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.

8 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 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/james-mcginn/36/8b7/133). 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 (http://www.solvingtornadoes.org/home) 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 (https://sites.google.com/site/solvingtornadoes/retracted-original-version-of-solving-tornadoes-july-2012) James McGinn has given himself the titles “President, Solving Tornadoes” (https://sites.google.com/site/solvingtornadoes/join-solving-tornadoes) and “CEO of Socratic INC” (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/james-mcginn/36/8b7/133). 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!! (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/james-mcginn/36/8b7/133).

    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 .. ” (http://www.meetup.com/sacruby/members/12616080/). Then there’s his “JABRIUM – A Computer Service For People That Don’t Like Computers” (http://knowem.com/business/JABRIUM) – 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.

      http://solvingtornadoes.com/2014/08/29/the-fourth-phase-of-water/

      There are very few real scientists in the atmospheric sciences. I am one of the extremely rare exceptions: http://www.solvingtornadoes.com

      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?
      http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-winds-in-the-atmosphere-and-how-are-these-winds-formed/answer/James-McGinn-4

      [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]

    • I always found Doug Cotton’s explanation of gas behavior, mechanics and mathematics to be spot on. His claim the temperature of the atmosphere doesn’t depend on trace gases is the fundamentals in atmospheric chemistry.

      I don’t know what work he’s done in atmospheric chemistry but I know I started in applied atmospheric, biological and physical chemistry when I was seven in my parents’ business.

      I’ve seen you speaking about climate before and I’m curious if you’re another one of the many who claim to understand climate science yet – like all who believe in the GHE, can’t name the law of thermodynamics to solve for temperature of air, gas, or vapor volumes.

      Tell me Joel Shore, the name of the law of thermodynamics for doing that.

      Tell me what the equation is, and what each of the factors stand for.

      If you can’t do that it marks you a total fraud. Because no one can be educatd in a subject and not know the names of the laws of thermodynamics regulating the various entities involved.

      What is the characteristic of atmospheric air, and gas, vapors etc, that make them a phase of matter unto themselves with a law of thermodynamics of their own?

      I have seen you attempting to pass yourself as somehow atmospheric chemistry and radiation familiar, and I’ve never seen you say anything that even resembled the years’ experience in atmospheric chemistry and radiation I have.

      I’m of the conclusion that you’ve never worked in atmospheric chemistry a day in your life and that you furthermore have zero: ZERO college atmospheric chemistry or atmospheric radiation. If you did, you wouldn’t be claiming you thought the GHE fraud could have ever been real.

      What is the hydrostatic condition Shore? What does it have to do with atmospheric chemistry and radiation? If you don’t know, then how do you know the GHE is 33 degrees?

      You’re a posing internet fake who can’t tell me the name of the law of thermodynamics to check the temperature of atmospheric air.

      Until you can, you’ll always be another poser someone real, caught on the internet, and ridiculed like the poser you are.

      [Another attempt by a kook to assign “homework” to his critics. You’re the one who needs to show your work. Let’s start with an easy one; you’re pretty proud of your alleged scientific experience, tell us where it was gained and under whose guidance. – Ben]

      • That reply was written to Joeldshore the internet posing quack-0-dynamics barker, but any one of you who thinks you have sense to answer what I said, do it. You’re all the same ilk that college dropout Anthony Watts is: non scientists,
        bloggers, and quack-0-dynamics believers.

        There’s no such thing as a fire illuminating a rock in a vacuum: the case with earth – and a frigid fluid bath of gases suspended around it, making it warmer.

        There’s most certainly no such thing as adding ever more refractory material to the frigid fluid bath, blocking 1, 10, 11, 20% firelight to the rock,

        having the rock emit more and more energy,
        as less and less energy arrive
        due to the refractory insulation suspended in the bath,
        blocking more and more.

        [Well the Earth is just that ‘impossible’ example. You know that incoming and outgoing radiation are in a general way at different wavelengths, and that the “frigid fluid bath of gases” surrounding the Earth is partially opaque to only the lower wavelength outgoing radiation, hmmm? – Ben]

        Yeah. It IS just that simple. It’s why scientists in real science were being fired left and right by government supervisors scamming grants on the con – people shouted it was fraud,

        fraud,

        fraud,

        and of course it all turns out to be, as soon as you master the mechanics of atmospheric laws. Obviously it’s fraud. Not even remotely possible to ever be real no matter HOW long people who run blogs like this one, who can’t even name the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature, claim it’s got to be possible, because you ‘buhLeaV.’

        Name the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature of the atmosphere or you’re a pose[r], running a blog site on atmospheric science, too stupid to name the law of thermodynamics, written specifically to govern the science of the atmosphere and gases and vapors. [You think the “law” was “written to govern the science of the atmosphere”? What are the penalties for breaking it, jail or simply a fine? Surely a physical ‘law’ is a simply reliable method of describing and predicting observed physical responses. – Ben]

        This goes for all of you here. Post up that you know the name of the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature of atmospheric air,
        or YOU’RE
        a POSING FRAUD on the INTERNET
        CAUGHT by a SCIENTIST not knowing the FIRST f****g THING, of what you’re talking about.

        [Another grandiose attempt to assign homework. Fail. – Ben]

        Oh Yes
        You Are.

        Caught.

        [Did it feel good to get that off your chest? – Ben]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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