D.C. Appeals Court OKs EPA Rules on Greenhouse Gases
From Reuters By Ayesha Rascoe
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – An appeals court on Tuesday upheld the first-ever U.S. proposed regulations governing heat-trapping greenhouse gases, handing a setback to major industries like coal-burning utilities and a victory to the Obama administration and environmental groups.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously ruled that the EPA’s finding that carbon dioxide is a public danger and setting limits for emissions from cars and light trucks were “neither arbitrary nor capricious.”
In the 82-page ruling, the court also found that the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide regulations is “unambiguously correct.”
The court also said it lacked jurisdiction to review the timing and scope of greenhouse gas rules that affect stationary sources like new coal-burning power plants and other large industrial sources.
The court in February heard arguments brought by state and industry challenging the EPA’s authority to set carbon dioxide limits.
(Additional reporting by Jonathan Stempel, writing by Chris Baltimore; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick)
Full story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/26/us-usa-co2-ruling-idUSBRE85P10920120626
h/t to reader Jack Simmons
It is unambiguously correct to state that a human being’s body is a transportation device that emits the same evil gas. Each ambulation is a threat to public safety. Every one of them, including the arbitrary and capricious ones, should be regulated by the EPA as well.
– HH
The breadth and depth of their ignorance is astounding…
This is a victory for science. The Court noted that the EPA relied on assessments by the IPCC, USGCRP and NRC and stated:
These peer reviewed assessments synthesized thousands of individual studies on various aspects of greenhouse gases and climate change and drew “overarching conclusions” about the state of the science in this field.
REPLY: It might be a “victory for science”, and the poor science pushed by eco-activists like Hansen and McKibben, but it is also a tragedy for America. – Anthony
A victory for what science Phil? What science supports the contention CO2 is a pollutant?
It might be a “victory for science”, and the poor science pushed by eco-activists like Hansen and McKibben, but it is also a tragedy for America. – Anthony
And your scientific evidence for the “poor science” and “eco-activism” in all of these thousands of studies is found where?
Phil C … Only a non-scientist would say that IMHO…
I would have expected nothing else from the DC circuit court. They haven’t been particular about the law in the past. How long do you think it’ll be before the supreme court is involved?
Time to fix the Clean Air Act. Time to fix Congress so it can be done.
WOW, What a great victory for grey literature and Pseudo-science with no raw data to back it up.
Let us all hold a moment of silence to commemorate the DEATH of REAL Science at the hands of the US Court system.
With this ruling all the pharmaceutical companies and other fields of science who have been found corrupt can show there is now a legal precedent for Snake Oil.
For example:
Looks like Smeester is now in the clear [/sarc]
But it is arbitrary and capricious for EPA to cherrypick questionable studies and to single out emissions such as ozone as the dominate cause of asthma impact. If the FDA standards for drug testing and approval were applied to EPA mandates and regulatory process, we would have elevated levels of sanity to report on.
Carbon dioxide is a public danger?
Dear God, America, what has happened to you?
Phil C says:
June 26, 2012 at 10:10 am
The Court noted that the EPA relied on assessments by the IPCC, USGCRP and NRC and stated
=====================================================
I am not an expert on the field of American judicial system, but my common sense tells me, that if the IPCC assessments can not be challenged before an American court, then any decision of EPA based on these assessments should be dismissed. The central point is, in case someone does not understand, not whether the IPCC is right or wrong, but only whether it is possible or not to challenge their assessments before an American court.
“victory for science”?
“The court also said it lacked jurisdiction to review the timing and scope of greenhouse gas rules that affect stationary sources like new coal-burning power plants and other large industrial sources.”
Don’t worry Phil C – our victory over the bloated and wasteful climate science budgets will come in November…
There was patently no science involved in this ruling, the EPA, or the IPCC. Greenhouses gases as they define them do not exist and no gas of any kind, even a trace gas, can warm the climate.
This is a dark day for science.
Just as with DDT, they literally do not have one defensible piece of valid science to support their claims that CO2 has anything to do with our climate. Furthermore, they have even less to show for any influence by CO2 from human activities. The banning of DDT was totally political, a move to give the environmentalists power by handing them a victory (despite there being NO evidence against DDT). Thanks, Ruckelshaus, not!
This is a political agenda. It is simply our Undocumented Worker-in-Chief doing another end run around Congress because Congress rightly refused to do cap and trade.
The Clean Air Act is a poorly written piece of legislation, being much too vague, and needs to be repealed and replaced with much more specific language. To consider CO2 an air pollutant is totally laughable, except for the fact that the EPA intends to destroy our economy and way of life through this claim.
It would of course be insane to offer the GCMs of the global warming alarmists as proof of their predictions. That would make less sense than offering the Bible as proof that the Earth was created in seven days. But, try telling that to EPA science authoritarians. It does not matter to the EPA that we all know the truth: that GCMs are nothing but simple-minded toys that have been ‘tuned’ through the use of parameters to mimic observations, after the fact. Everyone knows that the forecasting ability of GCMs is demonstrably deficient because they cannot even ‘predict’ the past or be validated.
http://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/carpetbaggers-usurp-blood-sweat-and-sacrifice/
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously ruled that the EPA’s finding that carbon dioxide is a public danger and setting limits for emissions from cars and light trucks were “neither arbitrary nor capricious.”
In the 82-page ruling, the court also found that the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide regulations is “unambiguously correct.”
That probably is intended to mean “regulate carbon dioxide emissions”.
The flaw is in the law. The Court has only ruled that the EPA’s interpretation of the law is correct, and that EPA’s ruling was neither arbitrary nor capricious: that is, the EPA ruling did not violate due process of law. Congress wrote the law, Congress has to rewrite the law. That the policy is bad, as most readers and writers here agree, is not for the Court to decide.
“Supreme Court OKs EPA Rules on Greenhouse Gases”
District Court, not Supreme Court
[REPLY: An Appeals Court for the District Circuit…. fixed, thanks. -REP]
Time to impeach some activist judges on charges of malfeasance.
Um. I’m a confused Brit. It says “Supreme Court OKs EPA Rules(…)” and “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously ruled (…)”, but Wikipedia says they’re not the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_court#Courts_in_the_District_of_Columbia
[REPLY: You are correct. Fixed. -REP]
Phil C says:
June 26, 2012 at 10:20 am
And your scientific evidence for the “poor science” and “eco-activism” in all of these thousands of studies is found where?
—-
The last couple of thousand entries at WUWT.
PhilC: “And your scientific evidence for the “poor science” and “eco-activism” in all of these thousands of studies is found where?” Upside down Tilhander, stripped bark trees, Law Dome.
Matthew R Marler says:
June 26, 2012 at 10:46 am
The Court has only ruled that the EPA’s interpretation of the law is correct, and that EPA’s ruling was neither arbitrary nor capricious
==================================================
Well, if EPA based their decision on the IPCC assessments, then it is arbitrary. Or is there an American law stating the IPCC assessments must be considered right? I do not think so. There are other assessments contradicting the ones of the IPCC.
It might be a “victory for science”, and the poor science pushed by eco-activists like Hansen and McKibben, but it is also a tragedy for America. – Anthony
The law gives to the EPA the authority to decide what studies to include in its reviews, and how to appraise them all together. Unless the Court can find some clearly (legally and operationally) defined arbitrariness, then it hasn’t the authority to overturn the EPA ruling. If it is true, as it seems to be, that most scientists side with the EPA on this ruling, then we wouldn’t want the Court to overturn the EPA just because a minority of scientists disagrees with the EPA.
Right now, most Americans do not believe that CO2 is a pollutant that should be regulated. So now is the time for voters to engage in what it takes to get the laws rewritten and overturn this decision.
“and a victory to the Obama administration and environmental groups and the natural gas, nuke, and hydro industries that fund them
I thought I should add some truth to that statement.
DesertYote: Time to impeach some activist judges on charges of malfeasance.
The judge only ruled that EPA acted within its authority. That’s hardly “activist”, and definitely not malfeasance.
Phil,
The question before the court is jurisdiction and not science. Can the EPA write their own laws? To classify CO2 as a “poisonous gas” is the job for Congress. And Congress refused to do so. So, Progressives took an unusual step. They had individual states sue the EPA and they won.
As one person already commented, Congress needs to amend the Clean Air Act and repeal this ruling. We’ve arrived at a strange place in our history. The Executive Branch is selectively enforcing existing laws, while at the same time creating new ones. And the Courts are enabling all of this.
Is Lisa Jackson available for comment, or is she still in Rio De Janeiro at Rio + 20 illigitimately working with foreign governments to determine domestic policy in the US?
Matthew R Marler says:
June 26, 2012 at 10:59 am
Unless the Court can find some clearly (legally and operationally) defined arbitrariness, then it hasn’t the authority to overturn the EPA ruling.
==================================================
EPA refers to the IPCC assessments, in the IPCC foreign governments are involved, that are enemies of the US or have financial interests in certain assessments, hence the IPCC assessments can not be considered independent science.
There is a relatively old SCOTUS decision that established the so called CHEVRON doctrine. The doctrine obligates courts to give great deference to the actions for federal agencies that are supposed to have expertise in specific fields along their interpretation of federal laws.
