BREAKING: House bill unveiled late Friday cuts EPA budget by $3 billion, blocks funding for all current and pending EPA climate regulations for stationary CO2 source

By Andrew Restuccia – 02/11/11 07:33 PM ET

A government spending bill unveiled Friday night by House Republicans would prohibit funding for Environmental Protection Agency climate regulations through September of this year.

The continuing resolution, which would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, is the latest attempt by Republicans to stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Republicans argue that pending EPA climate rules will destroy the economy and result in significant job losses. GOP lawmakers, including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), have introduced legislation to permanently block the agency’s climate authority.

The bill would block funding for all current and pending EPA climate regulations for stationary sources.

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on interior and the environment, said he worked closely on the language with Upton. He said the language would give Upton time to move forward with his legislation.

“It has become clear to me in talking to the job creators in this country that allowing these regulations to go into effect would prevent job creation and inhibit economic growth at a time when our economy is still struggling,” Simpson said in a statement. “It should be up to Congress, not the Administration, to determine whether and how to regulate greenhouse gases, and in attempting to do so without congressional authority, I’m concerned that EPA has overreached.”

The continuing resolution makes massive cuts to the EPA’s budget. The legislation cuts EPA funding by $3 billion, 29 percent below fiscal year 2010. Overall, Simpson cut $4.5 billion from his subcommittee’s budget.

Full report here: House GOP spending bill prohibits funding for EPA climate regs

About these ads

186 thoughts on “BREAKING: House bill unveiled late Friday cuts EPA budget by $3 billion, blocks funding for all current and pending EPA climate regulations for stationary CO2 source

  1. Can ANYONE explain to me why the EPA needs roughly $10 billion for their budget anyway? I would think $1 billion would be too much. No wonder the US is drowning in debt.

  2. EPA budget goes backwards.
    Jackson does moonwalk.
    Obama sez thinking of (heads of) families, he’ll Vito Corleone the Bill

  3. Money talks.

    The oil companies with loads of money backed the CO2 horse – which they owned and doped to high heaven by funding the weak, misguided researchers they wanted.

    Three hard Northern Hemispheres later nobody believes their BS except those who were brainwashed by reading Hansen et al‘s science fiction.

    The developed world needs to build coal-to-liquid plants as soon as possible.

    Carbon indulgences are properly losing their fake credibility:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-10/ice-applies-bigger-haircuts-on-emission-permits-used-as-collateral.html?cmpid=msnmoney

    Turning cheap and plentiful coal into the liquid fuel we use will be a disaster for “Big Oil” which is why they’re pushing the climate change nonsense.

  4. Thank you Rep. Fred Upton, Mike Simpson and the House Republicans.
    This is good news, it’s a start, sanity is starting the slow and steady creep back into America and hopefully the rest of the world.

  5. Best news I’ve heard for years! Thank gof for the US – now all we need is for the UK to wake up – fat chance!
    Cheers
    Douglas

  6. Whatever side of the AGW controversy anyone is on, would we all agree it is most appropriate that congress is in the critical detailed chain of command . . . not replaced by a self-reinforcing bureaucracy like the EPA? Does anyone think the EPA hires skeptical thinkers?

    John

  7. I want Waxman, Pelosi,and Hoyer on the record. On this the engineers of Cap’n tax.
    Now. Good for the Pubbies, bring it on!

  8. The house wants to cut EPA 29% and the PROTUS will veto? Sounds good to me, no funding is better then some! pg

  9. Big oil brought on the CO2 limits and funded the CO2 hysteria?

    Utter hogwash!

    Oil is used for less than 2% of electric power generation, over 68% is coal – the “fixed plants” that this legislation refers removes EPA CO2 limits from.

    Pelosi’s oil exploration limits and her anti-CO2 policies and laws beginning in 2007 brought the recession that led to Obama’s Nov 2008 election. This is only a very small step in the right direction of a full recovery of a reasonable energy policy.

  10. BBBut…who’s going to fund the IPCC? NASA-GISS? Trips to Bali and Cancun? The hysterical, manic climate press releases? Big pay raises and benefits packages for the climate elites? RealClimate’s website…oops that’s already covered by George Soros.

  11. Let’s thank Sen. Inhofe for never once relenting or compromising, during times when it seemed he was the only voice in the Congressional wilderness.

  12. Having read a little more I’m putting the cork back in the Bubbly bottle maybe/ yes we definitely do we need a lot tougher medicine, it’s time to play hard ball.
    I just read Steve Milloy, at Green hell blog and he has his pulse on this EPA and the Obama administration determination to shut down the economy.
    Steve writes:
    Does the GOP have a secret strategy? Has it forgotten the election? Or is it afraid of the EPA?
    Senate and House Republicans just announced plans to introduce legislation stripping the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs). That sounds encouraging?
    But the reality is that even if such a bill winds up on President Obama’s desk, he’ll veto it, and there aren’t enough Republicans to override a veto.

    At best, these bills are political theater intended for impact in 2012. But the EPA isn’t waiting until then.
    Its best (and really only) shot at reeling in the arrogant Obama EPA is to cut the agency’s funding. Without House approval, the EPA has no budget. A great opportunity to choke off EPA funding arrives early next month when last December’s deal to fund the federal government until March 4 expires.
    Read more @ http://greenhellblog.com/2011/02/09/defund-the-epa/
    or Article in The Washington Times @ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/9/defund-the-epa/
    We need to push this at a political level.

  13. Good move!!

    Regulators should not have a blank check to write back door laws by regulation.
    Enabling legislation for regulatory agencies like the EPA need to include a mandatory periodic review of regulations by the legislative branch, and re-affirmation of their regulatory authority and the regulations that they write.

    No matter how well intentioned a group is, over time, unlimited authority to issue regulations will be abused as the regulations slowly morph into more and more restrictive versions with more and more unintended consequences and intentionally planted back doors to further regulation.

    Keep regulatory agencies on a short leash and a tight budget. Make them prove they server a useful purpose on a periodic audit of their authority, regulations and methods.

    To do otherwise is to leave the cookie jar unattended in a room of hungry kids.

    Larry

  14. FergalR says:

    Turning cheap and plentiful coal into the liquid fuel we use will be a disaster for “Big Oil” which is why they’re pushing the climate change nonsense.

    Excuse me? Do you actually believe this???

    Who else has the capital to build these processing plants, who else has the transportation and distribution systems to exploit them?

    Big Oil.

    It used to be that people thought the Oil Sands here were going to be developed by “someone else”, shutting down “Big Oil”. Not even remotely close. A few startups worked on developing extraction technology, then sold it to Big Oil and walked away wealthy.

    Big Oil will always be Big Oil. And instead of ranting against them, any sane individual will have Big Oil front and center in their portfolio.

  15. Ah-we are forgetting congress provides the budget. The funds have to come from congress. No funding, no programs. When the Dems sold out the South Vietnamese
    in 1974,-a good example and the Executive couldn’t do a thing about it. Also I wouldn’t count out a override from the Senate if it comes to that. There are scared Dems out there, and some do not want to see the economy crash and burn…
    Well maybe the ones from California, which is crashing and burning…

  16. I suggest today that any and all companies impacted by CO2 rulings just refuse to acknowledge the jurisdiction of EPA at all, pending current legislation and court cases federally and in California. EPA were never authorized to make laws to begin with, that is the purview of Congress. Besides, the Obama administration set the precedent by remaining in contempt of the courts by not overruling the Gulf drilling ban as they were so ordered. Nor do they respond to FOIA requests as so required.

    What goes around…

  17. R. Gates says:
    February 11, 2011 at 7:47 pm
    Too bad this will be vetoed by the President, eh?

    Not at all!!! Keep the heat on the Prez!!! Job-killing Prez.

    Good Work, Republicans. Take every opportunity to deprive the EPA of its resources. And make sure you spend a lot of time on national TV doing it.

  18. R. Gates says:
    February 11, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    Too bad this will be vetoed by the President, eh?

    – – – – – – – – – –

    R. Gates,

    A (presidential veto) would just greatly enhance the probability that our current president is a one term president!

    It is a win-win-win situation for the Republicans no matter if the bill is passed or not passed or vetoed. Think of the simple elegance of the overall Republican strategy. : )

    The democratic Achilles heel is they think they are more intelligent than there political opponents . . . . a fatal assumption.

    NOTE: Come to think of it, it sort of mirrors the fatal assumption of the elitist scientists (dare I say ‘the Team”) supporting the ideological AGW movement of the biased IPCC.

    NOTE 2: And I am not even a political party endorsing US citizen.

    John

  19. >> R. Gates says:
    February 11, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    Too bad this will be vetoed by the President, eh? <<

    Hopefully it will. Then there will ne ZERO funding for the EPA.

  20. R. Gates says:
    Too bad this will be vetoed by the President, eh?

    Too bad indeed sir, for it is the senate that must pass appropriation bills.
    What a terrible shame it would be if the senate had to with hold all funding to the EPA, because of a recalcitrant President. This is the beginning of a game politicians play, the outcome of which is likely to be a return to common sense.

  21. The president vetoes it? Oh please, please don’t throw us into that brier patch! As has been pointed out, if the president vetoes a spending bill — well there is no funding then at all. So the agency can pack up and go home.

  22. Veto was the first word that popped into my head too. However anything to get this out into the open is worth while in my mind. Now instead of being able to hind behind the EPA, people in Washington will have to put their names on one side or the other for this issue in a very open and public manner.

    Reading the rest of the article, there are a few “politically incorrect” ideas in there. Definitely throwing down the gauntlet!

  23. House will pass it.

    Senate has to renew the operting budget which expires in a couple of weeks. Perfect timing, with the greatest overall leverage.

    Sen. Inhofe will not compromise on this, and he has high seniority. The result will be a withering game of chicken in the Senate. Get ready for some fun.

    Looking good—let’s see whether it will be gambit denied or gambit accepted.

  24. As a Canadian, I know that Prime Minister Harper does not want to harm our economy with this sort of thing. And when the opposition wants to press our federal government to do something about CO2, the standard reply is that we have to be in sync with the U.S. So I wish you success against the EPA!

  25. R. Gates says:
    February 11, 2011 at 7:47 pm
    Too bad this will be vetoed by the President, eh?

    Looks like R. Gates didn’t read the article. You see this bill isn’t just for funding the EPA, it’s to fund the entire government:

    The continuing resolution, which would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, is the latest attempt by Republicans to stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

    So if Obama Vetos the bill or the Senate Dems kill it they just cut all funding for the government, you know the whole shut down the government thing that the Dems and the MSM have been saying for weeks would be political suicide for the GOP to do.

    House of Representatives
    Battle Over Budget Cuts Raises Specter of Federal Government Shutdown

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/11/battle-budget-cuts-raises-specter-federal-government-shutdown/#ixzz1DiSym1LR

    So there is Obama’s and the Dems choices cut the EPA funding (and the other 97 Billion in cuts ) or shutdown the government. Imagine what his approval rating will then be on handling the economy, the debt and the deficit. He’s already at 27% approval on handling the debt, 30% on the deficit and 37% on the economy. I guess he thinks the first to 0 approval wins!

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110209/pl_yblog_theticket/obamas-approval-rating-on-the-deficit-hits-new-low

  26. racookpe1978 says:
    February 11, 2011 at 7:39 pm
    Big oil brought on the CO2 limits and funded the CO2 hysteria?
    Utter hogwash!
    [...]
    ————————————–

    Is it really hogwash racookpe1978?

    Did BP and Shell Oil not fund CRU’s research?

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    Is ExxonMobil not giving $10 million-odd to the late Dr. Stephen Schneiders’ Stanford every year for climate-related research?

    http://gcep.stanford.edu/about/sponsors.html

    Didn’t the late Dr. Schneider always bang on about an imaginary “big oil” conspiracy like that discredited buffoon Mann still does?

    Observation continues to prove your cause wrong.

    At today’s oil prices coal-to-liquid fuel would be dirt cheap. But the process emits that horrific life-giving gas: carbon dioxide.

    Here’s what the late Dr. Schneider thought:
    “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination […] So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts […] Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

    These people are paid huge money to convince us all that we’re fools.

    They failed.

    Sadly, public confidence in all science has been damaged by their big-oil funded denial of reality.

  27. More likely this makes a great show for the Republicans, but when the final bill comes out as it is combined with the Senate bill, this little side-show will be stripped from the bill that comes before the President. IMO, this is interesting theatrics for the Republicans, but likely nothing more.

  28. Mother Nature has just put the Okies into a deep freeze and given Sen. Inhofe one really big pile of snowballs to hurl at Lisa J and her crowd at the EPA.

  29. The Republicans are united on this, and the Democrats are fragmented. I cannot see any upside for the Dems on this; therefore the reasonable people of the country have the upper hand, at least at this point.

  30. It’s not enough, we need to cut far more out of the federal budget and the EPA. I ran across this video earlier today that shows just how much our current overrun is.

