07.25.2022
William Happer, Richard Lindzen and CO2 Coalition comment on the 4thNational Climate Assessment
Publication: Scientific paper in response to USGCRP Decadal Strategic Plan 2022-2031 | Authors: William Happer, Richard Lindzen & Gregory Wrightstone | Date: 22 July 202
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we think it is an important opportunity to do two things.
1st, explain why, with all due respect, science demonstrates that the 4th National Climate Assessment is merely government opinion, and therefore of no scientific value.
2nd, we have the following recommendations on the three scientific areas that the USGCRP is focusing on.
Explain What Is, and Is Not, Science. There is a breakthrough opportunity to inform the public and society on what is, and is not, science. Most people did not have the opportunity to specifically learn what is, and is not, science and scientific method.
Fortunately, the “key to science” and scientific method, in the words of Nobel Prize physicist Richard Feynman, is simple: does the theory work, does it accurately predict what is observed? If the theory doesn’t make accurate prediction of what is observed, the theory is rejected.
The public should not be confused by what does not determine reliable science: consensus, peer review, government opinion, and manipulated data to make a theory work.
It would be a breakthrough public service if the Decadal Strategic Plan took major steps to inform the public on what is, and is not, science and that scientific method is simply testing a theory’s predictions with observations to see if it works.
Address the Many Ignored Large-Scale Scientific Questions. There are many large-scale scientific questions related to global change and major knowledge gaps and obstacles to implementing scientific knowledge that have been ignored and result from a confusion of what is, and is not, science.
- The International Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) and other models used to predict temperatures and scenarios fail the key test of science: they do not work with observations. They therefore must be rejected and not relied on as science in any USGCRP Strategic Plan or NCA.
- The IPCC is government controlled. Therefore it only issues government opinions that have no scientific value. Therefore none of the IPCC findings can be used or relied on as science in any USGCRP Strategic Plan or NCA.
- With all due respect, the Fourth National Climate Assessment’s heavy reliance on IPCC findings means it provides merely government opinion and not reliable science.
- Contrary to scientific method, the enormous benefits of fossil fuels and CO2, and the disastrous consequences of reducing fossil fuels and CO2 to “net zero” are never considered. Scientifically any evidence contrary to any theory must be included and analyzed.
- Other important scientific questions and obstacles to implementing scientific knowledge are set forth in our (Professors Happer and Lindzen) comment on the proposed SEC disclosure rule, https://co2coalition.org/publications/16417/
Robust additional evidence supporting these recommendations can be found in Gregory Wrightstone, Inconvenient Facts (2017) and the CO2 Coalition website, Home – CO2 Coalition
08.7.2022
Lindzen, Happer & CO2 Coalition Comment on the CFTC Climate-Related Financial Risk
In our scientific opinion as career scientists, there is no scientific basis for the CFTC inquiry. Real science demonstrates there is no climate emergency and there are no climate-related financial or other risks caused by fossil fuels and CO2.
Frankly, the “science” cited to support of the CFTC inquiry and possible action is merely government opinion by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), which is not science and as the Lysenko experience chillingly underscores, cannot be used as the scientific basis for any CFTC or other government action.
Moreover, there will be a disastrous transition risk for the poor, people worldwide, future generations and the country by reducing fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions to “net zero.” Contrary to what is commonly reported, CO2 is essential to life on earth. Without CO2, there would be no photosynthesis, and thus no plant food. Reducing CO2 will reduce the amount of food available for the poor and people worldwide.
And, without fossil fuels there will be no low-cost energy worldwide and less CO2 for photosynthesis making food.
Thus, with all due respect, the Commission should not adopt any guidance, interpretations, policy statements, or regulations, or take other action on the disastrous assumption under the name of science there is a climate-related financial or any other risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2. If any such action is taken, it should be ruled invalid by the courts.
REFERENCE:
Happer Lindzen CO2C CFTC 8-7-22d
REFERENCE:
