EPA’s next wave of job-killing CO2 regulations

Unleashing EPA bureaucrats on American livelihoods, living standards and liberties

By David Rothbard and Craig Rucker

Supported by nothing but assumptions, faulty computer models and outright falsifications of what is actually happening on our planet, President Obama, his Environmental Protection Agency and their allies have issued more economy-crushing rules that they say will prevent dangerous manmade climate change .

Under the latest EPA regulatory onslaught (645 pages of new rules, released June 2), by 2030 states must slash carbon dioxide emissions by 30% below 2005 levels.

The new rules supposedly give states “flexibility” in deciding how to meet the mandates. However, many will have little choice but to impose costly cap-tax-and-trade regimes like the ones Congress has wisely and repeatedly refused to enact. Others will be forced to close perfectly good, highly reliable coal-fueled power plants that currently provide affordable electricity for millions of families, factories, hospitals, schools and businesses. The adverse impacts will be enormous.

The rules will further hobble a US economy that actually shrank by 1% during the first quarter of 2014, following a pathetic 1.9% total annual growth in 2013. They are on top of $1.9 trillion per year (one-eighth of our total economy) that businesses and families already pay to comply with federal rules.

A U.S. Chamber of Commerce study calculates that the new regulations will cost our economy another $51 billion annually, result in 224,000 more lost jobs every year, and cost every American household $3,400 per year in higher prices for energy, food and other necessities. Poor, middle class and minority families – and those already dependent on unemployment and welfare – will be impacted worst. Those in a dozen states that depend on coal to generate 30-95% of their electricity will be hit especially hard.

Millions of Americans will endure a lower quality of life and be unable to heat or cool their homes properly, pay their rent or mortgage, or save for college and retirement. They will suffer from greater stress, worse sleep deprivation, higher incidences of depression and alcohol, drug, spousal and child abuse, and more heart attacks and strokes. As Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) points out, “A lot of people on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum are going to die.” EPA ignores all of this.

It also ignores the fact that, based to the agency’s own data, shutting down every coal-fired power plant in the USA would reduce the alleged increase in global temperatures by a mere 0.05 degrees F by 2100!

President Obama nevertheless says the costly regulations are needed to reduce “carbon pollution” that he claims is making “extreme weather events” like Superstorm Sandy “more common and more devastating.” The rules will also prevent up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks in their first year alone, while also curbing sea level rise, forest fires and other supposed impacts from “climate disruption,” according to ridiculous talking points provided by EPA boss Gina McCarthy.

As part of a nationwide White House campaign to promote and justify the regulations, the American Lung Association echoed the health claims. The Natural Resources Defense Council said the rules will “drive innovation and investment” in green technology, creating “hundreds of thousands” of new jobs.

Bear in mind, the ALA received over $20 million from the EPA between 2001 and 2010. NRDC spends nearly $100 million per year (2012 IRS data) advancing its radical agenda. Both are part of a $13.4-billion-per-year U.S. Big Green industry that includes the Sierra Club and Sierra Club Foundation ($145 million per year), National Audubon Society ($96 million), Environmental Defense Fund ($112 million annually), Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund ($46 million), and numerous other special interest groups dedicated to slashing fossil fuel use and reducing our living standards. All are tax-exempt.

As to the claims themselves, they are as credible as the endlessly repeated assertions that we will all be able to keep our doctor and insurance policies, Benghazi was a spontaneous protest, and there is not a scintilla of corruption in the IRS denials of tax-exempt status to conservative groups.

The very term “carbon pollution” is deliberately disingenuous. The rules do not target carbon (aka soot). They target carbon dioxide. This is the gas that all humans and animals exhale. It makes life on Earth possible. It makes crops and other plants grow faster and better. As thousands of scientists emphasize, at just 0.04% of our atmosphere, CO2 plays only a minor role in climate change – especially compared to water vapor and the incredibly powerful solar, cosmic, oceanic and other natural forces that have caused warm periods, ice ages and little ice ages, and controlled climate and weather for countless millennia.

The terrible disasters that the President and other climate alarmists attribute to fossil fuels, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are creatures of computer models that have gotten virtually no predictions correct. That should hardly be surprising. The models are based on faulty assumptions of every size and description, and are fed a steady diet of junk science and distorted data. We shouldn’t trust them any more than we would trust con artists who claim their computers can predict stock markets or Super Bowl and World Series winners – even one year in advance, much less 50 or 100 years.

The models should absolutely not be trusted as the basis for regulations that will cripple our economy.

Contrary to model predictions and White House assertions, average global temperatures have not risen in almost 18 years. It’s now been over eight years since a category 3-5 hurricane hit the United States – the longest such period in over a century. Tornadoes are at a multi-decade low. Droughts are no more intense or frequent than since 1900. There were fewer than half as many forest fires last year as during the 1960s and 1970s. Sea levels rose just eight inches over the last 130 years and are currently rising at barely seven inches per century. There’s still ice on Lake Superior – in June! Runaway global warming, indeed.

This is not dangerous. It’s not because of humans. It does not justify what the White House is doing.

Asthma has been increasing for years – while air pollution has been decreasing. The two are not related. In fact, as EPA data attest, between 1970 and 2010, real air pollution from coal-fired power plants has plummeted dramatically – and will continue to do so because of existing rules and technologies.

For once the President is not “leading from behind” on foreign policy. However, there is no truth to his claim that other countries will follow our lead on closing coal-fired power plants and slashing carbon dioxide emissions. China, India and dozens of other developing countries are rapidly building coal-fueled generators, so that billions of people will finally enjoy the blessings of electricity and be lifted out of poverty. Even European countries are burning more coal to generate electricity, because they finally realize they cannot keep subsidizing wind and solar, while killing their energy-intensive industries.

Then what is really going on here? Why is President Obama imposing some of the most pointless and destructive regulations in American history? He is keeping his campaign promises to his far-left and hard-green ideological supporters, who detest hydrocarbons and want to use climate change to justify their socio-economic-environmental agenda.

Mr. Obama promised that electricity prices would “necessarily skyrocket” and that he would “bankrupt” the coal industry and “fundamentally transform” America. His top science advisor, John Holdren, has long advocated a “massive campaign” to “de-develop the United States,” divert energy and other resources from what he calls “frivolous and wasteful” uses that support modern living standards, and enforce a “much more equitable distribution of wealth.” The President and his Executive Branch bureaucrats are committed to controlling more and more of our lives, livelihoods and liberties.

They believe no one can stop them, and they will never be held accountable for ignoring our laws, for their corruption, or even for any job losses, deaths or other destruction they may leave in their wake.

Every American who still believes in honest science, accountable Constitutional government – and the right of people everywhere to affordable energy and modern living standards – must tell these radical ideologues that this power grab will not be tolerated.


David Rothbard is president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), a nonprofit educational organization devoted to both people and the environment. Craig Rucker is CFACT’s executive director.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News, EPA, Obama Climate Plan, Obamas War on Energy. Bookmark the permalink.

146 Responses to EPA’s next wave of job-killing CO2 regulations

  1. jones says:

    I do find myself wondering just how, in the years to come, they are going to back-pedal on all this insanity?

  2. Bloke down the pub says:

    Well O’Bama got voted in by someone. Until the US votes in a president who knows what he’s talking about, you’ll have to put up with what you’ve got. I just pray that when the UK next has a general election, that we don’t end up with Milliband, the idiot who introduced many of our stupid climate regulations.

  3. JIm Cripwell says:

    Sorry. No-one who matters is interested. Try getting Dr. Susan Seestrom’s attention.

  4. nigelf says:

    The next sane president can start by gutting the EPA and strictly limiting it’s mandate. Next thing is to completely cut all funding from anything climate related. Shut down the dept. of energy. The country doesn’t need any dept. that actively works against it’s citizens. Use the tactics they are using against us, in other words demonize those people who are nothing more than extreme left-wing enviro’s like Mckibbon, Hansen, Holdren, Gore and many others. Also, cut all subsidies to fake energy industries like wind, solar and ethanol.
    To top it all off take away any enviro’s right to sue for any supposed damages to the environment. Take all the money out of the game and it becomes not worth doing and these human haters will go away.

  5. Steve R says:

    Did the ALA really say that CO2 is bad for the lungs?

  6. Patrick says:

    So Obama, now that the damage has been installed via the EPA, he has sealed his fate for the result of the next election in the US. Maybe he should take note of what is very likely to happen in Australia in July.

  7. Martin Mason says:

    But don’t forget that this is not about science but politics and America and Europe ARE going to slash CO2 consumption and reduce everybody’s standard of living accordingly. In return the developing world doesn’t industrialize but gets climate reparation aid from the West amounting to 1%+ of GDP all in the aid of sustainability in the form of UN Agenda 21. I’m reading the book “The Age of Global Warming”, and it is all very clear now.

    Do you think these guys do nothing at Climate Fests and other UN meetings? They do lots mainly in the cause of World Government

  8. Patrick says:

    “Steve R says:

    June 5, 2014 at 4:02 am”

    If the ALA did say such a thing then they are clearly set in alarm mode. CO2 is critical for beathing and lung function, health and blood pH balance.

  9. philjourdan says:

    The rules will further hobble a US economy that actually shrank by 1% during the first quarter of 2014, following a pathetic 1.9% total annual growth in 2013.

    One must remember that in the fall of 2012, Obama changed the calculation for GDP. Adding in Accounts Receivable (double counting them) as well as R&D expenditures. The effect was to inflate GDP growth by 2.5-3%. So in effect, without that change, growth would be negative for the last 5 quarters. It only takes 2 to make a recession.

  10. Lank is perplexed says:

    Welcome to the third world USA.
    Why on earth does the USA go through the process of electing a Congress when the President rules by decree?

  11. Paul says:

    Jones said: “…how, in the years to come, they are going to back-pedal on all this insanity?”
    They aren’t. If there’s NO warming, their action plan worked great, hurray! But if there IS warming, we’ll need to kick up the regulations a notch. It’s a win-win for O & Co.

    Do you know anybody under the age of 30 that isn’t a “believer” in AGW? checkmate.

  12. jones says:

    Paul,

    Indeed.

    .
    I know a 12 year old boy who thinks it’s all rubbish.

    Looks like me too……

    It’s worse than I thought.

  13. Under President O’Barmy, the Krazy Kats are stepping up the pace of de-industrialization and ruination of America. In the UK, there is a real fear the Millipede will lead the Labour Party to an insane victory over common sense at the General Election.
    All this is very good news for the Chinese who are standing by to manufacture any obtuse device with which the West thinks it can generate Stone-Age Energy, The Chinese, Japanese and Koreans will ably assist their competitors to stab themselves in the back. They, themselves, however will not be crippling their economies with these obtuse devices. There are no massed ranks of ;windmills; on show in Japan, Korea and China. A recent two month visit confirms this. The East Asians have more sense than to do such foolish things. They do not despoil their sacred landscapes with such horrors, but will happily ship them to fools who want to do so with them.
    Fortunately in Australia, Scepticism has triumphed and July may see the repeal of vast slabs of CAGW legislation rolled out by the Labour Party four years ago. What we need now are suggestions for the rusting, mostly idle ranks of windmills rushed up in response to lavish subsidies.
    Someone should point out to O’Barmy and the Krazy Kats that the temperature of the Earth has been stable for 18 years 8 months…..no,,,,that;s been tried!

  14. Russell says:

    I’ve been telling people for years that our government operates like organized crime; they make the rules and punish anyone who breaks them. Their system creates dependency and destroys liberty, once you’re in you can NEVER get out. If you don’t know it by now ALL of the fight against climate change is designed to enslave us and empower them.

    It does not matter if a government policy fails; they simply trot out a minion to hit all the Sunday “news” show to declare it a success. As long as bureaucrats make the laws Congress and the Constitution are irrelevant. Lies all of it lies.

  15. starzmom says:

    All of my kids are under thirty and thanks to parental involvement, none believe in global warming. Now, my co-workers in the legal aid office, that’s another matter. At least they are open to the idea that, economically, this might be hurt.