  31. This is where the fun starts. Political Science 101: Congress controls the purse strings.

    Discretionary spending, such as that authorized for the EPA, is “appropriated” annually in an amount determined by congress. Once congress, through a couple of dozen committees each responsible for sub-groups of appropriations, approves an appropriation bill it goes the president for signing. The president can either sign it, not sign it, or veto it. If he signs it then it authorizes the spending. If he doesn’t sign it within 10 days it is automatically authorized. If he vetos it then no spending at all is authorized.

    One wonders how gung-ho Lisa Jackson will be for CO2 emission controls when her paychecks stop because the EPA’s 29% reduced appropriation was cut to $0 by a presidential veto. $0 sounds good to me. I hope the president DOES veto it. Let’s hear it for a presidential veto – hip hip hooray!

  32. The proposed bill HR.97 (The Free Industry Act) section 3 reads –

    “Nothing in the Clean Air Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming.”

    If Obama chooses stall all appropriations for the Eco-thieves Paralysing America by vetoing HR.97, he will also be reassociating himself with the words “global warming”. After he was laughed at in his first SOTU address when he used the term I am sure Obama is aware that the original name for the hoax is politically toxic. A veto comes with a bonus prize, a colourful neck tie with an interesting dead sea bird motif.

  33. R. Gates says:
    February 11, 2011 at 7:47 pm
    Too bad this will be vetoed by the President, eh?

    =========================================

    Nobody gives a rat’s patooty on that one.

    His power is fast fast waning. And not a minute too soon.

    So your point [as always] is moot.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  34. R. Gates says:
    February 11, 2011 at 8:58 pm
    More likely this makes a great show for the Republicans, but when the final bill comes out as it is combined with the Senate bill, this little side-show will be stripped from the bill that comes before the President. IMO, this is interesting theatrics for the Republicans, but likely nothing more.

    ==================================

    Keep talking it down, R. More likely it is your (and the others you support in the current Establishment’s….such as Lisa Jackson et.al’s) sideshow.

    But thanks for your comments. You make responding to them “fun.”

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  35. Just wrote a nice long email to my (republican) representative. He now knows just exactly where this voter stands.

    I’m really glad the EPA is on the radar screen and ideally (IMHO) it would be a positive development if this became a political litmus-test issue. For me, it already is. Climategate did more to politicize me than any issue to date.

    The public face of government supported alarmism just isn’t pretty: Holdren, (a Malthusian crackpot), Hansen (mildly psychotic), Gore (thoroughly corrupt), Obama (an incompetent puppet out of his league), all the poodle publications and MSM and it appears to me the public is getting ever more sick of their puerile nonsense each passing day.

    CAGW could become a huge wedge issue; and it would if more of the public knew how it is being “played” by insiders. Just bringing up this legislation could start the ball rolling.

  36. R. Gates says:
    February 11, 2011 at 8:58 pm
    More likely this makes a great show for the Republicans, but when the final bill comes out as it is combined with the Senate bill, this little side-show will be stripped from the bill that comes before the President. IMO, this is interesting theatrics for the Republicans, but likely nothing more.

    First showing he didn’t read the article, Mr. Gates shows that he doesn’t understand the legislative process. You see Mr. Gates the Senate doesn’t have final say. You should read up on the Budget Process here first:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process

    Pay particular attention to this part:

    Once both houses pass the resolution, selected Representatives and Senators negotiate a conference report to reconcile differences between the House and the Senate versions. The conference report, in order to become binding, must be approved by both the House and Senate.

    So first you are counting on every Dem in the Senate to side with removing that from the bill (not likely with 23 up for re-election and one already known Dem, Joe Manchin, who opposes the EPA regulation of CO2 or a Cap and trade bill) and second even if the Senate removes it from the bill they have to negotiate with the House GOP over the final bill and it has to re pass the House. So then you are counting on the GOP to reverse course in the reconciliation process and if that happens you need a third step: The House to pass it without the cuts. Good luck trying to get the Trifecta, you have better odds down at Santa Anita then that happening in the Congress.

    So I can see the headlines now if the Senate kills the bill by removing the cuts:

    Senate Dems kill Funding bill, shut down government:
    Essential services were stopped today when Senate Democrats would not pass the funding bill over a 3 billion dollar cut to the EPA. In a move of cut your nose off to spite your face the Senate shut the entire EPA down by removing funding for the entire federal government in an effort to keep 3 billion in other spending for it….

    Just replace the Senate Dems with Obama if the cuts remain and he vetos it.

  37. R. Gates says: “…IMO, this is interesting theatrics for the Republicans, but likely nothing more.”

    You wish.

  38. Given the EPA ‘up yours’ attitude. that’s a good first step toward getting their attention. I suggest another step –
    Forcing EPA management to live in the DC area only raises living expenses for them, and concentrates government spending in an area that’s already awash in money. We should introduce a bill that moves EPA headquarters out into the heartland, to regions that could benefit from additional employment, and that would provide lower living costs to the EPA employees.

    I had Lenexa, Kansas in mind, but Cedar Rapids, Iowa or Lincoln, Nebraska would do.

    Come to think on it, moving other govt agencies out into the heartland would also prove two-way beneficial. Kewanee, IL is only a short drive to the bright lights of Peoria, for instance.

  39. This is but a battle in the coming war for the budget resolution and the debt limit increase. Both sides understand that the Republicans have the cover of a high deficit and debt to kill some things they have long wanted to kill. There will never be a better time to kill things.

    But the real battle is over framing the issue. Obama has taken steps to kill or reform Freddie and Fannie – he knows the Republicans will if he doesn’t. Same with the spending freeze and the tax debate – this is all posturing.

    According to polls, the public is less concerned about the deficit than jobs and the economy.

    Along with the science, care should be taken to stress the job loss such regulations produce, which will go well with the loss of energy jobs due to lack of permits, etc.

  40. That is good news but let’s make this real. Seems though if you really think this is good then write or call your Congressmen and let them know of your firm support for this move. Our has already has got the message. Gather names who oppose it. You might need those names during discussions leading up to the next election. Seems better to do something along with all of the praising and talking, this is not quite over yet. If you care for your family, children, friends, pick up a pen or the phone. Emails don’t count. Twitters don’t count. Make it something real. All here have said they think this is political, so, make it political.
    — An Okie

  41. R. Gates says:

    “Too bad this will be vetoed by the President, eh?”

    So what? It would take a 2/3rds vote of both the House & Senate to override the President’s veto. Not gonna happen.

  42. Cut it by 3 BILLION dollars! That’s not the total. Think of such a large sum [which is the entire GDP of some small countries] and the fact that they are proposing “cutting” it by $3 billion.

    I am disgusted at the monster the American Government has become.

    Rumors is that Donald Trump might run for president.

    Now that is a winner candidate if there ever was one.

    Can you imagine him going through WHOLE departments and agencies that have FAR outlived their useful life with the words: “You’re fired!”

    Hell yes!!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  43. No no no…budget reconciliation, the same way Obamacare was passed can be used to repeal it.

    Reconciliation

  44. Since the current continuing resolution ends 4 March, I presume this 29% cut is off the remaining, almost, 7 months. That would be a .29 x (7/12) =16.9% cut. Is someone also cutting NASA’s climate escapades?

  45. So the more subtle ploy is a CR for the EPA specifically minus any CO2 money, and a second CR for the rest of the Govt Budget? And who vetoes what, with what ramifications? No more Spotted Dowels?

    There are a number of ways to play within the rules.

  46. R. Gates says:
    February 11, 2011 at 8:58 pm

    IMO, this is interesting theatrics for the Republicans, but likely nothing more.

    Right you are , Gates! With all of the latte’ Commie throw-backs, congenital Trolls, and craven Infantiles as your mighty Post Normal brain trust, you’re in no danger at all of ever losing a Freak Clown Show.

  47. This is an election killer for the democrats. Sec Chu is telling Obama that temps are declining and that Americans will revolt if their heat bills and gasoline bills skyrocket. Cap and trade wiped out their base. Enviormental groups have tried to pretend otherwise. Nobody believes in solar and wind anymore. In Tucson where I
    live utilities are offering incentives for solar but nobody is biting. Al Gores speculation that global warming causes cooling has put the final nail in the AGW coffin. The mainstream media now does not talk about big Al and NPR will be defunded next week.

  48. At 9:26 PM on 11 February, Mike McMillan had written:

    Given the EPA ‘up yours’ attitude. that’s a good first step toward getting their attention. I suggest another step –
    Forcing EPA management to live in the DC area only raises living expenses for them, and concentrates government spending in an area that’s already awash in money. We should introduce a bill that moves EPA headquarters out into the heartland, to regions that could benefit from additional employment, and that would provide lower living costs to the EPA employees.

    I had Lenexa, Kansas in mind, but Cedar Rapids, Iowa or Lincoln, Nebraska would do.

    .
    I can go better than that. If we’re looking to Kansas, let’s forget about Lenexa (which is a rather nice, affluent suburb of Kansas City) and consider Greensburg instead.

    You want an area “that could benefit from additional employment” in the heartland? Well, Greensburg is the town down near the Oklahoma border that got hit by an F5 tornado on 4 May 2007, a storm that destroyed just about everything in the city.

    I visited Greensburg back in the late ’70s, and found it a very nice little place, way to hellangone out in the southwest corner of the Sunflower State, reachable only after driving for hours through the kind of country that leaves you wondering what kind of insanity made little Dorothy want to come back.

    In addition to having gotten eaten by the hairiest kind of twister imaginable, Greensburg is remarkable as the site of the largest hand-dug well in the western hemisphere.

    But best of all, for housing the whole federal government’s Environmental Protection Agency, the city fathers of Greensburg has declared their tiny polity a Green City. From the Wikipedia article:

    After the tornado, the city council passed a resolution stating that all city buildings would be built to Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) – platinum standards, making it the first city in the nation to do so. Greensburg is rebuilding as a “green” town, with the help of Greensburg GreenTown, a non-profit organization created to help the residents learn about and implement the green living initiative.

    The city’s power will be supplied by ten 1.25 MW wind-turbines. Carbon offsets generated from the turbines are being managed by NativeEnergy, and have been purchased by charter supporters including Ben & Jerry’s, Clif Bar, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, and Stonyfield Farm.

    .
    Ain’t that just the perfect place in America to put the whole bloody EPA?

  49. Too bad you don’t have a U.K. style parliamentary system.

    If the sitting government doesn’t have enough numbers in the house of reps or senate to approve the appropriation bill – in essence the Government budget – the country becomes ungovernable. The Queen or her representative can dissolve parliament and call new elections. Both houses and all members – A double dissolution. Every seat up for election. A caretaker government is installed from the calling of double dissolution until a new government is installed after election. A caretaker government can introduce no legislation.

  50. Why would the president veto a spending cuts bill?

    This is exactly what the American people want to see: a reduction in spending. Government cuts make him look good and and he will still be open and able to support legislation to fund green energy projects which will protect his position on the environment. Seems like the opportunity to achieve a win-win for him.

    Heck we can probably expect him to say something along the lines of, “We’ve made some hard decisions, made major cuts that will have a positive impact on the deficit…but we have also cleared some obstacles while creating opportunities for businesses to capitalize on green energy projects and create more jobs” Hey, stranger things have happened. Or am I missing something?

  51. Johnb—

    I loved your deficit youtube, but the credit shouldn’t go to Harry Reid. Most of those shots are lined up because someone thought we should be the first country in the history of the planet to launch two wars and cut taxes.

    Perhaps a small benefit from that fiasco will be a better CO2 policy.

  52. 1. Nobody has shown that current global climate variation is unusual in any way.
    2. Nobody has shown that current global climate variation is due to human CO2 emissions.
    3. Nobody has shown that any regulations proposed by EPA would have any measurable impact on global CO2.

    4. Nobody has shown that EPA has authority over global climate to begin with.

    Bottom line: waste of money.

  53. Climate regulations are one thing, but the GOP are aiming ‘way too deep. I was a contributing author to these national water infrastructure security enhancements, which were partially funded by USEPA. Download the documents here:

    http://www.awwa.org/Resources/Content.cfm?ItemNumber=29824&showLogin=N

    Be careful what you wish for, if you want to “de-fund” the entire Environmental Protection Agency. These folks are working hard to ensure that terrorists are not able to contaminate your drinking water. The risk from domestic extremism is off the chart right now according to the FBI.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/09/AR2011020906648.html

  54. Only $3B? I’m sure I could get another $1.5B out of it.

    Give me the padlock for GISS’ office door, for that I’ll buy my own ticket to JFK.

    I suppose we can expect Fenton to pick up the tab for the realclimate domain registration.

  55. No doubt there are Obama appointees who, over this weekend,
    will sit at home in a chair, cradle their heads in their hands, and
    rock back and forth gently moaning, “This is not happening…
    this is not happening.”

    Some of them will be from the State department and our
    Intelligence agencies following the diplomatic nightmare
    enveloping Egypt and the Middle East.

    Some will be from the EPA. They, having lost the hearts and
    fumbled control of the minds of the American citizens over
    Global Warming/Climate Change, now face a curtailment of
    runaway funding.

