New climate influences are constantly being found and measured and worked into theories while accepted ones are re-evaluated and adjusted. That’s the way science works.

According to the EPA as reported by CNN, the US is indeed reducing greenhouse emissions without Congressional action in 2012 and is on target to reach its pledge of reducing emissions by 17% by 2020.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/21/news/economy/greenhouse-gases-cut/

It does appear that Obama will push the climate to the political fore this term. However, it is imperative the administration come up with plausible effective policies based on the latest developments in climate science. It is not certain they will as expressed in the following open letter challenging the EPA on CO2 Regulation that was published in the Washington Examiner December 27, 2012:

EPA’s CO2 Regulations are NOT Based on Sound Science

The Supreme Court, in Mass v. EPA, stated that the EPA must treat CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), as “pollutants” and then carryout an analysis to determine whether the increasing concentrations in atmospheric CO2 may reasonably be anticipated to endanger human health and welfare. The Court did not mandate regulation; rather it mandated that EPA go through an Endangerment Finding process.

EPA did so and on December 15, 2009 issued its ruling that CO2 and other GHGs must be regulated. This EPA finding and associated rulings were immediately challenged in the DC Circuit Court. The DC Circuit ruled in favor of EPA, but given the two dissents from the December 20, 2012 decision denying rehearing en banc, the matter will very likely go to the Supreme Court.

If allowed to stand, the very existence of EPA’s Endangerment Finding requires regulation that significantly increases U.S. fossil fuel and electricity prices–negatively impacting job creation as well as energy, economic and national security.

To many scientists this situation seems incredible given the ample evidence that EPA’s finding is grossly flawed. In its finding, EPA claimed with 90-99% certainty that observed warming in the latter half of the twentieth century resulted from human activity. EPA bases its finding upon Three Lines of Evidence (LoE.)

Using the most credible empirical data available, it is relatively straightforward to soundly reject each of EPA’s Three Lines of Evidence (LoE).

1.) EPA claims that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has been rising in a dangerous fashion over the last fifty years, in large part due to human-caused increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. But “Global Warming” has not been global and has not set records in the regions where warming has occurred. For example, over this time period, while the Arctic has warmed, the Tropical oceans had a flat trend, and the Antarctic was slightly cooling. The most significant warming during this period occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, north of the Tropics. But, as the figure shows, over the last 130 years, the decade of the 1930’s still has the most U.S. State High Temperatures records. And, over the past 50 years, there were more new State Record Lows set than Record Highs. In fact, roughly 70% of the current State Record Highs were set prior to 1940.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=66585975-a507-4d81-b750-def3ec74913d

2.) EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Fingerprint Theory is that in the Tropics, the upper troposphere is warming faster than the lower troposphere, and the lower troposphere is warming faster than the surface, all due to rising CO2 concentrations. This is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently-derived empirical datasets, all showing no statistically significant positive (or negative) trend in temperature and thus, no difference in trend by altitude. Therefore, EPA’s theory as to how CO2 impacts GAST must be rejected.

3.) EPA relied upon Climate Models, all predicated on this Fingerprint Theory, that all fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests. The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000 although GAST has actually been flat. This is not surprising because EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests.

Bottom –Line: No scientist or team of scientists has come up with an empirically validated theory proving that higher Atmospheric CO2 Levels will lead to higher GAST–not EPA’s team and certainly not to the EPA’s 90-99% certainty. Moreover, if the causal link between higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and higher GAST is broken by invalidating EPA’s Three LoE, then EPA’s claim that higher CO2 concentrations also cause sea level increases and more frequent and severe storms, floods and droughts is also disproved. Such causality claims require a validated theory that higher CO2 concentrations cause increases in GAST. Lacking such a validated theory, EPA’s entire house of cards collapses.

More generally, EPA violated both the scientific method and the Scientific Advisory Board statute intended to enforce the scientific method when it made its highly influential scientific assessment in the Endangerment Finding.

EPA’s own Inspector General stated as follows:

“EPA did not conduct a peer review of the TSD [Technical Support Document] that met all recommended steps in the Peer Review Handbook for peer reviews of influential scientific information or highly influential scientific assessments. {—} The handbook provides examples of ‘independent experts from outside EPA,’ that include NAS, an established Federal Advisory Committee Act mechanism (e.g., Science Advisory Board), and an ad hoc panel of independent experts outside the Agency.”

EPA’s outsourcing of the science to international organizations beyond the reach of U.S. laws has also been challenged. Moreover, the ClimateGate saga is testimony to the dedication of some to subvert the science for their own agenda. And, a Hockey Stick is now famous as a symbol of temperature data manipulated to generate public alarm.

In summary, it is not incorrect to argue that further study of the role GHGs play in climate is in order. However, with what is known now, it certainly seems that a new Endangerment Finding analysis is required, using, for example, the far more rigorous Science Advisory Board process suggested by EPA’s Inspector General. A Remand of EPA’s Endangerment Finding by the U.S. Supreme Court would be appropriate.

