Physicist Gordon Fulks, 11 others file amicus brief “proving EPA’s ‘three lines of climate evidence’ are fatally flawed”

Gordon Fulks writes in The Oregonian:

Because the president knows that Congress and the American people will never support carbon reduction schemes that seriously harm our economy, he is pursuing a strategy involving rhetorical subterfuges while his Environmental Protection Agency quietly moves forward with regulations.

Consequently, 11 of us filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court recently asking it to overturn the EPA’s “endangerment finding” on carbon dioxide. This is the first time that the high court has been asked to consider purely scientific arguments rather than, for instance, the EPA’s failure to follow the recommendations of its inspector general.

We prove that the EPA’s “three lines of evidence” are fatally flawed, based on multiple robust data sets, not on “expert opinion” from those paid to support the president’s position. Honest data show no unusual warming in the latter half of the 20th century and none at all for the past 15 years, despite a slow increase in carbon dioxide. The “hot spot” that must exist in the tropical troposphere for the theory to work is missing. And the climate models, for which the taxpayer has paid so dearly, are epic failures. Without global warming, carbon dioxide is clearly “not guilty.” And hence the hysteria about extreme weather caused by carbon dioxide is likewise nonsense.

Read more…

6 thoughts on “Physicist Gordon Fulks, 11 others file amicus brief “proving EPA’s ‘three lines of climate evidence’ are fatally flawed””

  1. Another gem from this article: “Now we have yet a different situation where a president is trying to sell a vast program of carbon controls and renewable energy subsidies, based on arguments that may meet political standards for honesty but fail scientific, engineering and legal standards.”

  2. Yeah and it will be Justice Roberts that will maintain the policy, just like he thought he would be a hero maintaining Obamacare.

  3. “They merely launder high-quality energy from fossil fuels into less desirable but politically popular kinds.” New phrase: energy-laundering instead of “alternative” or “green” energy.
    Dr. Fulks notes that Obama has no real science education. I’d note that Obama’s education in history, economics and the law is worse than none, it’s absolutely incorrect. But Obama likes what he learned.

  4. I can’t understand why politicians find it so hard to believe there has been no global warming.

    Dr Phil Jones (CRU/UEA), the man responsible for the most important temperature record used by the IPCC said in a BBC interview on 13 February 2010 there had not been any discernible warming during the previous 15 years (despite a record increase in CO2). He would certainly know!

    On Christmas Eve 2012, the UK Met Office, whose Hadley Centre is responsible for one of two global instrumental temperature data sets, and used by CRU/UEA effectively confirmed on its web site that there has been no global warming for the last 16 years, and the trend would continue at least until 2017.

    In February 2013, in Australia, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC, responsible for giving us the dangerous man-made global warming alarmism scare, acknowledged global warming halted 17 years ago.

    Wow… three of the world’s most authoritative sources telling us global warming has not happened despite record rises in CO2 since the mid-1990s.

    Why aren’t politicians listening?

  5. And now enter the bureaucrats, to coin a phrase. The politicals on the Supreme Court will ignore science and attempt to maintain the Left’s policy on carbon and ultimately of control.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.