    Those “scientists”, researchers, meteorolgists lobbyists, and
    their ilk who have helped fabricate and then touted the “science
    is solid” credo are seeing a light at the end of the tunnel. The
    light they see is the freight train of scientific and political reality
    headed straight for them.

    With the wailing and gnashing of teeth to come, they all better
    have a good dental plan.

  56. “These folks are working hard to ensure that terrorists are not able to contaminate your drinking water. The risk from domestic extremism is off the chart right now according to the FBI.”

    So, it’s up to the FBI to deal with the terrorists.
    EPA caused much more harm than any terrorists could ever dream of.

  57. It wasn’t all that long ago something like this was unimaginable. I wonder if the people putting the bill together read WUWT, ClinateAudit, RealScince, Musings from the Chiefio, JeffIdAirVent, etc?

  58. Exactly, where’s the cuts to non-space related endeavors at NASA? Or at least re-direct all non-space funding at NASA back into the space program. How many buffoons and scientists do we need telling us the same thing every few days, I get your point already now STFU and lets get down to real science, not real climate!

  59. Great idea but who’s going to watch the EPA to insure they don’t cheat? Can the WH divert funds from other sources to keep the EPA alive to regulate CO2? Can the Republicans in the House completely defund the EPA so they all have to be laid off?

  60. So R. Gates seems to support the destruction of the US economy, unless he’s being sarcastic?

    The weather is not a problem, those who try to make money out of it IS the problem and should not be given a penny to them.

  61. crosspatch says:
    February 11, 2011 at 10:45 pm

    “1. Nobody has shown that current global climate variation is unusual in any way.
    2. Nobody has shown that current global climate variation is due to human CO2 emissions.
    3. Nobody has shown that any regulations proposed by EPA would have any measurable impact on global CO2.

    4. Nobody has shown that EPA has authority over global climate to begin with.

    Bottom line: waste of money.”

    Exactly! Just like healing. You invent some “disease”, and then you “heal” it.

    When everyone understands that “Back-radiation” is imagination, the house of cards falls.

  62. “These folks are working hard to ensure that terrorists are not able to contaminate your drinking water.”

    Put bluntly, there is jack squat that a band of bureaucrats in DC can do to prevent someone from contaminating my drinking water. My water doesn’t come from Washington DC and EPA doesn’t provide physical security for my well.

    That comment is what we in the tech industry call “FUD” for “Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt”. It implies that EPA can somehow prevent someone from contaminating a water supply by applying ink to paper and producing regulations. They can’t. People who contaminate water supplies don’t pay any attention to EPA regulations. It implies that if you eliminate EPA you will be less safe and more likely to have your water contaminated.

    In fact, water contamination is probably the last thing I would worry about. What is more likely is something like softdrink contamination in a way that is completely undetectable until well after all the contaminated product has been consumed and is deadly.

    The notion that a bunch of desk jockeys in DC can keep you safer than your own state health department can is nuts, in my opinion. In fact, in the face of a determined actor who doesn’t care about losing their own life in the process, there is nothing either one of them can do.

  63. Whilst it is difficult to see why EPA has such a large budget to begin with, this is a good start provided that the President does not scupper the plan by vetoing. Perhaps someone is beginning to smell the smelling salts and lets hope the President gets a whiff of these.

    Now if only the UK could take note and act in similar fashion, but unfortunately, we seem to have ring fenced our budget for climate change action such that no cuts are being made despite the UK being bankrupt and unable to afford the project.

  64. Pelosi’s oil exploration limits and her anti-CO2 policies and laws beginning in 2007 brought the recession that led to Obama’s Nov 2008 election. This is only a very small step in the right direction of a full recovery of a reasonable energy policy.

    Don’t try to rewrite history. The recession was caused by the meltdown of the financial markets. The Bush administration left the foxes in charge of the chickenhouse.

  65. This buys us time in the sense that IF we enter a prolonged cooling phase the debate in the House has to hot up [pun intended]. Damage to the US economy will be minimized.

  66. Well, I heard on the news that Barack has proposed a cut in low-income heating assistance. I wonder what this implies, if anything, about his beliefs regarding global warming?

    I can see his re-election slogan for next year already:

    “Save the earth! Wear a sweater!”

  67. Folks

    I;m not familiar with the detail of the US political process. So please explain exactly what this means in practice:

    Is it likely that by tabling this motion it will become law?
    How long will it take to do so?
    Can the Senate or Pres. Obama veto it?

    Or is it a ‘done deal’, as in the UK where government bills are very rarely not passed.

    Sorry to be ignorant – since the insurrectionists started their political experiment in 1776 their process is all a bit mysterious :-)

  68. If they refuse to listen to democratically elected politicians then take the money away. Better still remove their ability to operate- close them down!

  69. ‘When everyone understands that “Back-radiation” is imagination, the house of cards falls.’

    I will disagree with you here. I believe it is pretty well-established that CO2 does absorb some wavelengths of IR and that it does radiate a portion of that back to the surface. That isn’t the question. The question is if it is significant.

    H2O is a much more efficient IR absorbing molecule and radiates so much that any increase in CO2 is likely to go unnoticed. There is so much water vapor in the atmosphere that it is already nearly opaque at the frequencies absorbed by CO2. If you paint a window black with a thick coat of paint, and then add one more thin coat, does it really make a difference?

    A photon is much more likely to hit a molecule of H2O than CO2. CO2 only absorbs radiation over a small portion of the spectrum that H2O absorbs. There is so much “back radiation” from H2O that any additional radiation from CO2 is likely to be immeasurable. In other words, removing every bit of CO2 from the atmosphere isn’t likely to make any measurable difference because the primary greenhouse gas is water and we can’t get rid of water.

  70. “Don’t try to rewrite history. The recession was caused by the meltdown of the financial markets. The Bush administration left the foxes in charge of the chickenhouse.”

    Please, that is not true. His administration began warning about the problem as early as 2001 but it was called a “figment of the Republican imagination” by Democratic members of Congress. Twice legislation was proposed to more tightly regulate the GSEs. The Senate Democrats refused to go along and the legislation never got the 60 votes needed for cloture.

  71. Even if the EPA is downsized, the fat cat bureaucrats at the top will survive.

    Bureaucracy’s motto everywhere has always been: “Better to sacrifice the many in order to preserve the privileged few.”

    So don’t expect EPA lunacy to end, but at least their outbursts supporting these policies will become ever more shriller and therefore progressively easier for Joe Public to recognise them as BS.

  72. Nothing like getting out of a warm bed on a very cold morning to get the blood circulating and the brain functioning. It seems that three cold winters are returning sanity and clearer thinking to the political classes. It just hasn’t been cold enough in the UK to wake up the looney Hunes yet!

  73. The results of global cooling are coming in;
    “Houston – The cold weather experienced across much of the US in early February made its way deep into Mexico and early reports estimate 80-100 percent crop losses which are having an immediate impact on prices at US grocery stores with more volatility to come.

    Wholesale food suppliers have already sent notices to supermarket retailers describing the produce losses in Mexico and the impact shoppers can expect. Sysco sent out a release(pdf) this week stating the early February freeze reached as far south as Los Mochis and south of Culiacan, both located in the state of Sinaloa, along the Gulf of California. The freezing temperatures were the worst the region has seen since 1957.”

    According to Sysco’s notice sent out this week:
    “The early reports are still coming in but most are showing losses of crops in the range of 80 to 100%. Even shade house product was hit by the extremely cold temps. It will take 7-10 days to have a clearer picture frome growers and field supervisors, but these growing regions haven’t had cold like this in over half a century.”

    “Supplies of tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers and other vegetables from Mexico will be severely limited until at least March following an early February freeze.”

    Jerry Wagner, sales and marketing director for Farmer’s Best, based in Nogales, AZ, said: “The end of February and the first half of March, there will be even worse shortages of product” than during the first part of February, The Packer reports.
    Wagner called it “a miracle” if 20 percent of the cucumber crop survives. Yellow, green and grey squash took the biggest hit. “Some plants will come back but the vast majority is lost,” Wagner added.

    Sysco called the Mexico freeze an “unprecedented disaster” and noted the volatility of the matter in its release:
    “With the series of weather disasters that has occurred in both of these major growing areas we will experience immediate volatile prices, expected limited availability, and mediocre quality at best.”

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/303583

  74. Ted says:
    February 11, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    Having read a little more I’m putting the cork back in the Bubbly bottle maybe/ yes we definitely do we need a lot tougher medicine, it’s time to play hard ball.
    I just read Steve Milloy, ………
    ========================================================These are two very different pieces of legislation. As pointed out by others, what Anthony posted refers to a spending bill. What Steve Milloy was referencing was something entirely different. Milloy is right, if the bill passes, it will be vetoed. But, a funding bill is a bit different. The House of Representatives are the ones that hold the purse strings to this country. All spending bills go through them. You can’t force them to create a spending bill they don’t wish to. All presidents hate this part, but there’s not much they can do about it. Of course, the president can veto, but then he won’t have any money to play with. Essentially, this comes down to a test of will and media message. If house repubs can hang in there and weather the image storm, they will win. If this is all they offer, then eventually, the president will have little choice but to sign the bill. There’s still a long way to go though. And I’m not entirely impressed by the repubs in this congress to this point. There’s very little time.

  75. Phew!
    Now we need the right wing commonsense republican party and tea party movements to influence Australian policy makers, of whom many (left) including the unellected PM are pushing for carbon pricing.
    The standard msm and mainstream political commentary down here is that we are behind the rest of the world for failing to do this where the reality is that by implementing a carbon price we would be showing ourselves to be uniquely gullible and naive when most advanced economies have walked away from or stalled such action.
    This profound elitest stupidity would undermine one of Australia’s key economic strengths of having some of the largest coal reserves in the world and with it the ability to produce energy at some of the cheapest rates comparable to other developed nations.

  76. Latimer Alder says:
    “Is it likely that by tabling this motion it will become law?
    How long will it take to do so?
    Can the Senate or Pres. Obama veto it?
    Or is it a ‘done deal’, as in the UK where government bills are very rarely not passed.”

    The Republicans will negotiate with the Democrats, to negotiate a compromise on the budget. The big picture is that the Republicans (led by the House, which is controlled by Republicans) want to cut $100 billion from the USA federal budget this year. So $3B is a small cut in the big picture. Obama is ramping up for the 2012 election and is presenting himself as a kindred spirit of Reagan. My guess is that Obama will fold and tell the EPA to hold off on regulating CO2 for this year (in exchange for getting something that he wants more).

    EPA regulating CO2 is generating lawsuits and civil disobedience (Texas flat refuses to recognize the feds right to regulate CO2) and is not going to help the economy (Obama’s biggest hurdle to get reelected).

    Obama probably loudly blames this on neanderthal Republicans but may (secretly) be happy to have this particular squabble off the plate.

    In the event that that an agreement is not reached, the Republicans will offer a continuing resolution to keep critical government operations going. The Democrats will go along with it because they are not going to shut down government. The Republicans have the edge in this conflict so long as they carefully craft small, well defined spending bills. All spending bills originate in the House.

  77. Michael says:
    February 12, 2011 at 2:12 am

    And the sad part is that we have had a wonderful spring in California … but the government has turned off the water and there are no crops in the central valley this year.

  78. Isnt it kinda cool to think how websites such as this have played a part in such monumentous action and helped to at least stall the ecoloon juggernaut. I’m sure this website along with climate audit have played no small part.

    Thx Anthony…/no sarc

  79. Obama must go
    ‘Ascribing blame is generally an unproductive habit and merely adds to the heat of public rancor. Nevertheless, responsibility for a clearly deteriorating situation must sometimes be assigned and there can be little doubt that the attempt to impose an unpopular leftist program of Robin Hood economics, environmental thuggery, and transnational accommodation upon what is historically a free-market constitutional republic must release the demons of social dissension and cultural rupture. When the misconceived policy of “Islamic outreach” is added to the farrago of mischiefs, the recipe for disaster is pretty well complete. The problem for the left in this latter regard, as Jonathan Spyer points out with respect to the Israeli left in The Transforming Fire, “is that they don’t find leftists on the other side.” Though, obviously, this has not stopped the sinister cohort from blundering on. For all these costly aberrations, the left is undeniably accountable and Barack Obama, as its most conspicuous standard bearer, is the visible manifestation of a disintegrating nation. Inevitably, there will be casualties”.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-must-go/

  80. Latimer Alder says:
    February 12, 2011 at 1:22 am

    Literally, the Constitution of the United States of America says:

    Article I, Section 7… All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

    Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;[2] If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

    Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

    Article I, Section 9…The Constitution of the United States of America Article I states: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

    The Republican majority in the House of Representatives is capable of passing the bill against the objections of the Democrat minority. The Democrat majority in the Senate is capable of defeating the bill against the objections of the Republican minority. Although the Senate is not expected to pass the bill without unaccepatable amendments, even if the Senate passed the bill, the president can sign the bill into law, take no action and thereby allow the bill to become law after the elapse of the required number of days, or veto the bill and return it to Congress. The House of Representatives and the Senate could override a President’s veto with a two thirds vote approving the bill, but the prospect of the Democrats of this Congress agreeing to do so with the bill in this form are highly unlikely. So the bill… in its present form…has virtually no chance whatsoever of proceeding further towards becoming a Public Law than the approval of the House of Representatives.