  16. Mike Bromley the Kurd says:

    I feel sorry for the United States. I don’t know what else to say. Obama promised to do this. And people voted him in anyway. Geez….

  17. Coach Springer says:

    This move by the EPA recognized the poor scientific and political support with regard to climate and tied it also to “saved lives” from claimed health benefits. It’s government junk science and the same thing as claiming proof from any result whatsoever. Thanks to Steve Milloy for prominently recognizing and publicizing the seriousness of this politically based statistics game that they play – particularly regarding particulate matter. There is much work to be done on this issue which will be increasingly the SOP for the government.

    It is possible to design a study – if one does not already exist – that will “support” a conclusion that any activity X reduces a potential threat. To illustrate the principle for the environmental alarmist, Keystone XL could be observed to provide energy to help the poor which could improve their lot and save lives. And that would be a more accurate conclusion than stopping Keystone saves lives. Here’s an easier one yet requiring only reading the news; There are X number of deaths based on commuter rail accidents and suicides every year. Therefore, you’re killing X number of people in the Chicago area if you’re supporting CTA and METRA and can save those lives if you do away with commuter rail.

  18. Paul says:

    starzmom “All of my kids are under thirty and thanks to parental involvement, none believe in global warming.”

    All of mine are under 30 too, but unfortunately I’m only at 66%. I have one daughter that still believes the government would never lie to us.

    I’m the old guy in an shop of young liberals. Maybe another winter of obscene gas bills might make them want a tin-foil hat too. They hate when I mention it hasn’t warmed since they left diapers.

  19. beng says:

    ***
    President Obama nevertheless says the costly regulations are needed to reduce “carbon pollution” that he claims is making “extreme weather events” like Superstorm Sandy “more common and more devastating.” The rules will also prevent up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks in their first year alone, while also curbing sea level rise, forest fires and other supposed impacts from “climate disruption,” according to ridiculous talking points provided by EPA boss Gina McCarthy.
    ***

    Completely unsupported scientifically w/numbers just pulled out of the air to sound alarming. Should be criminal behavior.

  20. Eliza says:

    Obama should read this especailly the last paragraph http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/06/02/australia-poised-repeal-carbon-tax
    He will go down in history like Gillard in Australia no one will remeber him as a President worth remembering. You can be absolutely sure that very few in the Australian labour party would support anything about “Global warming” anymore! (even if they were re-elected. Apparently Australians have completely lost interest in the subject LOL

  21. tom s says:

    I will NEVER give 1 cent to the American Lung Assoc….

  22. techheadted says:

    Steve R. and Patrick.

    Here is what the ALA (of California) states:

    “Climate change is real and the time to act is now. Greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change pose a serious threat to our environment, and it also puts our own health at risk. Rising temperatures in California brought about by climate change will most likely lead to more extreme heat events and air pollution, which means serious threats to lung health such as an increase and worsening of asthma attacks and hospital visits for breathing problems.”

    http://www.lung.org/associations/states/california/advocacy/climate-change/

    Worse than this perhaps is the national ALA’s new Youtube video which you can watch and comment on here:
    https://www.facebook.com/lungusa

    All you need to know to understand the ALA advocacy position:
    1. The ALA fundraises from the public.
    2. It is headquartered in Chicago.

  23. cwon14 says:

    The left understands it’s junk science and propaganda while “skeptics” think the issue will be decided by actual “science”, which is kinda stupid historically;

    http://ecowatch.com/2014/06/04/video-gop-climate-change-deniers/

  24. Patrick says:

    “techheadted says:

    June 5, 2014 at 5:43 am”

    And thus its’ claims can be easily disproved, even using Wikipedia as a source.

  25. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Secret Service Requests Software To Track Social Media Trends, Detect Sarcasm
    Benjamin Fearnow
    June 4, 2014 10:45 AM

    WASHINGTON (CBSDC) – The U.S. Secret Service is seeking software that can identify top influencers and trending sets of social media data, allowing the agency to monitor these streams in real-time – and sift through the sarcasm.

    A work order posted online Monday shows that the agency desires analytics software that can watch users in real time, collecting a range of data including “emotions of Internet users to old Twitter messages” across multiple languages.

    The Secret Service is also seeking software that can complete very succinct tasks within massive sets of continuously flowing social media data, such as locating users and detecting sarcasm.

    “Ability to detect sarcasm and false positives,” reads the request.

    Now why would the sworn defenders of the first inherently non-racist US President, known for the unprecedented transparency of his Administration, and for numerous humanitarian actions such as supporting the oppressed and repressed religious minorities in Libya and Egypt, and helping desperate Afghan citizens who had been accidentally assigned to a refuge camp to reunite with their families and former employment, who single-handedly lead America’s greatest ever economic recovery by prodding investor activity through creatively distributing future donations of all future taxpayers among trusted friends and associates, be worried about sarcasm which could possibly disguise negative attitudes towards our much-beloved Supreme Defender of American Law and Security and Socially Responsible Equitable Distribution of Wealth?

  26. johnmarshall says:

    Goodbye America!

    Hallo China!

  27. G. Karst says:

    Six words:

    Tax revolt
    Civil disobedience
    Spring Revolution

    Americans must recall their origins. GK

  28. MarkW says:

    jones says:
    June 5, 2014 at 3:07 am
    —–
    They won’t. When the warming stops, they’ll just claim that their regulations were the cause, then they will double down.
    When acid rain was proven to be false, they didn’t eliminate the regulations.
    When the ozone hole was proven to be a scam, the ban on CFCs wasn’t removed.

  29. MarkW says:

    nigelf says:
    June 5, 2014 at 3:49 am
    —–
    You are assuming that there will be any sane presidents in the future. 50% of voters pay no income taxes and about a third receive checks from the govt.
    I fear that the point of no return has been passed.

  30. Latitude says:

    their ignorance would be insulting to intelligent people……..

  31. Oldseadog says:

    The biggest worry, and biggest disgrace, is that MSM ignore papers like this and keep spewing out the rubbish that the politicians’ press poodles feed to them.

  32. pat says:

    at least the Chinese media is waking up!

    5 June: South China Morning Post: Howard Winn: When it comes to earth’s climate, change is normal
    Those convinced that human-induced global warming is going to bring an end to the world as we know it would do well to read the testimony by Dr Daniel Botkin, Professor Emeritus, Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
    His testimony was given to the US House Subcommittee on Science, Space and Technology, which was examining the 2014 report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    He adopts a refreshingly dispassionate and clear approach to a controversial subject that is usually couched in highly charged emotional terms.
    Botkin has been publishing research on theoretical global warming, its potential ecological effects, and the implications for people and biodiversity since 1968.
    In his testimony, he says he approached the subject as a scientist but laments that in recent years “the subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate”…
    Botkin acknowledges the world has been going through a “warming period driven by a variety of influences”, but says this is not unusual, and contrary to the characterisations by the IPCC and the White House National Climate Assessment, “these environmental changes are not apocalyptic nor irreversible”…
    Commenting on the warming period and the current plateau, where the earth’s temperature has not changed for the past 17 years, he says: “The rate of change we are experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the ‘mystery’ of the warming ‘plateau’ simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global biosphere.
    “Change is normal, life on earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it seem that environmental change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.”
    He draws attention to the weakness of the climate models…
    http://www.scmp.com/business/article/1525535/when-it-comes-earths-climate-change-normal

  33. Peter Stroud says:

    It would seem that the USA now has the worst president, and administration in living memory. At least you have a credible opposition: here in the UK we are not so fortunate. We have a Conservative led coalition, with the Liberal Democrat party. In which the Conservative leadership, and the entire LibDem parliamentary membership are in love with the green fanatics. But so to is the socialist opposition. So we look forward to the same idiotic policies, as those being adopted by Obama.

  34. peter says:

    A very common charge made by people who oppose the Government regulations and the radical environmentalists, is that they wish to destroy our economy. I wist that were true, it would be easier to fight.

    I think they are true believers. They truly do think that these measures are good for us, and will lead to a much better world, and any indication that the opposite is happening merely means we are not spending enough, or regulating enough.

    They will be starving in the streets, no heat, no power, and will still be saying that just you wait, we’ll turn the corner to utopia any minute. You can not convince a true-believer. You simply have to do all you can to remove them from any positions that will allow them to drag the rest of us down with them.

    Science and facts will do nothing. We have to use the only weapon we have that will work. Organize, vote, use the power of the internet to coordinate.

    The various organizations have power because they can present the politicians with a cohesive voting block. If you want to defeat them you need to be able to prove to your local politician that you have x-number of votes lined up, and if he wants them, he’d better be prepared to give you what you want.

  35. Alan Robertson says:

    nigelf says:
    June 5, 2014 at 3:49 am

    The next sane president can start by gutting the EPA and strictly limiting it’s mandate.
    ______________________
    Hillary? She’s likely to be the next POTUS. Just consider the modern voter base.
    The Democratic party has gone full- on statist and any Dem. POTUS would mean further ruin, with the possibility of massive civil unrest/revolt and complete destruction of the nation.

  36. mpcraig says:

    “The new rules supposedly give states “flexibility”…”

    Yes, you must bend over but it’s completely your choice of lubricant.

  37. Alan Robertson says:

    Any shooting sports enthusiast will tell you that for the past 18 months, ammunition and ammunition hand- loading components are exceedingly difficult to acquire, even at current exorbitant prices, due to huge and unprecedented demand. US citizens are stockpiling weapons and ammunition.

    Here’s an extract from a recent statement from the Hodgdon Powder Company:

    “Why can’t I find Hodgdon powders?
    (Revised April, 2014)
    Hodgdon Powder Company continues to experience unprecedented demand for all smokeless powder. This demand has created a world-wide powder shortage…”
    http://hodgdon.com/PDF/Web%20Page%20Buying%20Surge.pdf

    Make of this what you will.

  38. Ann in L.A. says:

    There is something here which confuses me. The states are sovereign entities and not vassals of the federal government. How is the federal government issuing these orders, and can’t the states simply say no? Who is on the receiving end of these orders? I know the feds have the power of the purse string and that they can cut off money that they give the states, but that’s the only power they have to order states around. If you are Washington state, and had a governor who wasn’t a twit, and if you were facing a command to reduce your carbon emissions by 70+% in 15 years, wouldn’t you look at the devastation that that would cause to your state, compare it to the money you get from the feds, do a quick calculation, and tell the feds to pound sand?

  39. David Ball says:

    Apparently no one is thinking of the children.

  40. R. de Haan says:

    @ jones says:
    June 5, 2014 at 3:07 am

    “I do find myself wondering just how, in the years to come, they are going to back-pedal on all this insanity?”

    They won’t back-pedal on all this insanity.

    I don’t know if you already know what’s going on but this is part of the plan to reduce the world population from 7 billion to 500 million.

    So it has become a matter of them or you.

    Time to go long on rope, tar and feathers. You’re going to need them.

    http://green-agenda.com and UN Agenda 21

  41. Olavi says:

    USA is gone . . . . . 35 years ago it was A dream now workmans wages is not enough for living. Food and energy bills are rising and salaries heading down, exept rich and super-rich people. Green is no more green it’s totalitarism. Vote demokrats or rebublicans policy won’t chance A bit.

  42. David Chappell says:

    pat says: June 5, 2014 at 6:43 am

    …at least the Chinese media is waking up!

    Regrettably not quite true. First the SCMP is not strictly “Chinese media”. It is a Hong Kong English language paper, not quite the same thing. Second, Howard Winn is very much the lone sensible voice on the paper. The editorial team is very,very pro global warming and that is reflected in another article on the same page so rife with error and misleading information that it is embarrassing.

  43. dipchip says:

    What I would like to know is where is Rasmussen getting his responses to Obama’s approval index?

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

    Compare that to Gallop.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx

  44. Tim says:

    CO2 has been established as a pollutant, yet this same trace gas is required for all life on earth. Has Any Government entity established the “Just right” range of CO2 in the atmosphere where it is not a pollutant and deemed Good? Someone should sue the EPA to force them to look at this where they actually say 399 PPM= good, 400PPM= bad, they may discover some truth along the way.
    They would have to use real science to make this evaluation.

  45. Steve C says:

    @G. Karst – Aye. And not just Americans, either.

  46. Shawn from High River says:

    I feel sorry for the U.S.A.
    Unfortunately my country (Canada) is so closely linked to the U.S. that when one hurts,the other feels it too.

  47. Tommy says:

    Although I disagree with this heavy-handed regulation of CO2 as if it were a pollutant, I wonder if this will force whoever supports this to realize that solar & wind & hydro are insufficient.

    Would it get them to take a second look at 4th generation nuclear power?

    Is it true that 4th gen plants could run on waste from prior generation plants, thereby solving the disposal issues?

    Is it true that if a disaster cuts off all cooling/support systems, this generation of reactors would shut off with no danger of meltdown?

    Of course there is a big expense in building, but is it true that, once built, these plants could operate for 80+ years?

    Are the barriers to deployment technical or political? Are these tested and ready to build?

  48. Hot under the collar says:

    This was a very good post on the cost of over regulation by the EPA and the nonsense of climate change. Unfortunately paragraph 11 detracts from the point of climate change when it starts talking about Benghazi, medical insurance and corruption in the IRS. If the original argument and point is well made it is not a good idea to start complaining about other issues (however they may be related in the mind of the author) otherwise the reader may read the whole article as a complaining rant.

  49. Neil Jordan says:

    Re kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: June 5, 2014 at 5:59 am
    Secret Service Requests Software To Track Social Media Trends, Detect Sarcasm
    I went to the GSA web site and reviewed the documents. It is more interesting than apparent in the news article, because the request for sarcasm detection includes a statistical test:
    “•Ability to detect sarcasm and false positives;”

    Perhaps the Statistician to the Stars might weigh in on this specification. To throw some fat on the fire, would Bayesian rather than Frequentist stastistics be the better choice to root out the true snarkers among us?

  50. Louis says:

    What sane person would want to pay “$3,400″ more per year in higher prices to achieve “0.05 degrees F” lower temperatures (at most) by 2100?

    Even that small reduction in global temperatures only happens if other countries like China and India do not burn the coal that America stops burning. With lower demand, the price of coal will go down, and the use by other countries will go up. So even if you’re a true believer, there is absolutely no reason to expect a reduction in global temperatures due to EPA policies. There will only be huge economic costs in exchange for no tangible benefits. It won’t even make hard-core environmentalists feel good. They’re already complaining that the EPA is going far enough. Nothing could make them happy short of the extinction of the human race. So it is futile to even try to please them.

  51. “A U.S. Chamber of Commerce study calculates that the new regulations will cost our economy another $51 billion annually, result in 224,000 more lost jobs every year, and cost every American household $3,400 per year in higher prices for energy, food and other necessities.”

    This is not a side effect. The intent is to bring the US down a peg or two. More likely many pegs. The plan is working well. We can not vote our way out of this. We can not impeach our way out. We can not sue our way out. Don’t even think of armed rebellion. These new EPA regs will not be rescinded by any future president or congress. We are dealing with an oligarchy, not a democracy.

    “O, what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.” Sir Walter Scott

  52. Chad Wozniak says:

    @nigelf –

    I’d go a step further and prohibit the possession and use of any fossil fuel or anything made from or with fossil fuels, by those who publicly oppose developing them, or who publicly demand regulation of them.

    Thus, not only coal, oil and natural gas by themselves would be unavailable to these people, but also electricity, plastics, food grown with fertilizer, fabrics, cement, lumber (kiln dried with natural gas), and any number of other items.

    Seems a fair and reasonable way to deal with these destroyers of civilization.

  53. M Simon says:

    dipchip says:
    June 5, 2014 at 8:49 am

    Ras 5 June:
    AhObummer: Strongly approve 23% Strongly disapprove 36% – Approval 52% Disapproval 46%

    Don’t make no sense. It would mean mildly approve: 29 mildly disapprove 10%

  54. budgenator says:

    Lank is perplexed says:
    Why on earth does the USA go through the process of electing a Congress when the President rules by decree?

    That is the bad news, the good news is anything done by Executive Orders can be undone by Executive Order.

  55. A.D. Everard says:

    Chad Wozniak says:
    June 5, 2014 at 10:35 am

    @nigelf –

    I’d go a step further and prohibit the possession and use of any fossil fuel or anything made from or with fossil fuels, by those who publicly oppose developing them, or who publicly demand regulation of them.

    Thus, not only coal, oil and natural gas by themselves would be unavailable to these people, but also electricity, plastics, food grown with fertilizer, fabrics, cement, lumber (kiln dried with natural gas), and any number of other items.

    Seems a fair and reasonable way to deal with these destroyers of civilization.

    *

    That would be most fitting.

  56. rbissett777 says:

    “…the good news is anything done by Executive Orders can be undone by Executive Order.”

    Could be undone, but rarely is. The court and congress can also counter such orders, but again, rarely do.

    Robert Bissett, Bs.Arch. Naples, Idaho 83847 Artist, Author, Blogger, Teacher Dragon Speed Design Group Latest books: Tornado! – paperback Tornado! – Kindle Real Working Drawings and Real Art, Real Easy Fine Art Prints, Matting, Frames Sometimes a Daily Painting Blog Award Winning Art Custom House Plans, Dome Specialist

    On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Watts Up With That? wrote:

    > A.D. Everard commented: “Chad Wozniak says: June 5, 2014 at 10:35 am > @nigelf – I’d go a step further and prohibit the possession and use of any > fossil fuel or anything made from or with fossil fuels, by those who > publicly oppose developing them, or who publicly dema” >

  57. Harry Passfield says:

    “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves”

    Abraham Lincoln

    “For shame” (Harry Passfield)

  58. Mac the Knife says:

    David Rothbard and Craig Rucker,
    Your opening paragraph states the current situation perfectly.
    Thank You, for not mincing words!
    Mac

  59. Michael C. Roberts says:

    Asthma? From rising levels of ambient atmospheric carbon dioxide? More on that later, but all I can say is YGTBFKM (You’ve Got To Be Freaking Kidding Me). The intent of the wording of the press releases from the EPA and the POTUS are to confuse the populace, through conflation between “carbon” (as in soot, or particulate matter from burning fuels) and the intended target of the EPA ruling which is “carbon dioxide” (a trace gas at atmospheric pressures), into believing the rule will seek to control and reduce “carbon” (soot) in the atmosphere by controlling and reducing “carbon dioxide” (the gas). While not wholly untrue (most people cannot understand the subtle difference in wording even though they can understand the difference in the state of matter: gas vs. particulate), it is disgustingly disingenuous to purposefully equate the differing states of “carbon” as being direct cause of asthma. Particulates as carbon soot adding to risk for asthma? Yes. Carbon dioxide as a miniscule trace gas doing the same? YGTBFKM.
    After all the EPA already has a ruling to control Particulate Matter down to 2.5 microns (millionths of a meter) in size: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/particlepollution/designations/index.htm and yes, the PM 2.5 rule is intended to control particulate “carbon” (soot) among other particulates.
    Why duplicate effort in chasing particulate “carbon” (soot) with this new ruling, when there is an adequate rule already on the books to control emitted solid form material down to 2.5 microns? The new rule is really going after “carbon dioxide” (gas) and the release of same through the burning of fuels. Then why the use of the term “carbon” when the actual target is limiting “carbon dioxide”??
    That is where a knowledgeable person gets into trouble with being disingenuous. Especially when it is said (or at least implied) carbon dioxide control is needed to assist in reducing asthma in children – they already understand an average human exhalation (breathing out) contains as much as +/-4.0% carbon dioxide ( https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070529131522AAkRyus) (actually +/-3.96% carbon dioxide, as the air that was inhaled already had 0.04%!). The problem arises when asthma is blamed on the ever-increases ambient levels of CO2 in the atmosphere– every living and breathing human being should have asthma based upon this form of (ill)logic as we all exhale a larger amount of CO2, created in our internal cellular respiration, than what is available in the air we breathe. Again, YGTBFKM.
    Don’t get me started on this, my wife gets fed up with it all……….

  60. Robertvd says:

    Jeff Holmstead, former assistant administrator at the EPA for Air and Radiation, on why the latest EPA regulations on coal-fired power plants are massively misguided

    http://schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/charts/audioMaster.jsp;jsessionid=2165BABAB53470AA6553BF18DF7E13FF?dispid=301&pid=65564&f=NjU1NjQtdHJ1ZS0wNi8wNS8yMDE0

  61. Alan Robertson says:

    Michael C. Roberts says:
    June 5, 2014 at 2:41 pm

    “… we all exhale a larger amount of CO2, created in our internal cellular respiration, than what is available in the air we breathe…”
    ___________________________
    You must pay for your sins.

  62. herkimer says:

    It is a sad state in the affairs of a nation when an arm of the Government seems to deliberately distort scientific facts in order to mislead people that they are meant to serve and protect. To claim that carbon and more particularly carbon dioxide is a pollutant and reducing its emissions will suddenly improve people’s health is a scientific tragedy. It is even more tragic when the various scientific bodies of the nation whose duty it is to preserve and expand our knowledge of science remain totally silent. Not a single scientific body has spoken up, not even the medical profession who very well know that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant nor is part of any air quality index for pollutants in any nation of the world. The latest game that is being played is to associate scientific untruths with true scientific facts in order to make the former appear legitimate to the unsuspecting public. Climate warming is being lumped with climate change or extreme weather which have always been with us and carbon dioxide is being lumped in with pollutants that are part of our air quality index. Just reduce carbon dioxide and all our troubles will disappear. What nonsense.

  63. empiresentry says:

    @kadaka (KD Knoebel) June 5, 2014 at 5:59 am
    Secret Service Requests Software To Track Social Media Trends, Detect Sarcasm

    I would propose they use a government approved contractor already on the contractor lists.
    I would propose CGI…they did such a bang up job on ACA and Medicare/aid, and veteran’s records software.

  64. empiresentry says:

    If deep sea fishing is banned due to carbon capture of fish, can I still spread mulch and ashes in my gardens?

  65. Gary Pearse says:

    Gee whiz a POTUS can be impeached for having kinky sex with a WH intern but can’t be prevented from devastating the American economy and impoverishing its people.

  66. joeldshore says:

    Looks like economic alarmism is alive and well on this site! As Paul Krugman has recently been pointing out (although I myself also was making this point independently of him for several years), conservative free-market types seem to believe in the power of markets to overcome every possible adversity (scarcity of resources, …) but that they will somehow whither and die (or implode) if a bit of economic scarcity is imposed in a flexible manner through limits on carbon emissions.

    This piece is so riddled with ridiculous claims and outright falsehoods that one could spend hours dissecting it, but I will just point out a few examples in one sentence of the nonsense:

    A U.S. Chamber of Commerce study calculates that the new regulations will cost our economy another $51 billion annually, result in 224,000 more lost jobs every year, and cost every American household $3,400 per year in higher prices for energy, food and other necessities.

    (1) The U.S. Chamber of Commerce commissioned a study that would make all sorts of questionable assumptions to arrive at the worst possible result since they are well-known to oppose this policy.

    (2) Despite this, they arrived at a number for the annual economic cost that only sounds really scary until you realize that the size of the U.S. economy is $17 trillion. (Paul Krugman made the analogy to the movie where Dr. Evil tries to extort the world for a ransom of $1 MILLION! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKHSAE1gIs ) It would be a lot less scary if we gave it a more accurate headline: “Study bent on finding the largest possible costs for this policy estimates the economic cost to be 0.3% of the total economy.”

    (3) It must take some very creative mathematics to convert $51 billion into a cost of $3,400 per household. That would imply the U.S. has 15 million households (which means an average household size, given the U.S. population, of 21 people per household). Either someone miscalculated by a factor of 10…Or, they are doing something extremely creative to arrive at this figure.

    Do you guys even try to apply any degree of skepticism to these claims?

  67. joeldshore says:

    philjourdan says:

    One must remember that in the fall of 2012, Obama changed the calculation for GDP. Adding in Accounts Receivable (double counting them) as well as R&D expenditures. The effect was to inflate GDP growth by 2.5-3%. So in effect, without that change, growth would be negative for the last 5 quarters.

