In response to Tom Harris, a strong advocate for common sense on climate issues, who rejects warmer crazies, here’s Gordon Folks, PhD Physics of Oregon.
I would second Gordon’s points and expand–sure the Coal industry has to object to the bad science on climate–but how about the bad science on air pollution generally?
The warming scare is based on a very unscientific modeling and projections that the models will produce warming that will be catastrophic. Every element of that tenuous thread of argumentation is vulnerable to good scientific inquiry.
The epidemiology and toxicology of the air pollution science house of cards relied on by the EPA is equally vulnerable to scientific inquiries, since no one dies from ambient air pollution of even severe levels. We have allowed the EPA to make an aesthetic standard into a safety standard–clean air is not what the statute was intended to provide–safe air.
Now standards for air quality are aesthetic and not related at all to safety. Air pollution kills no one the way the EPA claims–and they claim a lot–hundreds of thousands of deaths a year in the US. Nonsense. Read Milloy and Dunn rebuttals on air pollution epidemiological junk science sponsored by the EPA:
So here’s Gordon, responding to Tom Harris, who with Tim Ball writes often to warn about warmer nuttiness.
Tom Harris is, of course, correct that the United Mine workers should dismiss the climate scare as completely unfounded and avoid merely complaining that it is hurting their members. That would put them in a far stronger position than does the complaining. Narrow political calculations where they support climate hysteria on the one hand and lament it for all the damage it does on the other are especially foolish.
But the problem of narrow political (and economic) calculations causing great harm goes much farther. We see it a thousand times over in our economy, where everyone making money off the scam is overjoyed with it and most who are not easily see through it. There are others who see the politics as overwhelmingly favorable, because they can finally call all who disagree with them (like Republicans) ‘Flat-Earthers’ or worse.
How much better it would be for all who think that we ought to do the right thing to support the truth. And the truth would not be something that President Obama declares to be the truth but what the scientific logic and robust evidence support. That is not hard to determine, because the Obama Administration has spelled out their ‘Three Lines of Evidence’ scientific arguments at both the EPA and in their latest National Climate Assessment.
If they are correct that their climate models can accurately predict the future and it looks catastrophic, then perhaps the United Mine Workers need to support the science and help us switch to nuclear power. If the climate models are monumental failures, then the United Mine Workers should still support the truth that the government’s science is very faulty and coal presents no danger to our climate.
One easy way to understand the truth about the climate models is to ask if they correctly predicted the 17 year cessation of warming that all the major climate data sets (satellite and surface) have shown. The answer is clear: none of them did. Since this is a fatal flaw (an Achilles Heel) for the government’s case, coal CANNOT be the problem that climate alarmists claim.
The United Mine Workers then have a far stronger case, and we are back on track making objective decisions devoid of politics. All American workers benefit and so do our country and our Canadian friends.
Here is a reference that looks at the government’s ‘Three Lines of Evidence’ in much more detail and points out the fatal flaws:
I was one of the authors of that rebuttal.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA