO2. All the plants we grow evolved to use 280ppm.

    “The models were programmed on the assumption that rising atmospheric CO2 levels are the primary or sole factor determining climate and weather. “

    Don’t be ridiculous. They factor in many factors such as aerosols, water vapour, volcanic activity and solar activity as well as things such as land surface usage changes and ice melt. The list is a long one.

    “They assumed more carbon dioxide meant more planetary warming and worsening climate chaos”

    Of course they did. That’s because the theory and fact that CO2 warms the atmosphere has been understood in theory for over a century and has been proved in fact by observations of the current atmosphere and the geological record beyond doubt. If you can cite a recent peer reviewed paper published in a reputable journal that proves the opposite then, if they are right, they will be getting a nobel prize.

    “Moreover, most IPCC peer reviewers were scientists who fervently promote catastrophic man-made climate change perspectives, receive government and other grants for writing reports confirming this thesis, and take turns reviewing one another’s papers.”

    Of course climate scientists peer review other climate scientists papers! The clue is in the name “peer” review. Tell me, maybe your dentist would be better equipped to understand and check a paper on climate science, or your accountant perhaps? Or maybe your gas station attendent. Peer review is the way that the scientific community stops bullshit getting into the published literature. If you don’t like it in climate science, why is it ok in medicine, geology, physics, chemistry and literally EVERY FIELD OF SCIENCE. And why has it been proven to work for literally centuries?

    If lots of scientists agree about something that is because it is backed by very reliable evidence. Just like smoking causing cancer was, or lead in petrol causing numerous harmful effects to humans was. The only people who fought the scientific consensus were those with something to lose financially from its consequences.
    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me three times…

    If you would genuinely learn about this field, then I suggest finding a more reliable source than this author. His tricks and deception are well known.
    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2017/01/paul-driessen-and-cfact-promote-climate.html?m=1

  • MichaelR

    There are several factual errors in this article. Looking at the RSS data used in the graph of temperature, the author has used the uncorrected version of the data which RSS themselves admitted was flawed due to their sloppy methodology and re-released after correction.
    https://www-carbonbrief-org.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/RSS-tlt-v3-v4-diffs-768×658.png

    And here is how that correlates alongside NASAs data
    https://www-carbonbrief-org.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/NASA-Satellites-2016-1-768×658.png

    For an explanation go here
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

    Embarrassingly for the author, the corrected RSS data as well as NOAA, NASA and the Met office do record a 1 degree rise in temperatures which is exactly in the middle of the yellow predicted band in the graphic shown above.

    So the author not off to a good start in terms of credibility when they are still citing old, know-bad, data to come to erroneous conclusions.

    “The more CO2 in the air, the faster and better plants grow, and the more they can withstand droughts, disease, and damage from insects and viruses. ”
    If that was the case, how come the natural world was doing just fine on 280ppm and of more was needed, then why have farmers used nitrogen fertilisers on the crops rather than pumping CO2 all over them? Because nitrogen is the rate limiting resource for crops, not CO2. All the plants we grow evolved to use 280ppm.

    “The models were programmed on the assumption that rising atmospheric CO2 levels are the primary or sole factor determining climate and weather. “

    Don’t be ridiculous. They factor in many factors such as aerosols, water vapour, volcanic activity and solar activity as well as things such as land surface usage changes and ice melt. The list is a long one.

    “They assumed more carbon dioxide meant more planetary warming and worsening climate chaos”

    Of course they did. That’s because the theory and fact that CO2 warms the atmosphere has been understood in theory for over a century and has been proved in fact by observations of the current atmosphere and the geological record beyond doubt. If you can cite a recent peer reviewed paper published in a reputable journal that proves the opposite then, if they are right, they will be getting a nobel prize.

    “Moreover, most IPCC peer reviewers were scientists who fervently promote catastrophic man-made climate change perspectives, receive government and other grants for writing reports confirming this thesis, and take turns reviewing one another’s papers.”

