Climate Change Science Under Scrutiny: The Week of February 1, 2025

Is Climate Science Truly a Physical Science? Rethinking the EPA's Endangerment Finding

The Trump Administration's re-evaluation of the EPA's Endangerment Finding prompts a crucial question: does climate science adhere to the rigorous standards of a physical science? As Richard Feynman eloquently stated, "observation is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea.” If climate science falls short of this benchmark, the Endangerment Finding becomes a political statement, not a scientific one.

This week, we delve into three key aspects of this debate: the EPA's Endangerment Finding itself, Howard Hayden's compelling essay "What 'Climate Science' Is NOT About," and Edward Calabrese's insightful research on the Linear No Threshold model.

“All other aspects and characteristics of science can be understood directly when we understand that observation is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea.” — Richard Feynman, The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist (1998)

Dissecting the EPA's Endangerment Finding: A Flawed Foundation?

The EPA's Endangerment Finding, declaring greenhouse gases a threat to public health and welfare, rests on shaky grounds. It remarkably omits water vapor, the most potent greenhouse gas, from its analysis. Furthermore, the supporting Technical Support Document relies on short-term data and disregards historical warming trends not attributable to human activity, such as those observed in the 1930s and 1950s.

The EPA's claim that increased greenhouse gas concentrations are dangerous lacks compelling physical evidence. Instead, it resorts to models that fail to replicate real-world atmospheric conditions, raising serious questions about the scientific validity of the entire finding.

Unmasking "Climate Science": A Disconnect from Fundamental Physics

Howard Hayden's essay exposes a startling gap in the field of "climate science." He argues that it neglects the fundamental physics underlying the greenhouse effect – quantum mechanics, molecular spectroscopy, and statistical mechanics. These crucial principles, necessary to understand atmospheric energy transfer, are conspicuously absent from climate science curricula and IPCC reports.

This disconnect underscores a critical flaw: current "climate science" largely ignores the actual science of the greenhouse effect, substituting speculative models for empirical evidence.

The Linear No Threshold Model: A Legacy of Misconduct?

The EPA's reliance on the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model, which assumes a direct proportionality between radiation exposure and harmful effects, is another example of questionable science influencing policy. Calabrese's research reveals the unethical actions of Hermann Muller, whose work on radiation-induced mutations - and subsequent Nobel Prize - significantly shaped the LNT model's adoption.

This research exposes suppressed contradictory evidence, including studies on Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors, that challenge the LNT model's validity. The EPA's continued use of this model, despite evidence of the human body's repair mechanisms and protective membranes, casts a shadow on its scientific integrity.

Suppression of Scientific Inquiry, Coral Bleaching, and the Cost of Unreliable Energy

This week also witnessed troubling instances of scientific suppression, with Facebook restricting access to research by the CO2 Coalition. Jim Steele's work on coral bleaching challenges the narrative that it is solely caused by CO2-induced warming. Finally, the escalating costs and unreliability of "green" energy sources, as illustrated by Germany and the UK, expose the practical limitations of this approach.

The Haber-Bosch Process: Essential for Modern Agriculture, Yet Deemed a Pollutant

The EPA's classification of nitrous oxide, a byproduct of the Haber-Bosch process used in fertilizer production, as a pollutant highlights the absurdity of the Endangerment Finding. This process, responsible for 70% of ammonia used in fertilizers crucial for global food production, is now implicated in environmental harm. The EPA, it seems, considers modern life itself a pollutant.

Rethinking the Narrative: A Call for Sound Science and Open Inquiry

This week's events underscore the urgent need for a return to sound scientific principles based on observation and empirical evidence. Suppression of dissent, reliance on flawed models, and disregard for contradictory data undermine the integrity of climate science and its policy implications. A reassessment of the EPA's Endangerment Finding, based on rigorous scientific standards, is essential to charting a responsible and informed path forward.