EPA CO2 comment deadline for cars and light trucks fast approaching – get your comments in now

Daniel Simmons writes:

Great work with Watts Up With That on the CRU email scandal. Hopefully this scandal will lead to increased openness in climate science.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/epa_logo_1.png

With all of the noise about those emails I wanted to bring your attention to an EPA comment period that closes this Friday. As you previously covered on Watts Up With That, EPA is working on declaring that CO2 and GHGs greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare under the Clean Air Act.  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/09/epa-sends-co2-endangerment-finding-to-the-white-house/

That endangerment finding is the first step to regulating GHGs and the second is to develop the actual regulations to regulate GHGs for cars and light trucks. On Friday, the comment period for EPA’s proposed regulations on cars and light trucks closes. It would be very helpful to push back on the proposed endangerment finding by pushing back on the proposed regulations on cars and light trucks and sending EPA as many comments as possible on the proposed GHG regulations for cars.

We want to make sure as many people as possible know about this proposed rule and generate as many comments as possible. To facilitate people sending comments to EPA on the proposed rule, we put up a page that contains a model comment to send to EPA. http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/contact_form/index2.php The model comment is completely modifiable.
Also, here is EPA’s Proposed Rule: http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations.htm

and a direct link to the Docket to submit comments to EPA is here: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472

People can also send email on this rule directly to EPA at a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.
It would be very helpful if you would let your readers know about this comment period. Because of Thanksgiving and the cap-and-trade bills, this proposed rule hasn’t gotten very much attention and yet it relies on the same science as EPA’s other regulations and will help trigger a regulatory cascade of EPA inserting itself into many areas of life because those activities emit GHGs.
Here’s more background:  To address climate change (and relying on the standards sources of climate science–the IPCC, NCDC, GISS, etc.) EPA is proposing to use the Clean Air Act to require 35 mpg fleetwide fuel economy standards by 2016—four years faster than Congress’ plan in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Not only will this rule drive up car and truck prices and limit consumer choice, it will start a regulatory cascade with EPA regulating GHGs using a number of sections of the Clean Air Act.

But EPA’s data show that the rule is all cost and no benefit. According to EPA, the proposed rule will increase car and truck prices an average $1,100. (74 Fed. Reg. 49460) As a result of less CO2 in the air, the rule will lead to decrease in global mean temperature by 16 thousandths of a degree Celsius (0.016°C) in 2100 and a decrease in mean sea level rise by 1.5 mm. (74 Fed. Reg. 49589) That’s not a joke—that’s what the rule says. Obviously 16 thousandths of a degree Celsius, 90 years down the road will not affect the climate in any way.

It would be bad enough if the rule only imposed exorbitant costs and with no benefits. But this will start the regulatory cascade that many of us have written about. To finalize this rule, EPA would also finalize their “endangerment finding” (in other words, EPA would find that GHGs from motor vehicles harm public health and welfare). CO2 and GHGs will become subject to National Ambient Air Quality Standards, New Sour Performance Standards, Hazardous Air Quality Standards, among other regulatory schemes.

If EPA makes an endangerment finding for GHGs, that action would make two permitting programs apply to GHGs—prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Title V. PSD applies to stationary sources which emit more than 250 tons a year and Title V applies to stationary sources which emit 250 tons per year. According to EPA, this would force as many as 6 million buildings (school, churches, hospitals, office buildings, farms, etc.) to comply with the Clean Air Act’s permitting provisions. To try to address this problem, EPA has proposed a “tailoring rule.” The point of the tailoring rule is that 250 tons per year of emissions can be read to mean 25,000 tons per year. Again, that’s not a joke:  http://www.openmarket.org/2009/10/01/epa-tailoring-rule-confirms-mass-v-epa-set-the-stage-for-administrative-quagmire-and-economic-disaster/

Advertisements

99 thoughts on “EPA CO2 comment deadline for cars and light trucks fast approaching – get your comments in now

  1. At least the EPA tells the truth; these proposed rules are exorbitantly expensive and will have no measurable effect.

  2. So, if the temperature is expected to rise by 6 degrees by 2100, this plan will reduce it to 5.984 C degrees. Well, halleluiah. We are saved.

    Are you sure this isn’t April 1st?

  3. AGW has never been about science. The EPA, the New Zeland and Australian Governments and soon our own (and the UN) are just using it as a club to drive the proles. Once cap & trade and Copenhagen are passed, we’ll hear as much about AGW as we’re now hearing about the ozone hole. Al Gore is already beginning his new crusade.

  4. If the EPA muzzled it’s own people like Alan Carlin what are the chances it will pay any attention to our comments???

  5. I’m sorry, but I have no more faith in our government. (lower case intentional) They were told not to pass a lot of this stuff by resounding numbers of constituents, but they pass it anyway. They don’t care, they don’t listen, they don’t represent me or my family. All I can do now is to wish them great amounts of ill will and to rejoice in any misfortune that visits them.

    I guess that makes me a bad person.

    So be it.

