Source - email
Discussion of CO2 Coalition report - Climate Change and Health
John D Dunn
August 11, 2025
I was impressed with the CO2 Coalition 2018 study - Climate Change and Health - very well done--spectacular. When I looked, I didn't see any credits.
You have a very distinguished group and contributors to such a splendid paper should be attributed, which extends the impact for two very good reasons: it tells the readers that these contributors are qualified and distinguished, and it gives those contributors a playing position in the game of public/political influencing.
Consider my suggestion. Here's what I would say in follow-up--the paper is still good as it stands. An update in my eye cannot be important other than to put an exclamation point on the current debate on endangerment.
And when the hearings and debate get hot, CO2 has the guys who swing the big bats already named and identified with a very fine piece of writing advocacy.
For example, I am a member and didn't know of the paper--for whatever reason, even though I knew of the Happer and Lindzen submission and I made my best effort to promote the writers and what they had to say to include the lawyer who helped and did a very good job.
Now, with this endangerment issue, two things bothered me--the Secretary of Energy was not the person to ramrod the 6-person paper that included
good people, but that' done and it is good and helpful. My argument is that we need a research paper endorsed by the EPA since they are the key to environmental regulations that have come from the endangerment ruling.
EPA and its NGO allies that made the original foray to get the endangerment delivery, the EPA has to put up the reasons that were not supported by the science. CO2 coalition needs to be put in alongside the Energy Department as an articulation of the EPA position that justified reversing the endangerment finding that is all about welfare and harm issues.
EPA and Energy then put something in front of the public and politicians that is comprehensive, and one element is the essential element of showing the proper science on the issue of human and enviro outcomes, and that the scaremongers put up bad science.
Political stress point on policy making is always about human welfare as the compelling concern--human and planet welfare and well being, so I say double up the advocacy--the Energy Dept study and the CO2 coalition/EPA study on human health effects of warming and climate with a focus on what gets people goin', human welfare and welfare of the planet, along the way, shoot down the IPCC and greenie kazoo band that gins up scares, harms, deaths and catastrophe, emphasizes those harms and makes claims that the Energy and CO2 papers prove are just polemics, an evidentiary house of cards.
The result is a case in the endangerment finding was not based on good evidence from proper scientific inquiry and therefore cannot be relied on under the rules of the Administrative Procedure Act. A two-front attack from DOE and EPA is what the judges need to be able to rely on. Show the positive evidence and negate the scare evidence. Expose and nullify the opposition with the light of day (good research).
I ask you to get your savvy debate and politics team together and consider my idea--I can't see a reason on earth that the Energy Paper and the CO2 paper are not batting in the 3 and 4 position on this lineup. Let others join
in, but two good papers need to be in the plan. Ask that great lawyer who worked with Happer and Lindzen.
I realize I am not qualified to be consigliere for our mob, but I can suggest a plan.
-John Dale Dunn MD JD
401 Rocky Hill Road Brownwood, Texas 76801