    Of course climate scientists peer review other climate scientists papers! The clue is in the name “peer” review. Tell me, maybe your dentist would be better equipped to understand and check a paper on climate science, or your accountant perhaps? Or maybe your gas station attendent. Peer review is the way that the scientific community stops bullshit getting into the published literature. If you don’t like it in climate science, why is it ok in medicine, geology, physics, chemistry and literally EVERY FIELD OF SCIENCE. And why has it been proven to work for literally centuries?

    If lots of scientists agree about something that is because it is backed by very reliable evidence. Just like smoking causing cancer was, or lead in petrol causing numerous harmful effects to humans was. The only people who fought the scientific consensus were those with something to lose financially from its consequences.
    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me three times…

  • MichaelR

    Looking at the RSS data used in the graph of temperature, the author has used the uncorrected version of the data which RSS themselves admitted was flawed due to their sloppy methodology and re-released after correction.
    https://www-carbonbrief-org.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/RSS-tlt-v3-v4-diffs-768×658.png

    And here is how that correlates alongside NASAs data
    https://www-carbonbrief-org.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/NASA-Satellites-2016-1-768×658.png

    Embarrassingly for the author, the corrected RSS data as well as NOAA, NASA and the Met office do record a 1 degree rise in temperatures which is exactly in the middle of the yellow predicted band in the graphic shown above.

  • MichaelR

    “The models were programmed on the assumption that rising atmospheric CO2 levels are the primary or sole factor determining climate and weather. “

    That is a lie. The models factor in many factors such as aerosols, water vapour, volcanic activity and solar activity as well as things such as land surface usage changes and ice melt. The list is a long one.

  • MichaelR

    “They assumed more carbon dioxide meant more planetary warming and worsening climate chaos”

    Of course they did. That’s because the theory and fact that CO2 warms the atmosphere has been understood in theory for over a century and has been proved in fact by observations of the current atmosphere and the geological record beyond doubt. If you can cite a recent peer reviewed paper published in a reputable journal that proves the opposite then, if they are right, they will be getting a nobel prize.

  • MichaelR

    “Moreover, most IPCC peer reviewers were scientists who fervently promote catastrophic man-made climate change perspectives, receive government and other grants for writing reports confirming this thesis, and take turns reviewing one another’s papers.”

    Of course climate scientists peer review other climate scientists papers! The clue is in the name “peer” review. Tell me, maybe your dentist would be better equipped to understand and check a paper on climate science, or your accountant perhaps? Or maybe your gas station attendent. Peer review is the way that the scientific community stops bullshit getting into the published literature. If you don’t like it in climate science, why is it ok in medicine, geology, physics, chemistry and literally EVERY FIELD OF SCIENCE. And why has it been proven to work for literally centuries?

    If lots of scientists agree about something that is because it is backed by very reliable evidence. Just like smoking causing cancer was, or lead in petrol causing numerous harmful effects to humans was. The only people who fought the scientific consensus were those with something to lose financially from its consequences.

  • Immortal600

    We have another know-nothing that is suddenly trolling here. He is another zealot who doesn’t understand thermodynamics.

    • MichaelR

      I spent a year studying thermodynamics at university.
      Which of my statements is wrong and what published paper from a reputable journal in the field can you provide to refute what I have said?

      I am not trolling. I am pointing out glaring errors in the article. I only bother posting when it takes me less than 5 minutes to prove the error. It’s not my fault they are so easy to falsify.

      For example, does it not concern you that the author uses a known-bad set of data from RSS? Is he just sloppy or is he intentionally misleading?

      • Immortal600

        CO2 absorbs energy that is not the same as heat. It is not possible for the cooler atmosphere to warm the surface. 1st law of thermodynamics. It is as simple as that.

        • MichaelR

          When a CO2 molecule absorbs, and does not re-emit a photon of light (infrared in this case), it gains kinetic energy. A body of gas with higher average kinetic energy is warmer than one with lower kinetic energy. That is the definition of heat, and is measured as temperature.

          Heat transfers between bodies from a hotter to a cooler body at a rate proportional to the difference in temperatures between those two bodies.