There are two likely explanations or a combination thereof for the DC Circuit’s decision: the court applied the Chevron doctrine and deferred to the EPA without serious evaluation of the underlying facts and circumstances; or the judges are climate change true believers.
It is a sad day for sound science due to actions of judges that will not filter out political and scientific bias that influences some federal agencies. The remedy is to get SCTOUS to revisit the Chevron case and either overrule it or narrow the circumstances in which it is applicable. I am not sure that review of this case is the right time to raise the issue.
JP says:
June 26, 2012 at 11:09 am
And the Courts are enabling all of this.
======================================================
The courts can be contaminated too, exactly like climate science.
Here is Senator Inhofe’s response.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=29e06bfe-802a-23ad-4ed4-acbf2f498e66
This is mostly good news. The finding that setting limits on CO2 emissions is “neither arbitrary nor capricious” is based on solid science as well as the EPA’s regulatory scope — which ought to be expanded. Clearly, the conservative anti-science agenda has been held at bay by the facts and established climate science in this ruling.
Now for some myth-busting.
Contrary to some climate change skeptics’ propaganda, CO2 IS a public danger — when produced in excess, due to its scientifically measured planetary effects on climate, as just about any chemical is in excess. For example, drinking too much water can kill a person. Yet we need it to live. Anyone can argue that “water is not a poison” — but the argument is only partly correct, just as is the same argument about CO2. CO2 is natural, yet releasing so much at such speed, after being locked deep in the earth as fossil fuels is clearly having powerful, negative effects. (Sure, there are may be a few minor positive effects…please don’t torpedo the conversation with those. They are trivial.)
The science is clear. The estimates of its effects and how much consequent danger it poses must necessarily vary, as there are many variables. Hence the qualifiers in the assessments of scientific bodies, like the British Royal Society and IPCC, such as “very likely” and “with a high degree of certainty” — used in strict scientific, not lay, senses. And note that, according to Wikipedia, “no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion” that human activities are causing most of the global warming.
But there are not so many variables that the consensus scientific assessments are voided. Computer models are quite accurate in predicting past temperatures, and have been able to predict now-current results. See this useful discussion at Skeptical Science, “Can We Trust Computer Models?”: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-we-trust-computer-models.html
Responding to the article, Bern on 25 May, 2011 posts, re: James Hansen’s 1981 temperature predictions:
“…looking at the 30 years of global temperature data prior to 1980, would you have made the same predictions that Hansen did back in 1980? I know I wouldn’t have, without a lot of persuasion. Turns out his climate model was pretty much on the money, though. It’s been more-or-less right for 30 years now, despite being orders of magnitude simpler than current climate models, and despite there being so much more discovered about how the climate works.”
Now the charter or regulatory scope of the EPA should change in order to enable a broad-ranging, coherent, ecologically sensible US energy policy that covers not only vehicles, but everything that produces pollution and CO2. (Wanna bet billions in lobbying dollars go into defeating something like that?? The power and momentum of corporate greed to fight health, ecology and science is sad and sick.) According to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, “residential and commercial buildings account for almost 39 percent of total U.S. energy consumption and 38 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.” (Based on US DOE 2008 data, available in 2008 Buildings Energy Data Book.)
Since buildings account for such a huge proportion of pollution, including (in the current situation), excessive CO2 production, they should be regulated much more heavily than vehicles. What should happen next is covered well in “Mitigating Climate Change: What America’s Building Industry Must Do,” in Design Intelligence: http://www.di.net/articles/archive/3097/
By the way, more evidence has just washed up on shore — literally — that ocean levels are rising “more than three times faster than the global average” on the US East Coast, which will drastically affect property values and punch huge holes in our economy:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0626/Sea-level-in-Northeastern-US-rising-more-than-three-times-faster-than-global-average-video
Here is a misleading fairly recent paper by Nils-Axel Mörner, claiming no rise in sea levels — which is now thoroughly debunked by the facts: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf
Looks like it’s continuing to be, as Bill McKibben wrote June 5th in the Asia Times, “a tough few weeks for the forces of climate-change denial.” http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NF05Dj06.html
NOTE + COMMENT: McKibben’s article was originally a response to a nutty Heartland Institute campaign against established climate change science that featured, among other wingnut-style screeching and lying, a “giant billboard with Unabomber Ted Kacynzki’s face plastered across it: ‘I Still Believe in Global Warming. Do You?'” The Heartland campaign claimed that “the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.” Seriously?? Does anybody believe this junk? (Furthermore, bizarrely, a majority of Republicans STILL believe Obama is not a US citizen and that he is a Muslim. Fox News is a major force for ignorance and disinformation. Hey, it’s not news if it’s FALSE, people! Psssst: The earth is ROUND, not flat! Roundish, actually — oblate.)
I’m hoping, as Carl Sagan used to say about nuclear war, that “sanity breaks out” soon regarding the backward state of US public opinion on climate change. The clouds are parting, bit by bit.
“…Court upholds EPA’s greenhouse gas rules for autos – but lacks jurisdiction on stationary sources…”
Potential problem, then. There are some major cities where the traffic at times makes automobiles stationary sources.
Matthew R Marler,
The IPCC is officially a political organization, not a scientific one. Their charter mandates that they publish findings that support a particular conclusion, and by implication prohibits them from publishing adverse findings.
I don’t know what the Clean Air Act would have to say about that kind of organization being cited as a source of “science”, but I know one thing … if the EPA had cited “Barney the Dinosaur” videos for its finding, there is no way on God’s green Earth that this court or any other would have found this to be lawful. So, clearly, either the CAA doesn’t allow this sort of flexibility, or there is a judgment call to be made, which these judges were being called on to make.
RTF
Phil C says:
June 26, 2012 at 10:10 am
This is a victory for science. The Court noted that the EPA relied on assessments by the IPCC, USGCRP and NRC and stated:
_________________________________
Glad you think so. How about living your “Convictions” this means NO Car, NO heat, NO house or apartment, NO supermarket food, NO store bought clothes or anything ELSE!
You only get to use what you can grow or create with your own two hands PERIOD.
I did the analysis Phil C. and you will have to roll back technology to before that of the 1800’s to meet the EU or California’s mandated 80% reduction in CO2 emissions if it is applied across the USA.
So Let us look at what real facts tell us.
The average for the USA is 335.9 million BTUs per person. ~ http://www.nuicc.info/?page_id=1467 (Total population: 246,081,000)
The U.S. in 1800 had a per-capita energy consumption of about 90 million Btu. http://www.bu.edu/pardee/files/2010/11/12-PP-Nov2010.pdf
(Total population: 5,308,483)
If the USA reduces its energy consumption by 80% it equals 45.18 million Btu. per person IF THE POPULATION WAS THE SAME.
Given the increase in technology and hydro power lets use the 1800 consumption level of about 90 million Btu. per person instead of 45 Btu per person that the 80% reduction would mandate.
Before 1800, farmers made up about 90% of labor force.
It took about 250-300 labor-hours to produce 100 bushels of wheat from 5 acres with walking plow, brush harrow, hand broadcast of seed, sickle, and flail and that was in 1830. (1987 – 2-3/4 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels from 3 acres but that takes lots of oil.)
It was not until between 1810 and 1830 “manufacturing” was transfered from the farm and home to the shop and factory. It wasn’t until the 1840′s that we saw factory made farm machinery, labor saving devices and chemical fertilizers became common. It was until the 1860′s that kerosene lamps became popular.
Also up until the 1850′s dung and wood were the major source of energy. http://dieoff.org/page199_files/image002.gif
In other words for the USA to use HALF the energy per person that was used in 1800 we must abandon ALL factories and 90% of the population must return to subsistence farming using animals. AND WE STILL WILL NOT REACH 80% REDUCTION!
Remember in 1800 there was only 2% of the current population in the USA. Solar and Wind just are not going to produce enough power to keep us in anything but a few lights and if we are lucky a refrigerator per village. (Or the local overlord gets to use ALL the alloted energy and we get nothing) The FACTORIES to produce those Solar Panels and Windmills use a huge amount of power and that is why cotton mills and other primitive factories were built on rivers. Do you really think you can even produce the equipment needed to keep some semblance of civilization going if we cut our CO2 levels to the advocated 20% of the current levels??
I sure hope you are out there pushing Nuclear power for all you are worth, because I can go back to subsidence farming, I have the horse drawn equipment, the horses, green house, heritage seeds, sheep and goats and more important the knowledge, but I really doubt you could or Hansen or Jones or the rest of the (self-snip) who are pushing this nonsense.
What these (self snip) politicians keep forgetting is without energy you have no COMMUNICATION or TRANSPORTATION and therefore your civilization devolves to tiny city states. This is what happen to Rome and other great civilizations because of the onset of COLD climate. Seems we are not waiting for the next little Ice Age, we are going to trash the USA based on the mandates of an UNELECTED bureaucrat!
