Guest post by S. Stanley Young and Warren Kindzierski

We were asked by Heritage Foundation to write two papers on the alleged link between climate change, predicted changes in air quality, and public health effects. Both papers are available on their website. One paper is a discussion of a climate change−fine particulate matter (PM2.5)−public health link (or lack thereof). The second paper is a discussion of how ozone fits (or rather how it fails to fit) into a climate change−ozone−asthma link. A summary of both papers is provided, and an open question is posed to WUWT readers below.

First and foremost… for both PM2.5 and ozone, ALL of the studies we refer to in our two papers are not founded on proven biological plausibility of these factors causing diseases or deaths. They are founded on an assumption of what may be a cause of disease or death—for example, PM2.5 or ozone.

PM2.5

Our first paper examined the two key public health endpoints that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims result from PM2.5 exposure—nonfatal heart attacks and premature deaths. For both endpoints, we show that health effect studies—observational epidemiology studies—cited by the EPA to support their claims do not take proper accounting of hidden biases, nor do they apply rigorous tests for reproducibility of these studies.

The most glaring biases to us, but hidden to most readers, are use of questionable (poor) research practices, multiple hypotheses testing, and irreproducibility (falseness) of the research claims. Our paper also points to numerous null association studies in scholarly literature showing that PM2.5 does not cause nonfatal heart attacks and premature death.

It is up to the interpretation of the scientific method to answer the PM2.5−nonfatal heart attack/premature death claims: If the methods are flawed, so is the evidence. Studies engaging in poor research practices should be treated as untrustworthy until proven otherwise. Studies that perform many statistical comparisons tend to produce more errors of false-positive associations in the absence of statistical corrections. Finally, PM2.5−heart attack/premature death association studies failed our statistical reproducibility tests using p-value plots.

Herein lies the problem with PM2.5−health effect studies relied upon by the EPA: They are non-randomized designs with no effective researcher controls. They allow infinite researcher flexibilities in designing, analyzing, interpretating, and reporting of their results. Their data sets are not available to others for independent reproducibility testing. These types of designs and lack of controls cannot address biases and confounding. Spurious risk statistics that resemble genuine effects can (and do) easily occur in these studies when, in fact, they are nothing more than artifacts of hidden biases and confounding.

With no reproducible causal effects and given persistent, hidden biases and confounding in PM2.5 health research, any purported link between PM2.5 and public health is entirely unsupported and should not be taken seriously.

Ozone

Our second paper shows that the EPA’s own data for emissions of ozone precursors and ozone levels recorded at air monitoring stations in the U.S. over the past several decades show very different trends (declines) to what climate change models are predicting in the future. For example:

• mean ozone levels from 132 monitoring sites over the 42-year period 1980–2022 have steadily decreased by 7 parts per billion (ppb) per decade
• total number of days reaching “Unhealthy for Sensitive Subgroups” or above for ozone based on the EPA Air Quality Index among 35 major cities over the 22-year period 2000–2022 have steadily decreased by 600 days per decade

Thus, any potential impacts theorized from climate change models on air quality and asthma should be treated with skepticism.

The ozone−asthma link

The EPA considers respiratory effects, including asthma, as the key health effect for ozone exposure. They use results from controlled human exposure studies (i.e., chamber studies) and animal toxicology studies to claim that ozone can cause lung function effects. They use results from observational epidemiology studies to claim that ozone levels in outdoor air are associated with asthma attacks. They use results from observational studies and animal toxicological studies to claim that ozone causes onset of asthma. Sounds complicated, but not really.

First off – chamber studies. We present numerous compelling arguments demonstrating that no adverse effects or differences in effects can be shown to exist between non-asthmatics AND asthmatics exposed to ozone in controlled chamber studies. These include confounding from awareness bias and measurement variability, and lack of external validity.

Secondly – observational epidemiology studies. Our findings can be succinctly summarized as follows… same methods as PM2.5, same flaws, no proof.