  6. Didn’t we do this before? Lisa Jackson will greet each and every email sent with the stone cold silence of a graveyard.
    It’s like those junk email scams. Suckers wanting to believe there is really someone who needs their help fall for the Nigerian scam to this day.

    btw… Ed Begley Jr. blew up and lost his shirt on interview today.
    He’s sold on the CRU professional papers as the one and only creditable source of climate science.

  7. DONE:
    Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472

    RE: Proposed Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not justified in regulating carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. These regulations will only increase the cost of our cars, harm our economy, and limit our transportation options. We need efficient, affordable transportation to rebuild our economy and create American jobs.

    DUE TO THE RECENT RELEASE OF EMAILS AND OTHER DATA FROM THE “Climatic Research Institute at the University of East Anglia” which has direct influence over the IPCC, this proposed rulemaking as well as any others related to Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards must be halted until an independent review of any Climate Temperature increase due to CO2 has been Scientifically Verified and all data for this determination has been made public, along with the computer model used!

    According to the proposed regulations, EPA wants to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks, “because of the critical need to address global climate change.” (74 Fed. Reg. 49454).This regulation does not achieve EPA’s stated goal because, according to EPA data, it does not reduce global warming or sea level rise in a meaningful way. The regulation states that the carbon dioxide reductions “are projected to reduce global mean temperature by approximately 0.007–0.016°C by 2100, and global mean sea level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.06–0.15 cm by 2100.”

    To be clear, EPA is proposing to increase the price of automobiles by $1,100 per car (74 Fed. Reg. 49460) in exchange for (according to EPA) a global temperature decrease of 16 thousandths of a degree Celsius in 90 years. Also, according to EPA, sea level won’t rise by an extra 1.5 millimeters. These tiny amounts are so inconsequential that they will not affect global climate at all nor will they affect “public health and welfare” (See Clean Air Act Sec. 202).

    The proposed regulations will harm our economy. A few years ago, the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated that increasing fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 would cost the car companies $114 billion. (See Detroit News, “Fuel Plan Would Cost Big Three” (March 1, 2007). Inexplicably, today NHTSA claims that achieving the 35 miles per gallon fleetwide standard by 2016, four years earlier, would cost only $60 billion. (75 Fed. Reg. 49479). This change from NHTSA is not credible. The cost of technology-forcing regulations do not decrease by half as a result of companies only having half the time to comply with the regulations.

    EPA and NHTSA’s plan will increase costs for car companies and further reduce auto company jobs. Higher priced cars and trucks will make life more difficult for American families who need affordable transportation options.

    To make matters worse, these regulations would start a regulatory cascade. EPA would start regulating emissions from millions of sources, including large buildings, churches, sports arenas, office buildings, farms, schools, hospitals—you name it. EPA will be forced to regulate greenhouse gases with many sections of the Clean Air Act, including sections 108, 111, and 112. This will further harm our economy, reduce American jobs, and worsen our employment situation. NHTSA already has the ability to regulate fuel economy without EPA further harming the economy.

    Lastly, we care about our families’ safety as much as the Secret Service cares about the President’s safety. There is a clear correlation between size and weight of a vehicle and its safety. That is why the President’s limo only gets a reported 8 mpg, not 35 mpg. The Secret Service should not have to cut corners in keeping the President safe, just as we should not have to cut corners to keep our families safe.

    EPA should not regulate carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. These regulations will make our high unemployment even worse. It does not make sense for EPA to reduce American jobs, increase the price of cars and trucks, and make America less economically competitive in exchange for an immeasurable and meaningless reduction in global temperature.

  8. Nice picture of steam pouring out the to of the stack…

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/975648/we-must-be-credible-on-climate-turnbull

    From the article…

    “The cost impact of Labor’s carbon pollution reduction scheme – from higher energy and food prices – is estimated to be $976 a year.

    “We will be giving them over $1000 compensation,” Senator Wong told the Fairfax Radio Network on Wednesday.”

    And who said it wasn’t about tax and wealth redistribution? So not only does my energy and food and everything else get more expensive, I’ll have to support “families” too. Thanks Rudd and Wong.

    Jobs will take a dive as, what little manufacturing still left in Australia, will head to China. Also, I believe voters will be a bit miffed Mr Rubb and Ms Wong when they realise taxpayers, us, will be subsidising the coal industry to the tune of AU$7bil p/a. Corporate welfare at its best.

    Think they’ll have a little shock next election.

  9. The only reason Kevin Rudd (Australian PM) wants to rush through the ETS/CPRS is so that he can triumphantly go to Copenhagen and say “see, we were the first!” Aren’t I wonderful! All part of his egomaniacal plan to become the next secretary of the UN…

  10. I have another ace in the hole against those sick twisted screwballs besides the Sun being in a solar minimum, lowering the planet’s temperature laying all their junk science to waste.

    The US is statistically guaranteed to have a dollar crisis within a relatively short period of time making it impossible for those bad people to implement their control freak socialist Marxist agenda. Universal health care, carbon tax, not going to happen. It is statically impossible for us to continue to fund two wars and fund the grandiose socialist programs before we go completely bankrupt with our debt obligations now running at over 100 trillion dollars.

    I’m watching the dollar collapse before my very eyes right now and happening at a continual accelerating pace. The complete and total economic collapse of the US is statistically guaranteed to happen, and pretty soon I might add, and I welcome it with open arms, because it is the only thing that will make the bad people stop doing what they are doing to us.

    Want to watch it with me while it happens?
    http://www.dollarcollapse.com/default.asp
    http://www.usdebtclock.org/

  11. This is a speech in the European Parliament, by one of its Nationalist MEPs.

    Hits the nail on the head, I feel. When will the liberal left realise they have got it all wrong?

    (PS Isn’t it strange that climate, of all things, has become a political football !!! )

    .

  12. Sorry, I am a convinced skeptic, but I cannot see how establishing some limit on emissions for cars can be a bad thing to do. A less emitting car is a car that uses less fuel. Upon combustion, it is not only CO2 that you produce, there are other polutants too, real polutants. Less fuel consumption means less polutants in the air. Not to mention that if you use less fuel you are certainly saving money. I would like that law to come true, although I know very well it will do nothing related to saving the world from a supposedly terrible global warming. The reasons are different.

  13. Last chance for Australians to reject massive new taxes.

    Rudd Attempts to Bribe Carbon “Polluters” to Get Law Passed

    The Australian government has made a last ditch effort to win over opposition parliamentarians to its proposed carbon emissions trading laws after agreeing to at least double compensation to the coal and electricity generation sectors.

    The latest amendments, which must win support from the opposition Liberal party if the government is to have its law passed by the country’s upper house senate later this week, follows an earlier decision to exclude the agricultural sector from its planned emissions trading scheme.

    Under the changes, assistance to the coal industry will double to A$1.5bn (US$1.4bn), while power generators, which chiefly burn brown coal, will be awarded A$7.3bn worth of free permits over 10 years. More than A$1bn has also been offered to assist manufacturing and mining businesses handle higher electricity prices.

    Kevin Rudd, Australia’s prime minister, wants the scheme passed into law before the Copenhagen climate change summit next month. Mr Rudd is keen to take a leadership role at the summit and was last month asked by Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Danish prime minister, to serve as a ”friend” of the chair, along with Mexico and the United Nations.

    However, Mr Rudd’s watered down emissions trading scheme has been attacked by Australia’s Green party because it does not go far enough, while the National party has vowed to reject the legislation outright arguing it imposed a massive tax on Australian business and community at a time when other countries had yet to rule on their schemes.

    The issue has also been divisive for Malcolm Turnbull’s Liberal party, which holds the key for the government’s plans to have the scheme passed. Mr Turnbull, a former environment minister in the previous Australian government, has had to stare down climate sceptics from within his own party amid threats to his own leadership.

    The Liberal shadow ministry is thought to back the government’s amendments to at least double compensation payments to the coal and power generating industries but Mr Turnbull is yet to secure support from the wider party room.

    The Greens on Tuesday rejected the government’s amendments, saying the proposed legislation was “worse than useless”. “There is absolutely no way we will be voting for a scheme like that,” a Greens spokesperson said. “The Greens oppose the CPRS [carbon pollution reduction scheme] as it stands not because it is too weak but because it will actually point Australia in the wrong direction with no prospect of turning it around in the 2015 time frame within which emissions must peak. “This is why we say it is not just a failure, but it locks in failure,” the Greens said.

    However, Mr Rudd urged parliamentarians to back the amended scheme. A failure to reach agreement would be to ”roll the dice” with the future of Australia’s children, Mr Rudd said. ”Act for the future, not for the past. Act for your children. Act for your grandchildren,” he said. “Failing to act today is the riskiest course of action available to the parliament.

  14. I’m sure there is another Hockey Stick to be found and broken in the ice core CO2 records which are spliced onto the Mauna Loa records.

    Perhaps laws passed because of something that later turns out to be fraudulent, can be declared void later on. But meanwhile, consider that even the CO2 ice core record may be wrong or even fraudulent, because of multiple practical problems in the extracting, transporting, storing, and measuring of ice core samples, and it needs auditing.

    Free the data; free the metadata; free the code; free the debate.

  15. In the Australian Senate, the ETS bill still might not pass, if enough of the more conservative opposition senators refuse to follow the orders of the party leaders. The Greens will not support the bill because they believe it is not radical enough. The others who oppose the bill are already being castigated roundly in the media as palæolithic deniers, of course. It seems remarkable that the left-of-centre parties throughout the world (even if they hate the others) are so equally and persistently enamoured of the idea that human inventive, technical ingenuity cannot solve any problem lobbed at us by nature, but that bureaucrats will solve all if given enough money.
    Meanwhile, so very many media comments-pages and blogs and other sites, particularly left-leaning ones are smugly dismissive of those who ask genuine, sceptical questions as denialist trolls, and dismiss the CRUcial e-mails with the official RealClimate party line.
    (Sites such as this, I must say, are like shining oases in the vast desert of willful ignorance and folly.)

  16. Ahhh guys, we’ve had an ETS since 2007. The AMENDED bill National has passed has actually watered down a lot of the potency of the Labour ETS.

    If anything this is going to allow increases in our emissions compared to the old one.

