The Validity of EPA's CO2 Endangerment Finding

Food for thought about what you have been told about climate change.

Here is the link.

Here is the conclusion.
--------------------------------------------
Given the potential significance of this research, it is appropriate to question everything about it. Questioning everything is fair game from 1) the selection of the particular 13 temperature time series by one of the authors for this analysis to the 2) econometric parameter estimation methods utilized to 3) the actual models estimated. On all three, the authors have attempted to be completely open. 

Regarding the model used for ENSO adjustment, recall that the exact same linear functional form and 3 MEI-related variables were used, except that the 1977 Pacific Shift variable is dropped for the Satellite data modeling since its history begins in 1979. 

The econometric modeling process output was remarkable in that, for all 13 temperature time series analyzed, the results were invariably the same: The identical (3 or 2 MEI-related variables as appropriate) model worked very well for all 13 time series:

 1.) All parameter estimates had the correct signs and with high, statistically significant t Statistics; except that the MEI coefficients for U.S. and Global temperatures were positive, but not statistically significant.

 2.) However, it was noted a priori that MEI would be expected to have less impact outside the tropics.

 3.) Model R Bar Squares were all higher than relevant Naive forecasting models and high for such empirical work.

 The 13 time series analyzed constituted a robust test set in that they were produced by many different entities using different technologies involving Surface, Buoy, Balloon and Satellite temperature measurement.

 Removing the ENSO impacts using the same MEI-based model resulted in 13 ENSO-adjusted temperature time series each having a flat trend.

These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot, caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, even on an all-otherthings-equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 temperature time series analyzed.

Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in its CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA’s THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models they claim can be relied upon, are also invalid. And, these results clearly demonstrate--13 times in fact--that once just the ENSO impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all. These natural ENSO impacts involve both changes in solar activity and the 1977 Pacific Shift.

Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures. To validate their claim will require mathematically credible, publically available, simultaneous equation parameter estimation work. Where is it?