Thirdly – laboratory animal studies. The EPA has hypothesized several mechanisms for how ozone exposure may cause an asthma attack or onset of asthma. Of course, laboratory animals are not humans and suffer from numerous problems. The most important being that they do not spontaneously develop asthma, nor can they be tested in traditional ways that people are diagnosed for asthma or asthma symptoms.

Only by imaginative use of smoke and mirrors, perhaps with the aid of AI, could one conclude that evidence cited by the EPA from chamber, epidemiology, and animal studies support casual effects of asthma or asthma symptoms from ozone exposure.

Our question for WUWT readers

We pose an open question for WUWT readers which is part and parcel of the problems we encountered in our assessment of an alleged climate change−air quality−public health link.

The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence is a document created for U.S. federal judges to help them understand and interpret difficult issues involving scientific testimony. The third edition of the Reference Manual, a 1000+ page document, was published in 2011 as a collaboration with the Federal Judicial Centre and the National Research Council (NRC) of the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

NASEM is primarily comprised of established academics. Authors contributing to the 2011 Reference Manual included many such academics. Of 16 chapters in the 2011 Reference Manual, 14 had established academics as primary author or as co-authors. Of 30 authors or co-authors contributing overall, 22 were academics.

Junk science—spurious (false) or fraudulent scientific data, research, or analysis—has proliferated in peer-reviewed literature over the past several decades simultaneously as these ‘established’ academics built their careers. False or fraudulent evidence from junk science has been used to advance special interests and hidden government regulatory agendas on many topics important to society – climate change, environmental pollution, health impact, etc. As government funds much academic research, they should not be viewed as independent.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently overruled itself on a longstanding, controversial doctrine that gave regulatory agencies, e.g., the EPA, an unfair advantage in court – the so-called “Chevron doctrine.” This decision now places the obligation on U.S. Congress to legislate more explicitly and on the courts to interpret the law without defaulting to agency judgment, which in the case of the EPA is suspect—as we have established above.

Given this outcome, it is essential in our view that the Reference Manual be properly updated for judges (and lawyers), so they better understand junk science and how it has proliferated in academic research, government policy making, and the setting of regulations.

[Our question] How can updating the Reference Manual to address junk science best be accomplished given such a massive input from entrenched academics in the past?

Little has changed regarding the credibility of peer-reviewed literature since John Ioannidis published his 2005 paper Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, and NASEM published their two reports on irreproducibility of scientific results (one in 2016 and one in 2019), and the National Association of Scholars published their science irreproducibility report in 2018.

The last thing that should be allowed in updating the Reference Manual is for the makeup of authors to be overweight with established academics to figure out how to deal with the 800-pound junk science gorilla they helped create and/or allowed to flourish on their watch.

S. Stanley Young is CEO of CGStat in Raleigh, North Carolina and is Director of the National Association of Scholars’ Shifting Sands Project. Warren Kindzierski is a retired college professor (public health) in St Albert, Alberta and a contributor to the Shifting Sands Project.

On December 18, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court delivered what climate activists are hailing as a landmark ruling in Held v. Montana. Sixteen youth plaintiffs, backed by the well-heeled advocacy group Our Children’s Trust, convinced the court that their constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment” was being violated by the state’s support for fossil fuel projects. The court’s 6-1 decision declared that this constitutional right extends to a “stable climate system.”

For those of us in the camp of climate realism, this decision is not just disappointing—it’s a blow to rational policymaking and the foundational principles of American governance. Let’s explore why.

The crux of the court’s ruling was the claim that Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions are a “substantial factor” causing harm to the plaintiffs. Really? Montana contributes a meager 0.09% to global emissions, an amount so small that it accounts for just 0.0018°C of warming under even the most extreme emissions scenarios​​. The notion that this infinitesimal contribution could meaningfully harm these plaintiffs is laughable. Yet, the court ignored the math and embraced the narrative.