          The majority of heat transfer out of the atmosphere is into the ocean rather than to the land as higher temperature differentials are created between the two when currents bring cold water up to the surface from the deep ocean. These effects are therefore affected by El Niño and La Niña events when there are large changes in those currents. This is observed in the atmosphere temperature record.

          Most energy absorbed by the land is absorbed directly from sunlight.

          • Immortal600
            • MichaelR

              It’s not primarily driven by thermodynamics. It’s driven by re-emission of infrared back towards them Earth.
              And as for transfer between the ocean and the atmosphere I have explained how that accords with the 1st law of thermodynamics.

              • Immortal600

                You are attempting to say the same thing. IR re-emission does NOT raise temperature! You may have spent a year studying thermodynamics but I don’t think you understand it very well. IR energy doesn’t equal heat.

                • MichaelR

                  Here’s is what I said about how IR influences temperature. Are you asserting that this is wrong?
                  “When a CO2 molecule absorbs, and does not re-emit a photon of light (infrared in this case), it gains kinetic energy. A body of gas with higher average kinetic energy is warmer than one with lower kinetic energy. That is the definition of heat, and is measured as temperature.”

                  • Immortal600

                    Your definition of heat means nothing. You conveniently don’t address how your re-emission statement violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. So CO2 absorbs IR ENERGY in the atmosphere which is COOLER than the surface and you say it gets re-emitted back to the surface warming the surface further. Sorry, that is wrong! It can’t do that.

                    • MichaelR

                      Ok first, this is the first law of thermodynamics.
                      “The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed.”
                      How is that violated here?

                      So I presume you are actually concerned about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but in the sense that you are using it, it’s not relevant in the way you think it is, as the transfer of heat is not via contact, it’s via radiation. In any case, I am not trying to demonstrate that the troposphere is warming the Earth’s land surface here, I am demonstrating that the CO2 in the atmosphere is itself being warmed by absorbing IR. FYI emission and absorption of heat by radiation is then governed by Kirchdoff’s law.

                      In any case, as you don’t know the 1st law of thermo from the 2nd, and you don’t understand that radiation obeys different rules of transmission of heat vs transmission by conduction, then I would suggest that you are not actually qualified to gainsay atmospheric physicists and climate scientists on the way that the sun’s light is absorbed and re-emitted within the Earth’s atmosphere.

                      But don’t worry, if your theory is correct then surely there will be a load of papers published in reputable journals written by scientists in the field demonstrating it, and concluding that all the current models of climate are wrong.

                      So save yourself some time typing. Just point me at those please.

                    • Immortal600

                      Yes the second law states that it is not possible for a colder object to warm further a warmer object. You slight of hand with changing energy, radiation, and heat doesn’t work. You seem to conveniently want to change how heat is transferred by conduction when it is the RADIATION that is transferred. It isn’t heat until it does some work. That is not possible going cooler to warmer. There are plenty of atmospheric physicists that understand that. I gave you a link above. Go argue with him. He knows it far better than I but you must be content to troll here.

                      Another ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICIST states in a paper that humans are not responsible for the rise of CO2 to begin with. Here is his website: http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/human-co2-not-change-climate/
                      Try arguing with HIM about why he is wrong. Can YOU do that? If not that makes you a blowhard who likes to troll these sites.

                    • MichaelR

                      I did not ask for a blog. Anyone can start a blog and fill it with bullshit and the examples are too numerous to list. Not least this precise article using outdated known-bad data, which you don’t seem to give a crap about for some reason.

                      “if your theory is correct then surely there will be a load of papers published in reputable journals written by scientists in the field demonstrating it, and concluding that all the current models of climate are wrong.”

                      Are there any citations you can give me that fit this criteria? If not, then it’s not worth any consideration as robust science. If you don’t get that then you don’t understand how science proceeds and has done for hundreds of years. Pet hypotheses are nothing until they are backed by evidence and scrutinised and replicated to ensure that they are robust. If your theory has not met that standard, which thousands of papers supporting AGW have, then your position is based on unproven pseudoscience.