    What is likely, however, is the use of this bill to compel concessions from the Democrats in Congress on other legislative bills in exchange for an amended version of this bill. The Democrats face either making a major compromise on this bill and other bills or become blamed by the voters in the 2012 elections for their role in a shutdown of the Federal Government by failing to agree to a Continuing Resolution for an appropriation of budgetary funds in 2011. The Democrats for their part will threaten to hold the Republicans to blame for causing a shutdown of the Federal Government. What will be seen in the next few weeks as the budget deadline and shutdown of the federal Government approaches is a confrontation between the two parties to see who flinches and compromises firstest and mostest. The EPA, NPR, PBS, and elements of NASA are among the bargaining chips. The EPA faces crippling losses of funding and/or restrictions upon its climate change activities in any event.

  81. Well it certain gives the term checks and balances a new twist!
    That’s one big cheque to be taking off the EPA, but at least it will add balance to American democracy…

  82. Ted: …”these bills are political theater intended for impact in 2012.”

    Yes, but that’s exactly how you win elections. Obama signed all sorts of things, from Obamacare to stimulus X-Y-Z. Getting folks to vote flushes them out. There are lots and lots of bills that the Dems will have to vote against and ones that Obama will either have to veto or vote present (hoping for a pocket veto).

    Imho, what Obama does is not relevant. The House GOP needs to force vote after vote by the Dem Senators where they either vote with the GOP or vote against huge swaths of the voting public. Tying one huge provision with each spending bill and each revenue bill is simply great. The Senate will have to amend it and there is where the 2012 campaigns will be won or lost.

    For those concerned about Obama’s re-election, not to worry. You should feel confident that he has plenty of time to showcase his failures between now and Nov 6, 2012.

  83. $3 Billion, huh?

    Let’s see, of course the EPA will take the noble course of actions and absorb that cut entirely in-house… Stopping all travel, turning off the A/C, cancelling temporary assignments, cutting salaries, not filling vacancies… Yeah, right! NOT!

    More likely the first steps will be: contracts will be cancelled, contractors will be released, grants will go unfunded…

    Did I just hear thousands of rectums puckering?

    Methinks that faced with choosing between public rows over AGW bad science with sceptics and loss of the golden goose funding CO2 grants the alarmists will have to put us sceptics on the back burner whilst the alarmists run screaming to their lobbyists.

    The Republicans have opened an interesting gambit on multiple fronts. Logic demands that the US move to eliminate useless expenditures. I like their first moves!

  84. AT 1:07 AM on 12 February, Ian H says had written that:

    The recession was caused by the meltdown of the financial markets. The Bush administration left the foxes in charge of the chickenhouse.
    .
    Of course, it goes a helluva lot wider and deeper than that. The “meltdown of the financial markets” wasn’t much more than the slagging of the proverbial counterfeit zinc penny shoved into the fusebox. Things have been going to hell in the American financial markets for generations.

    Since 1913, to put it precisely. It’s called “the Federal Reserve System.”

    The only virtue held by the Red Faction of our great bipartisan Boot-On-Your-Neck Party (as compared against the “Liberal” fascists) is that the Republicans haven’t been able to suppress Ron Paul, who keeps getting elected on their ticket and has been trying to shove a scalpel into the throat of the Federal Reserve for decades.

    Not that Dr. Paul’s presence in their ranks isn’t an absolute horror for the political party Frank Chodorov described as the “Rotarian Socialists” almost sixty years ago.

  85. crosspatch,

    Although what you say is true, it is only part of the story. I remember Bush appearing in front of the cameras telling Americans about a new regulation that would allow Fannie and Freddie to lend MORE to people with poor credit ratings, in order to bring home ownership to as many Americans as possible. Now, maybe he was coerced into doing this, I don’t know, but I like to judge the walk not the talk.

    It was also the case that after the post milenium market crash, Bush and Greenspan applied a peddle to the metal monetary policy to try and reflate the bubble – the so called Greenspan bubble. Too much loose money, artificially low interest rates and laws making Freddie and Fannie lend to the subprime market contributed to the financial collapse.

  86. I would love to see this legislation pass and Obama veto it. The higher energy costs and job losses from the EPA’s GHG regulations, coupled with the strong likelihood of $4.00+ gasoline prices while he is campaigning (due in part to his own policies) will make Obama highly vulnerable to a resupmtion of his career as a university professor. He will do much less harm there.

  87. @Ted

    “Senate and House Republicans just announced plans to introduce legislation stripping the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs). That sounds encouraging?
    But the reality is that even if such a bill winds up on President Obama’s desk, he’ll veto it, and there aren’t enough Republicans to override a veto.”

    Ah… but here’s the trick. There are many democrats that are naturally against this sort of thing anyway (for example, democrats in coal states) and many others that may not WANT to vote for it, in their heart-of-hearts, but will due to political pressure back home.

    Painting it strictly as a D vs R vote is hopelessly nieve. Democrats had a supermajority in congress before the election, yet they had to do a LOT of arm twisting to get things done. It wasn’t twisting the arms of republicans, it was trying to bring their own people into line with what the party leadership wanted.

    Now, it may very well be that the republican’s can’t sway enough democrats to override a veto, but it’s not a given. It’s certainly worth a try. And if it doesn’t work, at least the republicans can say, “we tried. If you want us to try again, then vote against the jerk that stopped us.”

  88. I think if we remind the American people of the government science groups who received “stimulus” funds in 2010 (on top of their already outrageous increases in FY2010 budgets) – all while you and I in the private sector were struggling to make ends meet – passing the necessary budget cuts will be very easy, indeed…

    Did you know that many government science employees (including our favorite climate elites) received salary increases in 2009 while our economy was tanking???

  89. John Whitman says:
    February 11, 2011 at 7:31 pm
    Whatever side of the AGW controversy anyone is on, would we all agree it is most appropriate that congress is in the critical detailed chain of command . . . not replaced by a self-reinforcing bureaucracy like the EPA? Does anyone think the EPA hires skeptical thinkers?
    John

    ======================================

    The problem is that the EPA like other agencies is not supported by The Constitution. Agencies appear to have been set up and funded to do ‘unpopular’ things so Congress, Senate and the Administration can distance themselves from these actions and weep crocodile tears to maintain voter support.
    The issue though is that although some things are no doubt really good endeavors – keeping a clean environment is one – they are not the job of the Federal Government . There is nothing in the Constitution rendering power to the United States (the Federal Government) to ensure rare fish survive, that areas of the various States are declared ‘reserves’ off limits to States’ mineral exploration, or that carbonated caffeine drinks should not have alcohol etc etc, these may be excellent ideas but they are not the job of the Federal Authorities.

    The Tenth Amendment needs to be enforced.

  90. Let’s see if I can avoid another goddam HTML error this time.

    At 3:25 AM on 12 February, D. Patterson had written:

    The House of Representatives and the Senate could override a President’s veto with a two thirds vote approving the bill, but the prospect of the Democrats of this Congress agreeing to do so with the bill in this form are highly unlikely. So the bill… in its present form…has virtually no chance whatsoever of proceeding further towards becoming a Public Law than the approval of the House of Representatives.
    .
    What is likely, however, is the use of this bill to compel concessions from the Democrats in Congress on other legislative bills in exchange for an amended version of this bill. The Democrats face either making a major compromise on this bill and other bills or become blamed by the voters in the 2012 elections for their role in a shutdown of the Federal Government by failing to agree to a Continuing Resolution for an appropriation of budgetary funds in 2011. The Democrats for their part will threaten to hold the Republicans to blame for causing a shutdown of the Federal Government. What will be seen in the next few weeks as the budget deadline and shutdown of the federal Government approaches is a confrontation between the two parties to see who flinches and compromises firstest and mostest. The EPA, NPR, PBS, and elements of NASA are among the bargaining chips. The EPA faces crippling losses of funding and/or restrictions upon its climate change activities in any event.

    .
    First, the National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP, ’cause they quit being “democratic” when they enacted Obamacare over the loud and enraged disapproval of an overwhelming majority of their own “on the plantation” voting constituencies) is never going to vote to override a veto issued by their own Mombasa Marxist Messiah.

    So let’s get that out of even the remotest kind of speculative fantasy. In fact, the “Liberal” fascist Senate majority isn’t going to allow anything to get to the Resolute desk that might require our Fraudulence-in-Chief to veto it. Like it or not, they’re stuck with that incompetent ignoramus (yet again he says “corpse-man” instead of “corpsman” in a public speech, the stupid son-of-suspect-parentage) as the public face of their faction until either the nation throws him out of office or federal marshals come in with handcuffs and belly-chains to perp-walk that criminal thug through the Rose Garden to a nice cell in Guantanamo.

    Second, there’s simply no way that the National Socialists can “threaten to hold the Republicans to blame for causing a shutdown of the Federal Government” when it’s perfectly clear that this effort to prevent Barry Soetoro’s EPA from shoving the U.S. economy even deeper into economic catastrophe over “global warming” in the depths of the third consecutive deadly cold winter we’ve suffered is precisely the kind of thing over which the 2010 midterm electoral contest was waged.

    In every other significant way – particularly with regard to increasing the debt limit – the Republican leadership have done the “go along to get along” bit, even though those new Tea Party congresscritters who provide them with the majority in the House of Representative are conspicuously sharpening big knives and making insurgent noises behind the Boehner back. If anybody is at risk of public hatred for “causing a shutdown of the Federal Government,” it’s the National Socialist bunch.

    And they know it. Even though the MSM is still overwhelmingly rah-rah for the fascisti, the MSM is no longer capable of locking down public opinion to favor the Blue Party.

    The EPA either ceases to be Barry Soetoro’s vehicle of choice for sidestepping the public will or the EPA ceases to be.

    What else can the National Socialists do but back out of this minefield before they get their other leg blown off?

  91. Ian H,

    Bullcrap. But I see Crosspatch has already covered one puzzle piece of the financial trouble.

    Lets look deeper. Global finance has always been rocky. Personally, I believe the narrative has more to do with Central planners being upset over private capital taking over (unregulated) and the toppling of Communism in the 80’s. I think we are a point of requiring a new financial reserve to satisfy the global growth needs. The fight is over who controls it: central planners or no one (private capital). It’s really a common tale. All the little issues we fight over, like Bush or CRA, are red herring.

    The IMF has a fascinating history lesson on all this and more. Do go all the way to the beginning and read it all, if interested.

    The Power of private capital: http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/center/mm/eng/mm_dt_05.htm

  92. It’s a no brainer. Trying to control the earth’s temperature by reducing the burning of fossil fuels has less than 0.1% probability of success regardless of how much money you spend to do it. It doesn’t take much of a cost-benefit analysis to figure it is a bad idea. The real motive behind the regulation is the control of energy use and CAGW is being used to justify it. Hopefully, this House action will start the distruction of this “house-of-cards”.

  93. Sorry if this posts twice, it looks like it had a HTML problem 1st try…

    EPA has a $10B budget? That’s $10,000 million.

    From SBA: “In 2009,there were 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to Office of Advocacy estimates. The lastest available Census data show that there were 6.0 million firms with employees in 2007 and 21.4 million without employees in 2008. Small firms with fewer than 500 employees represent 99.9 percent of the total ( employers and nonemployers), as the most recent data show there were about 18,311 large businesses in 2007.”

    Spread that over only “large businesses”, it’s $546,119 per large business.
    Spread that over small businesses (only the ones WITH employees), it’s $1,666 per small business, i.e. mom & pop shops. What on earth can they spend that much on?

    A 30% cut is a bad joke. Unless it’s done every year for about 3 years, that would get you to about a 65% total cut. It might begin to come to life and function correctly at that level. I’m inclined to think anything less than an 80% cut is too little, but 30% per year for 4 years would allow them to manage the change and shrink in a more efficient way.

    Take a look at this:
    Annual Cost of Federal Regulations by Firm size

    Type of Cost per Employees for Firms with:
    Regulations Fewer than 20-499 500 or More
    20 Employees Employees Employees
    All Regulations $10,585 $7,454 $7,755
    Economics 4,120 4,750 5,835
    Tax Compliance 1,584 1,294 883
    Occupational
    Safety and Home-
    Land Security 781 650 520

    That is federal compliance PER EMPLOYEE!!! Man, it’s time to cut everything across the board by 80%. Can you imagine the sigh of relief? We’d probably be at full employment in months.

  94. Makes me proud to be an Idahoan. Go Mike Simpson!

    While California is in massive debt, Idaho has cut its spending and balanced the state budget under Gov. Otter. Local Dems wail about education spending cuts, but the state isn’t going broke, and is carefully spending its reserves to keep education going albeit at a less an optimal funding level. Even deeper cuts have been made in all other state functions. Idaho will be one of the states that comes through this recession without a massive debt load.