  17. They hard-coded the hockey stick into the program which draws the curve! And with the fudge factor they can alter how much the curve bends like the want it to…
    To sum up the FUDGE FACTOR postings so far:

    Willis Eschenbach (18:59:05) :
    This is interesting:
    From the progrm file FOI2009/FOIA/documents/harris-treebriffa_sep98_e.pro

    ;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
    ;
    yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
    valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
    2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
    if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
    ;
    ; Now normalise w.r.t. 1881-1960
    ;
    mknormal,densadj,x,refperiod=[1881,1960],refmean=refmean,refsd=refsd
    mknormal,densall,x,refperiod=[1881,1960],refmean=refmean,refsd=refsd
    ;
    ; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
    ;
    yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
    densall=densall+yearlyadj

    That is more than interesting. It is a perfect example of why the code needs to be released. [..] But look at what they are actually doing. They are fudging the numbers by an arbitrary amount to get the result they want. You probably understand this code, but let me see if I can explain it in English for those who don’t.
    First, they put together a list of numbers that will be used to calculate the yearly adjustment. The numbers start at zero, get a bit smaller, and then gradually increase. This list is called “valadjust”.

    valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]

    At the end of their calculations, they use valadj to make a yearly adjustment string, yearadj, by interpolating (taking intermediate values) from the values in valadj. This gives a value for each year, by which each year’s data will be adjusted up or down.
    densall=densall+yearlyadj

    But of course, they’re fudging things, so it won’t come out right the first time. To control the process, they put in a “fudge factor”, a single number that they can use to change the size of all the data adjustments. This is the “fudge factor” referred to in the code, which at the moment is set to 0.75. This is the 0.75 at the end of the line for setting up the valadj values:

    valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
    2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

    They are using arbitrary values plus a fudge factor to make the result just what they want …

    ——–

    Or here (it is IDL not plain Fortran):

    debreuil (04:25:44) :
    Ok, haven’t done fortran in 20 years, but if I read this right, it is creating a weighting hash for each 5 year period starting in 1904 (two arrays, 1st is year, second is weighting). The forties area are multiplied by as much as -.3, then in 1960 the ‘fudge’ creeps positive, up to 2.6 in 1980 onwards. It then interpolates this over the data. Please correct if this is wrong…
    1904 0.
    1909 0.
    1914 0.
    1919 0.
    1924 0.
    1929 -0.1
    1934 -0.25
    1939 -0.3
    1944 0.
    1949 -0.1
    1954 0.3
    1959 0.8
    1964 1.2
    1969 1.7
    1974 2.5
    1979 2.6
    1984 2.6
    1989 2.6
    1994 2.6
    1999 2.6
    original code (..FOIA..documents..osborn-tree6..briffa_sep98_d.pro)
    ;
    ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
    ;
    yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
    valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
    2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
    if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
    ;
    yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

  18. Just had to add this one to illustrate just how bad the education systems are getting. A UK teacher’s union, the Professional Association of Teachers, wants to replace the word “fail” in the classrom with “deferred success”.

    http://failblog.org/2009/11/25/deferred-success-fail/

    Ha! The CRU beat them to it. I guess all TV media other than FNC (and mostly Glenn Beck there) completely ignoring the CRUtape Letters is them hoping for “deferred success”.

    Another good one is the IgNobel prize awarded for the Dunning-Krueger effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

    “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments” In other words the bloody incompetent a-holes that somehow get promoted to positions of authority and only manage to screw things up while thinking they’re doing just fine, no matter what everyone around them says.

  19. I hate to be cynica, but you can’t possibly believe that Browner & Co. at the EPA intend to pay the slightest attention to any comments or evidence contrary to their agenda. The law requires public comment and hearings before new regulations can go into effect. The regulations are already written, ready to be issued in the Federal Register the minute the law allows them to be issued.

  20. C’mon you lazy British bastards, sign the petition!

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/HADLEY-LEAK/

    Do you want to pay trillions of pounds for a fraudulent cause so that the rich fascist elite can be the only ones to eat meat, drive cars, and have kids? Next, the AGW zealots will tell us “NO MORE SEX FOR YOU PEONS. CREATES TOO MUCH HEAT & CO2. BAD FOR GLOBAL WARMING.”

  21. @ Michael (00:30:48)

    Michael, there are those who believe total collapse of our system from within is exactly the desired results. Take a look at the Cloward-Pivin theory, promulgated by progressives. Just as a starter, a link from googling Cloward-Piven, with a short excerpt of the article (fyi, many links to further info embedded in the actual article online that haven’t come thru in this copied bit):

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/the_clowardpiven_strategy_of_e.html

    -SNIP-
    Obama adheres to the Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals method of politics, which teaches the dark art of destroying political adversaries. However, that text reveals only one front in the radical left’s war against America. The Cloward/Piven Strategy is another method employed by the radical Left to create and manage crisis. This strategy explains Rahm Emanuel’s ominous statement, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

    The Cloward/Piven Strategy is named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. Their goal is to overthrow capitalism by overwhelming the government bureaucracy with entitlement demands. The created crisis provides the impetus to bring about radical political change.

