Patrick Michaels: Correcting The EPA’s Record On Global Warming And Climate Change

Last week, I noted that public comments on what should be called the “necessarily bankrupt” regulation from EPA will close on June 25.  

There, the EPA proposes standards on new power plants that are so stringent that, indeed, anyone who tries to build a new one might as well burn dollars in it instead of coal.

I noted there that the EPA’s regulation, when it comes to climate and climate change in the U.S. was based on the 2009 document Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), and that the Center for the Study of Public Science and Public Policy at the Cato Institute was preparing an Addendum to that document that would tell, as they say, “the rest of the story”.

Indeed, it does.  Here’s the link to the original USGCRP report, and here’s one to the Cato report.

Downloading both and looking side-by-side can be very amusing.  Note that the Cato report is in draft form and there is a big fat disclaimer on it that says you can expect to find spelling, typographical, and grammatical errors in this version, but future revisions are likely to be more minor than major.

So, the bomb has now been dropped into EPA’s court.  The accompanying comments to them note that, with regard to the “necessarily bankrupt” proposal, EPA contends:

There is no reason to revisit the 2009 Endangerment Finding given recent scientific findings that strengthen the scientific conclusion that GHG (greenhouse-gas) air pollution endangers human health and welfare.

Our comments note that the original USGCRP report is “clearly slanted towards negative impacts from climate change when there is a large body of scientific evidence…that argues for the contrary”.

The comments assert that many papers published since the 2009 document show that the likelihood of  extreme climate change is much lower than assumed in that report.  This alone challenges EPA’s assertion that things are just hunky-dory in Apocalypse Land, and requires them to reassess their Endangerment Finding.

Forbes