The Climate Con: Unmasking the EPA’s Flawed Carbon Capture Crusade, By Charles Taylor (Florida)

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) push for stringent carbon capture rules, as detailed in a June 28, 2025, Natural News article, has sparked a fierce backlash from climate sceptics, led by MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen and Princeton's Dr. William Happer. Their 45-page critique, submitted in opposition to the EPA's May 2023 mandate for coal- and gas-fired plants to capture 90% of CO₂ emissions by 2038 or shut down, argues that these policies rest on "false science" and a politically driven consensus that stifles debate. From a climate change sceptic's perspective, this clash exposes a deeper flaw in the paternal state's approach: imposing costly, unscientific regulations while ignoring evidence that CO₂ is a net benefit, not a catastrophe.

The EPA's carbon capture mandate is a cornerstone of the Biden administration's climate agenda, aiming to slash greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to combat supposed catastrophic warming. Sceptics like Lindzen and Happer argue it's a costly misstep, with their May 2025 paper, Physics Demonstrates That Increasing Greenhouse Gases Cannot Cause Dangerous Warming, asserting that CO₂'s warming effect is negligible due to its logarithmic saturation. At current levels (420 ppm), additional CO₂ contributes "trivial" warming, 0.06°F to 0.5°F even with Net Zero by 2050, per their earlier May 2025 analysis.

They further contend that CO₂ boosts global crop yields by up to 40%, a boon for food security, especially in poorer nations. "Eliminating fossil fuels would be disastrous for the world's poorest," Lindzen warns, highlighting the economic devastation of policies costing trillions in subsidies with minimal environmental impact.

Sceptics trace the roots of climate alarmism to the 1988 Senate hearing, orchestrated by Senators Timothy Wirth and Al Gore. As Natural News notes, Wirth admitted to scheduling it on Washington's hottest day, opening windows to disable air conditioning and create a sweltering atmosphere. This "press conference in disguise," as Dr. Myron Ebell called it, excluded dissenters like NOAA's Dr. Patrick Michaels, setting a precedent for "censored science."

This manipulation birthed a consensus-driven narrative, with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), formed in 1989, becoming its enforcer. Lindzen, a former IPCC contributor, likens its process to "snakes swallowing a Ghaddafi-era leader and vomiting only snakebites," ignoring critical reviews for ideological conformity. The 2009 Climategate scandal, revealing scientists hiding flaws and withholding data, further eroded trust, as did the IPCC's use of non-peer-reviewed advocacy sources, like claims about Himalayan glaciers. X users like @ClimateRealist fume, "1988 was a setup, and we're still paying for it with junk science policies." This echoes Australia's housing crisis, where migration-driven demand outpaces supply, yet dissent is dismissed as xenophobia.

The IPCC's "97% consensus" on human-driven warming is a sceptic's bête noire. As Natural News reports, only 0.3% of science papers explicitly state humans cause climate change, per a 2008 study. The consensus is a "crutch for lame science," driven by funding and ideology, not evidence. Happer argues the IPCC's peer review is a "checklist of approved conclusions," sidelining debate. The 2012 revelation of $13M in Obama's budget for the IPCC underscores its political ties.

Sceptics like Steve Goreham, in his book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism, argue CO₂ historically follows temperature rises, not precedes them, suggesting natural cycles drive climate. Weather extremes, like 1930s U.S. heatwaves, predate CO₂ spikes, undermining claims of anthropogenic links.

Lindzen and Happer's core claim, CO₂'s warming effect diminishes logarithmically, challenges the EPA's Endangerment Finding, which relies on models inflating warming by 30-50%. NASA's Dr. James Hansen, a 1988 alarmist, pushes feedback loops (e.g., melting ice) as catastrophic triggers, but sceptics counter that satellite data and ice core records show natural variability dominates. Happer's quip, "CO₂ isn't an enemy—it's life's elixir," underscores its role in photosynthesis, vital for global agriculture.

The EPA's rules, costing billions and risking energy poverty, ignore this. The New York Times reports plans to gut the Energy Star program, signalling a Trump-era pushback against such mandates.

The EPA's carbon capture rules epitomise the paternal state paradox: imposing costly, unproven solutions while dismissing dissent, much like the UK's migration-driven rent crisis or Australia's weapon bans. By prioritising ideology over physics, the state undermines classical liberal principles of empirical rigour and individual agency. Locke's call for governance serving the common good is betrayed when policies harm the poorest, as Lindzen notes. Mill's emphasis on open debate is stifled by the IPCC's "consensus" dogma, echoing Germany's speech crime prosecutions.

From an Aussie perspective, this mirrors our housing woes, where migration spikes rents without supply fixes, or machete bans that limit self-reliance. The EPA's rules, like these, assume state omnipotence while ignoring practical impacts, higher energy costs, reduced food security, and economic strain.