With regards to Montana’s CO₂ emissions, based on 2019 estimates Montana produces 0.63% of U.S. emissions and 0.09% of global emissions.  For an anticipated warming of 2^oC, Montana’s 0.09% of emissions would account for 0.0018^oC of warming.  There are other ways to frame this calculation (and more recent numbers), but any way you slice it, you can’t come up with a significant amount of global warming that is caused by Montana’s emissions.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/22/held-v-montana-climate-lawsuit/

As Dr. Judith Curry pointed out in her expert analysis last year, this case was built on a house of cards. The plaintiffs relied heavily on worst-case climate projections like the discredited RCP8.5 scenario and cherry-picked weather events to weave their tale of impending doom. Their claims ignored historical climate variability, which shows that Montana has faced severe droughts, wildfires, and other extreme weather long before fossil fuels were ever a factor​.

Curry’s damning critique of the plaintiffs’ approach highlighted their reliance on emotion rather than evidence. By conflating Montana’s localized climate issues with a global phenomenon, they bypassed the inconvenient reality that the state’s emissions are statistically insignificant. Instead, they leaned on the hollow mantra that “every ton of emissions counts,” a claim Curry dismantled with simple arithmetic​.

Let’s call this what it is: judicial activism in service of a radical environmental agenda. The Montana Supreme Court overstepped its bounds, transforming itself into a quasi-legislative body. Justice Jim Rice’s dissent rightly warned that this ruling opens the door for courts to micromanage natural resource policies under the guise of constitutional interpretation. Such decisions belong in the hands of legislatures, where elected officials can be held accountable—not in the courts​.

The plaintiffs argued that a stable climate system is essential for their recreational activities, ranching livelihoods, and general well-being. While that may sound noble, it’s hardly a justification for reshaping state energy policy through litigation. As Governor Greg Gianforte aptly put it:

“This decision does nothing more than declare open season on Montana’s all-of-the-above-approach to energy, which is key to providing affordable and reliable energy to homes, schools, and businesses across our state.”

https://dailymontanan.com/2024/12/18/montana-supreme-court-affirms-decision-in-held-historic-youth-climate-case/

Moreover, this case sets a dangerous precedent for climate litigation nationwide. By focusing on local emissions in isolation, it ignores the global nature of the supposed issue. If every state were to adopt Montana’s approach, we’d end up with a patchwork of contradictory rulings, stifling energy development without delivering any tangible benefits.

One of the most unsettling aspects of this case is how it exploited young people to push a broader agenda. The plaintiffs, many of whom are teenagers, were presented as the face of the fight against climate change. But their understanding of the issues appears rudimentary at best. As Dr. Curry previously argued, these young plaintiffs are victims of an educational system and media landscape that bombards them with climate hysteria rather than scientific literacy​.

Instead of encouraging resilience and innovation, this case fed them an apocalyptic narrative that stokes anxiety and fuels division. Climate change, whether natural or human-influenced, is a challenge that humanity has always adapted to. The notion that we can legislate or litigate our way to a “safe and stable climate” is not just naïve—it’s a dangerous distraction from real solutions.

Montanans are the ones who will bear the brunt of this decision. By invalidating the state’s limitations on greenhouse gas reviews, the court has made energy projects more vulnerable to costly delays and frivolous litigation. This will likely lead to higher energy costs and reduced economic opportunities, particularly in rural communities that rely on resource development.

And what do the plaintiffs get in return? A symbolic victory that does nothing. The court’s ruling won’t stop China from building coal plants or India from increasing its energy consumption. Instead, it sacrifices Montana’s energy independence and economic future on the altar of climate alarmism.

The Held v. Montana decision is a stark reminder of how far climate activism has infiltrated our legal and political systems. It prioritizes virtue signaling over scientific rigor, emotion over evidence, and centralized control over democratic processes. For those who believe in climate realism, this ruling is a clarion call to push back against the encroachment of climate alarmism into our courts and legislatures.

The path forward lies in promoting policies that balance environmental stewardship with economic growth and energy reliability. Courts should stick to interpreting the law, not rewriting it to align with activist agendas. Montana, like the rest of the world, will continue to face challenges from climate variability. The answer isn’t to hobble our energy systems—it’s to build a resilient, innovative society capable of adapting to whatever the future holds.