    It might help jog the memory if you could give some site to any credible economic source to validate this claim.

  68. joeldshore says:

    [Sorry...that should be "cite", not "site".]

  69. Alan Robertson says:

    joeldshore says:
    June 5, 2014 at 7:30 pm

    “…which means an average household size, given the U.S. population, of 21 people per household…”
    ___________________________
    I’m going with the fat finger on the “0” key. Either that, or they got a report detailing young illegal immigrant dude households mixed up in the pile of papers on their desk.

    On another note, conspicuous in it’s absence is any word from you about the administration’s numbers. Happy with those numbers, are ye?

  70. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Joel Shore, Rochester Institute of Technology, Physics Dept.
    http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1541449
    Overall Quality 2.8

    Based on normal standards, he’s not the best, but based on RIT Physics Department standards, he’s great. (…)
    ***
    Interested in hearing someone mumble about Physics for 6 hours a week? You’ve got your guy. Don’t be too disheartened though, the entire RIT physics department is terrible.
    ***
    Intends well but does not make good use of class time or prepare students well for exams.
    ***
    Dr. Shore has good intentions, but his ability to teach is lacking and I can’t recommend him to anyone who actually needs to LEARN physics. (…)

    From joeldshore on June 5, 2014 at 7:30 pm:

    Do you guys even try to apply any degree of skepticism to these claims?

    From joeldshore on June 5, 2014 at 7:32 pm:

    It might help jog the memory if you could give some site to any credible economic source to validate this claim.

    joeldshore said on June 5, 2014 at 7:37 pm:

    [Sorry...that should be "cite", not "site".]

  71. joeldshore says:

    On another note, conspicuous in it’s absence is any word from you about the administration’s numbers. Happy with those numbers, are ye?

    Well, I’m sort of torn. On the one hand, I admit that, sure, they sound a little optimistic. On the other hand, the history of estimates of the costs of environmental regulations is that not only does the regulated industry overestimate them (no surprise there!) but even EPA tends to overestimate them (although maybe EPA has changed some of their modeling assumptions to better account for market mechanisms to respond by taking the cheapest possible route…I don’t know). I used to know of a study that discussed this in detail; I couldn’t find the one I was thinking of in a quick web search, but here is another one that I have only skimmed: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CFoQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.epi.org%2Fpage%2F-%2Fold%2Fbriefingpapers%2Fbp69.pdf&ei=XDeRU4OTO8-TyAS954GgDA&usg=AFQjCNEmhbQeJwb2CtAwzjVRY0CVrv9m6Q&sig2=4A7YlHOdato-ps3mLMXWxg&bvm=bv.68445247,d.b2k&cad=rja

    At any rate, my guess would be that the truth will lie somewhere in between the Chamber of Commerce estimate and the Admininstration’s estimate…but probably much closer to the latter than the former.

  72. Alan Robertson says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    June 5, 2014 at 8:33 pm
    ____________________
    less than helpful

  73. joeldshore says:

    kadaka says:

    Joel Shore, Rochester Institute of Technology, Physics Dept.
    http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1541449

    Not only ad hominem, but irrelevant ad hominem. If you want to at least go for at least slightly more relevant ad hominem, perhaps you can look for mistakes or defects in scientific papers that I have written: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=JXhNbi0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao ?

    That would be a step up from your previous post.

  74. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Alan Robertson on June 5, 2014 at 8:43 pm:

    less than helpful

    Indeed they were. And as can be seen, that’s a noted trait of his.

    But he does have good intentions, he tries. He’s not just trolling. This deserves to be noted when considering his comments.

  75. Alan Robertson says:

    Your comments, K.D. Yours.

  76. Mac the Knife says:

    Ann in L.A. says:
    June 5, 2014 at 7:47 am
    If you are Washington state, and had a governor who wasn’t a twit, and if you were facing a command to reduce your carbon emissions by 70+% in 15 years, wouldn’t you look at the devastation that that would cause to your state, compare it to the money you get from the feds, do a quick calculation, and tell the feds to pound sand?

    Ann in LA,
    Glad to see there are still voices of reason in California!
    Kiddoo, we have a governor in WA state that is a twit, same as CA. WA state has already driven most of the heavy industry out of the state in the last 2 decades. Boeing is still here but deliberately migrating sizable chunks of new aircraft construction and supporting roles to other states.

    Jay “Talks Out Both Sides Of Mouth” Inslee, our socialist democrat governor, is following the Obama executive model. If the state legislature ‘won’t act’ on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming to regulate CO2 emissions, Jay is prepared to act! Carbon regulations are in our future by Carbon Copy Decree, unless we can achieve a real conservative majority in the state Senate and wrest control of the state House from the socialist democRats. The state senate shift is ‘doable’ in this election year but the major shift of the House is unlikely.

    In short, Jay Inslee won’t tell the Feds to pound sand. He has his party knee pads on and is avidly ‘supporting’ Our Dear Leaders agenda, reality and economics be damned.
    Mac

  77. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Alan Robertson said on June 5, 2014 at 10:27 pm:

    Your comments, K.D. Yours.

    I made no comments in the 8:33 PM posting, I was just quoting. I gave the references.

    If a presentation solely composed of the words of others is considered less than helpful, or even an ad hominem attack utilizing a person’s own words while adding none from the presenter, well, that’s the choice of the reader.

  78. Eric Simpson says:

    I’m really thinking that a big reason Obama did the Bergdahl terrorist swap right now was to take almost all the attention away from these brutal EPA regulations.

  79. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From joeldshore on June 5, 2014 at 8:49 pm:

    Not only ad hominem, but irrelevant ad hominem. If you want to at least go for at least slightly more relevant ad hominem, perhaps you can look for mistakes or defects in scientific papers that I have written: (…)

    What’s the point? It is clear you are a respected well-published researcher, in hard sciences like optics and solid state physics, yielding practical results…

    …who got “Climate Change” tacked on to your published topics list by co-authoring a single piece in 2010, Comment on “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics”. Which was the slapping down of nonsensical unscientific attacks committed falsely under the guise of climate skepticism. Thus that piece was a worthy thing to do, I’m not complaining about it.

    So it is established you are knowledgeable in the hard sciences you normally research and publish about.

    But as seen here and elsewhere, you do not respond well to criticism. For “replies” you prefer confrontational declarations.

    For example, on June 5, 2014 at 7:30 pm you said:

    (1) The U.S. Chamber of Commerce commissioned a study that would make all sorts of questionable assumptions to arrive at the worst possible result since they are well-known to oppose this policy.

    As detailed in the press release concerning the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy report (link to report is there):

    The Energy Institute commissioned the respected research and analytics firm IHS to conduct the modeling and analysis. As a basis for the study, the Energy Institute utilized a proposal from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) that many expect will be similar to EPA’s anticipated proposal. Using the NRDC policy framework, along with the proprietary outlook from IHS Inc. on energy efficiency and power demand, the Energy Institute report then assesses the costs and market impacts of meeting the Obama Administration’s emissions target of 42% reductions below 2005 levels by 2030. The conclusions are those of the Energy Institute.

    The Energy Institute’s analysis includes only the costs for the new and existing power plant carbon dioxide regulations. All other EPA regulations, such as the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, are built into the reference case.

    Where are those “all sorts of questionable assumptions” you said were there?

    In a piece from just a few days ago, on June 4 they issued Setting the Record Straight on the Chamber’s Carbon Emissions Study—And How It Relates to EPA’s Proposed Rules. Basically, when the EPA finally announced, the proposed rules wanted 30% reductions by 2030. But since 2009 and the (failed) Copenhagen climate summit, the Administration’s stated goal was 42% by 2030. So that’s what the Energy Institute went with.

    Now in the manner of a teacher, inducing learning and retention by a dynamic presentation of the facts and their relations with other knowledge, please show and discuss the fallacies of at least some of those many other questionable assumptions you are certain are in there.

  80. dbstealey says:

    KD,

    joelshore repeatedly labels those he disagrees with as ‘ideologues’. That makes him the ideologue, no?

    You give far too much credit to someone who uses the global warming scare for political gain. The planet is debunking shore and his ilk, but they will never admit what everyone here knows: they are wrong. Every prediction made by the alarmist cult has been wrong.

    There is no runaway global warming. There is no climate catastrophe. They are being thoroughly dishonest in promoting that false alarm.

    And there will be a reckoning…

  81. Bruce Cobb says:

    joeldshore says:
    June 5, 2014 at 7:30 pm
    It must take some very creative mathematics to convert $51 billion into a cost of $3,400 per household.
    Not nearly as creative as you attempting to conflate the cost per household with the cost to the economy. That’s a $51 billion per year anchor thrown to a still-struggling economy. We’d be better off hiring a million unemployed to dig holes at 25k a year, and another million to fill them in.
    The economic costs are only the beginning. This will create needless human suffering, which you do not seem to care about. This is also a direct attack on the Constitutional separation of powers. The Obama administration is using the EPA to carry out an agenda which he was not able to push through Congress.

  82. herkimer says:

    It would appear that EPA has not learned anything form the bad experience that the public had with the too sudden and too many complex changes introduced with Obama care across the nation. With so many new retirements( 32 plants plus possibly 36 other plants for a total of about 8% of nationwide coal generating capacity or about enough power to supply 11 million homes ) being forced out on top of previously planned normal retirements , the entire process is being rushed too much with too much change all at once . Also there are possibly as many as 500 units that need to be idled to install new pollution control equipment on plants that are not being retired. The problem will show up when there is an extra drain on the grid like we had this past winter. The grid nearly collapsed prior to these new changes.

  83. beng says:

    ***
    joeldshore says:
    June 5, 2014 at 8:42 pm

    On the other hand, the history of estimates of the costs of environmental regulations is that not only does the regulated industry overestimate them (no surprise there!) but even EPA tends to overestimate them (although maybe EPA has changed some of their modeling assumptions to better account for market mechanisms to respond by taking the cheapest possible route…I don’t know).
    ***

    The bottom line is any CO2 regulations the US impose produce only a negligible temp change — assuming no one else takes up the CO2-emitting industries (like China, Russia, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc, etc). So such regulations are much worse than useless. China and others are laughing at the US & Europe all the way to the bank. They must think we’ve lost our marbles.

    Ever work in competitive industry? If you have, you know something that’s useless should be halted immediately to stop wasting time, effort & money on it.

  84. joeldshore says:

    Where are those “all sorts of questionable assumptions” you said were there?

    All such economic modeling involves tons of assumptions. Here are a couple pieces discussing some of the questionable assumptions made:
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/05/3444651/epa-regulations-inequality/
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/30/its-epa-vs-us-chamber-commerce-over-climate-change/

    In a piece from just a few days ago, on June 4 they issued Setting the Record Straight on the Chamber’s Carbon Emissions Study—And How It Relates to EPA’s Proposed Rules. Basically, when the EPA finally announced, the proposed rules wanted 30% reductions by 2030. But since 2009 and the (failed) Copenhagen climate summit, the Administration’s stated goal was 42% by 2030. So that’s what the Energy Institute went with.

    When I talked about questionable assumptions, I didn’t even know it was as bad as this. They modeled a significantly more ambitious goal than the actual proposal made. (Since the switch toward natural gas over the past 9 years has already reduced emissions by 15%, the difference between the regs and what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce modeled is an additional reduction of 15% or an additional reduction of 27%.) They have reasons for modeling what they did…but the point is that their assumption about the rule was wrong by a significant amount and that would have a significant effect on the results they get. They try to come up with lame excuses for why this assumption might not be that bad (This is only the proposed regs, the final regs may be stricter after the big bad environmentalists get their hands on it [and apparently the poor coal industry hacks just cower in a corner]; different states will have different targets and some will have greater targets [so, apparently we can ignore that some will have lesser targets too...I'd call this the "everybody is above average" argument]).

    As I have noted, actual studies of past EPA regulations of this type have shown that the tendency is that not only do the industry studies drastically overestimate compliance costs but even the EPA estimates tend to run higher than what the actual costs end up being.