    According to Discover the Networks.org:

    Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation… [Emphasis added.]

    -SNIP- (continued online at link provided above)

  22. Gregg E. (02:13:46) : -SNIP- In other words the bloody incompetent a-holes that somehow get promoted to positions of authority and only manage to screw things up while thinking they’re doing just fine, no matter what everyone around them says.

    ——–

    Long known as “The Peter Principle” e.g., One inevitably gets promoted to the level that is just beyond/above one’s real level of competence.

  23. The AGW fraud in one sentence — Pay more taxes to the government, so government scientists can pretend to control the weather.

    The bad news, we all know it is pretend science now.

  24. ;
    ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
    ;
    yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
    valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
    2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
    if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
    ;
    yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

    Wow, smoking gun? I can hardly believe it! I don’t know Fortran (I’m a C++/C# developer); is yrloc defining a range (1400 -> findgen(19)…) or is it defining a two dimensional array? How is “yearlyadj” subsequently applied to actual temperature data?

    Dumb question of the week: what is the theoretical basis for the number series [0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
    2.6,2.6,2.6] having any significance to the historic temperature record? What does the $ sign mean in fortran (or IDL)?

  25. The entire scam and all attempts to tax, regulate and limit CO2 emissions are under questions as the science is disputed.

    So the only way to tacle this is to demand a total stop of any legislation directed at CO2 until we have got the science right.

    For me it’s unbelievable that our political establishment continues to push their agenda when the core of the scientists that produced the scientific reports are suspect of scientific fraud.

    That should be the message to EPA.

    And the US population should go into the streets in protest.

    You can no longer afford to wait for the next elections. This is an acute emergency and it will determine your future.

    Your moment is now.

  26. This is the way to go:
    http://algorelied.com/?p=3271

    All Americans should support Inofe with his quest for INVESTIGATION.

    This is our chance to stop the current process and get the science right.

    So go to the Hill and D E M AN D a P U B L I C I N V E S T I G A T I O N of C L I M A T E G A T E.

    This is your chance, you don’t get a second one.

  27. Nylo (01:18:39) :

    “Sorry, I am a convinced skeptic, but I cannot see how establishing some limit on emissions for cars can be a bad thing to do. A less emitting car is a car that uses less fuel. Upon combustion, it is not only CO2 that you produce, there are other polutants too, real polutants. Less fuel consumption means less polutants in the air. Not to mention that if you use less fuel you are certainly saving money. I would like that law to come true, although I know very well it will do nothing related to saving the world from a supposedly terrible global warming. The reasons are different.’
    So you want to regulate a CO2,non toxic gas, to reduce the real polutants?
    Make your argument that’s a sound policy

  28. Petition the Law Makers to Stop this Scam

    They say we’ll loose a little Freedom, what’s the fuss
    Freedom is Cheep there’s plenty of it
    It was only bought with the others blood
    The Stick is broken Open your eyes
    The MWP was grafted Upside Down
    Stop believing, The IPCC lies
    Set may CO2 FREE and STOP insanity
    I Will Not go down that California Road to Prosperity
    The Question remains, the Question is bound
    What side will You be on, LAW MAKER
    As the Team goes Down
    Will You fight for my Liberties
    Or sell your Soul for a piece of gold?

    By FIRE ANT

  29. Nylo (01:18:39) : I find it fascinating every winter when oxygenating compounds are added to the gasoline here to ‘reduce emissions’, and coincidentally I get about 8% fewer miles per gallon. This is true for the past twenty years and 5-6 vehicles. Care to explain how that works?

  30. OT I guess, but related, as all topics recently are really. Was talking to a friend here at home tonight in Sydney at dinner, previously was “worried” about “climate change” and “carbon pollution” and “something should be done” about it, sort of a “believer” in AGW. I tried to explain to them that the images we see in the MSM of stacks will billowing clouds of, in their opinion CO2, were actually steam. Didn’t wear in the past. Oh hum!

    Anyway, seems Australia is commited to an ETS as of today which will cost, an estimated (And we all know about govn’t estimates are *VERY* conservative) $1100 p/a per taxpayer (Thanks KRudd747 and Ms Wrong), and they said to me tonight and I quote;

    “We’ve been tricked.”

    No sheet Shirlock.

    Funny how he’d used the word “trick”-ed. And they are not privvy to Dr. Phil Jones use of the word.

    No sheet Shirlock! I warned ya…

  31. I sent in my message, but I added a lead paragraph and I suggest many readers do the same to add impact and make these seem less “choreographed”, though perhaps I am niave to think anyone reads and consuiders them… Anyways, my lead paragraph, though politely worded discussed the future prospects for the EPA’s longevity if they violate the will of the American Nation they are charged with protection. I suggested 4 neutrally worded questions be sent out in a poll to allow them to understand just what kind of anger and condemnation they may soon be facing if they carry on. Question #2: If the EPA restricts the emmision of CO2 and the economy suffers and workers lose their jobs, should the EPA be closed? I reminded them that the more political they become and the less they maintain their mandated role, the less secure their longevity becomes. 2010 will see a more neutral congress. 2012 will see a new party in the White House. How many of thse making these irrational decision will be OK to retuire before then, my guess is not very many. They are threatening our financial security, they need to atleast consider their own likely fate…

  32. “Nylo (01:18:39) :

    Sorry, I am a convinced skeptic, but I cannot see how establishing some limit on emissions for cars can be a bad thing to do. A less emitting car is a car that uses less fuel.”

