SEPP Science Editorials

Index of Editorials Energy Issues American Power Act	All Editorials for 2020 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 Categories Subcategories Antarctic Warming Skepticism [2] Book Review [3] Climate Change CO2 Emissions [1] Climate Models Uncertainty [2] Climate Science Climate Cycles [1] Climate Sensitivity [1] Holes [1] Thermal History [1] Unsolved Problems [1] Energy Issues American Power Act [1] Clean and Sustainable [1] Nuclear Waste Storage [1] Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) [1] Environmentalism Surrogate Religion [1] Foreword Energy Primer for Kids [1] Geo-Engineering Applications [2] Global Climate - International French Academy [1] Global Warming Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) [6] Confusion [1] Economics [1] General [2] Greenhouse Gases [1] Hockeystick [4] Ice Cores [1] Junkscience [9] Oceans' Role [2] Skepticism [1] Sun's Role [2] Health Issues Second Hand Smoke [1] Measurements Arctic Sea Ice [1] Atmospheric Temperature Data [2] Sea Surface Temperature [1] Surface Data [2] Misinformation Statistics Misuse [1] Modern Empirical Science v. Medieval Science [1] NIPCC China [1] Nuclear Fuel Supplies [1] Organizations Climate Research Unit (CRU) [1] International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [2] Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) [1] UK Met Office [1] World Meteorological Organization (WMO) [1] Political Issues Climate Realism [1] Climategate [3] Independent Cross Check of Temperature Data [1] Report IPCC Assessment Report [2] NOAA State of the Climate 2009 [1] NRC-NAS Advancing the Science of Climate Change [1] Sea-Level Rise West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) [1] Alarmism [1] Types of Energy Nuclear Energy [1]
19-Jun-10 EPA and American Power Act
SEPP SCIENCE EDITORIAL #19-2010 (in TWTW Jun 19, 2010) *S. Fred Singer, Chairman and President , Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)* EPA and American Power Act Jun 19, 2010 EPA's 'analysis' of the American Power Act (Kerry-Lieberman bill S-1733) is so bad, I wonder if a response to Scientific American is worthwhile. http://www.scientificamerican.com... 1. It assumes a climate sensitivity that is not justified by any evidence 2. It ignores all forcings except CO2 3. It assumes that China and India will go along in rationing energy use 4. It uses the 'magic' 2 deg C threshold -- for which there is no scientific evidence 5. It assumes that Floods, Droughts etc will all increase with temperature 6. It ignores the benefits of global warming and increased CO2 7. It uses made-up risk probabilities, disguised as science View The Week That Was in which this editorial appeared. Return to Top of Page