On The Criteria For Falsifying A Scientific Hypothesis

/
On The Criteria For Falsifying A Scientific Hypothesis

  • My September 29 post asked whether we could deem as “definitively falsified” the hypothesis that human-caused global warming was leading to “more and more severe” hurricanes.

  • The cited basis for the question was that, despite the endlessly repeated prediction of “more and more severe” hurricanes, as of that date not a single hurricane had yet formed this season in the North Atlantic basin. This represented a record-low rate of hurricane formation in this region since the satellite era, and comprehensive hurricane data, began in 1966.

  • In response to that post, I received a comment from a reader that I thought deserved a serious response. The comment came as an email, rather than as a comment on the blog. The commenter gave his name, but since he did not post the comment on the blog I am keeping his name confidential as a courtesy. Here is the text of the comment: . . .

Read More

"More And More Severe Storms": When Can We Declare This Hypothesis To Be Definitively Falsified?

/
"More And More Severe Storms": When Can We Declare This Hypothesis To Be Definitively Falsified?

  • You know the mantra: Human caused climate change, driven by burning fossil fuels and adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, causes an increase in the frequency and severity of major storms, like hurricanes.

  • When major hurricanes come along, as they regularly do, the promoters of this mantra immediately claim an ability to “attribute” the storm and/or its intensity to the ongoing human-caused warming.

  • For example, last October we had Hurricane Melissa, a Category 5 storm that struck Jamaica and other Caribbean islands. As soon as Melissa had passed, an organization calling itself World Weather Attribution promptly came out with an analysis blaming the storm and its intensity on “climate change.” From the AP, November 6, 2025:

  • Melissa was one of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes to make landfall and brought destructive weather to Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic and Cuba, causing dozens of deaths across the Caribbean. . . . The rapid analysis by World Weather Attribution found that climate change increased Melissa’s maximum wind speeds by 7% and made the rainfall near the center of the storm 16% more intense. The scientists also wrote that the temperature and humidity in which the storm intensified were made six times more likely due to climate change compared to a pre-industrial world.

  • Perhaps that seemed plausible at the time. But this year the mantra that human-induced climate change is the main cause of destructive hurricanes has run into a small problem.

Read More

Energy Affordability: An IQ Test For New Yorkers That They Will Very Likely Fail

/

  • Here in New York, our very-light-weight Governor Kathy Hochul is running for re-election. To her slight credit, she has noticed that New York is a high cost state, not the least for cost of energy, and that New Yorkers are upset about that.

  • New Yorkers are right to be upset about the cost of energy. According to this chart from the federal EIA containing most recent data for July 2026, the average price of electricity to the ultimate consumer in New York for that month was 29.9¢/kWh, compared to a national average of 18.31¢/kWh; and New York’s cost had increased more than 14% from 26.22¢/kWh in July 2025, versus a 4.9% increase in the national average over last year’s 17.45¢/kWh. New Yorkers are also right to be upset because the premium they pay for electricity is mostly to entirely the consequence of intentional government policies that drive up the cost.

  • What’s crazy is that Governor Hochul has decided to make “energy affordability” a theme of her campaign. The reason that is crazy is that at the same time that Hochul claims she favors more “affordability,” she also brags about maintaining and expanding the very policies that have caused the excess costs.

Read More

Rescission Of Carbon Emissions Standards For Power Plants: The Litigation Begins

/

  • In what may be a world record for turnaround time, the litigation has already begun over the recent rescission by EPA of its carbon emission standards for fossil-fuel fired power plants.

  • As reported here on September 17, on that date the EPA finalized its rescission of what were called its “Carbon Pollution Standards” for electric power plants. (EPA’s September 17 action did not rescind all of the Carbon Pollution Standards for power plants, but only those for existing power plants and major overhauls of existing plants; the standards for new plants remain in effect for now, although in its rescission action EPA gave strong hints that those will also soon be ended.). By the end of that very day, September 17, a Petition had been filed in the DC Circuit seeking review of the regulatory action. Here is a copy of the Petition. The Petitioners are the American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, Clean Air Council, Clean Wisconsin, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

  • The Petition is a short two-page document that simply asks for “review” of EPA’s action, and does not say anything about the grounds for the request.

Read More

Another Big Step In The Removal Of Destructive "Climate" Regulations

/

  • I will never understand how large numbers of seemingly intelligent people got the idea that they were going to save the world by forcing the closure of all the functional parts of the energy system of the U.S. Nor will I ever understand how enough of those people got themselves into positions of sufficient political power to put their wacko energy ideas into effect.

  • And yet, by the time President Joe Biden and his minions had left office in early 2025, such people, operating deep in the administrative state (and with the apparent blessing of a demented President), had managed to impose regulations that, by some time in the 2030s would have, among other things, forced the end of the manufacture and sale of all vehicles except electric vehicles, and forced the closure of all power plants using fossil fuels.

  • Since taking office in January 2025, President Trump and his people have been actively working to rescind and eliminate this insanity. I have previously reported on many of these actions, for example here and here.

  • Today the EPA took another big step in removing these destructive regulations by finalizing a Rule titled “Partial Repeal of the Carbon Pollution Standards for Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units.”

Read More

D.C. Circuit Endangerment Finding Litigation: The Nefarious EPA "Futility" Analysis

/

Readers of my previous (August 13) post on the Endangerment Finding (EF) litigation pending in the D.C. Circuit may have come away wondering about this issue: What is the basis on which this coalition of most blue states plus many major municipalities and big-time environmental NGOs seeks to put an indefinite stall on resolution of the litigation?

As reported in that post, after the Trump EPA had finalized its rescission of the EF in February 2026, a large number of blue states, municipalities and environmental NGOs promptly filed Petitions in the D.C. Circuit seeking to have the court block that action. But, once having commenced the case, the same group of major actors immediately started engaging in tactics to slow the litigation down and postpone the beginning of briefing on the merits. Most recently on July 29, a large group of most of the Petitioners in the litigation — including some 20 blue states (California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, etc., etc.), large municipalities (New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc., etc.), and NGOs (Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, etc., etc.) — filed a motion to put the case into “abeyance” for 30 days to force EPA to re-do some of the analysis that supports the rescission. While the “abeyance” request itself is only for 30 days, a re-do of EPA’s analysis could re-start the running of multiple clocks, and thereby delay the litigation for months, if not a year or more.

Now, this litigation potentially affects some trillions of dollars of economic activity. Surely, if there is to be a significant delay, there must be some very important reason. But in fact the stated basis for the motion, backed by all these big-time entities, is beyond trivial.

Read More