    That’s not entirely true, as it depends how those emissions are measured. There was a time when fuel was a “premium product”, but it was expensive to make in large volumes.

    “Upon combustion, it is not only CO2 that you produce, there are other polutants too, real polutants.”

    That is true. S02, NOX, PM10 particulates for diesel fules etc. CO2 however, is not a pollutant.

    “Less fuel consumption means less polutants in the air. Not to mention that if you use less fuel you are certainly saving money.”

    Oh how wrong you are. You won’t save money, gauranteed. An example for you; In New Zealand there is a Road User Charge (RUC) on fuel. This was “levied” in about 1972, apparently to raise money for road building and maintenace (And some roads in Ethiopia are better than those in NZ). Strangely, and still today, ~50% goes into what is called the “consolidated fund”, meaning pollies pockets in the form of guilt edge pension funds and unlimited taxpayer funded jollies. Then, in the early 90’s the Gummint realised cars were more fuel efficient, ie , more MPG, *LESS* revenue from the RUC. The RUC was raised. Funny that, eh? Get a more effcient car, and pay more tax.

    “I would like that law to come true, although I know very well it will do nothing related to saving the world from a supposedly terrible global warming.”

    What warming (Outside normal variability and CRU/IPCC computer trash)?

    You need to look less at your TV and look more into books.

  33. With regards to the code, let me see if I’m getting this right. They have a set of values – tree ring widths, going back 1000 years. They look at the last 120 years to see if there is a correlation with measured temps. They find one between 1881 – 1924. 1944 also happens to correlate with the tree ring width for that year, but not the period between 1924 – 1944, and not the period after 1944. So they truncate the dataset of trees down until they find twelve that show a rising trend, but even then it still doesn’t correlate with measured temps.
    So they add a fudge factor to get them over this problem, with the added benefit of being able to adjust it to show more or less, according to their needs.
    For all their education, that has got to be one of the ugliest hacks I’ve ever seen. No wonder they wouldn’t release the data. Treemometers really don’t make good thermometers.

  34. Nylo (01:18:39) :

    “Sorry, I am a convinced skeptic, but I cannot see how establishing some limit on emissions for cars can be a bad thing to do. A less emitting car is a car that uses less fuel. Upon combustion, it is not only CO2 that you produce, there are other polutants too, real polutants. Less fuel consumption means less polutants in the air…”

    Somehow you see causality where I don’t believe it necessarily exists. Lower emissions don’t reduce fuel consumption. In fact, I suspect emissions restrictions cause fuel consumption to increase.

    That notwithstanding, our vehicles emit VERY little pollution when compared to cars from 20-30 years ago. I remember US cities enveloped in yellow-brown haze and brown smoke pouring out of tunnels. By the way, your limits on emissions show up in the form of catalytic converters. In fact, I have to have my cars tested by next month to ensure they meet some bureaucrat’s measure of acceptable emissions.

    Government intervention in the free market is a losing proposition. However, I’ll grant them some leeway in the areas of safety (i.e. seat belts). [even safety can be regulated in the free market…Saab and Volvo success due to their attention to crach protection] Restrictions such as traffic laws should be the purview of state govts – nod feds.

    EPA should go the way of the do-do.

  35. Nylo (01:18:39) :

    “Sorry, I am a convinced skeptic, but I cannot see how establishing some limit on emissions for cars can be a bad thing to do. A less emitting car is a car that uses less fuel. Upon combustion, it is not only CO2 that you produce, there are other polutants too, real polutants. Less fuel consumption means less polutants in the air.”

    Nylo, sorry, but yours is just about the stupidest comment anyone can make. People like you are the reason that CO2 has been demonized — your ridiculous collapse of logic disenables all scientific thinking. If you want to control the pollutants, then control them; don’t falsely identify a non-pollutant to do your work for you. “Less fuel consumption means less pollutants in the air?” Well, less fuel consumption also means that less and less gets done and we have fewer and fewer resources– declining industry, declining travel, declining living conditions, etc.

    If you want to put your passion and commitment to positive use (instead of the evil your position enables), support abundant fuel use of the most economic kind — with pollution controls (yes, clean coal is still messy, but so much less so than in the past) — and let us continue to make technological progress. As soon as it is financially feasible and competitive, lower (or different) fuel-using cars and trucks will be “invented”. Our history from the 19th century proves this to be so. When we become affluent, we clean up things — because we have the resources to do so!!! You have the argument bass-ackward.

    Also, listen to Dr. Pielke. It’is land-use change (human-caused!) that is the greatest cause of “climate change” in a variety of micro-climates and regions. When land is stripped of its natural resources and natural functions, we create problems far greater than that of the pollution of fuel use. Please wake up to your stupidity.

  36. What Nick Griffin said is correct, unfortunately his party is widely derided in the UK for various reasons (mainly race related).