  95. I can’t believe AGWers pronosticators don’t know in advance the outcome of the bill whereas they can predict climate change in 50 years (and how economy will suffer if we do nothing).

  96. For everyone who is making issues of coal to vs. oil, get over it. Natural gas is the game changer, not syn-fuel from coal. All those coal fired power plants that are not going to be built will instead have a gas fired one substituted for it. The battle is between natural gas and coal. Gas is what made nuclear non-competitive and believe it or not, really tipped the scale against wind. There is another good reason to convert power generation to natural gas. You get a lot of low grade excess heat from electricity generation. Natural gas is clean enough to locate almost anywhere. The excess low grade heat can be used for heating buildings. By using the low grade heat near where power is generated, you can get an overall efficiency approaching 60% vs. 40% for an isolated power plant. My biggest concern is that the fracking process that suddenly and dramatically increased natural gas reserves, can just as suddenly be found to not produce the amount of natural gas expected, resulting in sudden rise in the price of natural gas. If all our eggs are in this one basket, heaven help us.

  97. The other thing that should happen: Ban the EPA from funding non-profit groups of any kind. The idea of a non-political nonprofit org is something of a joke. Browner was caught red headed doing this when at the EPA.

  98. The way out for Obama is to delay the EPA regs. and make a deal to soft pedal wind and solar in exchange for a move away from coal and towards nuclear and natural gas. That way he’s cut CO2 and marginalized coal, which ought to be a good enough half-loaf for his supporters.

  99. hey John, you asked do they hire skeptical thinkers at the E.P.A. NO they don’t hire thinkers at all, they might stand up to their bs. ideas and say no to foolish policies like are being proposed by the administration. And they can’t have people who care about the greater good of the country doing the right thing because its the right thing to do. It would make it look like a responsible adult, were running something in some part of the government of our country.

  100. Tucci78,

    I LOVE your comments! You can always tell a physician from a physicist. The erudite physician has a sense of humor.

  101. @Sean says:
    February 12, 2011 at 10:20 am
    ——
    Sean, you pretty much nail it! The Obama Administration is in an all-out war with coal, driven by the environmental lobby.

    See: http://bactanalysis.com/bact-regulations/the-bact-analysis-guide-epa-releases-bact-ghg-guidance

    GHG BACT (Best Available Control Technology) options for large PCC (pulverized coal combustion) plants will include:

    a) Carbon Capture and Geological Sequestration – this isn’t even proven to work yet!!

    b) Efficiency improvements – utilities are doing all they can right now to squeeze every watt out of every pound of coal!

    c) Fuel-switching = from coal to natural gas.

    Obama admin wants to shut down some ancient coal burners (we have some in the Midwest USA that generate most of the pollution load of the country), force most of ‘em to natural gas (no mercury or sulfur emissions, no “mountaintop removal” mining issues, no hazardous coal ash disposal concerns etc.) and kill off domestic coal.

    Follow the money & watch which members of Congress from either party are pushing this! Very interesting politics, you were right on the mark.

  102. Onward and upward:

    “February 11, 2011

    The following information was released by the office of Missouri Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer:

    U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-9) today reintroduced legislation that would save taxpayers millions of dollars by prohibiting the United States from contributing to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization fraught with waste and engaged in dubious science.

    The IPCC advises governments around the world on climate change, and supporters of cap-and-tax legislation have used questionable findings by the IPCC as reason to support onerous legislation and regulations for small businesses and farmers, Luetkemeyer said. Criticism of this science intensified over the last two years when emails publicly released from a university in England showed that leading global scientists intentionally manipulated climate data and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals. Researchers were asked to delete and destroy emails so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.”

    http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/wire-news-display/1357883185.html

  103. the_Butcher says:
    February 12, 2011 at 12:17 am

    So R. Gates seems to support the destruction of the US economy, unless he’s being sarcastic?

    The weather is not a problem, those who try to make money out of it IS the problem and should not be given a penny to them
    ______
    R. Gates is a fiscal conservative who:
    *supports a balanced budget amendment
    *a complete overhaul of campaign finance reform so that the best leaders (and not just the best financed) get to lead
    *and who fully recognizes that thrift and innovation are the only things that can ever make a country prosperous.

    To balance the budget will take serious sacrifices on the part of every sector of society, and every dime that is spent should be carefully weighed in terms of its short and long-term impacts (remembering that we want to encourage thrift and innovation). I’m an Independent voter, but I favor the kind of conservatism espoused by Ron & Rand Paul, who are not afraid to go after that long term conservative sacred cow of the grossly bloated Defense Department budget. They’ve been booed at conservative gatherings when they mention sprawling military bases around the world and cutting wasteful defense spending, the but there is incredible waste in this area of the budget, and honest fiscal conservatives like Ron & Rand Paul know it, and aren’t afraid to put this sacred cow, and the bloated corporate defense-related welfare system it supports on the chopping block. I actually support looking at cutting back EPA programs, so long as it is part of a package that makes a similar percentage cut in all other programs, including the sacred cow of the military related sector of corporate-controlled D.C.- the Defense Department budget.

    But thanks for your assumption on my political leanings…

  104. @ R. Gates says:
    February 12, 2011 at 1:28 pm
    ——–
    REPLY Nice to meet you at last, Mr. Gates!! You and I may be kindred spirits in many regards. Kudos on your mention regarding the bloated military spending, corporate welfare (I get all fussed-up about crop subsidies in general), and campaign spending.

    I also support hard & fast term limits on congressman (5 two-year terms should be enough), senators (2 six-year terms) etc. Also, I’d start balancing the budget with their own bloated paychecks, staff payrolls etc.

    Although I am a skeptic of climate-change science, I also have great respect for the USEPA (and none for the CRU/Hockey Team), and the US public will be ill-served if cutbacks to the EPA impact clean water, hazwaste regulations etc.

    Is it just me, or is WUWT starting to sound like the comments section for “Drudge Report”?

  105. To expand a little on the political image battle that these Republicans face, imaging this ad, funded by Soros:

    “[image of smokestack spewing black smoke] The Environmental [emphasis]Protection[/emphasis] Agency has stopped many of this country’s worst polluters from endangering the health of our children. [switch to image of child coughing] But now the pollution industry lobbyists have convinced some in Congress to gut the EPA by cutting its budget almost in half. [note: no mention of political party since ad is paid for by "non-partisan" group]. This radical move could result in illness and death for millions of people in this country and around the world. [switch to footage of hurricane] Don’t let Congress strip EPA of the funds that it needs to protect our environment. [image of drought and forest fire] Contact your Representative today at XXX-XXX-XXXX and tell them not to gut the EPA. Paid for by the Coalition to save our children.”

  106. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
    February 12, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    “Although I am a skeptic of climate-change science, I also have great respect for the USEPA (and none for the CRU/Hockey Team), and the US public will be ill-served if cutbacks to the EPA impact clean water, hazwaste regulations etc.”

    I agree with the specific fields you mentioned, but the EPA’s ‘endangered species’ department and the ‘science’ supporting much of it is junk at least as bogus as the worst from the AGW gang. The wolf issue in the western states is perhaps the largest current example of that but that is just the tip of that rotten iceberg.

    So, I’d like to see the funding for that fraudulent ‘listing’ racket cut by 99%.

  107. This is a good start. But we can go farther by cutting travel budgets by billions and those who can justify flying can take the V22 Osprey, a former priority funding item from just a few years back.

  108. R. Gates,
    What do your political leanings tell you about confiscating the private property of oil, natural gas and coal companies? How do you lean on U.S. sovereignty versus international control of energy usage? What is your personal opinion of the Koch brothers (1) that they helped millions of people by providing cheaper energy or (2) that they are evil rich people who deserve to have their plants targeted by the EPA?

  109. At 11:51 AM on 12 February, Dr. Dave had written:

    Tucci78,
    .
    I LOVE your comments! You can always tell a physician from a physicist. The erudite physician has a sense of humor.

    .
    Colleague, when you’ve spent more than three decades dealing with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnosis-related_group"DRGs (they got rammed up our tochus in New Jersey before the rest of the country got shafted with ‘em), you either develop a sense of humor or you wind up screaming at padded walls.

  110. Al Gored says:
    February 12, 2011 at 2:42 pm
    CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
    February 12, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    “Although I am a skeptic of climate-change science, I also have great respect for the USEPA (and none for the CRU/Hockey Team), and the US public will be ill-served if cutbacks to the EPA impact clean water, hazwaste regulations etc.”

    I agree with the specific fields you mentioned, but the EPA’s ‘endangered species’ department and the ‘science’ supporting much of it is junk at least as bogus as the worst from the AGW gang. The wolf issue in the western states is perhaps the largest current example of that but that is just the tip of that rotten iceberg.

    So, I’d like to see the funding for that fraudulent ‘listing’ racket cut by 99%.”
    —-
    REPLY I think you mean Department of the Interior and not the USEPA! EPA isn’t involved in wolves etc.

    Also, I’m not a big supporter of ranch operators who utilize free feeding rights on US park lands to make a big profit, but then want to eradicate wolves etc. We need the apex predators to maintain a balanced ecosystem. Lack of predation is why chronic-wasting disease is spreading like wildfire through elk & whitetail deer herds.

    We have coyotes all over the Chicago area now, and I love it! They keep the pest population down…..racoons, rabbits, cats, small dogs, etc. I’d enjoy having wolves in Illinois, we have had migrant pumas and the odd black bear in recent years.

  111. The House under Boehner is functioning as a check and balance to the Green Police (EPA) Menace.
    I tip my hat to the man. Sure, the Prez. can veto the bill. Nobody said this was going to be a slam-dunk or a cake-walk.
    Finally, a leader emerges in America who is looking out for the well-being of all.

  112. kcrucible & James Sexton says:

    February 12, 2011 at 2:16 am

    Ted says:
    February 11, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    Having read a little more I’m putting the cork back in the Bubbly bottle maybe/ yes we definitely do we need a lot tougher medicine, it’s time to play hard ball.
    I just read Steve Milloy, ………

    kcrucible and James, Thanks for the a more positive outcome and correction. I’ll have a couple of Co2 charged Ice colds brew with my spicy pizza and Hockey game tonight in celebration!
    Cheers Ted.

  113. R. Gates says:
    February 12, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    I actually support looking at cutting back EPA programs, so long as it is part of a package that makes a similar percentage cut in all other programs, including the sacred cow of the military related sector of corporate-controlled D.C.- the Defense Department budget.

    =====================================

    As usual your one-size fits-all simplistic attempt at logic…does not pass.

    What the EPA “deserves” in spending cuts, is a completely different animal than cutting spending in national defense.

    The EPA has outlived its useful life for the most part [but not completely]. Our air is some of the cleanest on earth and the EPA has become a political mouthpiece for eco-fascists and global warming chicken littles.

    I agree that the military bureaucracy is a problem but, unlike the EPA or any other non-necessary government agencies that DO NOT DEAL WITH LIFE OR DEATH ON A DAILY BASIS….the military, that does…well…their bureaucracy will crumble by its own natural selection.

    Wars tend to do that.

    You want a lean, mean, fast, strong, super-advanced military and you don’t get that by cutting spending there.

    You get it by reallocating that spending towards 21-Century conflict needs….which center more and more around special forces.

    I am personally disgusted of how bloated the US government has become. Think how much more advanced our society would be if we restored government with that same “survival of the fittest” mentality.

    It should be “for the people, by the people, of the people”.

    And it is up to us to limit its food intake, administer the liposuction, and kicking its ass in boot camp fitness, UNTIL it is LEAN AND STRONG and it works for THE PEOPLE again!

    And that would include limiting (and restoring) its role to the following as originally intended in this country’s design:

    Life Safety, the Rule of Law, Infrastructure, and National Defense.

    Nothing much else.

    As I said earlier, Donald Trump would make a great president.

    I can totally see him going through entire departments that are outmoded or have outlived their useful life, saying “YOU’RE FIRED.”

    Oh to see the day….

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  114. Finally….they need to just shut down the gov’t and then they need to start putting these crooks at EPA (and FCC – that’s you genachowski) in jail for overstepping their bounds…Congress (representing and accountable to the people) makes the laws, not these appointed stooges….

  115. Do they want to cut the EPA budget by 30%. is that how I should interpret this?

    And since I suspect that climate change issues do not constitute 30% of the EPA’s activities, would it be a reasonable to infer that this is intended as a way of curtailing the EPA’s activities in general. And that the climate change reason is just political camouflage?

    And so what is Upton’s background? Is he in someones pocket?

    I also noticed that this legislation is intended to be permanent. In other words extending beyond the current economic crisis. So the “harms jobs” reason is just more political camouflage?

  116. LazyTeenager says:

    “Do they want to cut the EPA budget by 30%. is that how I should interpret this?”

    In my view, you should interpret it like this: EPA should be completely defunded. Period.

    The country would be better off without this out of control, meddling bureaucracy.

    But by all means, if you think the EPA should be financially supported, feel free to contribute to them out of your own pocket.