                      If papers get published in reputable journals and work done to replicate the results to prove your hypothesis is a legitimate theory, then do let me me know. I’m sure we can all give a big sigh of relief.
                      Until then, stop living in your fantasy land of conspiracy theory pseudoscience bullshit, accept the current state of the scientific understanding of this matter and act accordingly.

                    • Immortal600

                      Nobody is talking about a “conspiracy theory”. I am saying AGW is not substantiated by physics and YOU can’t show otherwise. You AGW zealots do a smoke and mirrors act with radiation, energy, and heat. IR is not doing what you claim it does.

                      Yes, don’t go to the Atmospheric Physicist’s blog because he’d expose you as the know-nothing fraud you must be, your one year of thermodynamics notwithstanding.

                    • MichaelR

                      I don’t have to show anything. Neither you nor I are qualified to judge the validity of Berry’s analysis. You don’t trust mine (which is fine) and given that you confused the 1st and 2nd laws of thermo, I don’t trust yours.

                      However your man Edwin Berry has submitted his paper for publication to “an Elsevier journal” so it will be under a process of peer review where it will be properly scrutinised by qualified scientists.

                      Given there is no conspiracy, as you sensibly acknowledge, then if his paper gets published in a reputable journal (which I understand Elsevier ones tend to be) then he may be on to something. If his work then stands up to scrutiny and can be replicated by other scientists and it cannot be refuted, then it will become a legitimate part of the canon of accepted science.

                      So it’s easy. You and I don’t have to argue about his theory, we just have to wait to see what is the fate of his paper and his hypothesis. Until then, you should not use his hypothesis to trump what already IS in the accepted canon of science in this field.

                      I am not a zealot about AGW however I might be one about preserving the integrity of the scientific method which has served mankind very well as the most robust and “bullshit-proof” system for driving toward our knowledge while keeping junk out of our canon of scientific knowledge. If we lose it in climate science then we could lose it other fields when vested interests are at stake (which ultimately is most applied sciences) and that would lead to a large impediment in the progress of society’s understanding of real science. It is no coincidence that there is such a major assault on the integrity of the scientific method in the field of climate science which has so many very well funded and influential vested interests ranged against it.

                      We should not open that Pandora’s Box just to preserve some cherished industry or technology for a few more years. It would be a grave disservice to society.

                    • Immortal600

                      If you revere the scientific method as you claim then you should be appalled at the attempts to silence debate on AGW. Thus far, AGW advocates have not shown their case to be true.

                      Dr. Berry’s paper has been shared with others. Yes, it isn’t published yet but no one has been able to refute it.

                      I was quoting a page about the 1st law from Joseph Postma and gave a link to his blog. Yes, I misspoke calling what the OTHER aspect was (heat going cold to hot) the 1st law when obviously I should have said 2nd.

                    • MichaelR

                      Ok look. Your first paragraph does effectively assert a conspiracy to silence publication of robust scientific research that might substantially undermine the theory of AGW. You stated earlier that you did not believe that there was a conspiracy. I think that was a better assumption.

                      Re Ed Berry, if he is sitting on such a super hot paper, it WILL get published. It’s in the interest of academic journals to publish the most important and groundbreaking science – that is what justifies the huge price tag that journals charge their subscribers. Breaking such a hugely significant paper is what these journals are all about.

                      If it does not get published then that will be because it does not stand up to scrutiny from specialist academics in the field.

                      Re the lack of refutation, come on. There is no duty or requirement for professional scientists to go around debunking every hypothesis and paper that gets put up on a blog or disreputable journal. It would be a fools errand and an unending one given the number of blogs that live in this bizarre ecosystem of pseudoscience. It just does not work that way.

                      Ed Berry has done exactly the right thing. He has submitted his paper for publication to a reputable journal. Like I say, if it’s for real, it will get published. If it does, you can sure it will attract a huge amount of attention and we will see if it stands up to wider scrutiny as other groups try to replicate the findings and conclusions.

                      Like I say, if AGW is not a thing, I will be taking a sigh of relief. It would be easier for me if it was not for real just like you. So we can all root for him to be right, but if he doesn’t get through peer review, then, sorry but it did not make the cut and it does not count as evidence in the ongoing development of the science.

