AS CAREER PHYSICISTS, SCIENCE DEMONSTRATES THERE IS NO CLIMATE RELATED RISK CAUSED BY FOSSIL FUELS AND CO2, THUS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR THE PROPOSED RULE, AND, IF ADOPTED, DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES FOR PEOPLE WORLDWIDE AND THE U. S. BECAUSE IT WOULD REDUCE CO2 AND THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS.

Tutti i dettagli, con le credenziali degli scienziati, su : https://drive.google.com/file/d/106wBA7Syf-pz_StA86QVHb1V-12jZdfa/view?usp=share_link

I relatori sono estremamente autorevoli sotto il profilo scientifico.
Se queste cose le sostengo io, chi la pensa diversamente può anche snobbarmi come un incompetente, cosa che non sono, pur senza vantare titoli accademici.
Ma se nel mondo della scienza numerosi personaggi di analoga autorevolezza sono in completo disaccordo, su che basi può la politica, scientificamente ignorante, decidere a favore dell’una o dell’altra tesi?
Nel dubbio astieniti, dice l’antica saggezza popolare di sempre. Nel dubbio, non stravolgi la vita della gente in Europa e/o nel mondo per condurre una battaglia insensata contro un gas, la CO2, IN ASSENZA DEL QUALE NON ESISTEREBBE VITA SUL PIANETA !!!

Quando esistono PROVE SCIENTIFICHE di qualcosa, se sono PROVE, debbono essere inconfutabili, altrimenti sono TESI, non prove. Per condannare a morte un presunto assassino devi PROVARE AL DI LA DI OGNI RAGIONEVOLE DUBBIO che l’imputato abbia commesso il delitto, altrimenti lo assolvi.

Non solo: visto che, comunque, quali che siano le cause, è certamente vero che ci siano cambiamenti climatici in corso, come ci sono sempre stati da quando esiste il pianeta, e visto che contrastare le intemperanze climatiche non fa schifo a nessuno, FACCIAMO PROGRAMMI DI RIFORESTAZIONE MASSICCIA SUL PIANETA, prima ancora di pensare alle FONTI DI ENERGIA RINNOVABILE, utili per motivi diversi. La vegetazione mitiga il clima, riduce la temperatura ambiente, combatte la desertificazione ed assorbe CO2 dall’atmosfera, per accontentare chi teme che sia questa la causa dei mutamenti climatici.

Concentriamoci sulla riforestazione, non sulle auto elettriche. Energie alternative solo se aiutano a spendere meno nei costi energetici, non il contrario, e se aiutano ad essere più autonomi sotto questo profilo. Non si tratta di spedire a rottame le nuove tecnologie, ma di ricollocarle nell’ambito di una SOSTENIBILITA’ DELLA RAGIONE, che ben diversa dalla sostenibilità ideologica.

Ing. Franco Puglia
30 maggio 2023

Comment and Declaration
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed SEC requiring disclosures of climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2. We are career physicists who have specialized in radiation physics and dynamic heat transfer for decades.
In our opinion, science demonstrates that there is no climate related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2 and no climate emergency.
Further, nowhere in the more than 500 pages of the proposed rule is there any reliable scientific evidence that there exists a climate related risk. None. It refers to the International Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”) and other outside groups, but never provides any reliable scientific evidence that supports the rule. The science is just assumed. Therefore, there is no reliable scientific basis for the proposed SEC rule.
Further, contrary to what is commonly reported, CO2 is essential to life on earth.
Without CO2, there would be no photosynthesis, and thus no plant food and not enough oxygen to breathe.
Moreover, without fossil fuels there will be no low-cost energy worldwide and less CO2 for photosynthesis making food. Eliminating fossil fuels and reducing CO2 emissions will be disastrous for the poor, people worldwide, future generations and the country.
Finally, the cost of the proposed rule is enormous and would have no public benefit.
It would increase the reporting burden to companies $6.4 billion, which is 64% more than the $3.9 billion all SEC reporting requirements have cost companies from its beginning in 1934. Id., 87 Fed. Reg., p. 21461.
Thus, the rule must not be adopted or, if adopted, ruled invalid by the courts.

Here’s the science why.
RELIABLE SCIENTIFIC THEORIES COME FROM VALIDATING THEORETICAL PREDICTIONS WITH OBSERVATIONS, NOT CONSENSUS, PEER REVIEW, GOVERNMENT OPINION OR MANIPULATED DATA

Scientific knowledge is determined by scientific method. Prof. Richard Feynman, a
Nobel Laureate in Physics, provided an incisive definition of scientific method:
“[W]e compare the result of [a theory’s] computation to nature, … compare it directly
with observations, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that
simple statement is the key to science.” The Character of Physical Law (1965), p. 150.
Agreement with observations is the measure of scientific truth. Scientific progress
proceeds by the interplay of theory and observation.
Theory explains observations and makes predictions of what will be observed in the future. Observations anchor understanding and weed out the theories that don’t work.
This has been the scientific method for more than three hundred years.
However, scientific knowledge is not determined by:

Consensus. What is correct in science is not determined by consensus. but by experiment and observations. Historically, scientific consensuses have often turned out to be wrong.
The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus.
The frequent assertion that there is a consensus behind the idea that there is an impending
disaster from climate change is not how the validity of science is determined to quote the
profoundly true observation of Michael Crichton:
“If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it is science, it isn’t consensus.”

Government Opinion. Nobel physicist Richard Feynman put it clearly:
“No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles.”
The Meaning of It All (1998), p. 57.
The importance of scientific principles that government does not determine science was chillingly underscored when Stalin made Trofim Lysenko the czar of Russian biology.
False biology prevailed for 40 years in the Soviet Union because Lysenko gained dictatorial control, providing one of the most thoroughly documented and horrifying examples of the politicization of science. Lysenko was strongly supported by “scientists” who benefitted from his patronage. Millions died as a result. To highlight the dangers of government-dictated science, government-dictated science is referred to here at times as “Lysenko science.”
Peer Review. Peer review can be helpful in many areas of science, but it does not determine scientific validity. Agreement of theoretical predictions with observation or experiment, “the scientific method,” is the real touchstone of truth in science.
In our decades of personal experience in the field we have been dismayed that many distinguished scientific journals now have editorial boards that further the agenda of climate-change alarmism rather than objective science.
Research papers with scientific findings contrary to the dogma of climate calamity are rejected by reviewers, many of whom fear that their research funding will be cut if any doubt is cast on the coming climate catastrophe.
Journal editors have been fired for publishing papers that go against the party line of the climate-alarm establishment.
Alas, peer review of the climate literature is a joke. It is pal review, not peer review.
The present situation violates the ancient principle :
“no man shall be a judge in his own cause.”
Accordingly, all peer reviewed climate publications need to be viewed with skepticism.
Some are right, but many have serious problems with confirmation bias.
Manipulated and Omitted Unfavorable Observations.
Since theories are tested with observations, fabricating and omitting unfavorable facts to make a theory work is an egregious violation of scientific method.
Richard Feynman stated this fundamental principal of scientific method:
“If you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid – not only what you think is right about it.…
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.” 1974 Caltech commencement address, Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman! (1985), p. 311-12
U.S. Supreme Court on Science. The U.S. Supreme Court has adopted essentially the
same view of science, starting in 1993 with its landmark Daubert decision