    I hope UKIP will pick up and run with this stance – they already are very realistic on Global Warming – as it would be a huge vote winner for them.

    The Tories are seeing their lead cut. If only the penny would drop with them on this issue, they’d have a landslide win next year.

  37. Here in the US, you may as well give the car business to the Koreans and Chinese. As pointed out above the $100 BB or so for the domestic automakers to reach this goal will bankrupt them (again.) Also, many of the pickup trucks and SUV’s produced are working vehicles used by small businesses, so all you are doing is raising the costs for the segment of the economy that generates 80% of new jobs. With what is going on in Washington, the employment picture will NEVER get better.

    The other thing that people don’t really realize, is that pollution (which by the way does NOT include CO2) generated by cars is down 95% in the last 50 years. The cost to remove the rest is prohibitive and the benefit is undetectable.

  38. Re:

    old construction worker (04:35:59) :

    and

    pyromancer76 (05:50:40) :

    Maybe I have misunderstood, but I though that this post was about a particular aspect of the Clean Air Act, which is limiting the fuel consumption for cars and light trucks. It is THAT particular aspect of the law, which is based on CO2 emissions but has other desirable side effects, that I don’t oppose to. If the law, appart from limiting the fuel consumption for cars and trucks, does something else which is not described in the post and affects other parts of the economy with taxes based on CO2 emissions, then of course I oppose to it.

  39. To anyone here who doesn’t think carbon tax is about the money,
    here is a quote from today’s paper. I’m from London, Ontario in
    Canada. The London free press Nov. 25-2009. Article “Ontario
    Progress Must Be Rewarded”. In it Dalton McGuinty says “There’s
    going to be real money to be found in carbon emission reductions”.
    So there you have it, right from the horses(asses?) mouth. Beaureaucrats
    around the world are simply salivating at the thought of this wonderful
    windfall of cash. The science is irrelevant. It’s what the masses believe
    that counts.

  40. Breaking News:

    Obaka is going to Copenhagen.

    Moving before the tide leaves him high and dry, I’m thinking.

  41. Can I ask: How do scientists use ice-core samples to discover past temperatures? I just watched a youtube video in 4 parts by professor Carter: CO2 is it responsible for global warming. Wherein he shows that before the present Holocene period,temperatures fluctuated by up to 1.5degC/DECADE! from ice-core samples.How do they derive the temperature from the ice-cores,Please?

  42. Nylo (01:18:39) :

    Sorry, I am a convinced skeptic, but I cannot see how establishing some limit on emissions for cars can be a bad thing to do. A less emitting car is a car that uses less fuel. Upon combustion, it is not only CO2 that you produce, there are other polutants too, real polutants. Less fuel consumption means less polutants in the air. Not to mention that if you use less fuel you are certainly saving money. I would like that law to come true, although I know very well it will do nothing related to saving the world from a supposedly terrible global warming. The reasons are different.

    Essentially what you are saying is that the ends justify the means. Sorry, no they don’t. The AGW Lie has to be exposed and destroyed, the EPA is in the process of codifying that lie, and if you think they will stop with cars and trucks then I have a very nice bridge for sale at a bargain price.

  43. PrezObama is going to Copenhagen. Heard it on the news this morning. We are doomed, at least temporarily.

    Although I know it won’t make any difference I submitted the below comment:

    CO2 is not a pollutant. Rather, CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. We, and all animals, exhale CO2. If you regulate it, you are literally regulating whether I can breathe or not. If that’s not totalitarianism, I don’t know what is. The Federal Government doesn’t have the right to regulate what I exhale. Nope, not in the Constitution anyplace!

    Furthermore, all this climate hysteria is a result of the likes of Micheal Mann and Phil Jones who have been exposed as frauds who did not follow the Scientific Method even remotely. They are also exposed as likely criminals in at least 2 countries by colluding to avoid/deny/delay Freedom of Information Requests in the USA and the UK. That is criminal and they cannot be trusted!

  44. @Steve Keohane (04:59:47) :

    Nylo (01:18:39) : I find it fascinating every winter when oxygenating compounds are added to the gasoline here to ‘reduce emissions’, and coincidentally I get about 8% fewer miles per gallon. This is true for the past twenty years and 5-6 vehicles. Care to explain how that works?

    ——-

    Sure, its the law of unintended consequences, L-O-B-B-Y-I-S-T-S, and VESTED SPECIAL INTERESTS [and utter insanity rules the roost].

  45. Science starts and ends with observation.

    “This is January weather”, to quote Kevin Trenberth in October. Really?

    What kills me about the whole AGW delusion, is that no matter what we do to try to change the atmosphere, none of us will live long enough to ever know if it made any difference AT ALL in world temperature. One big volcano and every mitigation was a waste. Maybe we should instead make up a Volcano Prayer for the Salvation of the Planet. Makes as much sense, possibly more.

    I try to imagine how it could be 11F here the last two mornings.

    This garbage about mini millimeters of sea level rise and micro fractions of degrees in this EPA action are just unimaginable arrogance on the part of geeks who sit in city cubicles. They would be better off reading the Farmers’ Almanac.

