An open letter challenging the EPA on CO2 regulation

An open letter challenging the EPA on CO2 regulation (2012-12-28). A line has been drawn in the sand! The environmental gauntlet has been thrown! A fist has been clenched! A steely gaze has been directed! The GIANTS of climatology have been aroused! (Maybe we could have phrased that last one better.) Anthony Watts has added his name to a newspaper opinion piece!!!

So, preeminent 21st century climatologist (Not really. In fact, not even a bit), Joe D’Aleo has written a damning critique (not) of the EPA’s conclusion three years ago that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations will have harmful environmental consequences. And an important newspaper, the Washington Post has printed it! (Err.. the “Examiner”.) The usual denialist travelers like Fred Singer, Tim Ball, Don Easterbrook and Anthony Watts have signed on along with others we will leave unmentioned out of pity.

Here’s the laser-sharp money quote fired, like a diamond bullet, at the very core of the EPA, that Anthony urges his readers to “consider widely republishing”:

“In summary, it is not incorrect to argue that further study of the role GHGs play in climate is in order.”

My mind is spinning! From trying to decipher the meaning. I guess they want the EPA to stop trying to “P” our “E”?

What are Joe & Co. steamed about? Well mainly they hate government regulation on principle. Also they think that the EPA should have spent ten years replicating all the findings of modern climatology instead of just pulling out the relevant peer-reviewed journals. By the way, did you know that some of those journals aren’t American?

In what alternate reality is this proud “Open Letter” anything other than a kick me sign? Have D’Aleo, Watts and pals forgotten that their grade-school assertions were all shot down three years ago? Maybe they’re hoping that we’ve forgotten.

Rabett Run has an amusing sampling of the EPA’s responses to various inept denialist complaints. I wish there was an index to them, but here’s a useful Google search string. Plenty of chuckles in there.

6 thoughts on “An open letter challenging the EPA on CO2 regulation

  1. Watts D’Aleo and Co. are hopelessly incompetent clowns. All you have to do is look at their “analysis” of the global temperature record for proof. They’ve claimed that the global-average temperature results produced by NASA are the result of UHI, or “data manipulation” or “dropped stations”.

    But in all the years that they’ve been attacking NASA, not once did they roll up their sleeves and try to test their claims by crunching the temperature data themselves.

    If they had actually done so (a very big *if*, because that presumes that they’d actually know how to do it), they’d find that the NASA results can be replicated very nicely via a straightforward averaging procedure applied to *raw* temperature data (disproving their “data manipulation” claim).

    They would also have found that UHI has a negligable effect on global-average results. In addition, they would have found that the “dropped stations” effect has virtually no impact. And they could have done so by applying techniques that I could teach to first-year programming students.

  2. It’s surreal that you don’t realize how desperate and dishonest you appear to be so gratuitously mimicking Watts website.

    [This from a guy who seems to be trying to invoke a Roman emperor! Here’s three responses, pick the one you like best:

    • That’s what she said!
    • I know you are but what am I?
    • Step One: Anthony lies. Step Two: I laugh. Step Three: Profit!

    Good luck with you work as “theoretical scientist” solving tornadoes (theoretically, you’re a scientist?). – Ben]

  3. Hi Ben,

    Have you seen all of the self-aggrandising claims that “solvingtornadoes” (AKA James McGinn and “Julius Denk”) makes (see Despite those claims he appears to be nothing more than a computer programmer. I have been enjoying exchanges with James/Claudius on the Principia Scientific International blog run by John O’Sullivan, another who is prone to making lots of questionable claims. My early opinion that he and John O’Sullivan were two peas from the same pod seems pretty close to the mark.

    On his solvingtornadoes blog and in comments elsewhere he keeps insisting that he is a theoretical scientist but I have been unable to find any peer-reviewed papers or even blog articles of his that substantiate such a claim. He talks about “our mission” and “we” as though others work with him at Solving Tornadoes ( but there is no evidence to indicate that it is more than a one-man-band. All of his blog articles that I have seen were authored by “Jim McGinn, Theoretical Scientist”. It appears that James’s blog is much like John O’Sullivan’s PSI blog, an outlet for self-promoting nonsense based upon what he has tried to teach himself from blogs such as Wikipedia.

    If I am mistaken on that then perhaps he will deign to provide evidence to the contrary, in which case I will happily apologise and retract that suggestion

    As well as describing himself as a “theoretical scientist” since mid-2012 ( James McGinn has given himself the titles “President, Solving Tornadoes” ( and “CEO of Socratic INC” ( That’s very impressive, especially for someone who spent over 5 years as an office technician (April 2007 – May 2012). That does seem to be a terrible 5 year waste of his claimed skills and expertise in entrepreneurship, customer service, computer science, business process, water treatment, geography, fluid mechanics, evolutionary biology, climatology, social anthropology, geology, hydrogeology, hydrology and – oh yes – theoretical physics!! (

    As CEO of Socratic Inc. he and his unnamed associates wish “ .. to establish ourselves as an easy to use, smartphone based, personal content creation service–and more .. ” ( Then there’s his “JABRIUM – A Computer Service For People That Don’t Like Computers” ( – WOW, now we know why he claims to be a skilled entrepreneur!!

    Sorry, but those claims just don’t ring true and sound just like the self-aggrandising claims of that John O has made about his “achievements”.

    [James McGinn seems to have day-dreamed an idea and is now asking if it’s any good while declaring himself a genius. The Dunning–Kruger effect comes to mind… – Ben]

  4. Yeah…I have just had some interactions with McGinn and he is a full-fledged crackpot. He doesn’t believe in what he calls “cold steam”…He believes that water can only exist in the air in vapor form above the boiling point. He also doesn’t believe in latent heat, or basically the role of convection in meteorology at all. And, he believes that current meteorology is all some big conspiratorial cult. He almost makes Doug Cotton look like the epitome of reason by comparison.

    • You have to about be mentally retarded to believe that steam (the gaseous form of H2O) can exist at temperatures below its boiling point. [So you haven’t heard of sublimation? – Ben] Meteorologists don’t actually even believe this. Like AGW advocates, they just refuse to scrutinize it because their models require it. The somewhat parallel notions that storms are caused by “latent heat” or convection are also rather obvious BS, neither ever having been tested.

      There are very few real scientists in the atmospheric sciences. I am one of the extremely rare exceptions:

      It’s strangely typical for science groupies, like Joel Shore, to have formed steadfast beliefs for notions for which they have zero supporting evidence and for which they never even put two minutes of thought before they declare victory for a fight they’ve never fought and that has never been contested by anybody.

      Science groupies are ruining the atmospheric sciences by clogging it up with endless political nonsense.

      Where Do Winds Come From?

      [I apologize for not approving this earlier. That said, you sound pretty crazy. – Ben]

      • Sublimation produces evaporate (vapor, small cluster of H2O). It does not produce gaseous H2O. How far up must you have your head inserted for this to not be obvious?

        [My, such a vigorous assertion of utter nonsense! And from one of the “extremely rare” self-declared “real scientists” too. But the time has come for your comment thread highjack to end. – Ben]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s