The EPA will almost always come out on top in these cases because the legal question comes down to whether the law empowers them to makes these determinations, not whether they have done an adequate job of doing so. To really bring these folks back under the control of elected officials and the populous the authorizing legislation that created this bureaucracy must be repealed and replaced, hopefully by a law crafted to prevent the inevitable mission creep that all bureaucratic structures are subject too.
The EPA’s many over the top actions in recent times may actually present the only opportunity we are likely to ever see to create the political consensus to accomplish this. Most of the voting population still cling to the naive notion that the EPA is actually trying to protect the environment. Unfortunately any candidate who has the political courage, the ultimate oxymoron, to actually challenge them is automatically portrayed as a complete lunatic by the media stooges who just as unfortunately still provide most of the mouthbreathers with their worldview. Somewhat ironically the only real hope of generating a voter rebellion is if Ms Jackson and her thugs behave even more outrageously between now and the election to an extent that not even the continuing silence of the MSM can conceal it from even the dimmest voter.
\\The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously ruled that the EPA’s finding that carbon dioxide is a public danger and setting limits for emissions from cars and light trucks were “neither arbitrary nor capricious.”//
Yes, but is it correct? Is it necessary? If the science is found wanting and AGW is a costly illusion, what then?
Here is the decision itself:
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/52AC9DC9471D374685257A290052ACF6/$file/09-1322-1380690.pdf
In briefly skimming it, it seems that the basis of the decision is the definition of “pollution” in the clean air act.
D.C. Circuit jurisdiction is limited to District of Columbia. Doesn’t mean squat for anyone outside of it. The decision was predictable not on the merits but on the court that made it. Sort of like knowing which way the 9th circuit will decide or how Mother Jones bloggers would decide… LOL
“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot.” – Dickens
Plus ça change. Sigh.
Richard T. Fowler: if the EPA had cited “Barney the Dinosaur” videos for its finding,
Such a premise can’t possibly lead to a clear and relevant conclusion.
Gail Combs says:June 26, 2012 at 11:31 am
Gail: Liked what you said and got great imagery from it. And as Anthony says in response to the egregious Phil C: “…but it is also a tragedy for America.” Unfortunately, Phil C and his ilk would welcome any ‘tragedy’ for America. I often wonder what kind of country he and people like him would prefer to live in…as much as I would dearly love to know what kind of climate he/they would like to live under – and how they would control it – assuming that they alone have the arrogance to believe they could control it..
And nuclear winter too! We nutty neanderthals have long been in denial about that as well.
Sorry. I just can’t stop laughing. The story is so funny. It is bound to bounce.
The only thing, so far, that is more hilarious is the deluded clown @June 26, 2012 at 11:22 am traipsing in here dragging his knuckles and a SS link claiming; “Models work”
You couldn’t make it up.
Again, sorry. I have had a hard day and this type of thing is why WUWT is the only source of cutting edge science, humor and pathos that I visit daily and recommend to everyone I meet. I would be utterly lost without it. The wonder, the laughter and the face-palming.
I have a new name for these guys. I will post nearer the top of a more relevant thread when I have fleshed it out.
@ Matthew Marler
@quidsapio:
“Right now, most Americans do not believe that CO2 is a pollutant that should be regulated.”
and
“What science supports the contention CO2 is a pollutant?”
—–
1) Most Americans are not climate scientists. Most Americans are not ANY kind of scientist. They do not and should never decide what a pollutant is. That is for scientists. By analogy, do you want “most Americans” to vote on the best procedures to transplant a human heart or send rockets into the sky as well??
2) Climate science supports the contention that CO2 is a pollutant…of sorts. Clearly there are contexts and situations in which it is not. CO2, according to any fifth-grade science textbook, is emitted as part of the natural carbon cycle by plants. But CO2, as I’ve said in an earlier post, IS a pollutant in the planetary context of global warming. It is causing and will cause even more massive, earth-shaking destructive results, which cannot be reversed for thousands of years, if ever.
By analogy, water is a “pollutant” in the case of overdose, for example. Drinking too much water can kill you. Any chemical might be a pollutant in the proper context.
Think, man, think! (But that’s not what the conservative media want you to do. Wake up, you’ve drunk the Kool-Aid!)
Of course, climate science denialism being a religion, I surmise that, “to a high degree of certainty” “it is very likely” that no amount of reason, facts or science will convince you to change your religiously held, rigid, dogmatic beliefs. 😉 (If they weren’t irrational beliefs, then facts would change them.) Enjoy them, it’s your right. But please step out of the way so we can use science to make our planet healthy again.
Dave Wendt: The EPA will almost always come out on top in these cases because the legal question comes down to whether the law empowers them to makes these determinations, not whether they have done an adequate job of doing so.
I think some writers here are not accepting that.
The EPA regulations were the subject of many editorials in the scientific journals and received a lot of support. The court case was the subject of many editorials in the scientific journals, urging the court to rule in favor of the EPA; and the court doubtless received amicus curiae briefs, supporting and opposing EPA. Under the law, the court could not rule against the EPA without overwhelming evidence from the scientific community, or from somewhere else, that EPA was in violation of the law. That a bunch of us think the IPCC and other reviews were biased does not constitute the sort of thing that the judge could use to rule against the EPA.
The judge ruled correctly. The flaw is in the law. Write to your congress critters.
Thanks Tim for the great link by Morner. At least he is one scientist that actually looks at the data without manipulating it. He actually uses, on site, historical facts, rather than computer models.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf
@Phil: You wrote: “The question before the court is jurisdiction and not science. Can the EPA write their own laws? To classify CO2 as a “poisonous gas” is the job for Congress. And Congress refused to do so. So, Progressives took an unusual step. They had individual states sue the EPA and they won.”
Decent people lost that battle to progressives in the 1930’s. Congress can pretty much delegate it’s law making authority to whatever agency it wants. That’s they way they delegate the unpopular decisions they secretly want, but cannot vote for because their constituents do not. Dismantling the administrative agencies in the US needs to be a top priority.
Richard T. Fowler says:
June 26, 2012 at 11:30 am
Matthew R Marler,
“The IPCC is officially a political organization, not a scientific one. Their charter mandates that they publish findings that support a particular conclusion, and by implication prohibits them from publishing adverse findings.”
—–
I’d like to see your documentation and evidence for the statements. You imply that the IPCC is solely a political organization, and by implication, has no science behind it. Which is absolutely false. This is an example of providing partial truth to support an untrue conclusion. Typical Fox News-style propaganda.
As a body which reflects and assesses science, the IPCC is mandated to publish scientific findings to the best of its ability.
That being said, because IPCC is subject to political forces, having to weigh and balance thousands of scientific reports and investigations (which arrive at various conclusions, being dependent on many variables), as well as kowtow to some extent to political pressuring from various nations, they have some restrictions on what they can publish and recommend. The main problem with the IPCC reports published so far is that they have been too conservative when compared with the science.
One article I read (wish I could find it) said that China, which stands to profit and move ahead mightily in economic terms if eco-friendly energy initiatives are delayed (because it is so dependent on dirty coal and oil), has watered down the published IPCC reports. Many scientists believe, for example, that the oceans are likely to rise much more, much faster than the IPCC’s published projections. And that such conservatism is likely holding back all nations from making eco-friendly changes to energy production as fast as we truly need them.
Do extensive reading and research, and you can find this stuff. Or keep reading what many people post here, largely from ignorance. Echoes never change. Knowledge does. Are the echoes of falsehoods so soothing that they must be believed over scientific knowledge??
Every agency should have their powers explicitly defined by law and the EPA is the People’s Exhibit A why this is necessary. The EPA can’t do this if Congress would simply pass a bill that sharply states what the EPA can do. Anything outside that mandate would be unlawful.
For this, we need better people in Congress, particularly the Senate, and a President who would sign the bill.
RIO+20 ended with a whimper, the NGO’s locked out of the process completely and any resolutions with any actual teeth in them never even having a chance to pass because BRIC shut them down cold. Who is BRIC?
Brazil, Russia, India and China.
The new leaders of the free world!
You see Phil C, this was no victory for “science”. It was a demonstration that the wealthy can be duped out of their own money by the simplist of con games while the poor, who have nothing to be conned out of, are not so easily had. This was a victory for legal process and politics over science. If the United States were not the wealthy country she is, this insanity would have gotten no more traction than it has in the BRIC countries.
The only question left for history to provide an answer to, is if the United States will destroy themselves utterly with policies of green fancy (like Europe seems poised to do) or wake up and take a step back from to total stupidity before that happens. But I am bright enough, Phil C, that I do not cheer from the sidelines as we do terrible harm to ourselves, nor am I so naive (as you appear to be) that the harm doesn’t at some point affect me personally, as it will you also.
But for all I know, you are fabulously wealthy, and so that much more susceptible to being conned out of your own money. Your grasp of science and economics is so weak as to suggest that there must be another explanation for the glee with which you cheer damage to the American economy in particular, and the world in general, and somehow imagine that this will do less harm to society the world over than a tiny increase in world temperatures that all the ACTUAL scientific evidence suggests would be beneficial.
But then you don’t define less people dying from cold, less people dying from hunger, less people being homeless, less people having clean drinking water, and less people having access to medical care as good things, do you.