Lindzen and Happer's critique exposes the EPA's carbon capture rules as a triumph of politics over physics, rooted in a manipulated 1988 hearing and perpetuated by a flawed IPCC. CO₂, far from a catastrophe, is a boon for crops, with warming effects overstated by shaky models. The paternal state's push for costly subsidies and regulations, while silencing sceptics, mirrors global trends of disempowering citizens, whether through weapon bans, speech fines, or migration policies. A state that demands compliance but delivers hardship. For real solutions, as Lindzen says, "truth, not headlines" must prevail.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-06-28-epa-faces-backlash-climate-skeptics-challenge-consensus.html

Two climate scientists submit 45-page EPA comment opposing new carbon capture rules, citing "false science" behind climate policies.

Historical critique of 1988 Senate hearing exposes origins of climate alarmism through "skewed temperatures" and stifled dissent.

Lindzen and Happer argue rising CO2 boosts food production and poses no catastrophic warming threat via fundamental physics.

Critics claim EPA's Endangerment Finding relies on flawed models, consensus-driven processes, and ignored contradictory data.

Advocates demand repeal of costly climate subsidies, asserting trillions will be wasted without environmental benefits.

On June 11, climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT and Princeton physicist Dr. William Happer delivered a 45-page critique to the EPA opposing proposed carbon capture regulations for power plants. Their blunt assertions—that climate policies rest on dubious science, wasted subsidies and a biased process—mark a critical moment in a decades-long debate. Their challenge reverberates with historical context: the first Senate hearing on global warming was in 1988, and is now widely criticized by skeptics as a setup. As the Biden administration accelerates climate regulations, Happer and Lindzen argue that trillions in subsidies and emission targets lack scientific grounding, urging a return to empirical rigor.

EPA's carbon capture rules draw fire as "science-based" attack

The EPA's May 2023 proposal mandates that coal- and gas-fired plants capture 90% of CO? emissions by 2038 or cease operations. Happer and Lindzen's filing calls this a costly misstep, asserting that reducing greenhouse gases (GHGs) has negligible climate impact and jeopardizes global food security. Their May 2025 paper, "Physics Demonstrates That Increasing Greenhouse Gases Cannot Cause Dangerous Warming," argues that CO?'s warming effect has been overstated due to flawed models and agenda-driven consensus. They emphasize a counterintuitive truth: higher atmospheric CO? levels could boost global crop yields by 40%, benefiting millions while producing "trivial" warming.

"Eliminating fossil fuels would be disastrous for the world's poorest," Lindzen warned. "Instead of taxing carbon, policymakers should trust markets and basic physics."

The 1988 hearing that fuelled the climate hubbub

The EPA's current regulations trace their lineage to Congress's 1988 hearings, a pivotal moment now scrutinized for manipulation. Led by Sen. Timothy Wirth (D-CO) and Sen. Al Gore (D-TN), the hearings coincided with Washington's hottest recorded day—a deliberate scheduling choice, according to Wirth's 2015 memoir. "We opened the windows overnight to ruin the room's air conditioning," Wirth disclosed, ensuring attendees were sweltering and receptive to climate alarmism.

Critics argue this marked a broader shift: replacing scientific debate with "consensus ideology." The hearings excluded dissenting voices like former NOAA scientist Dr. Patrick Michaels, who was barred days before testifying despite years of Senate collaboration. Dr. Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute called the proceedings "a press conference in disguise," setting a pattern of "censored science" that persists today.

IPCC's consensus-driven process faces "snakebites Ghaddafi" flaws

At the core of skeptics' critique lies the UN's Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), founded the year after the Senate hearing. Happer and Lindzen argue its methods contradict scientific rigor. Lindzen, a past IPCC contributor, noted in 2020 that lead authors often ignore reviewer critiques, "like snakes swallowing a Ghaddafi-era leader and vomiting only snakebites."

The 2012 revelation that President Obama's budget targeted $13M for the IPCC, coupled with evidence that candidate selection prioritizes ideological alignment, has deepened distrust. Happer contends that "peer review" under the IPCC's rubric amounts to a "checklist of approved conclusions," whereas true science thrives on debate.

Politics vs. physics: The clash over CO2's role

The scientists' central claim—that rising CO2 is a net benefit—is fiercely contested. Their June 2025 paper asserts that Earth's climate sensitivity to GHGs has been grossly exaggerated. They argue that CO2's impact diminishes logarithmically (not linearly), meaning each doubling delivers diminishing returns of warming. Lindzen further claims weather extremes have followed historic patterns, debunking links to anthropogenic CO? levels.

Yet opponents like NASA's Dr. James Hansen—whose 1988 testimony still underpins modern alarmism—maintain that feedback loops (like melting ice lowering reflectivity) could trigger runaway warming. The debate hinges on interpretation of satellite data, ice core records and climate models, several of which have retroactively adjusted estimates to align with warming trends.

The crossroads of science and government

As the Trump administration evaluates repeals of climate-related rules and subsidies, Lindzen and Happer's challenge underscores a generational reckoning. For regulators, the question is whether to accept decades of climate science as settled—or open it to re-examination. The stakes, they argue, are existential: policies targeting CO? could hobble poor nations' growth, while subsidies divert funds from tangible human needs.

Yet the real battleground may be definition: Can "sound science" coexist with political mandates? For skeptics, the 1988 hearing remains a cautionary tale—a reminder that climate policy's foundation may rest not on peer review, but perception. As Lindzen put it, "If the world wants real solutions, it needs truth—not headlines."