  117. Eric (skeptic) says:
    February 12, 2011 at 2:48 pm
    R. Gates,
    What do your political leanings tell you about confiscating the private property of oil, natural gas and coal companies? How do you lean on U.S. sovereignty versus international control of energy usage? What is your personal opinion of the Koch brothers (1) that they helped millions of people by providing cheaper energy or (2) that they are evil rich people who deserve to have their plants targeted by the EPA?
    _____

    In regards to personal property– so long as it was acquired in an honest manner that did not steal it from “We the People” through backroom or sweatheart deals or any other less than honest manner, than no government should have the right to take that away. There are some exceptions, when a clear reason to take private property cleary serves the interests of “We the People”, but in such cases, which occur every day for public improvements such as highways, etc. then a private property owner should be compensated at market value+.

    In regards to energy independency, no greater cause exists so far as I’m concerned. Every nation should secure and develop its own internal supply of energy, and have full rights to do so. On the general issue of personal energy use…American’s tend to be energy hogs, and each person should probably take a look at their energy use. Conservation is far more effective than trying to develop new sources.

    In regards to the Koch brothers…I know very little about them. They may indeed be providing lots of great things for people, and I tend not to use the terms “evil” and “good” when referring to people. They are capitalists, and as such, they see the world under the viewpoint of what is good for their business and as profit and loss– Nothing wrong with that at all, though it seems they throw a lot of money around toward getting certain politicians into office, and I tend to no like our democracy controlled in such as way (Oprah’s support of Obama is a good example on the other side). “We the People” have lost our Democracy to big money, and this spans across both parties, and hence, the only way to get our Democracy back to cut the umbilical cord that flows from big money to thier stooges in D.C.

    _____
    Response to savethesharks says:
    February 12, 2011 at 6:17 pm

    ___
    You remain incredibly off target with regards to how much waste and excess their is in the U.S. Military. Yes, we need to be lean and mean, and also use our resources wisely. I support a strong military so long as it is not “strong” in stupid and unnecessary ways. The military does more damage to our country by excessive and stupid spending that wastes our resources and tax dollars. We should be strong enough to discourage any would be foe to think long and hard before attacking us, and strong enough to inflict a massive knockout strike against our enemy if attacked. But their are hundreds of billions of wasted dollars in military spending that simply serve to line the pockets of defense contractors who supply us with unecessary weapons, services, basese etc. People like Ron and Rand Paul get this, and I love it when they piss off the conservatives who don’t. Wasteful and unecessary military spending is about the most un-patriotic thing someone could do, as it drains valuable tax money that could be used for more productive purposes. We should be strong, but not stupidly so…

  118. R. Gates says:

    “You remain incredibly off target with regards to how much waste and excess their [sic] is in the U.S. Military Government, especially NASA/GISS.”

    Their [sic]. Fixed it for you.☺

  119. I think budget cuts for EPA, NOAA, NASA would be of great benefit for the Americans.

    Even more effective would be a combination with a program to protect witnesses helping to identify:

    bribery,
    manipulation of data and fraud,
    deletion of emails or data,
    conspiry against FOIA requests,
    conspiry to prevent publication of dissenting opinions,
    use of taxpayer payed time for activist labour,
    violation of codes of ethics,
    etc.

  120. Obama can have a 29% cut or veto and get 100% cut. Obama can’t draft a budget. His only power is to veto spending.

    Yes I have met the Koch brothers and even met their father years ago. Nice and rational minds. Joe Romm can’t belly ache because several have MIT PhD’s.

    It takes very little money at the EPA because all they do is read bulletins from the IPCC. They do zero research of their own.

  121. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
    February 12, 2011 at 4:12 pm

    “I think you mean Department of the Interior and not the USEPA! EPA isn’t involved in wolves etc.”

    The EPA runs the Endangered Species Act, which is the root of the wolf story and so much more.

    Your point of view is typical of people who don’t actually have to live with wolves.

    Human hunters are much simpler predators to manage in areas where there are already people. And back in the pre-European ‘natural’ era, Native North Americans were THE apex predator.

  122. R. Gates says:
    February 12, 2011 at 7:22 pm

    =============================

    As usual, you lace your arguments with enough truth.

    But when you zoom camera back and look for those little strings of truth…all one can see, in your bigger picture, is a steaming pile of you know what.

    Also, in your paragraph nonsense response to me, you completely conflated, misspoke, misquoted, and distorted what I was saying,

    You have no sense of perception whatsoever of the real world of the military…and the many specialists who operate there, and they, just like the real scientists, whom you try to ally yourself with [or sometimes pretend to be one], would eat you for lunch.

    You live in a dream ivory tower world, sprinkled with fairy dust, far removed from the world’s real ills….in a world of “AGW models” and computer-generated non-reality.

    Never in the many scores of the posts that I have seen you write, has ever ONE been without spin. Seriously, you could not punch a cogent argument out of a paper bag.

    But then again…you make it fun to pounce on all the weaknesses…so from that standpoint, as I have always said: Keep it up.

    This thread had nothing to do with the military, R…but as usual, you use your little highjacking technique to try and steer it off course.

    It is about the EPA….and ever last DOLLAR of that 3 Billion [and then some] could be better appropriated to more important aspects of government.

    I hope Lisa Jackson is seriously shaking in her pumps.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  123. There have been some comments that this action will have no short term impact. That is false. Currently there is a continuing resolution in effect that authorizes federal spending through March 4th. It is extremely important to Obama to have another continuing resolution signed before March 4th. While Obama could theoretically veto everything the Republicans propose, in reality he will refuse to be responsible for shutting the government down. Nowadays the Republicans have a far larger media voice with Fox News, conservative radio and internet, and the radical decline of mainstream (Democratic) TV news and newspapers than used to be the case. There is tremendous concern in the public about runaway federal spending. This is the area where the Republicans have maximum political leverage and they will focus on extracting the maximum amount of concessions from Obama.

    The Republicans will certainly extract some concessions from Obama in the next continuing resolution that will be signed in the next couple of weeks. Since he is trying tack to the middle for his reelection campaign, he is not going to risk being thought as someone who shuts down government for radical causes. The senate probably tries to mostly do what Obama wants to help him get reelected.

  124. savethesharks says:
    February 12, 2011 at 10:48 pm

    To R. Gates he says:

    “As usual, you lace your arguments with enough truth.”

    ____
    I think 100% would qualify as “enough”. There is waste across the entire federal government, with the bloated military being exceptionally wasteful. Those who have been in the military know this. Balancing the federal budget will be painful for everyone, but should be especially painful (if its done honestly) for those companies who have made their profits by supplying over-priced and unnecessary goods and services to the U.S. military. If the conservatives want to weld a mighty-budget ax, and make all sorts of noise in doing so, then it needs to fall equally on both the EPA and the Pentagon. Ron Paul gets this, and it brings me no small amount of joy.

  125. R. Gates, thanks for your reply. One of my questions wasn’t clear, the clear version is “what is opinion of ceding control of energy usage to international agencies like IPCC rather than maintaining free market (I shouldn’t have said sovereign) control?”

  126. Eric (skeptic) says:
    February 13, 2011 at 7:07 am

    R. Gates, thanks for your reply. One of my questions wasn’t clear, the clear version is “what is opinion of ceding control of energy usage to international agencies like IPCC rather than maintaining free market (I shouldn’t have said sovereign) control?

    _____
    No country should ever cede any control of anything it does to an outside agency or international body. But there is a big difference between giving control to any outside authority and volunteering to participate cooperatively with other countries on issues that have a global effect. But this must always be seen as cooperation, and never as a granting of authority to an outside agency. Putting aside the issue of AGW for a moment, it seems that there are many in this country (and other countries) who simply refuse to admit that there are issues that need international cooperation and require a consistent multi-national approach to solving them. I don’t understand this kind of thinking at all. There are many issues that require the international community to agree (voluntarily) to cooperate to solve them, if they are to be solved. These issues range from the global ecosystems to dictators possessing nuclear weapons, and international cooperation is the only way they will be solved. It would be hoped that the citizens living in individual countries would be educated enough to see the need for voluntary international cooperation on issues affecting the global community.

    In short, no the IPCC, nor the UN, nor any outside agency should ever have the ability to control our energy usage. But if it turned out that something we were doing with our energy usage were indeed having global impacts, one could only hope that we’d be smart enough and unselfish enough to want to voluntarily agree to do something about it.

  127. Pamela Gray says:
    February 13, 2011 at 10:33 am

    And what vote do we have when our government agrees to “cooperate” with an outside entity?
    _____
    Living in a democracy, our leaders should represent the will of “we the people”, not the will of Oprah, Haliburton, or the Koch Bros. Hence why we need comprehensive campaign finance reform, so that the best leaders make it to D.C., not the best financed. So, to your question– to the extent that the leaders represent the will of the people (and not the money of the rich and powerful) then the agreements they make will reflect the will of the people.

    On a tangential note: The leaders in Washington–from Democrat to Republican to Tea Party, will NEVER willingly give up their gravy-train umbilical cord ties to big money. It will require a true grass-roots movement to forever separate that umbilical cord. I have my skepticism that such a we-the-people campaign finance reform movement could occur as it is far too easy for big money to initiate confusion through the media and get the common voter arguing about other emotionally charged hot-button issues while the foxes stay in charge of the chicken coop.

  128. Let’s hope that the House holds firm on this cut. They will have the media against them, but they have their $100B of cuts mandate on their side. If a government shutdown occurs, then they simply need to keep saying over and over and over – like a broken record, “we promised the American people a mere $100B in cuts and this is what we must insist on.”

  129. Having been a mid-level manager conducting and doing atmospheric research at EPA for over twenty years, I know what budget cuts can do. I’ve been retired for over 20 years and one reason I retired early was that research was becoming more politically directed. “Finding” CO2 to endanger public health and wellfare was most politically motivated and did not follow the guidelines of the Clean Air Act. This will be decided in the courts. I hope Alan Carlin wasn’t the last objective researcher to leave EPA and the Agency can return to the job that it was established to do. I hope that the threat of budget cuts at any amount will prevent bad regulations based on bad science and force them to go back to the drawing board and do their research as directed in the Clean Air Act. I would favor a lessor cut if they would do that. This may be a negotiating point.

  130. R. Gates;
    It would be hoped that the citizens living in individual countries would be educated enough to see the need for voluntary international cooperation on issues affecting the global community.>>>

    Your naivety is charming. Seems so obvious, doesn’t it, this notion that if only people were educated enough they would see the “obvious” need for voluntary cooperation. I submit to you that if people were properly educated, the impracticality of such a notion would be obvious, as would the mortal danger freedom would be in if any such consensus was ever achieved.

    Impractical; Because an enormous portion of the world is ruled by dictatorships who could not care less about the good of the planet or their own people. They only care about their own power. Do you think the apocalyptic terrorist leaderships who influence hundreds of millions of people give a moment’s thought to the “good” of the global population? If 90% of the people die, including their own, but they wind up in power, do not for one second fool yourself as to which way they will choose.

    Mortal Danger; To achieve world wide cooperation on any issue, even a small one, someone has to be in charge of implementation. Someone has to set standards and have the power to enforce them on a global basis. All the education in the world will not change this oft repeated phrase “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Consider the IPCC. For just a fraction of the power that you propose, they became corrupt to the point that even if you believe in the CAGW story line, you have to admit that they are corrupt to the core. They follow on the heals of another initiative that the world decided to cooperate on called “Food for Oil”. Billions of dollars in the pockets of corrupt (though highly educated) officials who, when exposed, had the audacity to investigate themselves and declare themselves innocent. Multiply that corruption 10,000 times and you will have the spectre of educated, world wide, cooperation for the good of humanity, looming over you in its proper perspective.

  131. davidmhoffer says:
    February 13, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    R. Gates;
    It would be hoped that the citizens living in individual countries would be educated enough to see the need for voluntary international cooperation on issues affecting the global community.>>>

    Your naivety is charming. Seems so obvious, doesn’t it, this notion that if only people were educated enough they would see the “obvious” need for voluntary cooperation. I submit to you that if people were properly educated, the impracticality of such a notion would be obvious, as would the mortal danger freedom would be in if any such consensus was ever achieved.

    ____

    I am hardly naive about the realities of the world, and that, in general, individuals, groups, and whole societies will usually act in their own best interest. At some point, certain issues cross national borders and require cooperation to solve. If a “dictator” doesn’t want to cooperate, then so be it. If the issue is severe enough, they shall eventually suffer the consequences. Educated people do make better decisions than uneducated people, and even more so, educated people also are less swayed by propaganda. Witness, for example, current smoking rates, and the entire campaign by Big Tobacco to convince uneducated people that smoking (1st or second hand smoke) had no proven connection to cancer and other health disorders. As it turns out, rates of smoking are higher among the lower educated peoples, not just in the U.S., but across the planet, and in fact, the Tobacco companies love to pray on the uneducated, as it is the last bastion where they can sell their products.

    See:

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5542a1.htm#tab

    This is exactly analogous to events which require international cooperation. There would be groups who would like to convince the uninformed that such cooperation is unnecessary. The best thing to do is do educate yourself and your population to make the best decisions. To be better educated is to be more free to make truly informed decisions.