Greg House says:
June 26, 2012 at 10:58 am
Matthew R Marler says:
June 26, 2012 at 10:46 am
The Court has only ruled that the EPA’s interpretation of the law is correct, and that EPA’s ruling was neither arbitrary nor capricious
==================================================
Well, if EPA based their decision on the IPCC assessments, then it is arbitrary. Or is there an American law stating the IPCC assessments must be considered right? I do not think so. There are other assessments contradicting the ones of the IPCC.
—–
Greg,
Which assessments do you refer to? Logically, EVERY assessment, taken alone, could contradict IPCC assessments because the IPCC synthesizes its report from the best assessments (which vary in their conclusions) to reach its published conclusions. It must balance and weigh many assessments, none of which would likely be preserved in their entirety in its synthesis report. In fact, its reports are clearly labeled “Synthesis Report.”
So while you are technically correct, you have left out not only vital evidence for your statement, but also the nuances that affect the perceived verity of the IPCC assessments — which you are clearly casting in doubt. Show us the evidence, and how strong it is, for reasonable doubt. There is no evidence, thus no basis for reasonable doubt of the IPCC reports, based on your statement.
Conclusion: the statement about “other assessments contradicting the ones of the IPCC” has no useful meaning.
As I have contended before, the EPA should not be allowed to enforce any regulations that have not been voted on and passed by the house and senate. Since when does our policing agency get to write and enforce it’s own laws? This authority being wielded by the EPA should be unconstitutional and we need to elect people to the congress and WH this fall that will rectify this problem. What enabled the US to climb tp the top (in addition to a market based economy) was access to almost unlimited and very cheap energy. Cheap and reliable energy is the one thing these DEMS and liberals detest.
Man made CO2 is not even close to being proven as hazardous to our planet. To prevent the US from utilizing carbon based energy sources to produce enormous amounts of cheap and reliable energy to power our economy and way of life is, for a lack of a better word, evil.
The mandate to implement the decision is is suspended for 7 days in order to allow the appellants to request a rehearing en banc (all judges). Failing that, review by SCOTUS is discretionary in response to a petition for review.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously ruled that the EPA’s finding that carbon dioxide is a public danger and setting limits for emissions from cars and light trucks were “neither arbitrary nor capricious.”
Ok, then who in the public has been harmed by this “public danger”, and it what way were they harmed?
I would like specific examples, where anyone, has been harmed by this increase in carbon dioxide.
The EPA’s desire to regulate, is far more of a public danger, than a small increase of a naturally occurring trace gas, essential to life.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously ruled that the EPA’s finding that carbon dioxide is a public danger and setting limits for emissions from cars and light trucks were “neither arbitrary nor capricious.”
I agree completey. The EPA’s finding was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
It was partisan agenda driven and unabashedly political.
I am an engineer in the power industry and use science on a daily basis to ensure that the benefits of electricity are not outweighed by the dangers.
Lots of things are dangerous. Ladders are dangerous for example. About 300 people are killed each year as a result of ladder accidents.
Hot water heaters are dangerous. However, because of regulations that require codes and standards be followed there are very few fatalities associated with hot water heaters. The few fatalities that I recall are the result of carbon monoxide poisoning from improperly maintained natural gas hot water heaters.
Being in the power industry I could argue that electric is less dangerous so natural gas hot water heaters should be banned. Of course, I could do a life cycle analysis that shows natural gas hot water heaters produce less ghg.
Some of the wiser folks already know where I am going. The CAA is a clear example of how the public danger of pollution has been reduced to a level where there is no longer a public danger. The EPA did not stop there.
The EPA is now making up ‘public dangers’ with the intent of using the power of government to close down coal plants. The benefits of electricity is that cooking and providing energy for the homes that shelter us so far outweigh the trivial dangerous of producing power. These new regulations are just stupid. Does it make sense to harm the US economy when China has gone from using the same amount of coal to three times the coal?
Henry Galt says:
June 26, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Sorry. I just can’t stop laughing. The story is so funny. It is bound to bounce.
The only thing, so far, that is more hilarious is the deluded clown @June 26, 2012 at 11:22 am traipsing in here dragging his knuckles and a SS link claiming; “Models work”
You couldn’t make it up….
____________________________
Yes, It is pretty obvious Tim Mantyla is not a farmer and has no idea of where his food comes from. He says:
The guy is absolutely clueless. CO2 + Sunshine = FOOD.
The amount of CO2 contributed by mankind to the carbon cycle is about 4% and given the “greening ” of the earth the plants are shouting GIVE US MORE!
Matthew R Marler says:
June 26, 2012 at 11:21 am
Here is Senator Inhofe’s response.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=29e06bfe-802a-23ad-4ed4-acbf2f498e66
——
Inhofe is a moron and in corrupt thrall to Big Oil/Coal/Chemical. He has a lot to lose just by supporting ANY green energy initiative. Just search online “inhofe campaign donations” and you find: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00005582
Top 5 Contributors, 1989 – 2012
TOTAL INDIVs PACs
Koch Industries $90,950 $48,350 $42,600
Murray Energy $66,300 $41,300 $25,000
Aircraft Owners & Pilots Assn $56,869 $0 $56,869
American Airlines $54,400 $4,250 $50,150
United Parcel Service $53,850 $0 $53,850
Top 5 Industries, 1989 – 2012
TOTAL INDIVs PACs
Oil & Gas $1,390,996 $784,144 $606,852
Retired $679,346 $679,346 $0
Leadership PACs $537,085 $500 $536,585
Health Professionals $476,950 $341,885 $135,065
Electric Utilities $471,067 $45,704 $425,363
Based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on (for Fundraising totals, Source of Funds and Total Raised vs Average) and on for Top Contributors and Industries.
Inhofe was, in large measure, part of the impetus for the kangaroo Congressional hearings on climate change in 2007 (date might be wrong on that). These hearings featured cherry-picked rogue scientists and non-scientists who made a joke of real science in an effort to torpedo sorely needed energy policy change. One giant leap backward for mankind and most other creatures.
He uses specious and discredited science from Singer, Soon, Baliunas, Lindzen, among others to support his claim.
Wikipedia: “In The Republican War on Science, Chris Mooney stated that Inhofe “politicizes and misuses the science of climate change”.[31]’
“In July 2010 Inhofe stated, “I don’t think that anyone disagrees with the fact that we actually are in a cold period that started about nine years ago. Now, that’s not me talking, those are the scientists that say that.” The Union of Concerned Scientists stated that Inhofe stated was in error, pointing to the report by NOAA’s report that through July, 2010 has been the hottest summer on record since 1880. Inhofe added that “People on the other side of this argument back in January, they said, ‘Inhofe, it has nothing to do with today’s or this month or next month. We’re looking at a long period of time. We go into twenty year periods.'” “We’re in a cycle now that all the scientists agree is going into a cooling period”
“In February 9, 2011 sworn testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee[56] Inhofe stated, “I have to admit—and, you know, confession is good for the soul… I, too, once thought that catastrophic global warming was caused by anthropogenic gases—because everyone said it was.” Under questioning from committee member Jay Inslee Inhofe dismissed the notion that he was less knowledgeable than climate scientists, saying that he’d already given “five speeches on the science.”
Inhofe says that global warming is a hoax because “God’s still up there.” WTF?? So he’s the one who everyone must believe…because…well, it MUST be true if he says it! He’s the only expert on the science–according to his own words. LOL! What an arrogant, ignorant dope.
Remember, energy policy was crafted in back-room meetings between Dick Cheney and the big oil companies! Look how it turned out for them: huge industry subsidies–on the backs of the American people when they are making VAST profits!, and very little investment in alternative energy by the government. They got their money’s worth and more.
I don’t believe in the “green energy hampers jobs creation” theory any more than I believe monkeys crawled out of anyone’s butt on Wayne’s World. Follow the big money, and it’s almost always against change.
Look up how green energy production would greatly improve our economy and boost job growth, while improving our soiled environment. Already done it long ago, go ahead and find it yourself.
This is a loss for the rule of law, as agencies are limited by the laws that created them. Only Congress, not a court, has the power to create laws. The Supreme Court should have ruled that the EPA can regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases when a Congress passes a law.
This is a loss for science, as the facts were overshadowed by the output of computer models.
This post is germane here, based on the grim truth that few conservatives understand climate science. It’s a gem from another bright-bulb Congressional denier of climate change, Dana Rohrabacher (from Wikipedia):
“Rohrabacher denies that global warming is caused by humans. During a congressional hearing on climate change on February 8, 2007, Rohrabacher mused that previous warming cycles may have been caused by carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by “dinosaur flatulence.”[58][unreliable source?] He stated, “In fact, it is assumed at best to be unproven and at worst a liberal claptrap, trendy, but soon to go out of style in our new Congress.” On May 25, 2011, Rohrabacher expressed further skepticism regarding the existence of man-made global warming. However, he suggested that if it is an issue, a possible solution could be clear-cutting rain forests, and possibly replanting. This was strongly criticized by scientists, including Oliver Phillips, a geography professor at the University of Leeds. They noted the consensus that intact forests act as net absorbers of carbon, reducing global warming.”
