EPA faces scientific backlash: Climate skeptics challenge 40-year consensus

• 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 fueled 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 CO?’s role

The scientists’ central claim—that rising CO? 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 CO?’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.”

Sources for this article include:

ClimateDepot.com

CO2coalition.org

CO2coalition.org