Why Obama's EPA Plan Is Not Needed & Dangerous to Our Country
Editor’s Note: Today, the EPA is set to release crushing regulations that will further stifle the already overburdened energy sector. Read Joe Bastardi’s column, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, penned last July, dismantling the EPA’s extremist views regarding CO2.
It is a litany of lies. It starts with the claim that scientists agree man is responsible for accelerating warming, and due to man’s production of carbon pollution, this is (or will be) increasing asthma and other health problems.
First of all carbon pollution is ‘soot,’ which we don’t have a problem with – the EPA’s own data shows it is well below the agency’s standards, declining 50% since 1999. CO2, which is conflated with soot, is a harmless (actually beneficial) gas, and with every breathe humans emits 100 times as much CO2 as is in ambient air. CO2 is critical for plant life and we are at the low end of the scale of CO2 for the earth’s history, just above the survival level needed for plants which require it for photosynthesis – around 280 ppm.
Second, it’s ozone, not CO2, that presents a health hazard when it is produced near the ground in cities from nitrous oxide and hydrocarbons in sunlight on hot days when there is little mixing of air. This was a problem in places like the LA Basin where a marine layer just above the surface formed an inversion trapping low level air. Ozone levels have declined even more rapidly. It particulates thanks to catalytic converters and more efficient combustion removing hydrocarbons by converting toxic NO to NO2. An air quality alert day in LA has become rare.
Third, the number of hot days has declined, not increased.
It is during the day that smog forms and you can see that lack of accelerated warming in the average TMAX (Maximum Temperatures) for U.S. stations.
How about the warming Mr. Obama will reassure is happening?
It is not there in the state records with 23 of the 50 all time highs in the 1930s and eight before 1960 with more state lows than highs since the 1940s.
Most of the warming is in the ‘adjustments’ to the data (example here). See in this graph the adjustments made to the data from 1999. There has been an artificial cooling of the early century and warming of the post 1960s.
It is even more blatant in the global data sets. First a plot of the version 1 and version 3.
The difference is astounding, basically accounting for all the warming claimed for the globe for that period, accomplished by a major cooling of the early record and adjustments up later.
It is now into the state data. I was working on Maine for a presentation made a few years back and downloaded this from NOAA NCDC. Note how 1913 was the warmest year followed a century later with a bookend spike in 2012. The trend was essentially 0 since 1895 (-0.03/decade).
This last month, NCDC announced a new data set would replace the USHCN at Climate at a Glance. Here is Maine annual temperatures now. Note 1913 is hardly visible with a cooling of as much as 5 degrees Fahrenheit in the early century. Any wonder why every month ranks which the compliant media gladly reports on?
This creative accounting would put people in jail in the private sector. In the government it is a tool to manipulate public opinion.
Even the EPA inspector general accused the agency of not doing diligence. Their own independent analysis for the Endangerment Finding on which the regulations are based (something the DC Circuit Court would not allow into the record in the appeals process) recently found that they were operating with fraudulent data for their claims about health impacts. I still remember the American Lung Association ads before the election in 2012 with the baby carriage in front of congress with a coughing child. I have had asthma since I was a young child and looked up to the ALA. The ALA received millions from the administration and an EPA member was on the Board of Directors. The science did not support the linkage. Who can you trust nowadays?
The idea that by increasing the cost to energy producers, electricity prices will go down, is lunacy. In her press conference Gina McCarthy said some people say the EPA energy plan will cause electricity prices to skyrocket, and that this isn’t true. Well one of the first to promise it would cause electricity prices to skyrocket was President Obama himself.
The Chamber of Commerce warned in a report last week the new regulations on carbon emissions will cost the economy an average of $51 billion and 224,000 jobs each year through 2030 (a total of $765B and 3,360,000 jobs). And when the cost of energy goes up, so does the cost of all goods and services because the costs of production and transportation rise. Everyone wants clean air and water and we have made enormous progress on both fronts. The new regulations will inflict great pain for little or no gain. It is government run amuck. This enviro driven frenzy almost destroyed Europe before the people and government began pushing back. These agencies like the EPA are acting with powers not enumerated in the Constitution and the checks and balances from the legislative and judicial branches aren’t working. During President Obama’s meeting with then Russian President Medvedev at the Asia-Pacific summit of APEC Nations in Singapore, the American leader when asked his thoughts on Prime Minister Putin’s warning that the United States should cease its march towards socialism, replied, “It doesn’t matter since for all intent and purposes the US Constitution is dead.” It is scary time for America.
Joseph D'Aleo is co-chief meteorologist at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm. This piece was originally published at ICECAP..