Kill the Endangerment Finding
Political science masquerading as Real Science
Dr. Roger Pielke, jr is a well-known person in the climate arena, although his Science credentials are a bit wanting (e.g., his PhD is in political science).
I worked with his dad (Dr. Roger Pielke, sr) for many years and he was a bona-fide climate scientist, and was wonderful to interface with.
In any case, Roger (jr) has a popular Substack called the Honest Broker.
Last week he decided to write a column in support of the Endangerment Finding. Ugh.
I couldn't help myself and since I know Roger (jr) a bit, I emailed him a polite but firm objection. He cordially responded by genuinely thanking me.
Since the Endangerment Finding is a popular topic (and will get more so), I’m posting below the latest version of my comments to Roger, jr…
———————————————
Roger:
This is a slightly updated and very brief response to your recent Substack column to what I recently emailed you.
As you rightly wrote, the word "risk" is bandied about in the Endangerment Finding a few hundred times!
a) Why?
The EPA's objective here was to be able to increase their regulatory authority. (This is what bureaucracies do!) It's a proven strategy that instilling fear is an extremely effective methodology in getting people to be willing to bypass critical thinking and to voluntarily give up their democratic rights. Think COVID policies! When we see an emphasis on instilling fear, we should also see a large flashing road sign saying: Proceed with Extreme Caution — you are now leaving the realm of Science!
b) Perspective.
Essentially EVERYTHING involves some type of risk. For example, from wood rot and steel rust to flooding and mold, water causes expensive and extremely high health risks to innumerable structures (from homes to bridges) and people. Should the government label water as a pollutant and restrict its use?
c) Net Benefit.
Almost everything that has risks also has rewards. Life is a series of judgments about Net Benefits. This key parameter can only be accurately determined after objectively and comprehensively assessing the associated risks and rewards. There was no Net Benefit consideration regarding CO2 in the Endangerment Finding.
d) Science.
A genuine Scientific Assessment includes four required elements: 1) Comprehensive, 2) Objective, 3) Empirical, and 4) Transparent. That was not done in the Endangerment Finding — ergo it is not a Scientific Assessment regarding CO2 or anything else.
e) Politics.
Arguably the most significant societal threat we are facing today is the persistent and purposeful attack on real Science. (This starts in K-12 education — see the NGSS.) A primary tactic used to fool the technically-challenged public (and Supreme Court justices) is to substitute political science (aka politics) for real Science. That is exactly what happened in the Endangerment Finding (and COVID policies, and the All of the Above energy policy, etc.). Substituting politics for Science is an existential threat.
Roger, please reconsider your support of the horrifically bad Endangerment Finding — as it is an endangerment to citizens, Science, and America.
Sincerely,
john droz, jr.
Physicist, North Carolina.
Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:
I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!
I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.
For those using RSS feeds, use https://criticallythinking.substack.com/feed
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?
Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about once a week).
“It's a proven strategy that instilling fear is an extremely effective methodology in getting people to be willing to bypass critical thinking and to voluntarily give up their democratic rights.”
You’ve nailed it John! Literally and figuratively speaking, you nailed it! Today, nearly 5 years later, I am still wondering why, so many people still wear masks? Why?
I stopped my car last week simply to ask this young lady “why are you wearing a mask outside walking down the street?”
Her answer was “F-YOU! Throws me the middle finger and continues on her way. Well I wasn’t done trying to understand why. So I slowly creeped alongside as she walked and very nicely said to her,
“I don’t know if you know something I don’t know and was concerned if maybe I too, should be wearing a mask?”
She replied with the same
“F-YOU, leave me the F-alone!”
I drove off before I enraged her anymore. Still I’m curious about this mentality. Still, I am not sure if this “proven-strategy” has literally reached so deep within the minds of many people that they don’t even realize what they’re saying or doing anymore.
A curious observer might say, “who cares?” Unfortunately this is exactly how we got into this situation in the first place. Nobody seems to care if people lie to them or scare the living daylights out of them anymore.
As a society we have lost our ability to “think-critically.” This, in and of itself will continue to perpetuate if, as a society we continue to allow those who lie to continue lying.
The “weeds of lies” have transformed society into a “non-caring-F-YOU” society of me, me, me first. Such a dangerous place we’re spiraling down and into this intolerable mental state.
Thank you John for always sharing and “sparking a fire” which needs to be contained.
AJR
There is a real danger in being lied to by people you should be able to trust. Case in point is the political rag Nature, which long ago was a reputable scientific journal. That is no longer the case. I resent being unable to simply trust what should be the reported facts of science. However, that is the world in which we now live. Another massive example is the continued use of RCP8.5 and its derivatives by the IPCC. Occasionally, Roger Pielke, Jr. has had a clear "swing and a miss" on important issues. However, he has been a consistent voice for scientific integrity and provides valuable data (hurricane strength and frequency, economic losses, etc) that I can trust. We need more people like him.