    See: http://tiny.cc/7wux3

    I am not specifically talking about the AGW issue here at all, but the general need for international cooperation on certain issues that have global impact, from the environment to nuclear proliferation.

  132. Fred H. Haynie says:
    February 13, 2011 at 4:12 pm

    To R. Gates,

    Should the masses be “educated” in CAGW using the IPCC bible?
    ______
    Not just educated, but indoctrinated! The IPCC findings should be taught to every first grader from Anchorage to Miami and from Sidney to Moscow. A picture of Al Gore should be placed on every schoolroom wall with the words below to read: “From the Internet to Global Warming…he showed us the Light!”

    (sarcasm off)

    On second thought, how about we just teach real science to our kids…then they might understand the uncertainty involved in climate science and not be 25th out of 37 countries in the world for math and science. And guess who’s #1…yep, China.

    See

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/teens-in-u-s-rank-25th-on-math-test-trail-in-science-reading.html

    Maybe if we weren’t so preoccupied with our petty politics and other distractions, we might actually put such nonsense behind, roll up our sleeves and rebuild our educational system (yep, that means an end to tenure), and realize that we’re rapidly slipping way back in the pack and leaving our kids with a future of McJobs…

  133. R. Gates;
    The best thing to do is do educate yourself and your population to make the best decisions. To be better educated is to be more free to make truly informed decisions.>>>

    Your naivety is both charming and dangerous.
    Who decides what facts to put into the education in the first place? What history, and whose version of it? Religion’s version of creation or science’s? Which religion? Which science? Who decides? And how do you curb the power of those who decide? Do you even understand what power that gives them?

    But more to the point, let’s examine your notion that undeducated make bad decisions and well educated people make good ones. It was the intelligentsia that sold communism to the uneducated masses, how well did that turn out? They identified the most intelligent amongst their population, and gave them the best possible education, and put them to work building 5 year economic plans that failed utterly, made them managers in factories that functioned at 5% capacity, and at the end, put the best minds they had either in jail for pointing out reality or to work building publicity plans to deny reality and convince the masses that their misery was really happiness.

    Who had the better education and higher IQ, Carter or Reagan? Who was more EFFECTIVE?

    Who enabled Hitler’s rise to power? Answer; The very intelligentsia that were promptly slaughtered when they were no longer needed. One would have thought those highly educated people would have seen that coming.

    I had dinner out this evening. My waiter had a degree in philosophy and another in liberal arts. What ever skills his education gave him, they didn’t make him a very good waiter. But that’s OK, he’s got degrees and is very smart, let’s put him in charge of what our children learn and what they don’t.

    And as for your dictators who won’t cooperate, do you really think a “shrug, so be it” is going to be effective? How many dictatorships do you think there are? 2? 3? Grab a globe and mark the true democracies on it. Not pretend democracies like Russia or Iran or any of many other examples, REAL democracies like Canada, the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain. Not as many as you would think, are there? Which is why you can’t just shrug off dictatorships that won’t cooperate as if they are some sort of minority.

    Reality sucks. Barging ahead with global plans driven by the educated intelligentsia sucks more. Way more.

  134. davidmhoffer says:
    February 13, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    R. Gates;
    The best thing to do is do educate yourself and your population to make the best decisions. To be better educated is to be more free to make truly informed decisions.>>>

    Your naivety is both charming and dangerous.
    Who decides what facts to put into the education in the first place? What history, and whose version of it? Religion’s version of creation or science’s? Which religion? Which science? Who decides? And how do you curb the power of those who decide? Do you even understand what power that gives them?

    _____
    Truth is what works. That’s the only truth one needs to know and what should be taught. Creationism is a matter of faith, not science, and as such has no place in schools except as a topic in a religious studies class perhaps. As the Chinese leave us behind and take command of the 21st century, they will teach us the that truth is what works many times over. While we bicker about evolution vs. creationism or the whether Thomas Jefferson was a great American or a cad, or get caught up in our mindless liberal vs. conservative bickering, the Chinese are building tomorrow with faster computers, high-speed rail, and now lead the world in patents. Some backwards thinking people will say the Chinese stole our technology and other such nonsense. Nope, they’ve learned what we used to know…the way forward is through hard work (their students study an average of 20 hours more a week at the high school level their our students do), innovation (they now lead in patents– meaning new original technology), and thrift (Americans have used their large McMansions as ATM machines for far too long).

    I applaud anyone’s effort to cut the U.S. debt, as it is a necessary but painful first step forward. But we must not lose sight of what made us great in the past…those values of hard work, innovation, and thrift. We must work to once more having the best education system, the most innovative technology, and learn to actually save, rather than spend like drunken sailors. If we do all these things well, we may just have a chance of preventing the slide of America into a second-class country full of McJobs. Balancing the U.S. budget is a good first step, but the harder tasks are ahead…

  135. R. Gates says:
    February 12, 2011 at 7:22 pm

    You quote me as saying just this:

    “As usual, you lace your arguments with enough truth.”

    ==========================================

    But what you did not quote me me saying to you after that is, for obvious reasons,
    left out:

    But I will repeat it here:

    “But when you zoom camera back and look for those little strings of truth…all one can see, in your bigger picture, is a steaming pile of you know what.”

    Your arguments are complete waste material.

    I am using a euphemism here to keep from getting censored. But it is true.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  136. davidmhoffer says:
    February 13, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    “REAL democracies like Canada, the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain…”

    ___

    And you called me naive? With the majority of our U.S. Senators being millionaires, and it costing tens of millions of dollars just to get one of those coveted senate seats, the days of being able to call the United States a “real” democracy is long ago passed away. It takes big money to buy your way to D.C., and that big money expects to be taken care of once you get there. Voters are manipulated by expensive campaign ads backed by big money. The term plutocracy is far more appropriate for what the former American democracy has devolved into. Many Americans will resist the idea that their democracy is really a plutocracy (if they even know what that means), but the plain truth is that big$ rules Washington, and the Liberal vs. Conservative battle is just a side show that only dictates which big$ is in charge at any given time.

  137. R. Gates says:
    February 13, 2011 at 5:12 am

    If the conservatives want to weld a mighty-budget ax, and make all sorts of noise in doing so, then it needs to fall equally on both the EPA and the Pentagon. Ron Paul gets this, and it brings me no small amount of joy.

    ============================

    No.

    They are NOT the same.

    No matter how much you try to equate them apples to apples in your usual moronic lackluster psuedo-logic….they are NOT the same….and therefore no reasonable comparison can be made.

    Do you ever get out? It seems doubtful. You live behind your computer screen, not in the real world.

    You live in an ideal, animated world, with pixie sparkles and fluffy clouds.

    The EPA is on its way down [unlike the Military...which will never ever go away]…and, to quote your, “I get no small sense of joy” watching Lisa Jackson and her ilk squirm.

    But then again….there is a reason you are going to try and steer this conversation away from EPA: you are more like them.

    Both of you believe the “AGW models” [heh heh remember your insistence on that term, R....even though there was no such thing]….and both are swayed by the arguments from authority of bureaucrats and minds even more swayed than yours!

    And neither of you would last a day in the battlefield, because to you, the world is imaginary [or to your own imagination,] and in a case of rubber meeting the road survival…you would be lost. No wonder you loathe the military.

    Let me ask you this: Have you ever swung a hammer or built something….or planted your own crops or milked a cow….played sports or hunted deer??

    I did not think so.

    Stop wasting people’s time with your sophistry and hijack of threads. That needs to be said…even more than you have already demonstrated yourself without it ever being said.

    If you want to contribute something beneficial…then your contribution…[until you can learn how to contribute in a logical way]….is to not contribute!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  138. savethesharks says:
    February 13, 2011 at 9:33 pm

    R. Gates says:
    February 12, 2011 at 7:22 pm

    You quote me as saying just this:

    “As usual, you lace your arguments with enough truth.”

    ==========================================

    But what you did not quote me me saying to you after that is, for obvious reasons,
    left out:

    But I will repeat it here:

    “But when you zoom camera back and look for those little strings of truth…all one can see, in your bigger picture, is a steaming pile of you know what.”

    _____
    You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I don’t see you offering any little bits of truth yourself to counter what I say, but rather, simply putting labels on what I say. It probably bothers you that I propose deep cuts across the board in the U.S. budget, including that traditional sacred cow to many (but not all conservatives) the mighty Pentagon. You wrongly assume that bigger is better and more is better when it comes to military spending. Such irrational thinking is thankfully not present in conservatives such as Ron Paul, who knows that bigger can sometimes mean just plain bloated and in need of a huge reduction program.

  139. R. Gates says:
    February 13, 2011 at 9:30 pm

    The Chinese are building tomorrow with faster computers, high-speed rail, and now lead the world in patents. Some backwards thinking people will say the Chinese stole our technology and other such nonsense.

    =============================

    Once again you take a nuggets of truth….[HSR, patents, and computers] and destroy those nuggets with your complete and utter ignorance.

    They DID steal and they steal today.

    Apple Computers, revolutionary cable-stayed bridges, or “patents”….none of them were invented in China.

    China took it and ran with all of the above because they have no concept of private property…and because they can.

    No doubt their quantum leap into the 21st Century from the 19th is remarkable…and point well taken that no doubt we need to pay attention.

    But the last part of your argument is complete trash.

    Why do you always shoot your self in the foot, R….and nobody else even has to touch you LOL?

    It’s entertaining.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  140. R. Gates says:

    It probably bothers you that I propose deep cuts across the board in the U.S. budget, including that traditional sacred cow to many (but not all conservatives) the mighty Pentagon

    =========================

    NO.

    What bothers me…is your deliberate and squirrelly manipulation of what other people say!

    You are a spin doctor….quickly coming to the defense of other spin doctors like James Hansen and his current NASA and Lisa Jackson and her outmoded, BLOATED EPA.

    There are many other government agencies, besides the EPA and the current NASA…the Department of Education, the DEA, the IRS, the FDA, the FCC, and many, many others like them…that need to be axed….[or at least radically trimmed down].

    But….unlike the military….none of these diseases that mask themselves a government agencies….depend on LIFE OR DEATH for their survival.

    You are a fool, R Gates if you think otherwise.

    But….given your performance so far….I am not surprised.

    Incapable of change, you automatically try to appear like one who adapts…but in reality, you do nothing of the sort.

    A true definition of a ‘second-hander’ in an Ayn Rand novel.

    So the true colors are revealed here: You are not just loathing the US Military.

    You are in a backhanded, passive-aggressive way, trying to defend the EPA.

    Hilarious!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  141. At 9:30 PM on 13 February, among other things R. Gates had extolled:

    …thrift (Americans have used their large McMansions as ATM machines for far too long).

    .
    This particular point requires at least some kind of response. The central government of these United States has been debauching the currency at increasing rates. In this condition, “thrift” is not possible. Dollar-denominated savings accounts cannot earn interest sufficient to compensate for the purchasing power thieved away by government counterfeiting while those dollars are on deposit, and – of course – dollars not spent or invested in ways providing yields above the real inflation rate are eroded by continuing and accelerating government theft-of-value.

    To get the real as opposed to the “official” rate of inflation, calculate the rate of increase in the M3 monetary aggregate. Which the Federal Reserve System quit reporting in November 2005.

    It is nonetheless possible to estimate the M3. Track that and you have the real rate at which the federal government is turning the dollars in your paycheck into toilet paper.

    Everyone who practices “thrift” in terms of saving U.S. currency in bank accounts and other “thrift” instruments is subjecting his accumulated wealth to slow, steady confiscation by way of government policy.

    As long as the politicians continue to “keep the interest rates down” by flooding the financial markets with Federal Reserve funds literally conjured out of thin air, only borrowers have any ability to survive. In the practice of “thrift,” one becomes nothing more than a victim of government pillage.

    I would not hesitate to say that all of America’s present economic woes – R. Gates‘ complaints about “the slide of America into a second-class country full of McJobs” included – are the results of currency debauchment inflicted upon the nation as a matter of government policy by way of the Federal Reserve System.

    I’m damned if I understand how it is that otherwise intelligent and perspicacious people don’t appreciate that key factor, and focus upon it. This is not merely a subject recently made popular by Ron Paul’s End the Fed persistence brought into the spotlight since 2007. It has been the subject of proper attention throughout the past century and more, and only through the prestidigitation of government economists – the Keynesians and the monetarists chiefly – has the attention of the general public been diverted from this sole cause of all the economic dislocation R. Gates decries.

    This failure to consider the root cause notwithstanding, the effects of government currency counterfeiting cannot be denied, and the fact that “thrift” has not for decades been a viable option for anyone in the American economy should not be allowed to escape consideration in the exchanges taking place in this forum.

  142. R. Gates said “Truth is what works. That’s the only truth one needs to know and what should be taught.
    Creationism is a matter of faith, not science, and as such has no place in schools except as a
    topic in a religious studies class perhaps. As the Chinese leave us behind and take command of
    the 21st century, they will teach us the that truth is what works many times over.”