  85. joeldshore says:

    BruceCobb says:

    Not nearly as creative as you attempting to conflate the cost per household with the cost to the economy.

    Okay, so explain to me how the regs can cost each household $3400 per year but only cost the economy $51 billion per year

    That’s a $51 billion per year anchor thrown to a still-struggling economy.

    An imaginary number based on economic modeling with some assumptions that are known not to be correct.

    We’d be better off hiring a million unemployed to dig holes at 25k a year, and another million to fill them in. The economic costs are only the beginning. This will create needless human suffering, which you do not seem to care about.

    Yes, needless human suffering like the ancillary benefits of lowered air pollution.

    This is also a direct attack on the Constitutional separation of powers. The Obama administration is using the EPA to carry out an agenda which he was not able to push through Congress.

    Ah…a very conservative U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. They say that the Clean Air Act does indeed give the EPA the authority to issue such regulations.

    beng says:

    The bottom line is any CO2 regulations the US impose produce only a negligible temp change — assuming no one else takes up the CO2-emitting industries (like China, Russia, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc, etc).

    This sort of bottom line could be applied to anything that requires collective action, like voting. Nobody should vote because each person’s vote makes a negligible difference to the final vote tally. The actual numerical claims also tend to make assumptions like that the U.S. reduces emissions by this amount until 2030 and then immediately jumps back to emitting at levels that it otherwise would have emitted at had we not followed a path to greater energy efficiency, greater use of renewables, less reliance on coal, …

    China and others are laughing at the US & Europe all the way to the bank. They must think we’ve lost our marbles.

    They won’t be laughing once the U.S. gets ahead in technologies necessary to do something that they will eventually have to do and that they should be trying to do sooner rather than later. China is also strongly dependent on the U.S. as a market for their exports, which means if they remain intransigent, then there are things that can be done to influence their decisions of what to do.

  86. Bruce Cobb says:

    joeldshore says:
    June 6, 2014 at 6:29 am

    BruceCobb says:

    Not nearly as creative as you attempting to conflate the cost per household with the cost to the economy.

    Okay, so explain to me how the regs can cost each household $3400 per year but only cost the economy $51 billion per year
    So, you admit that the two are completely different things, but now feign ignorance as to Economics 101? Obviously, that $3400/year cost per household is neither a cost to the economy nor a benefit. Where the cost to the economy comes in is what it does wrt business and industry, and the consequent job-losses.

    An imaginary number based on economic modeling with some assumptions that are known not to be correct.
    It is the best estimate (as all economics are) by a global economic research firm, IHS, and if anything, is probably conservative.

    Yes, needless human suffering like the ancillary benefits of lowered air pollution.
    Now you are conflating air pollution, which has declined significantly since the 70’s, with the imaginary “carbon pollution”. Typical.

    Ah…a very conservative U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. They say that the Clean Air Act does indeed give the EPA the authority to issue such regulations.

    “Very conservative”? Give me a break, Joel. And, at 5-4, the vote was a squeaker. All they did was kick the ball back to the epa’s court, saying that “greenhouse gases could be regulated under the Clean Air Act if the EPA determined that they posed a danger to human health or welfare”.
    The EPA has done no such thing. What they have done is to essentially re-write the rules of the CAA, again, violating the Constitution.

  87. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Bruce Cobb on June 6, 2014 at 8:33 am:

    The EPA has done no such thing. What they have done is to essentially re-write the rules of the CAA, again, violating the Constitution.

    Sign found in the private Oval Office bathroom:

    A limit of two sheets of Constitution is suggested

    Please notify housekeeping when new roll of Constitution is needed

  88. Bruce Cobb says:

    Gina McScience McCarthy, in response to a whiffleball question:
    “We’re bullish on American ingenuity, that’s what makes this country so great. Thanks for your faith and optimism!”
    LOL. They’re “bullish” all right. As in what comes out of a bull.

  89. Ralph Kramden says:

    On Jan 20, 2017 a new president will be sworn in. And President Obama is doing everything he can to make sure the new president is a Republican.

  90. JM VanWinkle says:

    What’s the point in shutting coal down early?
    Breakthrough research in Fusion for power generation just published: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.0133v1.pdf
    For the purpose of discussion, we estimate the power balance for a 1 meter radius hexahedral D-T Polywell fusion reactor operating at β=1 with a magnetic field of 7 T at the cusp points and an electron beam injection energy at 60 kV.
    The required electron beam power to maintain a β=1 state would be 213 MW. Separately, this system will lose an additional 51 MW of power via Bremsstrahlung radiation for an average electron temperature of 60 keV, assuming no ions other than hydrogen isotopes are present.[19] In comparison, the expected D-T fusion power output would be 1.9 GW for a D-T cross section of 1.38 barns at a center of mass energy of 30 keV. 

  91. Bruce Cobb says:

    @ JM VanWinkle
    Boring. Solar FREAKIN’ Roadways sounds way more cool, and is the answer to all our problems. /sarc

  92. OMG! EPA is rational by comparison. Or are they kidding? Stumbled on this today…
    ______________________________________
    Why Deep Green Resistance?

    > Industrial civilization is killing all life on our planet, driving to extinction 200 species per day, and it won’t stop voluntarily.
    > Global warming is happening now, at an astounding speed. The only honest solution is to stop industrial civilization from burning fossil fuels.
    > Most consumption is based on violence against people (human and non-human) and on degrading landbases across the planet.
    > Life on Earth is more important than this insane, temporary culture based on hyper-exploitation of finite resources. This culture needs to be destroyed before it consumes all life on this planet.
    > Humanity is not the same as civilization. Humans have developed many sane and sustainable cultures, themselves at risk from civilization.
    > Most people know this culture is insane and needs radical change, but don’t see any way to bring the change about.
    > Unlike most environmental and social justice organizations, Deep Green Resistance questions the existence and necessity of civilization itself. DGR asks “What if we do away with civilization altogether?”
    > Unlike most environmental and social justice organizations, DGR asks “What must we do to be effective?”, not “What will those in power allow us to do?”
    > DGR offers organized, reliable ways to promote sane ways of living and surviving the ongoing crisis.
    > DGR has a realistic plan to stop the insanity, Decisive Ecological Warfare.
    _______________________________________

    Delusional.

  93. SunSword says:

    Deep Green Resistance — Read “Directive 51″, “Daybreak Zero”, and “The Last President”. DGR=Daybreak. (“In late 2024, Daybreak, a movement of post-apocalyptic eco-saboteurs, smashed modern civilization to its knees…”)

  94. Michael C. Roberts says:

    Joel D Shore: Good to see an alternate view point expressed here, as I have been reading recently at other sites that WUWT is considered to be somewhat of a one-sided “echo chamber”. I can see that if someone comes to WUWT with a preconceived viewpoint, not based upon sound logic or empirical data, that they run the risk of being summarily(and verbally) run out of town on a rail by the knowledgeable WUWT regulars!!! Just an observation. Trolls – Nah, please stay away. Those that bring thoughtful, sound science based arguments? And an open mind? Bring it on. Discourse and the potential to broaden knowledge – even to change a lukewarmer over – all for it.

  95. Andyj says:

    Another irony overload from the left.
    O’Bomber is attacking his own voter base with higher heating costs which affects the poor people hardest.

    So what’s it to be today children. Heat or eat?

  96. It’s only superficially about the science. Tim DeChristopher, the fellow who bid on oil and gas leases and spent 21 months in prison as a result, has this to say…

    “I’ve never seen a place in this movement or in the discourse around climate change where it’s considered appropriate for your people to express their anger at old people. But it’s just under the surface….if it’s never addressed, I think it’s hard to move forward in a trusting way.
    “I’ve met very few baby boomer liberals who understand what i means to be a young person facing the reality of climate change. It means that we’re never going to have the opportunities that our parents’ and out grand parents’ generations had, and that we’ve got this massive burden weighing on our future.”

    How to your talk to a guy like this? He is delusional. Deeply and destructively indoctrinated. Perhaps because of personality defects he succumbed when others didn’t. At any rate it is a mental health issue. I hope he gets professional help before he harms an old person.

  97. joeldshore says:

    Bruce Cobb says:

    Obviously, that $3400/year cost per household is neither a cost to the economy nor a benefit. Where the cost to the economy comes in is what it does wrt business and industry, and the consequent job-losses.

    So, you think a regulation that reduces a household’s purchasing power by $3400/yr will only cost the economy $53 billion? That’s an interesting conjecture.

    It is the best estimate (as all economics are) by a global economic research firm, IHS, and if anything, is probably conservative.

    What a joke. “Probably conservative”? Based on what? When has any organization commissioned a study that underestimates the costs of regulations that they don’t want? (Actually, as a baby step, you might want to see if you can find a case where the EPA has clearly underestimated the costs of regulations.) In this case, I have given links to specific critiques of their assumptions that lead to overestimation. Heck, even kadaka’s link admitted that that they assumed a more drastic cut in emissions than the Administration went with, and hence their study would overestimate costs for that reason alone.

    Now you are conflating air pollution, which has declined significantly since the 70′s, with the imaginary “carbon pollution”. Typical.

    I said “ancillary benefits” because coal is our dirtiest source of power even given the regulations that have required it to be burned a lot cleaner than it used to be. (And, unfortunately, the regs tend to come with grandfather clauses that don’t require as much cleaning up of a coal-burning plant as long as it is not significantly refurbished.)

    “Very conservative”? Give me a break, Joel. And, at 5-4, the vote was a squeaker.

    Which means that they had to get the one conservative who is not ultra-conservative (Kennedy) to agree with them.

    All they did was kick the ball back to the epa’s court, saying that “greenhouse gases could be regulated under the Clean Air Act if the EPA determined that they posed a danger to human health or welfare”.
    The EPA has done no such thing.

    Really? http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/

  98. joeldshore says:

    Actually, it is also important to understand the full history of the Court ruling and the EPA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-will-propose-a-rule-to-cut-emissions-from-existing-coal-plants-by-up-to-30-percent/2014/06/02/f37f0a10-e81d-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html):

    Under President George W. Bush, the agency argued that Congress never intended to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, so it lacked authority to do so. In 2007, the Supreme Court disagreed, ruling in
    Massachusetts v. EPA that the law was “unambiguous” and that emissions came under its broad definition of “air pollutant.” It ordered the agency to determine whether greenhouse-gas emissions endanger public health or the environment. The EPA issued an “endangerment finding” in December 2009 that laid the groundwork for the power-plant rule it proposed Monday.

    So, no, they didn’t just say that greenhouse gases could be regulated if the EPA made such a determination. They said that EPA must undertake to determine whether or not greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health or the environment. Hence, it was the not the Obama EPA that is violating the Constitution, but rather the Bush EPA that was found to be clearly dragging its feet on making such a determination in violation of the Clean Air Act.

  99. beng says:

    joeldshore, you fail to convince. .01C temp reduction (or whatever — it’s negligible) is worth billions? To whom, academics? Regulators? Bureaucrats? Sierra Club lawyers? And how is anyone going to notice or even measure that tiny difference? And then extrapolate that immeasurable change to some imaginary benefit?

    The EPA isn’t about science anymore, it’s about growing its budget, personnel and influence, like any other goobermint agency.

  100. Alan Robertson says:

    joeldshore says:
    June 6, 2014 at 8:32 pm

    “Hence, it was the not the Obama EPA that is violating the Constitution, but rather the Bush EPA that was found to be clearly dragging its feet on making such a determination in violation of the Clean Air Act.”
    _________________________
    Joel, words fail me…

  101. joeldshore says:

    Alan Robertson says:

    Joel, words fail me…

    Well, they did not fail the U.S. Supreme Court (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf):

    Under the Act’s clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climatechange or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. It has refused to do so, offering instead a laundry list of reasons not to regulate, including the existence of voluntary Executive Branch programs providing a response to global warming and im-pairment of the President’s ability to negotiate with developing na-tions to reduce emissions. These policy judgments have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and do not amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form ascientific judgment. Nor can EPA avoid its statutory obligation bynoting the uncertainty surrounding various features of climate change and concluding that it would therefore be better not to regu-late at this time. If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment, it must say so. The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists for itto make an endangerment finding. Instead, EPA rejected the rule-making petition based on impermissible considerations. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordancewith law,” §7607(d)(9). On remand, EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.