Hello, Congress! WAKE UP! READ THE SCIENCE TEXTBOOKS! Trees ABSORB CO2. Clear-cutting them WORSENS the problem.
So much for Congress deciding energy policy. Leave it to the EPA and other science-based organizations. LEAVE POLITICS OUT.
The dumbest Congresspersons in this area, predictably, are Republican. What does this say for the wisdom of the American people? Why are they electing arrogant, ignorant morons?
Why can’t the GOP contribute to solutions instead of worsening the problem?? Are there ANY smart, compassionate conservatives who UNDERSTAND the connected issues of global warming and climate change? And are willing to fight the dummies?
Dear Phil C @ June 26, 2012 at 10:10 am and Tim Manthly @ June 26, 2012 at 11:22 am.
Phil, where you stated “This is a victory for science”.
And Tim ,where your state “The finding at setting limits on CO2 emissions is “neither arbitrary nor capricious” is based on solid science as…”
Respectfully, I recommend you read the ruling. Specifically, I recommend your read page 32 where the D.C. Court stated.
“In the end, Petitioners are asking us to re-weigh the scientific evidence before EPA and reach our own conclusion. This is not our role.”
As the D.C. Court stated it did not rule on the “science”, so I don’t feel it is appropriate for you to suggest that the courts have, in any way, endorsed the EPA’s version of “science”.
The ruling merely indicates, in the D.C. Courts opinion, that the EPA was following the statue as written. The question of wither the EPA selectively used only that “science” that suited its purposes was not addressed by the D.C. Court.
By tradition, the re-weighting of the “science” used by federal agency create regulations is not considered the Federal Court’s role. So, I don’t necessarily find fault with the D.C. Court’s reasoning.
One should keep in mind it is prerogative of Congress to decide what the nation’s policies are to be, to clarifying its intent by legislation where necessary, and to likewise decide wither to correct any perceived misuse of an agency’s power’s to regulate.
I would not conclude that “judgment” of any agency “administrator” is, by itself, sufficient grounds to permit overarching regulation. That matter, ultimately, is for the people of the United States to decide… thru their elected representatives.
The ruling, merely underscores the appropriate constitutional limits of the Court and the periodic need for the public to take a firm grip on the mechanisms under which we are governed.
Regards,
Kforestcat
[snip. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
Breaker says: @ June 26, 2012 at 12:34 pm
….Decent people lost that battle to progressives in the 1930′s. Congress can pretty much delegate it’s law making authority to whatever agency it wants. That’s they way they delegate the unpopular decisions they secretly want, but cannot vote for because their constituents do not. Dismantling the administrative agencies in the US needs to be a top priority.
___________________________________
Very true.
Worse FDR managed to literally pack the Supreme Court during his years in office as President. Roosevelt appointed 193 federal judges, twice as many as any other president. These included eight Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, elevated one to Chief Justice, appointed 51 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, and 134 judges to the United States district courts. The last of FDR’s Supremes ended active service in November 12, 1975. This allowed the expansion of the federal government to become solidly entrenched.
So far Obama has appointed two Supremes and Clinton has appointed two, the rest were appointed by Reagan or a Bush.
With a “Packed Court” FDR’s “New Deal” and other moves consolidating power by the Federal government were not declared unconstitutional as they should have been. One of the most critical was the “Commerce Clause” which allows the federal government into your home because what you do “effects interstate commerce”
It seems the Wickard v. Filburn ruling is coming to light again.
The one saving grace is the Supreme Court will over turn its previous decisions though rarely. link
Tim Mantyla says:
June 26, 2012 at 11:22 am
Contrary to some climate change skeptics’ propaganda, CO2 IS a public danger —
—————-
and backs it up with the best-reasoned pro-CAGW reply I have yet seen on WUWT. You are sincerely thanked for your courage to post here.
I did learn a little item in High School Physics which not even this letter is up to: The essence of science is successful prediction. Over and over, we were told Aristotle’s predictions in mechanics in that class–and then falsified them. Using modern mechanics, Galileo predicted that a wooden and a steel ball would land at the same time if dropped from the leaning tower of Pisa. When the experiment was done they made one report (sound). Prediction verified. Similarly, when a feather was brought to the moon on one of the moon landings and dropped at the same time as a heavy object, the feather landed at exactly the same time. Successful prediction–THAT is science.
If we can get that across to the courts, it will be the end of cAGW “science.”
Meantime, this deluded court has killed thousands of people. Its decision supports corn ethanol, which has driven up food prices to deadly effects both directly by starvation and by causing riots. It supports job-killing “alternative” fuels/energy. WUWT has run a number of articles on that. It denies that all life on Earth comes from the reduction of carbon dioxide (reduction means reducing the oxygen content). That means the court’s decision will increase the Earth’s deserts and hinder efforts to grow more food, restore the rainforests, etc.
Facts are stubborn things. They are what they are no matter what we believe, no matter how many logical fallacies we throw at them, no matter how “sincere in our beliefs” we are. Science is a marvelous method for determining what the laws of the universe actually are. But even a correctly done and properly analyzed experiment can be wrong if there was systematic error–or the one time in 100 that you get crazy results just by chance.
As to those who post about the “arrogance” of assuming that humans can affect the climate, you are sadly and provably mistaken. I am currently in the middle of reading Iain Murray’s 2008 book “The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don’t Want You To Know About–Because They Helped Cause Them.” One of the Seven is drying up the world’s 4th largest inland Sea by using it to irrigate cotton fields. The air became more arid, and summer temperatures rose to 120F.
Examination of the marvellous satellite photos of the whole Earth shows enormous Deserts in latitudes that should be lush–and we know the Sahara WAS lush grassland 5000 years ago or so. At the edges of this waste there are semideserts, nomads, and goats. The goats keep causing the collapse of the ecosystems there. I believe man caused the vast deserts–and man is about to turn it around. Look up “permaculture” or go to http://www.originalsonicbloom.com if you want to help. Eating meat helps if it is from pastured animals that were properly managed.
But life is still based on carbon, and that comes from fossil fuels. We cannot restore the planet’s terrestrial fertility without them.
The real problem is Congress continues to fund the EPA! That leads to the next problem: finding enough Congress critters with the cajones to throttle down the federal teat!
I suggest an upper age limit or setting a term limit to the supreme Court the whole court is in dire need of reform.
Tim MantylaContrary to some climate change skeptics’ propaganda, CO2 IS a public danger — when produced in excess, due to its scientifically measured planetary effects on climate
There are scientifically measured (presumably negative) planetary effects, with direct attribution to CO2? Please do share, just ONE study that has not been shredded to pieces. I’ve been studying this for 6 years now, and have yet to find a definitive link, or anything statistically different from past (insert variable here). THANK YOU!!!
I dont see how this can be a ‘victory for science’ and I dont see how this can be a defeat for science.
Courts of law consider the law and make a judgement. End of story.
The history of societies is full of examples of good laws, bad laws and lunatic laws. This is something for the voters of America to address
If they want Carbon dioxide to be a dangerous gas, so be it. If they want up to be down and down to be up , they can vote for it.
But dont confuse a vote with science, and dont confuse a court judgement with science either.
How can you now teach the Carbon Cycle in schools, now that carbon dioxide has been deemed a “poisonous gas”?
…..if only plants could talk….
Per the great wisdom of the courts: CO2 from one source is dangerous and CO2 from another is OK.
It’s time to play the nuclear power card to eliminate the dangerous gas CO2. Immediately begin construction of enough nuclear capacity to provide all necessary electrical power in the US. Basis is that the court in the nations capital has clearly determined that a naturally occurring gas is absolutely dangerous. That this gas is dangerous could only be rejected if it were determined that the US court system is led by a bunch of kangaroos.
We really need to begin an all-out focus on nuclear construction now. What better time than when the courts in Washington DC and California have demonstrated that it is mandatory for our very existence. Add to that the EPA findings. And the IPCC. And the environmental groups. And the ….
Dave Wendt says:
June 26, 2012 at 11:33 am
Yes and the courts are almost uniformly not competent to decide scientific issues anyway. But the real problem is the laws (Clean Air Act and following acts) are written such that activist groups can sue the EPA and claim they aren’t doing their job regulating some alleged pollutant or another and if the courts side with the plaintiffs, everyone has political cover (we have to do this — it’s a court order). So even though many judges recognize their severe limitations in evaluating scientific controversies, they end up essentially doing exactly that.
Senator Inhofe is correct: Congress needs to change the law. The current President would surely veto such a change, were the Congress able to pass it.
The Congress could simply refuse to fund the EPA, but there would be a political price to pay for that.
Yes, the ‘clean air act’ is flawed, and has been since its enactment. Congress needs to find some gonads and fix it. Not holding my breath.
Every single employee of the Federal government is a public danger and should be removed by any means necessary.
Tim Mantyla June 26, 2012 at 1:44 pm ,
Could you show me some evidence in the pre-2000 period that predicted the stall in warming from 2000 to 2010? Could you explain why known ocean oscillations were not included in the models until recently? If a known wrong model provides correct predictions is it luck or science?