                    • Immortal600

                      People being silenced for expressing anti-AGW viewpoints is not a conspiracy theory. It is fact. Certain newspapers will not publish letters challenging the dogma. Why is that? Dr. Roger Pielke was threatened by a member of Congress for expressing a contrary view! You, being a foreigner, are probably not aware of such facts.

                      Dr. Berry’s paper will be published and we will see the hand-wringing begin by AGW zealots. Will you be one?

                      As far as pseudo-science goes, it is the advocates of AGW practicing that one. Their smoke and mirrors routine with what IR does demonstrates it. AND! You believe it. Sad.

                    • MichaelR

                      Well at least we can agree that whether Berry’s paper gets published by a reputable journal or not is a fair test of it’s validity.
                      If it can’t be falsified by peer review of by attempts to replicate its results and conclusions then it will be accepted as science.

                      Why would that bother me? I don’t have shares in renewables companies or something.

                      I believe the scientific method because it has earned my trust from the medicine I take to the phone I am using right now to the detection of gravitational waves predicted by Einstein a century ago. It deserves respect and trust.

                    • MichaelR

                      Immortal600, if you are interested, I ran across this post on a physics blog that outlines what is going on with CO2 and warming that goes into more detail about the thermodynamics than I am qualified to. It does not talk about laws explicitly but it explains the interplay between varying temperature in the atmosphere, IR absorption and emission and why more CO2 created a higher equilibrium temperature. Offered in the genuine hope that it makes sense and explains a suitably that is maybe missed my non professional physics. I hope you find it useful.

                      https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/10/21/infrared-absorption-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/

            • MichaelR

              Btw, just in the point of thermodynamics, and I don’t know how much it matters in terms of this issue at all btw, i am just taking generally, what about Boyles Law?
              The atmosphere is in a dynamic balance of temperature and pressure.
              If a gas is warmed at high altitude and low pressure descends in the atmosphere, then it temperature rises as the pressure rises. So even if was cold st high altitude, it would get hot at low altitude.
              I don’t know if you have ever experienced a Foehn wind but this is an extreme case where air experiences a pressure decrease as it rises over a mountain, that lowers its capacity to hold water vapour so it rains or snows, dumping lots of moisture mass, but not dumping energy. When it then descends on the other side of the mountain it gets very hot and moved very quickly. So you can get winds of 20 degrees plus when the ambient temperature was otherwise below zero. It’s freaking weird. It also ruins the snow in minutes 🙁
              Anyway like I say, this is not a big factor with CO2 warning etc as that is more to do with CO2 catching IR that was bound for space and re-emitting IR back towards the surface of the Earth.

      • lil coy

        So a year studying thermodynamics and you got it all figured out? I believe Richard Lindzen could sit you down and teach you a little about climate. HEAT PRECEDES CO2! Please look into this bud.

        • MichaelR

          Richard Lindzen has been roundly discredited. He accepts the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 and the action of CO2 to warm the atmosphere but the arbitratily ignores the amount of forcing effect of CO2 that has been robustly demonstrated through use of multiple methods and by scientists in multiple related disciplines. He ignores the scientific method and will not accept any evidence that proves his hypothesis wrong.
          https://www.carbonbrief.org/a-disservice-to-the-scientific-method-climate-scientists-take-on-richard-lindzen

          • lil coy

            Why do the IPCC models fail to correlate with balloon and satellite data? Because the increase in temp doesn’t fall outside the error of natural variability, and the dip in temp represented by balloon/satellite data from 80-85 and 1990-95, why do you believe that cooling won’t happen again, like the Little Ice Age? Alarmists will have egg on your faces. You do realize this, right? CO2 is not a pollutant

  • lil coy

    Can Americans do like India and China have done, and tell our government to freak off? These so called enlightened alarmists won’t dare support nuclear energy, now will they? Bunch of liberal hacks who make there decision and mold the science to support their faith.

  • lil coy

    Excellent article! Gore-philes seem to forget that increased heat means less storms,less climate chaos. CO2 is marvelous!!!!