Thongchai Thailand

THE BIDEN & THE EPA

Posted on: May 27, 2021

Inside Biden's uphill battle to restore the EPA after Trump | Grist

THIS POST IS CRITICAL COMMENTARY OF THE ASSUMPTION BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY IS THE APPROPRIATE CLIMATE SCIENCE AUTHORITY TO FOR SETTING HIS CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY AND AGENDA.

CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE. IT IS CAUSED BY FOSSIL FUELS THAT ARE APPROVED BY THE EPA BECAUSE THEY MEET ALL EPA REQUIREMENTS.

THE CREATION OF THE EPA, A HISTORICAL NOTE.

Richard Nixon and the Rise of American Environmentalism | Science History  Institute

In a related post: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/30/the-humans-must-save-the-planet/ we preent the historical roots of environmentalism and the formation of the EPA.

There we note as follows:

The rapid industrial and economic growth in the post-war era progressed mostly without adequate safeguards against environmental degradation. This situation became sensationalized through a series of high profile events that captured public attention. The wanton use of pesticides such as DDT was blamed for killing butterflies and birds (Carson, 1962). The explosive growth in automobile ownership shrouded large cities like Los Angeles and New York in smog (Gardner, 2014) (Haagen-Smit, 1952) (Hanst, 1967). The widespread dumping of industrial waste into lakes and rivers was highlighted by events such as the fire in the Cuyahoga River (Marris, 2011) (Goldberg, 1979).

Richard Nixon and the Rise of American Environmentalism | Science History  Institute

The hippie counter-culture movement of the 1960s rejected many conventional values and in particular, the assumed primacy of technological advancement and industrial growth. It opposed the unrestricted use of pesticides, herbicides, preservatives, food additives, fertilizers, and other synthetic chemicals. It fought against the release of industrial waste into the atmosphere and into waterways, the harvesting of old growth forests for the wood and paper industries, and the inadequacy of public transit that could limit the number of automobiles in big cities and the air pollution they cause (Rome, 2003) (Zelko, 2013).

This environmental movement was the driving force behind the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the USA in 1970 which was given the laws, the ways, the means, and the power to act quickly and decisively to clean up the air and water(Ruckelshaus, 1984). The EPA cleaned up the air and the water in the USA with strictly enforced new laws and procedures that limited the concentration of harmful chemicals in all industrial effluents and also required all new enterprises to obtain the approval of the EPA of their environmental impact before they could proceed. The remarkable success of the EPA made it a model for environmental law and environmental protection in countries around the world (Ruckelshaus, 1984) (Andreen, 2004) (Dolin, 2008).

THE RISE OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE

Although global warming papers were published since 1938, it did not become an issue in the public or government agenda until the Senate Hearing in 1988 when James Hansen of NASA GISS presented the case for human caused global warming by way of fossil fuel emissions. He presented a very scary forecast of the horrors to come if the world does not immediately take climate action in the form of not burning fossil fuels. The Hansen testimony is made available in a related post: LINKhttps://tambonthongchai.com/2019/05/09/hansen88/ Highlights of the testimony along with critical commentary is provided in another related post: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/09/11/a-climate-industrial-complex/ .

This means that it was 18 years after the formation of the EPA that climate change became an issue of public concern and the lead in research, data collection, and activism for climate action within the government structure of the USA was taken by NASA and specifically NASA-GISS and not the EPA. There is no basis in this context to assume that the EPA is an authority on climate science.

CONCLUSION:

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE USA DOES NOT HAVE A CLIMATE CHANGE AGENCY. THE CLOSEST WE CAN COME TO SUCH AN AGENCY IS NASA GISS BY DEFAULT OR PERHAPS NOAA. IN THE CASE OF NOAA, PERHAPS TOM KNUTSON COULD SERVE AS BIDEN’S CLIMATE CHANGE ADVISER AND CONSULTANT. I HAVE READ MANY OF TOM’S PAPERS. HE IS HIGHLY QUALIFIED.

A FAILED OBSESSION WITH TROPICAL CYCLONES | Thongchai Thailand
THOMAS KNUSTSON, CLIMATE SCIENTIST, NOAA

THE EPA IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. IT HAS NO ROLE OR FUNCTION NOR HAS IT DONE ANY RESEARCH OR PUBLISHED ANY PAPERS IN CLIMATE CHANGE. THE ASSUMPTION BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY THAT CAN ADVISE HIM ON THIS ISSUE IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HAS NO BASIS. CLIMATE CHANGE IS CAUSED BY FOSSIL FUELS THAT MEET ALL EPA SPECIFICATIONS.