Welcome, America! Welcome to the debilitating madness engendered by the Socialist Agenda. You are encumbered with your Environmental Protection Agency and we in the UK are shackled by the infamous Climate Change Act of 2008.
This Act has as its aim the following, “It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline.”
Read the rest here, and weep: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/contents
Despite our present ‘governing body’ (I will not grace them with the term ‘Parliament’) talking about hesitant moves towards making minor reductions in the extortionate subsidies paid to those who are reaping fortunes from ‘green energy’ scams, we are no closer to negating this evil Act.
In order to abide by this so-called Law of the Land, the Act will require the total abolition of all industrial undertakings, a reduction of over 50% in our present population and the abolition of any form of mechanically propelled transportation in order that its demands are met.
An examination of this dreadful legislation and a subsequent comparison with the ‘Directives’ issued by the unelected bureaucrats of the EU will demonstrate clearly that we in the UK are no longer masters of our own fate. Our ‘governing body’ has surrendered our sovereignty to a foreign Socialist-dominated entity, an entity which is crushing Europe in order to re-build it into the EUSSR.
We in the UK can only hope that the present financial debacle sees the end of the malignant European Union political experiment, there’s no other way out. Can you in America dispose of the cold, dead hand of your EPA before your great country succumbs to the political dead-end of Socialism?
According to Phil C
CO2 could be banned in some countries, and legalised in others.
This could lead to a tourist boom to countries where the substance is legalised (to the over 18’s), people might go to sit in back rooms and smoke hubbly bubbly CO2 pipes. We could have a whole new sub culture of warmists who get ‘caught’ doing illicit CO2
‘I love my wife, but it was the danger. the excitement. the rising levels. the rebellion. omg, I am so ashamed’
The court also said it lacked jurisdiction to review the timing and scope of greenhouse gas rules that affect stationary sources like new coal-burning power plants and other large industrial sources.
————
It’s ambiguous. It’s not clear if the EPA lacks jurisdiction to apply these regulations or whether the Court lacks jurisdiction to make a judgement.
REPLY: It doesn’t matter, the EPA will steamroll over it in any case, much like you, they don’t care what the American public or courts thinks – Anthony
@Tim Mantyla says:
[text corrected]
Nice bit of irony here. The words “hoist” and “petard” come to mind.
The Executive Branch is selectively enforcing existing laws, while at the same time creating new ones.
———
I don’t know about your part of the world but here there is a distinction between regulations and laws.
If that distinction does apply where you live then it appears you do not understand the basics of your own political system.
He, If they want to legalize pot, the pot needs CO2.
Why don’t they ban smoling pot by amending the constitution? It creates CO2 and soot.
Will Obama scold this court like he does other judges?
Gosh how are we going to tell all the vegetarians that plants live on poison?
The obvious answer is to turn of the supply of electrictiy from coal or fossil fuel sources to ‘ALL’ EPA facilities.
It really is about time this sort of thing was done. The CAGW CO2 haters should be made to prractice what they want to preach.
NO coal of fossil fuel for them. Or petrol either.
Make them run TOTALLY on renewables.
Sort of like giving them a clip about the back of the head to bring them to their senses.
Matthew R Marler says:
June 26, 2012 at 10:46 am
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously ruled that the EPA’s finding that carbon dioxide is a public danger and setting limits for emissions from cars and light trucks were “neither arbitrary nor capricious.”
In the 82-page ruling, the court also found that the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide regulations is “unambiguously correct.”
That probably is intended to mean “regulate carbon dioxide emissions”.
The flaw is in the law. The Court has only ruled that the EPA’s interpretation of the law is correct, and that EPA’s ruling was neither arbitrary nor capricious: that is, the EPA ruling did not violate due process of law. Congress wrote the law, Congress has to rewrite the law. That the policy is bad, as most readers and writers here agree, is not for the Court to decide.
=========================
Where can we find out who signed this law into effect? I would like to know who the sponsers were, who in the House and The Senate and their political affilliation and which President signed it. The law identification or reference number, dates of passage in each chamber of Congress, and Presidential approval would be greatly appreciated. I would assume that you know that info and I would be hard pressed to find it. Thanks in advance.
What we really need is a law that states that no un-elected body can make law and that elected bodies are not permitted to deligate law making powers to unelected bodies.
There’s no point in arguing with people like Phil C or Tim Mantyla. It’s exactly the same as arguing with creationists over evolution. Instead of embracing a traditional fundamentalist religion, they practice the new age religion of environmentalism. An argument of science versus faith cannot be won. The two are starting from different premises. The best way to handle this is to recognize who they are and vote anyone out of office who wants to use the power of government to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us. We don’t allow any other religion to run government, why do we allow this one? My answer to this is that we are not correctly recognizing who they are. They’ve been very successful in conflating faith and science into something they call environmentalism. It’s not my goal to dissuade anyone of their beliefs (I know I can’t) but we’ll be much better off when the religion of environmentalism and the science of environmentalism can be segregated into two entities and we can begin to have science debates separate the faith component.
Kit P says
The EPA is now making up ‘public dangers’ with the intent of using the power of government to close down coal plants.
———-
Well that’s not the intent but it is the effect.
It appears that the public dangers ruling is based not on the here and now, but on projections into the future and the impossibility of undoing any bad consequences if those bad consequences materialise.
Great, plant food is a public danger.
Starving the carbon economy is a danger.
How about water? More people are killed by water than CO2. Ban it.
beesaman says:
June 26, 2012 at 3:43 pm
What we really need is a law that states that no un-elected body can make law and that elected bodies are not permitted to deligate law making powers to unelected bodies.
Yes! This is major problem. Lawmakers come and go but these powerful unelected agencies never go. I don’t think they should have any power beyond making a recommendation to the elected officials. But I’m also of the opinion that none of the agencies should be created until a constitutional amendment is passed creating them and stating exactly what they can do and how they will be funded.
Merovign says:
June 26, 2012 at 3:54 pm
How about water? More people are killed by water than CO2. Ban it.
———————————————-
We must destroy the evil clouds.
Tim Mantyla: Inhofe is a moron and in corrupt thrall to Big Oil/Coal/Chemical.
On this issue he agrees with me, and I think he is taking the correct action.
eyesonu: Where can we find out who signed this law into effect?
Nixon signed it in 1970. It has been amended since.
Summary of the Clean Air Act (cited in the opinion ) is here: http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/caa.html
You can follow the hot links to the full text, and to its full legislative history.
I expect Texas to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. If so, we will be able to read what Texas officials think are the flaws in the decision. Then, if the Supreme Court takes it up, we shall be able to read the briefs, amicus curiae, oral arguments and decision. Based on what I have read to date, I would expect the Supremes to let the judgment stand — that is, not even take up the case.
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epa
Read it and weep.
/Mr Lynn
Only thing that can save the world now is a two-thirds majority in both houses of congress or three fifths of the states decide they have to piss or get off the pot.
Tim Mantyla says:
June 26, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Climate science supports the contention that CO2 is a pollutant…of sorts.
========================================================
This is not true, details here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/consensus-argument-proves-climate-science-is-political/#comment-972119 .
Not to feed such blatant trolling (and obvious baloney), but more to remind others of Prof. Robert G. Brown’s eloquent discussion of the science behind the Climate Realist position, see here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/a-response-to-dr-paul-bains-use-of-denier-in-scientific-literature/#more-66096
As for Mr. Mantyla, let us invite him to present any empirical evidence whatsoever (the Argument from Authority doesn’t count, and model runs are not empirical evidence) that anthropogenic CO2 from fossil fuels is responsible for any measurable change in Earth’s climate(s), especially when considered in the context of, as Prof. Brown says, “the complete geological record of global temperature variation on planet Earth (as best as we can reconstruct it) not just over the last 200 years but over the last 25 million years, over the last billion years”—where, he says, “one learns that there is absolutely nothing remarkable about today’s temperatures!”
/Mr Lynn
Tim Mantyla says:
June 26, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Greg House says:
June 26, 2012 at 10:58 am
Well, if EPA based their decision on the IPCC assessments, then it is arbitrary. Or is there an American law stating the IPCC assessments must be considered right? I do not think so. There are other assessments contradicting the ones of the IPCC.
—–
Greg,
Logically, EVERY assessment, taken alone, could contradict IPCC assessments because the IPCC synthesizes its report from the best assessments…
Conclusion: the statement about “other assessments contradicting the ones of the IPCC” has no useful meaning.
=========================================================
I really like it, Tim. Look, what you have done: your premise is that the IPCC assessments are the best and conclusion is that the others are not good. In fact, your premise and your conclusion are identical. It is the worst logical fallacy one can commit.
Usually (evil) people use this propaganda trick to mislead others. Congratulations, you are in the good company.
Tim Mantyla says:
again & again & again & again….
There’s a new troll in town!
But he has no shame — thoughtlessly dumping tons of hot air on this thread alone. One shudders to think how much gas he burns, electricity he uses, food he eats, water he drinks, air he breathes, land he occupies….
What do you get when cross a moron with an A-hole…..? You know the answer.
