Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based On A 'Hoax'

Prominent climate scientists have criticized the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) new regulations aimed at reducing CO2 emissions in electricity generation. They argued that these regulations will have devastating consequences for the country without any scientifically justifiable reason.

William Happer, a physics professor at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric science professor at MIT, have presented compelling data in their testimony. They asserted that the EPA's justifications for the regulations are not rooted in scientific evidence but rather in political opinions and inaccurate models.

Happer and Lindzen criticized the use of unscientific methods such as consensus, peer review, and flawed models by the EPA in their proposed regulations. They emphasized that none of the studies provide actual scientific support for the proposed rules.

According to them, climate models, including those used by the EPA, have consistently failed to accurately predict outcomes for decades. They demonstrated this by presenting a table to the EPA showing the discrepancies between predictions and actual data.

The professors also contended that the EPA has exaggerated the negative impacts of CO2 emissions while neglecting the positive effects of CO2 on Earth's ecosystems and human life. They highlighted that increased CO2 levels lead to enhanced plant growth and more food production.

Furthermore, Happer and Lindzen argued that the EPA's regulations are arbitrary and capricious, failing the "State Farm" test. They stated that courts have invalidated rules where crucial aspects were not considered, or data was manipulated to support predetermined conclusions.

The scientists presented historical CO2 and temperature data spanning 600 million years, which contradicts the theory that high CO2 levels cause catastrophic global warming. They demonstrated that current CO2 levels are relatively low compared to Earth's history.

The professors pointed out that increased CO2 levels have led to a significant rise in available food and a greening of the planet. They highlighted the importance of CO2 and fossil fuels for sustaining life on Earth.

Happer, drawing from his expertise in atmospheric radiation and turbulence, countered the global warming narrative by explaining the concept of "saturation." He stated that higher concentrations of CO2 have a diminishing impact on trapping radiation, which is crucial for Earth's habitability.

Additionally, Happer and Lindzen criticized the use of misleading data by the EPA to support the global warming narrative. They compared temperature records from different eras, revealing discrepancies that undermine the narrative.

They contested the idea of a consensus on climate change, emphasizing that scientific truths are determined by experimental observations, not agreement among scientists. They argued that climate models consistently fail to align with real-world observations.

The professors raised concerns about censorship of dissenting views within the scientific community and the suppression of research that questions the prevailing narrative. They shared examples of their own experiences facing pushback for challenging the mainstream stance on climate change.

They noted the financial incentives tied to the climate change agenda, including funding for research and investments in green technologies. They pointed out the proliferation of climate scientists in academia and the creation of a new field around climate studies.

The EPA stated that it will review all the comments it received, including those from the professors, as it finalizes the proposed standards.