In case you missed it, the illicit Biden regime is trying to destroy all earth-based "fossil" fuel production in the United States, claiming that doing so is necessary to stop the production of "dangerous" carbon dioxide (CO2) and other natural greenhouse gases. Happer and Lindzen are warning not so fast as they say the EPA is relying on pseudoscience rather than actual science concerning the matter.
"The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule," Happer and Lindzen explained.
"None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule."
According to the duo, every single climate model out there that predicts a catastrophic global warming collapse is "grossly" overpredicting the level of warming versus what the actual data says, they further claim.
"The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather."
(Related: If the EPA rules become enshrined into law, expect rolling blackouts and an eventual grid collapse.)
It turns out that the climate models the EPA has been relying on for several decades are consistently wrong, and yet the federal agency treats them like gospel truth while peddling new "green" initiatives on the unsuspecting masses.
Most Americans are now so doped up on pharmaceuticals, entertainment, GMOs, and pleasure that they are none the wiser as to what the EPA is plotting – and has been plotting since even before the turn of the century.
"That was already an embarrassment in the '90s, when I was director of energy research in the U.S. Department of Energy," Happer told The Epoch Times about he and Lindzen's discoveries.
"I was funding a lot of this work, and I knew very well then that the models were overpredicting the warming by a huge amount."
For nearly 50 years at least, the EPA has been cherry-picking data to grossly overstate the alleged harm caused by CO2 emissions while conveniently covering up CO2's many benefits, including that it is food for plants.
The longstanding argument against the EPA's various anti-CO2 proposals is based on the "major doctrines question," meaning the agency does not have the legal authority to invent regulations that have this enormous of an effect on Americans without first receiving clear direction and authorization from Congress.
Happer and Lindzen are taking the approach that the EPA's proposed regulation is "arbitrary and capricious," failing to pass the simple test put forth in the case of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
"Time and again, courts have applied 'State Farm's' principles to invalidate agency rules where the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or cherry-picked data to support a pre-ordained conclusion," the duo says.
"Six-hundred million years of CO2 and temperature data contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming," they add.
"The often highly emphasized 140 [parts per million] increase in CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Age is trivial compared to CO2 changes over the geological history of life on Earth."
Man-made climate change is a hoax. Learn more at Hoax.news.
Sources for this article include: