The Illusion of Climate Science: A Critical Look at the EPA's Endangerment Finding

Is Climate Science Truly a Physical Science?

The Trump Administration's reopening of the EPA's Endangerment Finding necessitates a critical examination of the foundations of climate science. Does it truly adhere to the rigorous standards of a physical science, as embodied by renowned physicist Richard Feynman, who emphasized observation as the ultimate judge of scientific truth? If not, the Endangerment Finding becomes a political statement, not a scientific one.

Feynman wrote: “If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.” This principle underscores the importance of empirical evidence, especially controlled experiments, in validating scientific claims. Speculation, while useful, must ultimately be tested by observation.

This analysis will explore three key issues: the EPA's Endangerment Finding itself, Howard Hayden's critique of contemporary "climate science," and the problematic history of the Linear No Threshold model employed by the EPA.

Dissecting the EPA's Endangerment Finding

The EPA's Endangerment Finding, as detailed in the 2009 Federal Register, declares greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, as endangering public health and welfare. However, this finding curiously omits water vapor, the most dominant greenhouse gas, impacting global climate models. This omission raises questions about the EPA’s commitment to comprehensive scientific analysis.

The technical support document for the finding admits a lack of direct adverse health effects from current CO2 concentrations, resorting instead to claims about global warming trends. These claims lean heavily on climate model simulations while overlooking historical warming periods like the 1930s and 1950s, and cooling trends like the 1970s, thereby presenting an incomplete picture of climate variability.

Furthermore, the EPA seems to indict the pillars of modern civilization: CO2 emissions from essential activities like fossil fuel use and even human respiration, and nitrous oxide, a byproduct of the Haber-Bosch process crucial for fertilizer production, are deemed dangerous. This begs the question: does the EPA consider modern life itself a pollutant?

The "Science" That Isn't There

Physicist Howard Hayden's essay "What 'Climate Science' Is NOT About" exposes a glaring deficiency in the field. While climate alarmists warn of the perils of CO2, Hayden highlights the absence of fundamental physical science principles in climate science curricula and IPCC reports. Quantum mechanics, molecular spectroscopy, and statistical mechanics, essential for understanding the greenhouse effect, are conspicuously missing.

Hayden emphasizes the significance of the observed infrared spectrum, with its characteristic jagged features shaped by atmospheric gases, as evidence of the greenhouse effect. This evidence has existed for decades, long predating the Endangerment Finding, yet is largely ignored by mainstream climate science, which instead relies on speculative models that fail basic empirical tests.

The Legacy of the Linear No Threshold Model

The EPA's reliance on the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model, based on the work of Hermann J. Muller, is another example of flawed reasoning. Recent research published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene reveals Muller’s unethical practices, including suppressing contradictory research and manipulating the scientific community for personal gain. This highlights the troubled history of the LNT model, subsequently adopted by the EPA for cancer risk assessment.

Despite evidence demonstrating the human body's ability to repair damage and protect vital organs, the EPA continues to employ the LNT model, bolstering the Endangerment Finding and fueling alarm over various substances, from particulate matter to “forever chemicals." Observed human mortality rates do not support these claims, revealing a disconnect between the EPA's pronouncements and actual human health outcomes.

Suppressing Scientific Inquiry and the High Cost of Unreliable Energy

The suppression of scientific inquiry, evident in Facebook's censorship of the CO2 Coalition's research on greenhouse gases, further hinders a balanced discussion of climate science. This, coupled with the escalating costs and unreliability of "green" energy sources, exemplifies a pervasive disregard for empirical evidence and pragmatic solutions.

From coral bleaching, falsely attributed to CO2, to the exorbitant expenses associated with unreliable energy generation, the prevailing climate narrative continues to prioritize alarm over reasoned analysis. This, as planning engineer Russ Schussler aptly points out, "confuses things" and misleads the public, fostering unrealistic expectations and jeopardizing energy security.

The Path Forward

The EPA's Endangerment Finding, built on a foundation of incomplete science, flawed models, and suppressed research, demands a fundamental reassessment. A return to the principles of empirical science, as championed by Feynman, is essential for a clear-eyed understanding of the climate system and the development of sound environmental policies. The future of energy and environmental stewardship depends on embracing scientific rigor and abandoning the current reliance on politically motivated speculation.