So the EPA has given you a lemon. 🙁 A nice get-along Republican just needs to ask themselves, What are some nice “market-based solutions” to these new EPA regulations of carbon dioxide? What kind of clean cars and trucks will we actually get to drive after the appropriate $20 billion in spending in research in car technology by the US Govt? How will I continue to enjoy the benefits of the auto-maker bailouts? How many jobs can be created by switching over to a low carbon economy? How can we “attract investors” in the new markets for the new cars we will be driving by order of the EPA? Remember to make lemonade.
So the EPA has broken a window. 🙁 But that is not so bad, because of the economic activity that this will stimulate. For example, Goldman-Sachs “has set a $40 billion target for financing and investing in clean techology companies over the next decade…– in sectors such as solar, wind, geothermal, energy-efficiency, green transportation and advanced biofuels – along with efforts to develop market-based solutions to some of the world’s most pressing environmental issues.” Goldman-Sachs and coincidentally the Republican candidate both have particular “free market solutions” that just happen to fix this broken window in really grand style. It’s all just a matter of how you look at it – ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas.
I think he’s trolling for the ‘exposure’; his name links to a WordPress site where he basically adverts the fact he is a “motivational writer” …
.
Ah, an appeals court in Washington D.C. I get it.
Thank you Mr. Lynn,
I am weeping with anger. After 40 years the EPA, under the direction of Lisa Jackson, made an interpretation different from that of 40 previous years. Lisa Jackson needs to go. Does the court not consider precedent? CO2 as a dangerous gas or pollutant? Political activists on the bench?
It’s too late for diplomacy and too early to start shooting. Now that is a dilemma .
Mantyla (11:22): “The finding that setting limits on CO2 emissions is “neither arbitrary nor capricious” is based on solid science as well as the EPA’s regulatory scope — which ought to be expanded. Clearly, the conservative anti-science agenda has been held at bay by the facts and established climate science in this ruling.”
Begging the Question. (“Solid Science”, “Ought to be expanded”)
Ad Hominem (“Anti-science agenda”)
Argumentum ad Verecundiam. A Judicial Opinion is a statement of the opinions of a Judge.
“CO2 IS a public danger — when produced in excess, due to its scientifically measured planetary effects on climate, as just about any chemical is in excess.”
False assertion. It’s “planetary effects” have yet to be measured.
“And note that, according to Wikipedia, “no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion” that human activities are causing most of the global warming.”
Argumentum ad Verecundiam. (Though, strictly, Wiki is an improper authority.)
“Now the charter or regulatory scope of the EPA should change in order to enable a broad-ranging, coherent, ecologically sensible US energy policy that covers not only vehicles, but everything that produces pollution and CO2.”
Begging the Question: Why should the scope of the Environmental Protection Agency change? And if it ‘should’ deontologically change then why should it cover plant food produced by mobile or stationary sources? Why should it cover only plant food produced by non-living sources, or some proper subset of living sources? Why should the Environmental Protection Agency take over the proper scope of the Department of Energy?
Tim Mantyla (12:19) — “1) Most Americans are not climate scientists. Most Americans are not ANY kind of scientist. They do not and should never decide what a pollutant is.”
Argument ad Verecundiam. Two side notes: Most American scientists are Americans. And, of course, are you a scientist?
“2) Climate science supports the contention that CO2 is a pollutant…of sorts. Clearly there are contexts and situations in which it is not. ”
Then it is contingent rather than necessary.
“CO2, according to any fifth-grade science textbook, is emitted as part of the natural carbon cycle by plants.”
Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Side note: Introductory texts teach the Bohr model of the atom also, which is vacuously wrong.
“But CO2, as I’ve said in an earlier post, IS a pollutant in the planetary context of global warming. It is causing and will cause even more massive, earth-shaking destructive results, which cannot be reversed for thousands of years, if ever.”
Argumentum ad Consequentiam.
“By analogy, water is a “pollutant” in the case of overdose, for example. Drinking too much water can kill you. Any chemical might be a pollutant in the proper context. ”
Points for humor: The planet is a pollutant in the proper context. While this is vacuously true it says nothing of LD25, LD50, or any other notion of dosage and detrimental health issues. Indeed, if you injested or inhaled enough CO2 this would certainly be true. Just the same if you ingested the planet. But if CO2 is a ‘pollutant’ in the traditional sense of the term then there are health effects that are primary. If it is simply a atmospheric trace gas then that is a differing question entirely.
“Of course, climate science denialism being a religion, I surmise that, “to a high degree of certainty” “it is very likely” that no amount of reason, facts or science will convince you to change your religiously held, rigid, dogmatic beliefs.”
Argumentum ad Homnem.
Tim Mantyla (12:34) — “As a body which reflects and assesses science, the IPCC is mandated to publish scientific findings to the best of its ability.”
A mission statement is an expression of purpose, not proof of the adherence to that statement. A worthy quote, from the immediately prior sentences: “This is an example of providing partial truth to support an untrue conclusion. Typical Fox News-style propaganda.”
Quite the contrary to your statement that the IPCC is to cowed to publish “science” it is noteworthy that it has relied on “grey literature” which, of course, falls afoul of your own appeal to the authority of random individuals employed in some relation to science as an occupation.
Tim Mantyla (1:14) — “Inhofe is a moron and in corrupt thrall to Big Oil/Coal/Chemical.”
Argumentum ad Hominem. This is, specifically, a cui bono issue. But if there is validity to cui bono then it should be noted that the ‘green’ industries survive on largess and subsidy alone, as they are otherwise not competitive in the market. And it should be noted, naturally, that AGW studies are likewise funded by largess and subsidy. Such that the people that seek control fund studies that give them ‘explanans’ and cover for exercising control. This is also used to fund pet industries and political connected individuals in a rather crass display of Cronyism. Or Nepotism, Corporatism, or Fascism; Pick the label you prefer. But if we are to grant any legitimacy to “Cui Bono” then it is certain that those that are most tightly connected and highly funded are those that are suspect. Which happens to be the AGW industry. You’ve shown a great regard for shoddy argument but this one from you soundly refutes even your own nonsense. You should polish your skills a bit.
Tim Mantyla (1:32) — “This post is germane here, based on the grim truth that few conservatives understand climate science. ”
Argumentum ad Hominem.
“Rohrabacher mused that previous warming cycles may have been caused by carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by “dinosaur flatulence.”[58][unreliable source?] ”
It should be noted that a recent paper was published that made precisely this claim. Such that since this was from scientists we should expect that you agree that it is authoritative and that Rohrbacher not only doesn’t misunderstand the issue, but was ahead of the curve.
“Hello, Congress! WAKE UP! READ THE SCIENCE TEXTBOOKS! Trees ABSORB CO2. Clear-cutting them WORSENS the problem.”
Numerous studies have shown that clear-cutting (and replanting) allows for a greater rate of carbon sequestration. I’m not sure here if you’re simply unfamiliar with the science in question or if you’re attempting a red herring. Though it’s always possible you’re just a science denier.
“The dumbest Congresspersons in this area, predictably, are Republican. What does this say for the wisdom of the American people? Why are they electing arrogant, ignorant morons?”
No argument. The EPA was signed into law by a Republican President. But then, of course, they voted for the current president also.
Tim Mantyla (1:44) — “And the climate computer models have been right. ”
Counterfacutal. You can find the recent papers that studied the computer models (The formalization of the climate theories) and found that they performed *worse* than a random walk. In the normal notions of science this denotes that those theories are strictly in error and that no valid predictions can be made on there basis. Indeed, a random guess has better predictive value then the current climate theories. Once again you’re either ignorant of science, the science at hand, or this is a red herring.
“Also, there is no “manipulation” of data in the nefarious sense at all in climate science. Data, if you understand the science behind it, must be manipulated for various scientific reasons. ”
Begging the Question. Data, by any normative sense of the term, is raw input. While post finagling it is a product regardless to any personally perceived emotional semantics. But if there is a ‘scientific reason’ that experimental data is invalid then the argument needs to be advanced as to how invalid experiments can provide valid results by the means of mathemagic.
Footnote: With all seriousness you need to produce less in the way of fallacious hand-waving and more in the way of empirically validated results. Indeed, your seeming allergy to anything approaching valid demonstration has you appear all the more like a True Believer in some fanciful Cargo Cult of Science then as an informed and knowledgable individual. You may keep your conscience on your own optimistic ignorance, however.
The quality of the trolls on this thread varies. We have the old standby Lazy Teenager and Pill C and a new and exciting one, Tim Mantyla. From the rapid responses early in this thread I might guess he is a team spokesman. He appears to comment faster than I can read (e.g. 11:22 am, 12:19 pm, 12:34 pm, 12:45 pm, 1:14 pm, 1:32 pm, 1:44 pm). That man has the fastest fingers I have ever seen. Amazing!
_Jim says:
“where he basically adverts the fact he is a “motivational writer” …”
The aim of ANY motivational writer is to mislead the listener into believing the truth.. about themselves 😉
Its all purely a call to EGO. and misplace belief.
Tim says:
“Also, there is no “manipulation” of data in the nefarious sense at all in climate science. Data, if you understand the science behind it, must be manipulated for various scientific reasons. ”
No Tim, in REAL science, data is ANALYSED.