Opinion Piece Signer List (alphabetically)

Dr. Timothy Ball
Climatologist & Environmental Consultant
Ph.D. (Faculty of Science), University of London, England

Joseph S. D’Aleo
Chief Meteorologist
WeatherBell Analytics

Dr. Donald Easterbrook (Emeritus)
Professor of Geology
Western Washington University

Dr. Gordon J. Fulks
Astrophysicist
La Center, WA

Dr. Laurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics
University of Hartford

Dr. William M. Gray (Emeritus)
Professor of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University

Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
Professor of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Sciences
University of Missouri

Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Western Technology Inc.
Deer Park Maryland

Dr. S. Fred Singer (Emeritus)
Professor of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia

George H. Taylor,
Certified Consultant Meteorologist
President, Applied Climate Services

Dr. James P. Wallace III
President, & CEO, Jim Wallace & Associates LLC
Ph.D., Economics, Minor in Engineering, Brown University
M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown University
B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University

Your cri de coeur is well intentioned no doubt, but without sound flexible adaptable policy based upon the best science (that is also changing) a costly tragedy could be in the making. Costly in human well being, wasted effort and misapplied resources of vast quantity.

One would have hoped that a young student would be seeking knowledge, questioning authority and challenging the status quo – learning and adding to knowledge – rather than simply parroting conventional, accepted opinion.

None of this would have happened had I not majored in Computer Science. In this world where so many recent alumni have been hard pressed to find jobs after college, I find that my liberal arts education, and especially my BA in Computer Science, have made me competitive in today’s technological world. How many others graduated in May and are already earning money as a direct result of their degree earned at Wittenberg.?

It baffles me that Wittenberg University is considering downsizing or even outright cutting the Computer Science department. As my story shows, this major is one that has immediate payoff due to the increasing demand for programmers in all fields. Although I could have received my Computer Science degree at other schools, I chose Wittenberg because, as a liberal arts school, it could offer me supplemental skills that would make me even more competitive in my future endeavors (and it has).

If Wittenberg were to reduce the size of the Computer Science department, it would deprive students of the same incredible opportunities that I have received and ultimately result in Wittenberg becoming increasingly irrelevant in this technological age.

I’m not only talking about the major automakers, such as Honda who has a huge facility in Marysville, OH, and Toyota with their facility in Kentucky. There are hundreds of suppliers who make the hudreds of components necessary to put a car together, along with companies that make heavy equipment… and even vendors that provide Japanese food for their cafetrias and travel agents that service these Japanese companies.

Unfortunately, alumni who work in this sector seem to be largely untapped by Wittenberg.

How can Wittenberg realistically compete against community colleges and 4-year colleges with vastly cheaper tuition (yet have better facilities) for such vocational classes?

These would be concerns for anybody who is evaluating the future viability of Wittenberg as an institution.

I admit to having a strong egalitarian streak that distrusts and dislikes the kind of smug self-righteousness I sensed in the Shifters of my day. I am surprised and chagrined that the SAhifters still ply their trade to this day, 54 years later.

As a retired clinical psychologist I can recall many instances of persons with low self esteem who compensated for it by assuming a stance of smug self-righteousness. The degree to which this is true of Shifters is a matter for them to discuss with their therapists. I refues to speculate.

Information about the origin of Shifters may be found in the Sunday, December 2 edition of the New York Times in an article by Ben Schott.

The elitism of the Shifters seems to me to be another sad instance of the kind of meritocracy described by Chris Hays in his book “Twilight of the Elites.” Shifters would not persist as anorganization without meeting the needs of its self-appointed members. What are those needs?

Roger F. Cooper, A.B., MDiv., M.A., Psy.D.

Are there academic standards and requirements that all students must master? Not that I can see.

If I hire a Witt grad, will he be competent in a variety of areas – and beyond? No. These days, there is nothing to distinguish the Witt grad from anyone else on the street.
Excellence is too hard, and you’ve dropped it and gone for the popular. Anyone can do that.

If your graduates are not excellent in ALL of the basics, and you don’t provide the technique for approaching the unknown, what are you?

Very basically and very very fundamentally, the school has lost it’s way. You’ve followed fashion rather than intelligence, reason, logic and hard work. That’s why you’re failing. Why would people want to study as such a compromised and corrupted place?

What are you academic principals and requirements? What are your institutional morals and standards? You don’t have any beyond the least common denominator – what is popular. And frankly, you can’t charge money for that.

Also, the gender imbalance in the student population is the worst I’ve seen it in a generation. Why is that?

From reading this site, quotations from Joyner and articles from contributors, a institutional hostile anti-male environment clearly exists at the school. This could very well lead to major legal difficulties. Beware.

I have been advising all young men I know not to consider Wittenberg because the institution has clearly lost its way and whatever may happen in their careers at Wittenberg, men are GUILTY by definition.

Once you’ve alienated and pre-vilified half of your potential students as a matter of policy and practice, you’ve failed as a liberal arts institution.

It’s sad to see a once fairly competent institution succumb to, or rather choose faddishness and failure.

Yes, I am an alum and I’ve stopped donating to the school and stopped recommending young people go there – until you gain some sort of self awareness and self control – from the Board of Directors down.

Perhaps, it would be in the best interests of all if you went the way of Antioch.

I believe the author’s aim in writing this letter to describe the effect of said ingroup. You know that teamwork catchphrase “the whole is greater than the sum of the parts”? In this case, the whole seems to promote something contradictory to the goals of the “wonderfully moral” people.

When someone makes the argument that hiring extremely thin models promotes an unhealthy obsession with thinness and eating disorders, it is pretty irrelevant to say that each model has wonderful morals.