Graduate Student Part-Time PAID Internships in NYC at NASA GISS — New York  Space Grant Consortium
COP21: James Hansen, the father of climate change awareness, claims Paris  agreement is a 'fraud' | The Independent | The Independent
NASA Climate (@NASAClimate) | Twitter
Biden, Harris briefed by national security experts amid transition  obstacles | TheHill

EXCERPT FROM THE HANSEN 1988 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY 

  1. CLAIM: Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements that goes back 100 years. RESPONSE-1: Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory about long term trends in global mean temperature. A one-year temperature event has no interpretation in this context. RESPONSE-2: In your paper Hansen 1988 and also in the official position of your NASA GISS organization you state that that AGW started in 1950 because from then the relationship between CO2 and temperature we see in the climate models closely matches the observational data. If AGW started in 1950, then what is the relevance of the 100-year instrumental record reference period for the temperature record in 1988?
  2. CLAIM: Causal association requires first that the warming be larger than natural climate variability and, second that the magnitude and nature of the warming be consistent with the greenhouse mechanism. RESPONSE: Neither that the warming is larger than natural climate variability nor that the magnitude of the warming is consistent with the greenhouse mechanism proves causation. For that it must be shown that a statistically significant detrended correlation exists between the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 concentration and mean global surface temperature over a sufficiently long time span. The choice of 30 years as the time span for this evaluation is not supported by the literature where we find that longer time spans are required, preferably longer than 60 years.
  3. CLAIM: The warming is more than 0.4 degrees Centigrade for the period 1958-1988. The probability of a chance warming of that magnitude is about 1 percent. So with 99 percent confidence we can state that the warming during this time period is a real warming trend. RESPONSE: The probability is more likely to be 100% that it is a REAL warming trend but none of this serves as evidence that the warming was caused by the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 concentration attributed to fossil fuel emissions.
  4. CLAIM: The data suggest somewhat more warming over land and sea ice regions than over open ocean, more warming at high latitudes than at low latitudes, and more warming in the winter than in the summer. In all of these cases, the signal is at best just beginning to emerge, and we need more data. RESPONSE: If the signal is just beginning to emerge and you need more data to figure it out then you don’t really know and your claim to 99% confidence has no basis.
  5. CLAIM: Some of these details, such as the northern hemisphere high latitude temperature trends, do not look exactly like the greenhouse effect, but that is expected. There are certainly other climate factors involved in addition to the greenhouse effect. RESPONSE: Lip service to internal climate variability { LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/07/16/the-internal-variability-issue/ } is paid but the issue is completely ignored in the invocation and assessment of the greenhouse effect of CO2 and its alleged dangerous consequences such as extreme weather that places an enormous cost burden on all of humanity to overhaul their energy infrastructure.
  6. CLAIM: Altogether the evidence that the earth is warming by an amount which is too large to be a chance fluctuation and the similarity of the warming to that expected from the greenhouse effect represents a very strong case. In my opinion, that the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now. RESPONSE: “too large to be chance fluctuation” and “similarity of the warming to that expected from the greenhouse effect” do not constitute ” strong case”. Such suspicions may be sufficient to construct a hypothesis to be tested with data in a hypothesis test in which what is suspected is the alternate hypothesis and its absence is the null hypothesis. No such empirical evidence is presented possibly because none exists.
  7. CLAIM: we have used the temperature changes computed in our global climate model to estimate the impact of the greenhouse effect on the frequency of hot summers in Washington, D.C. and Omaha, Nebraska. A hot summer is defined as the hottest one-third of the summers in the 1950 to 1980 period, which is the period the Weather Bureau uses for defining climatology. So, in that period the probability of having a hot summer was 33 percent, but by the 1990s, you can see that the greenhouse effect has increased the probability of a hot summer to somewhere between 55 percent and 70 percent in Washington according to our climate model simulations. RESPONSE#1: The weather bureau does not define the period 1950 to 1980 to define climatology. It simply specifies that the distinction between weather and climate is that weather is short term but climate can only be assessed over periods longer than 30 years. The period 1950 to 1980 has been arbitrarily selected by NASA and by Hansen because, in their own words, “Hansen: because in the 30-year period 1950-1980 there is a strong measurable warming rate with 99% probability for human cause” , “NASA: We start in 1950 because from then