But sure, in climate (so-called) science it MUST be manipulated to give them the result they want. If they didn’t manipulate it, they wouldn’t get those results. Point in case , the CRUTEMP and GISS adjustments”
My guess is that one of the ScepticalScience web crew is chucking a sickie.
Or more probability, its mid year break now, so the humanities/social adjustment department have nothing to do.
Maus says @June 26, 2012 at 6:22 pm: [ … ]
In his defense, Tim Mantyla admits that he is not a scientist. I have no doubt after reading his error-filled rants that he is just a maladjusted young man who gets his cut ‘n’ pasted talking points from the same Post Normal Science blogs he regularly inhabits.
It is worth noting that if Mantyla’s alter ego tried posting in the same manner at RealClimate or Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science the way that Mantyla posts here, none of those posts would ever make it out of moderation. Thus, Mantyla sees only the talking points those blogs want him to see. Here at WUWT, readers can judge for themselves, and dismiss lunatic ranters like Tim Mantyla in favor of factual, verifiable science. That is how the truth is sifted from the nonsense.
For example, Mantyla states that trees emit CO2. While that is technically true at times, it is a half truth, which we know is really a whole lie. The whole truth is that trees are net CO2 sinks over their lifetimes. Where else do they get the carbon to build cellulose, starches and sugars, releasing oxygen in the process? From the soil? If that were true you would have to regularly replenish the soil in potted plants. In fact,, plants build themselves by taking beneficial CO2 from the air. Because of our forests and farmlands, the U.S. is a net CO2 sink.
Mantyla also claims that recent sea levels are ‘rising three times faster’, when in fact satelite instruments are recording a rapid global decline in sea level rise.
Mantyla is admittedly not a scientist. And I am admittedly not a psychiatrist. But IMO Mantyla is a certified nutcase, crazier than a cat in a rocking chair factory. And by his own criteria, my opinion is every bit as valid as his.☺
Hello US cousins,
If things get worse and you are unable to get rid of Obama and his EPA this fall, please consider relocating your business up here in Canada. And feel free to bring your entire state with you.
Smokey said:
“IMO Mantyla is a certified nutcase, crazier than a cat in a rocking chair factory. ”
As I said, a humanities or art lecturer during uni break. 🙂
(its Uni break down here, and I suspect he is linked to the SS mob.)
Co2 is dangerous? Wow.
Sorry but this Tim Mantyla doesn’t know what he is talking about. If not using models only, he is using adjusted data. Co_2 is pollutant??? Just seeing that he agrees with this shows me he’s an… (I don’t want to resort to name calling).
Co2 is dangerous? Yes, but only if you handle a frozen block of it with your bare hands.
It’s become almost trivially easy to demonstrate that the IPCC doesn’t know what it’s talking about concerning climate futures. Neither does anyone else, including the EPA. How could the lawyers have missed making that point?
Pat Frank says:
June 26, 2012 at 7:58 pm
It’s become almost trivially easy to demonstrate that the IPCC doesn’t know what it’s talking about concerning climate futures. Neither does anyone else, including the EPA. How could the lawyers have missed making that point?
========================================================
Maybe they did it, but not quite right. Maybe they should have focused on the point of the EPA’s decision being arbitrary instead. I am just speculating.
beesaman says:
June 26, 2012 at 3:43 pm
What we really need is a law that states that no un-elected body can make law and that elected bodies are not permitted to deligate law making powers to unelected bodies.
___________________________________
AMEN!
I did a bit of research on that a while ago. The problem traces back to FDR (again) FDR was also the president who issued Executive Order 6102, confiscating all gold coins, bullion, and certificates, requiring they be surrendered to the government by May 1, 1933 in exchange for currency. Congress also passed a joint resolution cancelling all gold clauses in public and private contracts, stating such clauses interfered with its power to regulate U.S. currency. In other words he confiscated US citizen gold and gave it to the private bankers in exchange for their bank notes so they could settle their overseas “Gambling Debts”
(And yes _Jim you can trace FDR’s New Deal back to the Fabians link )
from the left:
From the right:
More on Agency Regulation ~ The Federal Register
So the idea the Executive Branch could usurp the Constitution power of Congress only goes back to the 1930’s and was initially declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court until FDR threatened to Pack the Court.
Here are the facts, and this is for Tim:
There is little change in the rate of sea level rise since the early 20th century.
There is little change in the rate of Carbon Dioxide increase since records have been kept.
Temperature, while rising, is following an irregular pattern that fits far better with natural variability than with CO2 concentrations for past and present.
Predictions of disaster have yet to come true. No notable increase in droughts. No notable increase in hurricanes, both in intensity and in number. No notable increase in thundrestorm intensity.
I’m tired of people telling me what ‘the science” says when the science does not go very well with Anthropogenic Global Warming.. Sure, there’s a small link, and I don’t think it’s all due to the sun, but people need to chill out and stop using degrading terms such as “deniers” just because someone does not agree with you. News flash: Your view is not the only one on the planet, so do try to be civil as skeptics have been to proponents.
Tim Mantyla says:
June 26, 2012 at 11:22 am
==========================================
Tim says a lot of BS defending CO2 as the BIG demon of pollution. Bottom line Tim, CO2 emissions are ABOVE Hansen’s “A” worst case senario. Temperature are BELOW his “C” greatly reduced and eliminated CO2 emissions level. The only LOGICAL conclusion, CO2 is not a problem.
BTW, could you be more condecending, pointing out that even water can be a poison. Humm? but wait, maybe you signed that petition also.
Reg Nelson on June 26, 2012 at 4:14 pm said:
———————————————-
We must destroy the evil clouds.
—————————————-
Good point.
Let’s see. Do clouds change the surface temperature? Yes. We know that by observation.
But clouds are a trace aerosol.
Therefore according to the standard climate skeptic chant that means that clouds can’t affect temperature.
So here is a riddle. What is the volume fraction of liquid water in a cloud? And how does out compare to the volume fraction of CO2?
So if the volume fraction of water in clouds is similar to or less than that of the CO2 that permeates the whole atmosphere, why can clouds change the surface temperature, but CO2 cannot?
In the end this may be great news if Congress decides to act and re-write the Clean Air Act that will take the EPA completely out of the process. For Industry, the battle lines are clearly drawn which means that if your business depends on affordable electricity to prosper and be profitable you must act to be sure that Obama and Lisa Jackson will be sent packing in November.
If you ask a random person the simple question: “If you could wave a magic wand and remove all CO2 from the air, would you do it?” – they will answer “yes”. I did this with my own daughter and she is a practicing lawyer. She did answer with a little hesitation, sensing a trap, but she still said yes. I think these judges would say the same thing, having no clue that CO2 is a plant food and not a pollutant.
Hopefully this isn’t the end of this story. We’ll see. In the meantime I am seriously considering burning some vacation to peacefully picket our regional EPA office. I envision a donation jar on the sidewalk labeled “Travel Expenses” and a sign or placard saying, “Hey, hey, EPA, how many jobs have you killed today?” Sounds fun, no?
@LazyTeenager
The intent of current efforts is to close coal plants it is not an unintended consequence. How do I know this? First I listen to what POTUS says. Second, as an engineer I know what effective ways to reduce ghg could be used.
The intent of the CAA in 1970 was to improve air quality by putting pollution control devices on stationary and mobile sources. It has been very effective.
The intent of Title 24 in California was to keep new nukes from being built. The unintended consequences of conservation in California is that homes have indoor air quality that is worse than Los Angles and radon is now an issue.
But clouds are a trace aerosol.
Actually water vapor is a very large component of keeping enough heat trapped so that the planet does not turn into an ice planet devoid of life. CO2 has a much smaller forcing function as does all the other ghg’s.
While I am not a climate expert, most who think AGW is a serious problem are not very good science. AGW with dire consequences is just a theory. Not as very good theory either. It would appear that our climate is a very stable system and I suspect that one of the major feedback mechanisms is clouds and moisture content of air.
What is the actual definition of a pollutant, and what are the parameters with which one may be declared?
At what point does CO2 quit being a plant food and become a pollutant? If C02 is a pollutant, why not water? It is a greenhouse gas, and there is 13 times as much in the air as CO2 if it were homogenous in the atmosphere.
pyeatte says:
June 27, 2012 at 9:36 am
If you ask a random person the simple question: “If you could wave a magic wand and remove all CO2 from the air, would you do it?” – they will answer “yes”. I did this with my own daughter and she is a practicing lawyer. She did answer with a little hesitation, sensing a trap, but she still said yes. I think these judges would say the same thing, having no clue that CO2 is a plant food and not a pollutant.
___________________________
It is a heck of a lot worse than that.
One could even say that CO2 is magical because along with H2O it is the basis of life on earth.
Jeff says:
June 26, 2012 at 10:47 am
My apologizes to all for confusing District with Supreme Court in original title.
Must have Supreme Court on brain with all the rulings coming out this week.
Jeff Mitchell says:
June 27, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Because water cannot be taxed or controlled.
Given the confused state of enabling legislation, the court rulings are consistent. A few repeals of the stupider statutes, however, will change everything.