By John Droz Jr., originally published on his Substack:

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.