Photosynthesis: nature requires carbon dioxide
The absurdity of a ruling that vital trace gas carbon dioxide is a 'pollutant' has been allowed to stand for far too long. What would nature say? (see graphic)
I have advocated independent review of climate science by the Trump Administration over the last few years, most recently here, writes Alan Carlin.
The best way to do this is a formal reevaluation and rejection of the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding (EF) issued by the Obama US Environmental Protection Agency in 2009. This might lead to real action–rejection of the EF.
The Trump Administration has scaled back EPA's climate-related regulations, but been careful not to formally reevaluate EF or attack climate alarmist "science."
Until the EF is formally reevaluated and rejected, EPA is in legal jeopardy of being forced to implement various attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions despite its dubious benefits.
There have been various attempts to carry out reviews that might question climate alarmism, but no serious review has been undertaken to date by the Trump Administration.
This week a new effort [Talkshop link] has been rumored to be undertaken on a portion of climate alarmist science, namely the impact of alleged climate change on national security. This would be in the form of a review by a Presidential panel or committee.
Only one definite member of the panel has been mentioned, Dr. William Happer, who was rumored to be the chairman. The CIC immediately howled bloody murder against Dr. Happer, despite his long and distinguished service in the academic and governmental worlds.
Continued here.
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader https://ift.tt/2SnXS4u
No comments:
Post a Comment