  102. rbissett777 says:

    The Supremes: “If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment, it must say so. The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists for it to make an endangerment finding.”

    The judges left it up to the EPA. Seems that under different leadership more than enough “information” could be found to reverse the endangerment finding…right here on this blog. With grants tailored for the purpose, they would find themselves awash in information.

    Robert Bissett, Bs.Arch. Naples, Idaho 83847 Artist, Author, Blogger, Teacher Dragon Speed Design Group Latest books: Tornado! – paperback Tornado! – Kindle Real Working Drawings and Real Art, Real Easy Fine Art Prints, Matting, Frames Sometimes a Daily Painting Blog Award Winning Art Custom House Plans, Dome Specialist

  103. Richard F. Storm says:

    Thank you for your honest reporting of the tremendous wealth the Extreme Environmentalists have and use against the best interests of America.
    Dick Storm

  104. Some time ago I began questioning the sanity of CAGW proponents. I’ve suggested they may be delusional, in need of professional help. We now have confirmation of that, at least for the highest ranking proponent…

    “Dr. LOUDON: You know, I will say to you, Lou, I am very, very concerned about the mental stability of this President at this point. Some of his behavior seems irrational to me. It seems beyond that of just a typical narcissistic, arrogant, sort of, ‘I’m a leader of a big country and I feel tyrannical at the moment’ kind of attitude. It really seems to me like this President is demonstrating behavior that is not only anti-American, but irrational and erratic and perhaps not exactly what we might want to deem sane.”

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2014/06/04/fox-biz-psychologist-worries-erratic-obama-may-not-be-sane#ixzz340INyWwW

    It’s not about science; it’s about sanity.

  105. joeldshore says:

    rbissett777 says:

    The judges left it up to the EPA. Seems that under different leadership more than enough “information” could be found to reverse the endangerment finding…right here on this blog. With grants tailored for the purpose, they would find themselves awash in information.

    Under Bush, they would have had a hard time doing so, given what EPA’s own studies showed, what the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (that Bush set up) was finding, what the National Academy of Sciences was saying. Usually, Administrations do not openly flout these sources of information in favor of blogs. That is why the Bush Administration for the most part accepted the science but just did their best to avoid acting on it.

  106. philjourdan says:

    @joeldshore – Ask and ye shall receive.

    http://www.inc.com/erik-sherman/look-out-for-a-big-change-in-gdp-calculations.html

    Note: Typo on my part. 2013. Not 2012.

  107. philjourdan says:

    @Joeldshore – Quoting Krugman on anything other than his stated weight is dangerous. He has proven he is an incompetent basic economist, and of course his “advice” to Enron was such a raging success.

  108. joeldshore says:

    Thanks for the link, Phil. I guess the best that can be said about what you posted is that it is based on a true story. Other than that it is basically a complete falsehood. Let’s look at what you wrote:

    Obama changed the calculation for GDP. Adding in Accounts Receivable (double counting them) as well as R&D expenditures. The effect was to inflate GDP growth by 2.5-3%. So in effect, without that change, growth would be negative for the last 5 quarters.

    Now, let’s compare to the facts in the Inc article:

    (1) The change is, according to the author, long overdue. (“It’s about time”)

    (2) More importantly: “the BEA will rework all its estimates going back to 1929 in order to keep comparisons as valid as possible”. So, no, the growth is not inflated. All the numbers going were retroactively increased going back in time. They didn’t just change the method of accounting and ignore this in computng the growth rate. It is strange that you believed otherwise.

    I am beginning to understand how conspiracy theories work!

    As for Krugman, I think I’ll take a Nobel-prize winning economist over someone who has proven quite a bit of incompetence regarding economic data right in this thread!

  109. joeldshore says:

    From the Financial Times article (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/52d23fa6-aa98-11e2-bc0d-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz34CdqgNeS):

    The changes are in addition to a comprehensive revision of the national accounts that takes place every five years based on an economic census of nearly 4m US businesses.

    Steve Landefeld, BEA director, said it was hard to predict the overall outcome given the mixture of new methodology and data updates. “What’s going to happen when you mix it with the new source data from the economic census . . . I don’t know,” he said.

    But he said the revisions were unlikely to alter the picture of what has happened to the economy in recent years. “I wouldn’t be looking for large changes in trends or cycles.”

  110. philjourdan says:

    The EPA is, by law, required to use independent scientific studies, not in house crap. So Bush did nothing, and the EPA is violating the spirit (if not the letter) of the law by not using all the independent science available.

  111. philjourdan says:

    No Joel, your ignorance of the impact is not my problem. First, there are very few who claim it is “long overdue”. AR was always calculated when the money actually changed hands. Before that there is always default which means NO SALE. R&D is a special case. It actually is a cost of the product, which goes into the price of the sale. So it is already counted.

    But your biggest mistake is in you thinking it will be recalculated back to 1929. it cannot be because accurate records do not exist. Coupled with your lack of knowledge of historical records is your failure to apply the change to the present tense.

    As you know, a recession is defined as 2 consecutive down quarters. WITH the new calculation of GDP, the first quarter is still negative (which under the old calculation would mean a 3-4% decline over what was reported). Add that factor to the anemic growth that was calculated last year with the new numbers (1.9% for the year) and you see we easily have 2 quarters of down growth, but the more accurate numbers.

    You are not very good at climate science, but at least you are better at that than at economics. Stick to what you are least incompetent in.

    As for krugman, better check what he got his prize in. Obama did more to earn his than Krugman did. and it had nothing to do with micro or macro economics. But you are free to believe your fairytales. I am sure all the Enron people thought his advice was good as well (do I really need a /sarc on that statement?)

  112. philjourdan says:

    “What’s going to happen when you mix it with the new source data from the economic census . . . I don’t know,” he said.

    And here is the proof that an accurate recalculation is not possible. At least in the eyes of this one analyst. If they have no idea what is “going to happen” (which is false since they are now tracking the data), they have no clue what happened in the past.

    Thanks for the refutation of your own statement.

  113. joeldshore says:

    philjourdan says:

    First, there are very few who claim it is “long overdue”. AR was always calculated when the money actually changed hands. Before that there is always default which means NO SALE. R&D is a special case. It actually is a cost of the product, which goes into the price of the sale. So it is already counted.

    According to the Financial Times article, this is the adoption of part of a new international standard for GDP accounting.

    WITH the new calculation of GDP, the first quarter is still negative (which under the old calculation would mean a 3-4% decline over what was reported).

    You are repeating a falsehood. Perhaps it is basic math that is failing you. Let’s say I take the function f(t) = f_0 + A*t where f_0 and A are constants and I am interested in the growth rate (proportional to A). If I add a constant value to the function (say, 0.03*f_0) then I don’t change the growth rate A. [Even if I multiply everything by 1.03, if you by chance think that is more appropriate, I barely change the growth rate.]

    If they have no idea what is “going to happen” (which is false since they are now tracking the data), they have no clue what happened in the past.

    They don’t have “no clue”. All because they don’t know everything, it does not follow that they know nothing. I am sure if you asked him if it would artificially increase the annual GDP growth rate by 3 percentage points, he would have said no.

    This is a fascinating study in how the mind of conspiratorial-minded conservative extremists like yourself works.

  114. philjourdan says:

    @JoelDSHore – but this is not climate shenanigans with numbers. The rate changes. That is why the growth rate went up (spiked) last summer (I guess you missed that part). You added more to the growth with nothing to the base (since the base did not change). So yes, you are adding (the actual number is 2.5-3%) to the growth. Which is all smoke and mirrors since there has been no growth. So the 1.4% decline would have been larger, and the 1.9% increase would have disappeared (if not gone negative).

    THAT is why they have to adjust the past numbers! No one is comparing apples to oranges. They are adding more money into the mix to show a growth that does not exist. Double counting only adds. It changes the slope because you are double counting! And that is what is happening.

    An easy example. You buy a $50k car. But you lose your job and default on the loan. Too late! That is already counted as GDP. But the banks takes it and turns around and resells it (the banks are not in the car business). So now instead of a $50k transaction, you have perhaps a $90k transaction. Moola more to the GDP.

    And on R&D? They declare a widget to be GDP, even though none have been sold yet. Then the company releases the Widget and charges you for the parts and labor AND R&D! Double counted again.

    That is not even economics. That is called Accounting. Double counting inflates. Even though the double stuff does NOT exist.

    Stick to adjusting temperatures. You failed math.

  115. joeldshore says:

    phil: Like I said, a fascinating study of the conspiratorial-minded. How does your notion of there being an economic recession jive with the continued job gains in the economy…Or are those numbers fudged too in your world?

  116. philjourdan says:

    @Joel Shore – what conspiracy? Where have I talked of a conspiracy? You are reading from the alarmist play book on a subject that is not related.

    And what gains? Please tell us the gains. Employment is STILL below Boosh levels. The Stock exchange is up, thanks to a trillion dollars a year pumped into it by the Fed (with the blessing of Obama). But that is all that is ‘good news’. Inflation is much higher than reported (just look at fuel and food prices to know that).

    This is not a conspiracy that I know of. But I guess in your limited binary world, anyone not agreeing with you must be a conspiracy nut. Someone needs to show you that people are not binary. But I doubt you will learn that.

  117. joeldshore says:

    Employment is STILL below Boosh levels.

    Actually, employment has just exceeded the pre-recession peak. And, of course, Bush left Obama with an economy that had already lost a few million jobs from that peak and was losing private sector jobs at the truly astounding rate of about 3/4 million per month (http://www.gq.com/news-politics/blogs/death-race/Jobs%20Chart635.jpg)!!! Here is a real summary from people who try to look at the economy objectively, rather than through ideological glasses (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-06-07/employment-reaches-milestone-in-topping-u-dot-s-dot-pre-recession-peak):

    The 217,000 advance in hiring followed a 282,000 gain in April, figures from the Labor Department showed yesterday in Washington. It marked the fourth consecutive month employment increased by more than 200,000, the first time that’s happened since early 2000.

    Inflation is much higher than reported (just look at fuel and food prices to know that).

    This is not a conspiracy that I know of. But I guess in your limited binary world, anyone not agreeing with you must be a conspiracy nut.

    LOL. In one sentence, you suggest there’s a big conspiracy to mask the true inflation and in the next you claim you’re not a conspiracy nut.

    So, the government is hiding the truth about inflation, about the GDP growth, and jobs…and the media (except for a few far Right outlets) are apparently colluding with this…But, it’s not a conspiracy theory! Don’t know how Lewandowsky could ever reach the conclusions that he did about you guys! ;-)

  118. joeldshore says:

    …Sorry, some HTML coding errors in my last post, but I think one can figure out who said what.

  119. philjourdan says:

    Geez Joel, I am sure you go to SS for ‘facts’ too – when you can get them from the real source.

    Try the BLS:
    2007 146,047
    May 145,814

    http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.htm

    And the 2007 numbers are not seasonally adjusted (the 2014 ARE)

    Employment is STILL below the Bush years – and with 10 million more people to boot!

    Please stick with adjusting temperatures. You suck at economics. You do not even know where to find the real numbers.

    And a conspiracy requires PEOPLE. Obama is a PERSON. It is not a conspiracy – except in some warped warmist view I guess.

    I suggested NOTHING. I stated the facts. Need links to those as well?

  120. joeldshore says:

    Wow…What silly misdirection on your part.

    (1) The difference between the numbers you have and those that the BusinessWeek article I linked to quoted is yours are from the household survey and that article probably used the ones from the “establishment” (employers) survey. However, the larger picture is that you are picking nits…Your numbers show a value of less than 0.2% below the pre-recession peak. The other numbers show a value a tiny bit above the pre-recession peak. Which one is correct is really in the noise.

    (2) By picking nits, you have ignored the more fundamental points:

    * Job growth over the last 4 months that has been consistently strong (above 200,000 per month) that hasn’t occurred in any 4 month period since before Bush took office is unlikely to be indicative of the recession that you claim is happening but being covered up by a massive conspiracy.

    * Comparing to the pre-recession peak ignores the fact that several millions of the jobs were lost under Bush…And when Obama took office, the economy had not only already lost several million jobs but was shedding jobs at the truly astounding rate of 3/4 million per month, which nobody could instantly stop; hence, several more million were lost before Obama could start to dig us out of the hole that we had fallen into during Bush’s watch (admittedly not all his fault, but certainly during his watch). [One can argue about whether Obama's policies were aggressive enough to pull us out of the rut as fast as we could have, and in fact, Krugman and some other intelligent economists argued (even at the time!) that the stimulus was insufficient given the size of the hole in the economy. But, given that the Republicans wanted less, not more, and that they obstructed lots of other job creation policies, there is no doubt that what Obama has done is a lot better than the alternative that we actually had.]

    * Believing the things that you do requires believing in a conspiracy theory whereby the GDP numbers are being cooked (a conspiracy in itself) and the press is remaining quiet on this point (an even larger conspiracy). And then, you have implied the same thing about inflation numbers.

  121. dbstealey says:

    Simple question, which puts everything in perspective:

    Would the average American rather have the 0bama economy, or GW Bush’s economy?

    Only religious CAGW fanatics/True Believers would choose the former.

    And yes, it is a religion:

    Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environ-mentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

    There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer; that the right people with the right beliefs imbibe.

    by Michael Crichton
    San Francisco
    September 15, 2003

  122. joeldshore says:

    dbstealey: Simple answer:

    During the Bush Presidency (Jan 2001- Jan 2009), private sector job growth was -450,000 jobs, i.e., the economy lost private sector jobs. [That was offset by public sector job growth...which ought to be popular with you conservatives ;-) ...but even TOTAL job growth was only 1.4 million jobs during his Presidency.] By contrast, during Obama, private sector job growth has been +5,200,0000.

    If you assume that Presidents can’t instantly affect the economy but that there is some reasonable lag time of, say, 6 months, before their policies can take effect then the differences are much sharper. Bush: -1.6 million private sector jobs; Obama: +7.8 million private sector jobs. (You can retrieve all of the data here: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm)

    What Presidents can be held responsible for is the CHANGE in employment during their Presidency, not the economy that they inherited. Obama inherited an economy from Bush that was headed toward what could have easily been the Second Great Depression.

  123. philjourdan says:

    Wrong again Joel. The HOUSEHOLD survey is the more accurate. The business survey misses the self employed. That is not a nit to pick. That is a fact. As I said, the numbers shown are not really apples to apples since one is a month, and the other is a year. However, on an Seasonally adjusted monthly basis: November 2007: 146,647 May 2014: 145,814 Difference 800k (roughly):

    FROM the BLS: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01042008.pdf

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

    So once again, the nit proves you wrong (proving you wrong is not a nit – it is called a fact – try to get some).

    #2 I have ignored nothing. I never talked about job growth. That is a non sequitur. And growth over 200k is not even replenishment! To compensate for increasing populations, you have to have job growth north of 250k! So Obama is not even keeping up with his LEGAL residents, much less the illegal resident criminals he set free!

    #2.1 – The issue was if Obama had reached employment levels during the Boosh years. Period. Yes there was a recession, caused by the CRA (passed by Carter, modified by Clinton and protected by Dodd-Frank – all democrats). But that is a non-sequitur! Again! you claimed that employment under Obama had surpassed Bush. I just proved you wrong 6 ways from Sunday! So stop equivocating! If you do not like the debate, stop setting the topic that you are ignorant of!

    #2.2 BTW the “3/4 million” rate was for A MONTH. Not “MONTHS”. Again, get your facts correct. Hell, get any facts!

    The misdirection is all on you. I gave you the SOURCE of the numbers. That is the outfit that PRODUCES them! You gave an editorial cartoon article then misstated everything else!

    I bet you love to adjust temperature data. Given your performance here, you are as good at that as you are at the rest of your opinions.

  124. philjourdan says:

    That is what I love about Joel Shore – always wrong. And embarrassingly so.

    During the Bush years, EVEN accounting for the Democrat CRA Recession, 7.5 MILLION CIVILIAN jobs were added:

    December 2000: 135,836 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/History/empsit_01052001.txt

    December 2008: 143,338 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01092009.pdf

    This is not some hack site. This is not even some right wing site. It is the BLS. The OFFICIAL site for employment. Period

    in contrast, Obama has LOST 800,000 jobs. There is no millions added. I already gave the links to it. In almost 6 years, Obama has LOST 800k jobs. Period.

    Joel, stop lying. I am sure you think the difference of 8 million between your made up numbers and the OFFICIAL numbers is nit picking. But then that is what is so perfect with you. You are always wrong.

  125. dbstealey says:

    joelshore says:

    dbstealey: Simple answer…

    But there was no answer to my straightforward question:

    Would the average American rather have the 0bama economy, or GW Bush’s economy?

    The answer is obvious: most Americans [and all rational Americans] would much prefer the economy of GW Bush over that of the totally incompetent, anti-American 0bama.

    And as Phil Jourdan says: stop lying.

  126. joeldshore says:

    The falsehoods are multiplying by the minute.

    Wrong again Joel. The HOUSEHOLD survey is the more accurate. The business survey misses the self employed. That is not a nit to pick. That is a fact.

    You guys are so good at cherrypicking the data that you want that it has become second nature. There is in fact lots of literature on the differences between the two survey and no clear evidence of which one is more accurate. Furthermore, since the household survey breaks out the category of the self-employed (and farm workers), it is easy enough to check if this is the source of the difference between them and this paper http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/05/cps-ces-employment-comparison/ does that and concludes: “It seems the difference in the employment can’t be explained by farm workers or the self-employed. It turns out the number of individuals working in these two sectors held pretty constant over the decade, so the CPS employment index actually rose more against CES employment index with these two categories removed.” Another fiction of conservative ideology blown apart by the facts.

    Finally, the establishment survey separates out private sector and public sector employment, which is useful, because in the Bush years, the public sector employment fared a lot better than the private sector employment

    And growth over 200k is not even replenishment! To compensate for increasing populations, you have to have job growth north of 250k!

    Well, Bush didn’t have any 4-month periods of consistent 200k+ employment growth over his whole Presidency (and, for this, by the way, you definitely want to use the business survey because the statistical noise is a lot greater in the household survey from month to month).

    Yes there was a recession, caused by the CRA (passed by Carter, modified by Clinton and protected by Dodd-Frank – all democrats).

    Nobody believes that recession was caused by that except diehard ideological extremists like yourself. See, for example, here: http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

    BTW the “3/4 million” rate was for A MONTH. Not “MONTHS”. Again, get your facts correct. Hell, get any facts!

    No, it averaged that over a 6 month period centered around the time that Bush left office and Obama took office.

    During the Bush years, EVEN accounting for the Democrat CRA Recession, 7.5 MILLION CIVILIAN jobs were added:

    December 2000: 135,836 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/History/empsit_01052001.txt

    December 2008: 143,338 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01092009.pdf

    You can’t just look at these snapshop news releases since there are various revisions. You have to look at a consistent data set. Also, it is a cheat to go from Dec 2000 to Dec. 2008 instead of Jan 2001 to Jan 2009…and, really, as I noted, there should be a lag because a President can’t wave a magic wand and fix the economy instantly when he takes office. If you look at Jan 2001 to Jan 2009, you get +4.4 million using the household (CPS) survey and +1.4 million using the business (CES) survey. However, if you look only at private sector job growth in the business survey, you get -0.45 million.

    This is not some hack site. This is not even some right wing site. It is the BLS. The OFFICIAL site for employment. Period

    And, you are very good at misusing or distorting the data in various ways; it seems second nature to you.

    in contrast, Obama has LOST 800,000 jobs. There is no millions added. I already gave the links to it. In almost 6 years, Obama has LOST 800k jobs. Period.

    That is a complete and utter falsehood and I think you are intelligent to know it is false. You are measuring from November 2007, which is 14 months before Obama took office and then cherrypicking which survey you use to boot! It is just amazing to see this in action. Conservatives like yourself seem to have really ceded all intelligent, rational science and data interpretation in favor of manipulation and distortion.

    Joel, stop lying. I am sure you think the difference of 8 million between your made up numbers and the OFFICIAL numbers is nit picking.

    You are the one who is lying as I think everyone here can plainly see. We are both using the same set of official data but you are cherrypicking and simply making things up (like starting in Nov. 2007 with you count on Obama’s jobs).

    The truth of the matter is that under Obama, according to the business survey, 5.2 million private sector jobs have been created (BLS data available here: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm) If we assume a 6-month lag for Obama’s policies to take affect from the day of election, that becomes 7.8 million private sector jobs. Those are the facts. Even if we use the household survey (and hence look at all civilian jobs), the numbers are +3.6 million jobs since January 2009 and +5.9 million jobs since July 2009 (http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm).

    With the numbers coming out this way, no matter which survey one chooses, no wonder the only way you can try to argue your point is by outright deception and falsehoods.

  127. dbstealey says:

    The only question that matters:

    Would the average American rather have the 0bama economy, or GW Bush’s economy?

    And stop lying.

  128. philjourdan says:

    @Joel Shore – blah blah blah. So what are you saying? Basically that you have no clue, and that I am correct.

    I picked the Dec to dec numbers as the numbers are released for the MONTH of (ergo December 31st). Jan to Jan would still not get anywhere NEAR your numbers! And would still be right in the ball park (+/- a few) of mine.

    You seem to hate the BLS – Why I do not know. Since your messiah runs it (and magically created 451k jobs in August of 2012 – still unexplained – want to take a crack at that one?).

    You forgot Joel, that Boosh inherited Clinton’s mess, so he had a full recession in 2001 (9 months), plus another one in 2008 (Democrats) – 6 months. In spite of all that, he still managed to create 7.5 million jobs (actually allow them to be created). Jan to Jan is only a 700k difference than Dec to Dec, which would make it 6.8 miliion (again based upon BLS.gov).

    As for the CRA causing the crises, what planet are you on? The recession (every one agrees) was caused by the housing bubble bursting. With me so far? The bubble burst when interest rates started rising and home prices did not. Those that were at 100% of value, saw themselves go underwater. So they defaulted (they could no longer make the balloon payments). What moron would lend 100% of value? Well the CRA DEMANDED that no red-lining could occur, and that demographics, not income be the deciding factor. Gee, guess what happened?

    The blame has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. it has everything to do with simple economics. When you force companies to make risky bets and prevent them from hedging them, you get disaster. That is econ 101. But you will never understand that.

    And Government employment (non-defense) did not “sky rocket” under Bush. The best numbers (again, BLS) is that from 2000-2008 total government employment (which includes state and local which you neglect to mention) increased by less than 1 million (Again BLS).

    So you have no basis for your numbers as you claim (if the dollar does this, and the yen does that, and the markets do another thing). All smoke a mirrors.

    While little ole me, just using the GOVERNMENTS OWN NUMBERS proved you a liar.

    get off your horse. You lost. You cannot refute my data because it is the OFFICIAL data. Your problem is that you believed the stupidity of the left wing nut sites and got caught by someone armed with the facts! Stop reading them. See how much they dumb you down?

    BTW: How many months has Obama had with over 300k job creation? How about Boosh?

    There is a very simple test you could have used to save yourself the embarrassment you are heaping upon yourself.

    What was the workforce labor participation rate under Boosh? What has it been under Obama? And the Unemployment rates under each?

    (hint: The first is much higher under Boosh, the later much higher under Obama – Obama has never been under 6%. Boosh was under 6% most of his tenure).

    Get the facts Joel. Like I said, you suck at temperature adjustments because you have been corrupted to not recognize RAW data. And that is your problem here. But this time, there is no “nature trick” you can perform.

  129. philjourdan says:

    @ joeldshore says:
    June 13, 2014 at 7:04 pm

    From your own link Joel:

    Two Federal Reserve economists

    2? WOW! We are down to 2 whole economists in the US? That is all?

