since the late 1980s, shown below: 5 I (Prof. Lindzen) show two recent warming periods, one 1895-1946 on the left and the second 1957-2008 on the. right.6 Both look nearly the same.
However, increased CO2 could not be responsible for the warming on the left between 1895-1946 because there was so little fossil fuel and other human CO2 emissions during that time, as the chart above shows. Fossil fuel emissions were trivial then. Accordingly, using scientific method, this data is another contradiction of the theory that higher fossil fuel CO2 emissions will create catastrophic global warming. It’s yet further proof that there is no climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2, and thus further demonstrates is no reliable scientific evidence supporting the proposed rule. E. The IPCC CMIP and Other Models Fail to Reliably Predict Temperatures, Thus Confirming There is No Reliable Scientific Evidence Supporting the Proposed Rule As noted, nowhere in the 500+ pages of the proposed rule is there any explanation of the scientific basis of the rule. Instead it states, for example: “Several commenters referred to various reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) to demonstrate that there is scientific consensus that climate 5
Boden, T.A., G. Marland, and R.J. Andres. 2017. Global, Regional, and National FossilFuel CO2 Emissions. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. 6
Lindzen, “On Climate Sensitivity,” CO2 Coalition (Dec. 2019), p. 13. 10
