Scientific American has reported that University of Alabama, Huntsville professor John Christy wants the EPA to repeal greenhouse gas regulations. He also claimed that the earth would benefit from burning more fossil fuels.
Christy is one of the EPA’s newest science advisors, and wants to use his new position on the Science Advisory Board to undermine the climate science consensus and question climate change models.
“There’s a benefit, not a cost, to producing energy from carbon,” Christy said in an interview.
Christy said that he was asked by EPA officials to apply.
“In a fair, open, and transparent fashion, EPA reviewed hundreds of qualified applicants nominated for this committee,” acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement. “Members who will be appointed or reappointed include experts from a wide variety of scientific disciplines who reflect the geographic diversity needed to represent all ten EPA regions.”
Christy also asserted that he would attempt to convince his peers that nature, not people, is responsible for rising temperatures.
“I think it would be to demonstrate to the board what we know about climate and its variability and what’s really going on,” Christy said. “And secondly is our inability to characterize it well with our models.”
The Trump administration has reached out to several critics of climate science and air pollution regulations to serve on the EPA science advisory boards.
In Christy’s earlier research, he and a colleague asserted that the Earth has actually been cooling. His research has been proved false, and the last four years are the warmest on record.
Christy described the endangerment finding, the scientific bedrock for the agency’s climate rules, is scientifically incorrect.
“I think the endangerment finding is one that doesn’t stand on the best science that we have out there, mainly because the best science is expressing tremendous uncertainties we have on this issue,” Christy said. “The overconfidence we have on the climate issue in the climate community is incredibly large, and we need to pull back on that.”
A challenge to the endangerment finding would require a massive amount of work on alternative climate science, which the Trump administration has not shown a desire to undertake.