    Ok, here is a source for you (and not right wing) – http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21819.html

    I got more, but do not want to run afoul of the link posting limit.

    JOel, you are as easy to debunk as shooting fish in a barrel.

  130. joeldshore says:

    Phil,

    You must really have a low opinion of the readers of this web site to subject them to continued lies and distortion and hope that they don’t notice. This exchange is a good illustration of how honest people deal with figures vs. how dishonest partisans deal with figures:

    Honest people, when there are different equally reasonable sources of data (such as the household and establishment surveys from BLS) quote the results that one obtains using the different sources. Honest people clearly explain the assumptions they are making. Honest people give links to the data source which allows the readers to run the numbers themselves.

    Dishonest partisans pretend that the other person is not using official BLS numbers and hope the audience won’t notice this deception. Dishonest partisans cherrypick which data set they use and then do totally unjustified things like attributing the last 14 months of the Bush Administration to Obama.

    You forgot Joel, that Boosh inherited Clinton’s mess

    “Clinton’s mess” was a job creation record of nearly 19 million jobs (household survey) from Jan 1993 to Jan 2001 (23 million if we use the establishment survey). The tech stock crash did cause a small recession, but jobs were not being lost when Bush took office (although total employment was pretty flat) and job losses over the first year or two that he was in office were very modest, at ~2 million jobs total (household survey) or ~3 million (establishment survey). That’s nothing compared to the 2008 recession where Obama inherited an economy that had already lost between 4 and 5 million jobs (household or establishment survey) and was shedding them at a rate of 3/4 million per month.

    Just to repeat the links where readers can compare my honesty to Phil’s dishonesty:
    establishment survey: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm
    household survey: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

    2? WOW! We are down to 2 whole economists in the US? That is all?

    I didn’t claim only 2 supported this view. That’s more deception on your part.

    Ok, here is a source for you (and not right wing) – http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21819.html

    Not right wing? Your first source is Peter Wallison “codirector of financial policy program at the American Enterprise Institute”. That’s not right wing? Your second source is an opinion piece by Rep. who had a 98% lifetime score from the American Conservative Union as of 2012.

    So, I’m linking to pieces from the Wall Street Journal blogs (which quote Fed economists, including one who is from the very conservative University of Chicago economics school and is a former Bush Administration official) and a paper published by the Federal Reserve…and you are linking to two articles, one written by a guy at the American Enterprise Institute and the other written by a Congressman with an almost-perfect score from the ACU!

  131. joeldshore says:

    What was the workforce labor participation rate under Boosh? What has it been under Obama? And the Unemployment rates under each?

    (hint: The first is much higher under Boosh, the later much higher under Obama – Obama has never been under 6%. Boosh was under 6% most of his tenure).

    Irrelevant statistics. Of course, Obama has a higher average unemployment rate given the economy that he inherited (and a similar story goes for the labor participation rate, which is also affected by long term demographic shifts).

    Let’s see what HAPPENED TO the unemployment rate under Bush’s tenure: It went up by +3.6% [from 4.2% in Jan 2001 (the "mess" that he inherited from Clinton) to 7.8% in Jan 2009].
    Under Obama’s tenure, the unemployment rate has gone down (-1.6%) from Jan 2009 to at present.

    These numbers would be even more lopsided if we factored in any sort of lag time for policies to take effect. A six month lag and Bush’s change in unemployment rate goes to +4.9% and Obama’s to -3.2% at this point.

    Again, data available here from BLS: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

  132. joeldshore says:

    I said:

    Your second source is an opinion piece by Rep. who had a 98% lifetime score from the American Conservative Union as of 2012.

    Sorry, I meant to fill in his name and link to his ratings:
    REP. JEB HENSARLING
    http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/49827/jeb-hensarling#.U5-wKkCmXTp

  133. dbstealey says:

    So, if I may translate joelshore:

    ‘Clinton’s policies did not affect Bush, but Bush’s policies are the reason for Obama’s serial failures.’

    Got it.

  134. joeldshore says:

    So, if I may translate joelshore:

    ‘Clinton’s policies did not affect Bush, but Bush’s policies are the reason for Obama’s serial failures.’

    No…I think Clinton’s policies definitely affected Bush. Clinton left Bush with the “mess” of 4.2% unemployment and a real budgetary predicament: Remember Alan Greenspan’s concerns in 2001 that we had to be careful not to pay down our debt too quickly ( http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/07/992184/-Greenspan-in-2001-We-re-paying-down-the-debt-too-fast-VIDEO)!

  135. philjourdan says:

    Joel, yes they do see your deception. Fact #1

    2? I read your link you simpleton! That is what YOUR link said! The Fed one? Do you mean to tell me you did not read your own link? Then why did you post it? is that lie by deception? posting links to things you have no clue about? or is that lie by omission (hoping no one follows the link so you can lie your pants off about it)? So which lie is it Joel?

    As for Boosh – I guess you missed the Dot Com Bust (from your own numbers it started in January 2001, so how did Boosh cause that?) And I guess you missed 9-11 (it was in all the papers) which was a big blow to the financial sector (funny how no banks needed bailing for that), which was due in part to Clinton refusing Bin Laden 3 times!

    That record Joel. You must think very highly of yourself – but no one else does. because they see your lies! Show me one lie I have made. Just one.

    The Household survey IS the more accurate. Do not believe me? Ask Obama. Well, perhaps not since he cannot tell the truth. yet HE says it is.

    And I gave you the numbers. Not minced diced or frickaseed (such as your links), just plain and simple. You tried to make 7.5 disappear! (your lie about Boosh losing jobs).

    We know several things for a fact.

    #1: The Unemployment rate before Democrats took control of Congress was 4.5%
    #2: The lowest Unemployment rate for Obama has been 6.3% (current).
    #3: Obama magically added 451,000 jobs in August of 2012. There is still no documentation for that adjustment (kind of like your temperature adjustments).
    #4: Boosh had 15 months of recession during his 8 years. Obama “officially” only has had 6.
    #5: The Labor participation rate has gone from over 67% (for Boosh) to under 63% for Obama. http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
    #6: The number of jobs under Obama has not surpassed the number of jobs under Boosh.

    These are facts, most of which are documented above. You then switched from jobs to government jobs, claiming that Boosh only created them despite having a higher labor participation rate, a lower unemployment, and a static government work force ONCE the TSA was created and millions of private jobs were pulled into Government (thought I would miss that one, eh? Try again).

    based upon the above 6 indisputable facts, you are now trying to tell us Obama has created 5 million jobs (where? Please show us where) and that Boosh lost 5 million jobs. I understand your immersion into temperature adjustments has thoroughly befuddled your mind, but your math does not add up. Even without the facts, documented as I have presented them, your contention does not hold water from a logic standpoint.

    Unless of course you think that adjusting temperatures down in the past and up in the present is how you “create” raw data. Alarmists are math impaired.

    Call me a liar one more time without documentation, and I will get nasty on you Joel. So stop lying.

    And READ YOUR OWN DAMN LINKS!

  136. philjourdan says:

    @dbstealey

    ‘Clinton’s policies did not affect Bush, but Bush’s policies are the reason for Obama’s serial failures.’

    You channel him well! That is actually the nut of his argument. That plus more unemployment, plus less participation means more jobs.

  137. philjourdan says:

    And you had 2 pieces from Liberals. Are you going to argue with the first source (I just grabbed the first 2 links – apparently you cannot find or follow links on your own).

    Again, proven wrong. With your own links. And your only come back now is “you are lying”. But no specifics. Just more ad hominems from the clowns who think they can adjust their way to a heat wave.

  138. philjourdan says:

    Joel Shore

    Obama has a higher average unemployment rate given the economy that he inherited (and a similar story goes for the labor participation rate, which is also affected by long term demographic shifts).

    More lies. He “inherited”? His party blessed him with! remember, it was a democrat congress (Pelosi and Reid). And no, no similar story. When you increase the cost of something, you get less demand for that thing! That is called Economics 101.

    So what has Obama done? increased the cost of labor (Obamacare, EPA regulations). So he has gotten less of it. your dismissive hand waving about a similar story does not hold water. The “long term” demographic shifts? Should help him since he has raised taxes over 2 dozen times so the middle class is all but disappearing. Which REQUIRES both spouses to work just to pay the tax bill! But they are not. Why? No jobs! yea, that demographic shift! He did very well instigating it himself.

    Cut with the hand waving. You have absolutely no clue about economics as is evident by your ignorant statements. And your math is woeful as well. Only an alarmist could say that less is more. Less employment, less participation equals more jobs in the Joel world.

    Nowhere else as the numbers proved.

  139. philjourdan says:

    Here’s another “fun with numbers”

    Let’s see what HAPPENED TO the unemployment rate under Bush’s tenure: It went up by +3.6% [from 4.2% in Jan 2001 (the "mess" that he inherited from Clinton) to 7.8% in Jan 2009].

    Again, before the dot com bust and 9-11 (both Boosh’s fault of course even though the bust started in JANUARY 2001, before he even took office, and despite the fact that Clinton refused Bin Laden 3 times).

    So 5 years after the Boosh Dot com recession, Boosh had unemployment down under 5%. 5 Years after the CRA recession (created by the democrats), Obama still does not have it under 6%! And that is with a labor participation rate 4 points lower. 6+4=10. WOW! Obama is doing so well.

  140. philjourdan says:

    And the Dot com Bust and 9-11. JOel forgets to mention those.

    And how about CRA being changed under Clinton? He forgets that too. Of course Boosh took over before January 2001 as that is the only way he can blame it on Boosh.

  141. joeldshore says:

    Phil,

    I think little is served by continuing this further. You continue to come up with silly metrics to try to prove what you want to believe but they all basically just show that Obama inherited a much worse economy.

    People can read my posts for facts and figures that are backed up by links or they can read yours for silliness and deceptions and mythologies (like CRA caused the subprime mortgage crisis).

  142. joeldshore says:

    Call me a liar one more time without documentation, and I will get nasty on you Joel. So stop lying.

    If you don’t want to be called a “liar”, then you could start by admitting that your claim that “Obama has LOST 800,000 jobs” was blatantly false. You were counting from 14 months before Obama took office (and, of course, also cherrypicking the source of the job numbers …household survey vs. establishment survey…on top of it). Even counting from when Obama took office is not fair to him, since he inherited an economy incomplete freefall, losing 3/4 million jobs per month, so that millions of more jobs were lost before his policies could possibly start to take effect, but at least it is not an outright falsehood like your statement was.

  143. philjourdan says:

    @Joel Shore

    Your “opinion” does not count. I stated a fact. A fact is not a lie. Employment under Obama is down 800k at least. I did not state the reasons. The reasons may or may not be a lie. You can “ASSUME” anything you want. But as of January 20, 2009, Boosh’s signature was useless and only Obama’s amounted to anything. Period.

    You lied when you stated Obama had created 5.4m jobs. Even his own departments show that is a lie. But they show what I stated to be truthful.

    Notice that I never said anything about being “fair”. fair is a childish word used by children and adults who have not matured. It is also not objective.

    I take it you are ESL? Or are you still debating the meaning of the word “is”?

    And while not technically a “lie”, your disinformation about government jobs and Boosh is also not the whole truth. As those jobs were not “created”. They were transferred from the private sector to the public sector. So yes, using your statistics (which explains why your adjustments claim water now freezes at 40 degrees Fahrenheit) the number of private sector jobs under Boosh took a hit – thanks to DHS – when thousands of jobs were moved from the private sector to the public sector. Note the term. “Moved”. The jobs were not lost nor created.

  144. philjourdan says:

    @Joel Shore – the first thing you have gotten right so far. And no, I am not “coming up with”. The premise from the outset was jobs. Your lie of Boosh losing 5 million and Obama creating 5 million. I merely showed you the raw data (even adjusted by the Idiot in Chief). Even Obama cannot adjust his way to prosperity. Nor can you.

    I realize to an alarmist that raw data is both an anathema and fantasy. But that is your problem. Next time you want to debate the economy, try coming armed with raw data. A novel idea for most climate alarmists, but that is what works in the real world.

Comments are closed.