the relationship between CO2 and temperature we see in the climate models closely matches the observational data“. This kind of bias in the selection of the time span when the theory being tested is the warming “since pre-industrial” caused by the industrial economy is a form of circular reasoning and confirmation bias. It is not science. RESPONSE#2: AGW is a theory about long term trends in global mean temperature. It is not possible to relate that warming trend to the extreme form of geographical localization implied in the claim about heat waves in specific cities of the USA as in “frequency of hot summers in Washington, D.C. and Omaha, Nebraska“. Internal climate variability dominates in geographical localization of this kind. Internal Climate Variability is described in a related post. LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/07/16/the-internal-variability-issue/ where we find that “Internal variability in the climate system confounds assessment of human-induced climate change and imposes irreducible limits on the accuracy of climate change projections, especially at regional and decadal scales“. It is noted that these internal climate variability studies find that 30-years is too short a time span for the study of AGW climate change and state that the time span must be longer than 30 years preferably 60 years.
  8. CLAIM: A study of the temperature in July, for several different years between 1986 and 2029 is computed with our global climate model for the intermediate trace gas scenario B. The results show that there are areas that are warmer than what the greenhouse model predicts and areas that are colder than what the greenhouse model predicts. This is because in the 1980s the greenhouse warming is smaller than the natural variability of the local temperature. This appears to be anomalous with the greenhouse effect but the data for a few decades later in the 19902 show show warmer temperatures across the board. RESPONSE: The NASA and the Hansen position on AGW to this day (September 2020) holds that “Hansen: AGW started in 1950 because in the 30-year period 1950-1980 there is a strong measurable warming rate with 99% probability for human cause”, NASA: “AGW started in 1950 because from then the relationship between CO2 and temperature we see in the climate models closely matches the observational data”. But the analysis presented by Hansen appears to be AGW went missing in the 1980s only to return in the 1990s. However this analysis by Hansen is flawed because AGW is not a theory that about temperature at any given time or place or any given decade or place. It is a theory only about long term trends in global mean temperature at time scales longer than 30 years preferably 60 years or more.
  9. CLAIM: in the late 1980s and in the 1990s our model yields greater than average warming in the Southeast United States and the Midwest. This anomalous result can be explained if the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of the United States warms more slowly than the land. This leads to high pressure along the east coast and circulation of warm air north into the Midwest or southeast but there is evidence that the greenhouse effect increases the likelihood of heat wave drought situations in the Southeast and Midwest United States even though we cannot blame a specific drought on the greenhouse effect. Therefore, I believe that it is not a good idea to use the period 1950 to 1980 for the study of AGW climatology. We should see better evidence of the greenhouse effect in the next 10 to 15 years than they were in the period 1950 to 1980. RESPONSE: “That he believes that it is not a good idea to use the period 1950-1980 to study climatology is inconsistent with NASA position and that AGW started in 1950 because from then the relationship between CO2 and temperature we see in the climate models closely matches the observational data.
  10. CLAIM: There is a need for improving these global climate models, and there is a need for global observations if we’re going to obtain a full understanding of these phenomena. RESPONSE: This statement is an admission that the assessment of the AGW presented above as an impact of fossil fuel emissions that has dangerous consequences and that therefore we must stop using fossil fuels to fight climate change was made without the information or the scientific data and arguments needed to make that assessment.

4 Responses to "THE BIDEN & THE EPA"

Great article, well done, appreciated.

Paul H

None of Biden’s policies are based on logic or science. His administration is solely interested in accumulating power by any means possible.

By the way, as I recall, the EPA and the environmental laws of the 1970s took place during the Republican administration of Richard Nixon. As you point out, it was an effort to solve existing real world problems, unlike the Anthropogenic Global Warming movement supported by the Democrat party.

Thank you Mark. I recall the day Nixon signed the law creating the epa. It was like christmas. I was in Berkeley CA.

Leave a Reply to Paul H Cancel 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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s


  • John Bruyn: The things that people do and say to give meaning to their lives can be perplexing to say the least. Science is about challenging our minds to underst
  • chaamjamal: Very interesting assessment. Thank you very much. I'll read it again after golf.
  • chaamjamal: Good point. Thank you.
%d bloggers like this: