From Dr. Roy Spencers Global Warming Blog
By Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
A background
I will admit that the legal profession mystified. Every time I say something with environmental law, one or more lawyers will correct me. But I assume, “Turnabout is a fair game” because I will usually correct all lawyers about their details that describe the science of climate change.
Like us, lawyers are not normal people. Your brain works differently. I suspected this for the first time when one of my daughters took the LSAT and gave me examples of questions that my brain was not answered correctly. I was further convinced when she went to the legal faculty and told me about the questions you can use to deal with how lawyers can impress the judges by being in their arguments, etc.
I know that I could never be a lawyer (even after I stayed in a holiday -Inn Express), and I have never played one on TV. But I have a paper in the Energy Law Journal (with regard to the Daubert standard) with the help of my opinion that science in the theory of climate change caused by humans cannot demonstrate a cause.
Regulation of CO2: Does the EPA really try to help us?
The regulation of CO2 emissions (and some other chemicals) by the EPA also falsified me. However, many of the ~ 185 lawyers of the EPA worked on the knowledge of the endangerment of 2009. You need to know that the regulation of CO2 emissions of US cars and light trucks would not have any measurable effects on the global climate, including the increase in sea level (which was a main argument in Massachusett from EPA).
None.
But apparently it is not the concern of the EPA to “fix” the climate “problem”.
Its reason for the existence is to regulate pollutants (and it does not matter whether nature produces far more “pollutants” than people produce). And as soon as you regulate it, you will not stop with certain threshold values. You will further lower the threshold. This keeps everyone in jobs.
I know this is the case. I once took part in a meeting of the Carolinas Air Pollution Control Association (Capca), and the Keynote spokesman (from the EPA) said: “We cannot stop making things cleaner and cleaner.” There was a collective astonishment in the audience that were primarily industrial representatives who try to keep their companies in accordance with state and federal environmental regulations. I assumed that your real experience told you that it was impossible to clean everything 100% (what would it cost to keep your house 100% clean?).
And we would not want to, because (as Ed Calabrese explained in many published articles) it is necessary that the resilience in biological systems is exposed to stressors. I almost never get sick, which I ascribe to a fairly dirty childhood in strongly bacterial -contaminated waters, did not wash my hands, etc. I was much sick at the time. But not later in life. For this reason, the assumption of the EPA in the assumption of the “linear no-threshold” (simply expressed, if a gallon can kill something, a molecule is also dangerous) little to do with our real experience and our common sense. A bit like the legal profession.
Does the EPA really try to help us? I think they are not. They try to keep their work (and increase even more jobs; from NASA, I know how it works). The law (and the regulations) are instruments to achieve this. Yes, the EPA needed through the Clean Air Act. I am old enough to remember it in the 1960s through Gary, Indiana, to drive, dress the highways everywhere, suffocate waterways with pollution and even fire.
But at what point the government says: “Ok, we have fixed the problem. Good enough. Do not let the baby throw out with the bathing water with harmful over -regulation. “No, that doesn't happen. On the basis of the perverse way of how environmental regulations are written.
So, EPA, what about the regulation of water vapor emissions?
The EPA regulation of CO2 emissions has some problems that do not prevent the legal profession from doing what they can best. As I mentioned above, the US CO2 emissions of cars and light trucks have no measurable effects on global temperatures or the increase in sea level. You could get rid of them completely. No measurable effect yet, we are … regulate.
Since these are “global” problems, it has long been known that the EPA (and possibly even the decision of the Supreme Court against Massachusetts against EPA) could be shaky, and maybe these are affairs that were better left for legislation by the US Congress.
But what about water vapor emissions from such vehicles? Now there is a real option! The burning of fuel (especially when we have vehicles driven with hydrogen) generates water vapor. And locally (in your city) this additional water vapor in summer is increased the heat index. And as everyone knows: “It is not the heat, it is the humidity”.
This is a local problem caused by local sources of pollution, and seems to be more suitable for regulating the EPA, a US agency that deals with US pollution concerns.
The climate scientists who publish papers about the alleged dangers of greenhouse gas emissions ensure that they exclude water vapor from their concerns, and claims that CO2 is the thermostat that controls the climate. I've commented on the hand before. The vast majority of climate researchers believe that CO2 controls the temperature and then checks the water vapor. CO2 is forcing, water vapor is the feedback. But this argument (as I have mentioned for many years) is only circular argument. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (I forgot to mention that it is our main greenhouse gas?) Is partially controlled by precipitation processes that we don't even understand. The climate modelers simply agree to their models to remove water vapor (by precipitation processes) in an arbitrary and controlled manner that has no basis for the underlying physics that is not yet well understood. These simplified assumptions often lead to the assumption that the relative humidity always remains constant.
But I wander off. I am not talking here that water vapor -emissions do not regulate global climate problems.
But why stop at vehicle emissions? People breathe out a lot of water vapor (jogger even more!). Maybe we should jog and restrict the sale of water into bottles? No problem, so big enough, do you say? Or is that an FDA? I don't know … I'm just a simple country climate scientist.
How lawyer Jonathan Adler commented on my latest blog post for the knowledge of the hazard,
The problem is that the concerns you receive are not relevant to find a risk to the Clean Air Act. The text standard is precaution and does not allow cost-benefit compensation or consideration of other compromises. Everything that is necessary is that the EPA administrator can reasonably anticipate some threats from warming to health or well -being, from which the latter is largely defined.
So we are back to the regulatory fact that if a “pollutant” (whatever means) causes a level of threats, complaints, concerns, anxiety, the EPA is forced to regulate it. How comfortable. Well, I would argue that water vapor emissions, especially in summer in cities, are more suitable for regulation according to the Clean Air Act than the CO2 emissions.
Why was no water vapor regulated?
It is clearly not that water vapor is “necessary” for the functioning of the earth system, since CO2 is necessary for life on earth. What brings me back to my question, does the EPA really try to help us when it comes to climate medical regulation?
I am increasingly convinced that science has been kidnapped to (among other things motifs) to shake off the energy industry. This has been planned since the 1980s. It makes no difference that human flowering depends on energy sources that are plentiful and affordable. It doesn't matter how many people are killed in the process of saving the earth. The law requires regulation, and that's all that matters.
I have evidence. In the early nineties I was in the White House and visited Al Gores Environmental Advisor Bob Watson, an ex-NASA-stratospheric chemist who has just replaced the successful establishment of the Montreal protocol on substances that exhausted the ozone layer. He told me (as close as I can remember): “We managed to regulate ozone disorder chemicals, and carbon dioxide comes next”.
Remember that this was in the early days of the IPCC, in which it was found whether people changed the climate with greenhouse gas emissions. Your work was just starting, including the scientists who would support the process. However, the regulatory goal was already set (wink, wink, wink, nod, nod).
So I don't think the EPA actually tries to help the Americans when it comes to climate regulation. I am sure that many of your programs (waste cleansing, the Flint, the Mi water problem and some others) are commendable and defending.
But when it comes to regulation in connection with the global climate (or even the local climate than the government tries to pack even more people into small rooms, e.g. with “15 -minute cities”), my experience increasingly tells me that nobody in the political, political, regulatory, legal or ecological lawyer, the side of this company, really worries the worldwide climate. Otherwise, you would admit that your regulation (in contrast to, for example, regulating the forerunners for ozone pollution at the ground level in cities) will not have any measurable influence. You would not try to pack people into urban environments that we know about 5-10 degrees. F hotter than your rural environment.
It's all just an excuse for more power and interests.
Like this:
Load…
Related
Do you discover more from watts?
Subscribe to the latest posts to your e -mail.
Comments are closed.