    That’s an all-too-common philosophy. I guess it evolved from utilitarianism. The truth is that the only truth is faith. Everything else is subject to change by new evidence. Overall coherence is as far as we will get in science.

    As for the Chinese and their utilitarianism, I would remind you they also harvest organs from their condemned. I remember another Asian country that made a great clone of the Z80 processor in the 70’s By the 80’s they were flying high, like Icarus. The Chinese will follow that path, but being even more utilitarian they won’t make the same mistakes that the Japanese did and will fly even higher. That just means they will fall from a higher up and the results won’t be pretty.

  143. R. Gates;
    Truth is what works. That’s the only truth one needs to know and what should be taught.>>

    I repeat the question: Whose truth? Who decides? Was there an Armenian genocide or wasn’t there? Shall you teach history according to Turkey or the Armenians? Does CO2 heat the planet? Whose version of physics will be taught? You think that there some actual thing as Truth? The only actual truth is that when someone puts a capital T on it, death is coming, in waves.

    Not to mention that you neatly sidestepped the major points in my comment altogether show show rather conclusively that your idealistic isn’t practical in the first place because you shrug of dictatorships as if they are insignificant players on the world stage.

    Then you descend into some sort of babble about the US not being a democracy. Puhleaze. If everything you said was true, which it isn’t but for sake of argument lets say it is, then on a scale of one to ten with one being totalitarian dictatorship and ten being democracy, the U.S would still score about an 8. Russia 3. China 2. North Korea 0. Iran 0. Saudi Arabia 0. Pakistan 2. Lybia 0. Venezuala 3. You are splitting hairs to distract from the gigantic holes in your argument and you seem to have abandoned your original premise in the first place hoping no one will notice that you’re attacking a moot point rather than defending your position.

  144. I love what Boehner said, “I smoke, leave me alone.” It is the business of individuals to smoke, drink, or do whatever is deemed dangerous. And it is the business of private business to allow it or not. Do-gooders will often say, “We need to educate the people so they make better choices.” When that doesn’t work, they will often say, “We need to impose regulations so that people make better choices.” R. Gates, when that happens, we lose our freedom AND our vote! You advocate, in essence, sharia law, which we already have in this country in several forms. The burka covers both you and me. That you don’t realize it is interesting.

  145. boballab says:

    So I can see the headlines now if the Senate kills the bill by removing the cuts:

    Senate Dems kill Funding bill, shut down government:
    Essential services were stopped today when Senate Democrats would not pass the funding bill over a 3 billion dollar cut to the EPA.

    You have too much faith in the media. In reality it would be more like this:

    Republicans force government shut-down:
    Essential services were stopped today when Senate Democrats refused to pass dangerous Repulican legislation aimed at undermining essential government services.

  146. davidmhoffer says:
    February 14, 2011 at 5:14 am
    R. Gates;
    Truth is what works. That’s the only truth one needs to know and what should be taught.>>

    I repeat the question: Whose truth? Who decides? Was there an Armenian genocide or wasn’t there? Shall you teach history according to Turkey or the Armenians? Does CO2 heat the planet? Whose version of physics will be taught? You think that there some actual thing as Truth? The only actual truth is that when someone puts a capital T on it, death is coming, in waves
    _____

    Whose version of physics? Do you really think that science is like history? Perhaps the history of science, but not the science itself. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and through its real measureable effects, does keep the earth warmer than it would be if there were none in the atmosphere. If there were no CO2 in the atmosphere, we’d be an ice-planet. Why? Because water vapor is a condensing gas at the temperature range found on earth, and it would all condense out of the atmosphere as it cooled. CO2 is all the stands in way of a return to an ice-planet. But I suppose some skeptics might want to teach their children that this tiny trace gas has very little real funtion in the atmosphere, and could drop to 0 ppm without consequence. Probably the same type of person who’d teach their kids that the earth was created 6,000 years ago…

  147. To R. Gates.

    I don’t know where you got your science education, but it is messed up. Water is the temperature regulator on earth. Any minor affect CO2 has is lost in the variability in the energy exchange in the processes of evaporation/condensation and freeze/thaw. (And don’t give me a positive feedback reply, the tail isn’t wagging the dog.) CO2 is just going along for the ride and is a lagging indicator of climate change.

  148. Fred H. Haynie says:
    February 14, 2011 at 2:13 pm
    To R. Gates.

    I don’t know where you got your science education, but it is messed up. Water is the temperature regulator on earth. Any minor affect CO2 has is lost in the variability in the energy exchange in the processes of evaporation/condensation and freeze/thaw. (And don’t give me a positive feedback reply, the tail isn’t wagging the dog.) CO2 is just going along for the ride and is a lagging indicator of climate change.
    _______
    Oh, I guess the American Association for the Advancement of Science, (AAAS) is not a good enough source of research for you? Would you like to insult me based purely on your odd belief that CO2 is only “along for the ride”? I thought I had some respect for you, but now must doubt that decision. Before you come here and insult me again, please find out the difference between a condensing and noncondensing GHG, and why that makes a big difference, read these articles, and then we might have a reasonable scientific conversation without your appeal to unfounded and standard skeptical nonsense:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101014171146.htm

    http://amanwithaphd.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/non-condensing-greenhouse-gases-are-why-we-are-not-a-frozen-wasteland/

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

    http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3650/carbon-dioxide-is-key-on-earth-and-mars

    http://machineslikeus.com/news/carbon-dioxide-controls-earths-temperature

  149. R. Gates,

    I’m not insulting you as you are trying to do to me. I’m stating facts that can be varified with observed data. You have to have some basic scientific education to be able to understand what you read in scientific journals. The more complex the science, the more education you need to be able to understand. Think about it. How much energy is transported from the oceans to the air as it evaporates? Compare that to the little amount of energy that a couple of vibration frequencies in CO2 trap low energy photons. Better yet. Calculate the thermodynamic functions for the reacting ingrediants using the rigid rotator, harmonic oscilator approximation. If you feel quailfied, “peer” review my presentations on the subject. http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf, http//www.kidswincom.net/CO2OLR.pdf, and http://www.kidswincom.net/arcticseaice.pdf. My e-mail address can be found on my website if you don’t wish to reply here. If you wish to read some of my peer reviewed publications, Google “Fred H. Haynie” where you will find more than blog comments.

  150. R. Gates;
    Whose version of physics? Do you really think that science is like history?>>>

    Once again you neatly sidestep the question. Who decides?

    But in answer to your blatant attempt to misdirect attention from your original premise that has so many holes in it that it would be better described as a sieve with a hole in the screen, I will answer your question above.

    Science is EXACTLY like history. What people believe to be true, why they believe it, and who pursuaded them is malleable. It does not matter one whit if we are talking science or history. The actual fact, theory, and belief are never congruent, and always in flux.

    History is written by the victors they say. True. The history, the Truth, the FACTS of global warming were written over the past few decades by the victors who not only silenced their critics, but in many cases destroyed their careers. Little difference to what Jones, Mann, Briffa et al did than did the victors who wrote the history books. Dissenting opinion, and the facts it was based on, were buried and the writers of science went on as if they did not exist. A popular revolution is now sweeping them from power.

    Whose version of physics? Let’s take the IPCC’s. CO2 doubling results in a direct increase in radiance of 3.7 w/m2 which results in a temperature increase of about 1 degree. ACCEPTED. Some physics that you can find in the fine print in the back pages in the list of references that the IPCC doesn’t care to EDUCATE ANYONE ABOUT AS A DELIBERATE CHOICE and which you can verify with very little effort:

    The IPCC says that the average surface temp of earth is 15 C.
    FINE PRINT – the 1 degree temp increase they calculate is at the effective black body temperature of earth as seen from space, which is -20 C. Apply the known physics that the IPCC buries in the FINE PRINT but which you can look up easily under Stefan-Boltzman Law which relates power (w/m2) to a constant times T (degrees Kelvin) raised to the power of FOUR.
    FINE PRINT – 1 degree = only about 0.6 degrees at surface.
    FINE PRINT – that is an AVERAGE.
    Apply Stefan Boltzman Law P=5.76×10^-8xT^4 to expected temperature fluctuations at earth surface.
    Tropics – about 0.1 degrees
    THAT IS ALSO AN AVERAGE
    Tropics, daily high +.02 degrees.
    Tropics, daily low +.2 degrees.
    Temperate Zones – warmer winters, summers about the same, daily highs little change, night time lows change more.
    Arctic Zones – much warmer, summer a little warmer. day night same issue.

    Am I making this up? No, it is ALL in the fine print of IPCC AR4.
    Is the physics right? Yes, all of that is EXACTLY what Stefan Boltzman says should happen.
    What about the data? Why it AGREES! NASA/GISS and HadCrut both show very little change over the last 150 years in the tropics, more in the temperate zones, but mostly in winter and mostly at night time lows, and still more in the arctic zones, almost all in winter at night time lows.

    So the real meaning of +1 degree is almost meaningless because of the high’s don’t change and the tropics don’t warm, then all we are worried about is the polar bears and how they will survive -30 during their hibernation instead of -40. Poor bears have quadruped their population. Huh. Answers that question. and the temperature record AGREES.

    So Mr Gates, go read the IPCC fine print. Go read the Wikipedia article on Stefan-Boltzman. Think about what you have been taught, and who taught it to you. And I repeat my question:

    Whose science? And who decides?

  151. Tony says:
    February 14, 2011 at 9:28 am
    boballab says:

    So I can see the headlines now if the Senate kills the bill by removing the cuts:

    Senate Dems kill Funding bill, shut down government:
    Essential services were stopped today when Senate Democrats would not pass the funding bill over a 3 billion dollar cut to the EPA.

    You have too much faith in the media. In reality it would be more like this:

    Republicans force government shut-down:
    Essential services were stopped today when Senate Democrats refused to pass dangerous Repulican legislation aimed at undermining essential government services.

    That would have worked in 1995 (and did back then when all you had was the Big 3 and CNN), unfortunately for the Dems there is Fox News now (and it pulls in more viewers then CNN and MSNBC combined) and the internet which has been getting larger and larger share of people turning it for news. So no, the Dems won’t have it their way like they did when Clinton was able to pawn everything off on Gingrich. Like I put up just take a look at Obama’s numbers for handling the Economy, Debt and Deficit and they are still falling.

  152. @boballab

    I won’t argue with what you’re saying about Fox news & the internet, but that won’t stop the MSM from spinning things that way. They still try – and they’ll keep trying as long as they’re around. They just don’t know any better.

  153. Fred H. Haynie says:
    February 14, 2011 at 6:36 pm
    R. Gates,

    I’m not insulting you as you are trying to do to me. I’m stating facts that can be varified with observed data.
    ____
    Fred, you first opened up on me by saying “I don’t know where you got your science education, but it is messed up…”

    I’ve read your presentation and have no issues with the basic science you present. Yes, everyone knows that water vapor is more potent greenhouse gas, etc., but that was not my point before, nor the point being made in the numerous links I provided. Not once did you mention a very KEY difference between CO2 and water vapor. Not once did the words “condensing” or “non condensing” even appear in your presentation. Why would you leave this out? This is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between these two gases as they operate in our atmosphere. When the earth’s was in one of it’s “snowball” periods and the oceans saw ice nearly to the equator, it is was not water vapor that pulled the planet out of this condition, nor was it Milankovtich cycles, but CO2. This tiny trace gas, that you assert is “just along for the ride” did not condense out of the atmosophere as water vapor does when things get so cold. A great period of volcanic activity, which brought great quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere is what finally got the earth out of that period. That tiny trace gas “just along for the ride” broke the back of the snowball earth period. Yes, water vapor is more potent, but it does no good at all when it is essentially completely condensed out of the atmosphere. CO2 was the key, and still is. Yes it is not as potent a GHG in a specifed temperature range, but it can act over a much larger temperature range. So, before you come back to insult my science education, I would hope that you read up both on the differences between condensing vs. non condensing GHG’s, as well as the roll of CO2 in ending the snowball earth period around 700 million years ago…

  154. R. Gates, CO2 was important then and was also important in the dry glacial periods to bring us to the current interglacial. In the interglacial, it loses its importance. How much importance remains is the crux of the debate.

  155. R. Gates,

    It’s basic science. The processes of evaporation, condensation, freezing, and thawing is how water controls temperature. . Evaporating water adds energy to air without raising the temperature. At night when the surface cools by radiation, The air near the surface is cooled down to the dew point. While dew is forming, the temperature remains at the dew point taking energy out of the air. In the Arctic, the formation of sea ice serves as an insulator controlling the rate of heat loss to space. In the arctic, there is very little water vapor in the air during the winter and you should see an effect of CO2 because that is when it is at it’s seasonal highest. With fifty years of increases, CO2 has not reduced OLR in the Artic. The Arctic has been warming and reducing it’s ability to suck up CO2 so CO2 continues to rise. It is at it’s seasonal high in winter because the Arctic is covered with ice and the sink is stoppered.

Comments are closed.