    Please continue to let us know where to express our outrage and disbelief as this charade continues.

  46. The Verdict is out, spread the message:
    “Scientists” falsified the databases on which alarmist models are based. The reports of the IPCC are untenable — their “scientific” basis has been demolished.

    So too the whole “sustainable” energy industry. Money talks, but money can also walk, and it will, when recognition of the fraud spreads. Support for alternative energy projects will fade. There is no cause for vast subsidies. Carbon fuels can be phased out slowly, through market forces, as more efficient and cheaper sources of energy are developed.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/climate_fraud_and_the_environm.html

    from: http://www.seablogger.com

  47. Nylo (01:18:39)
    Oh my, nothing wrong wanting less fuel consumption, who wouldn’t those days, but please skip the BS.

  48. old construction worker (04:35:59) :

    Nylo (01:18:39) :

    “Sorry, I am a convinced skeptic, but I cannot see how establishing some limit on emissions for cars can be a bad thing to do. A less emitting car is a car that uses less fuel. Upon combustion, it is not only CO2 that you produce, there are other polutants too, real polutants. Less fuel consumption means less polutants in the air. Not to mention that if you use less fuel you are certainly saving money. I would like that law to come true, although I know very well it will do nothing related to saving the world from a supposedly terrible global warming. The reasons are different.’
    So you want to regulate a CO2,non toxic gas, to reduce the real polutants?
    Make your argument that’s a sound policy”

    I agree with your view that it is a good thing to make cars more fuel efficient and cleaner but not for the wrong reasons and with potentially negative results for passenger security and user specifications.
    There are still big gains to be achieved by making the combustion engine more efficient and “cleaner” and we certainly should stimulate that.
    But there will arrive at a point where weight saving measures and loading capacity could get compromised by those EPA rules. For me that’s a bridge too far.

  49. In the Netherlands a lot of effort has been invested to build a bus with a low center of gravity to prevent it from turning over, statistically a serious cause for bus accidents.

    What did they do with that bus?

    They installed an entire battery of natural gas cylinders on the roof.
    This seriously undermines the safety of the bus.

    I am all in for efficient vehicles and clean air but I reject any plan that compromises the safety of a vehicle, especially if it is used for public transport.

  50. Forget about CO2. The world isn’t warming anymore so it can’t be CO2.

    Henrik Svensmark nailed the answer to the wall right in front of them in ’96 and they laughed at him. Here’s what caused global warming, watch:

    They won’t be laughing at Svensmark now. He got access to an old particle accelerator in Switzerland. The experiments are being condicted right now:
    http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html

    They’ll have irrefutable proof in the Spring, but you don’t have to wait that long because the now quiet Sun is causing exactly what Svensmark predicted. Do none of these charlatans have a backbone? They all know the truth now. The first one among them who stands up and shouts “Stop!” will be a hero.

    If they don’t own up long before Copenhagen they risk condemning humanity to the guilt of an original sin they didn’t commit and a life of working to buy indulgences for breathing.

    Watch the Youtube video up there, it wasn’t really warming; it’s a cycle.

  51. I do not intend to be argumentative with this comment, so I won’t argue if folks want to criticize it. I just thought I’d put in my 2 cents. :)

    While I disagreed strongly with the original endangerment finding (and submitted my own comment), I cannot bring myself to disagree with this proposed change. Many of the arguments I see above are classic examples of the slippery slope fallacy, wherein Action A is declared to be bad not because it in and of itself is bad, but because it could lead to Actions B, C, and D which are bad. I do not subscribe to this type of thinking.

    I personally believe that it is our responsibility to do sensible things to reduce our impact on the environment. This is why I strongly support incentives for individuals and businesses to increase use of renewable energy, realistic proposals to reduce fossil fuel dependence (such as nuclear power), alterations to the residential and commercial building codes to improve energy efficiency, and, yes, increasing fuel efficiency for vehicles.

    What I am adamantly opposed to are proposals that serve more to cater to a particular special interest and/or increase tax revenue (and, by extension, depress economic growth) such as cap-and-trade schemes, continued funding of unprofitable and counterproductive enterprises like corn ethanol, and energy taxes.

    I felt strongly enough about the original EPA endangerment finding to submit my own comment. However, I cannot bring myself to submit a comment on this particular issue.

  52. The Denialists are complaining about the code? Wake up. The data was just as bad. Garbage-in-garbage-out is a phrase used to describe bad information being fed to a computer giving useless results.

    These geniuses took it to a whole new level:

    They put garbage data into a garbage program and managed to get it to give whatever answer they wanted! Nobel Prizes all round!

    Here’s the laureates’ winning equation: *drumroll*

    Garbage into Garbage = Whatever you want!!

  53. “Wow, smoking gun? I can hardly believe it! I don’t know Fortran (I’m a C++/C# developer); is yrloc defining a range (1400 -> findgen(19)…) or is it defining a two dimensional array? How is “yearlyadj” subsequently applied to actual temperature data?

    Dumb question of the week: what is the theoretical basis for the number series [0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
    2.6,2.6,2.6] having any significance to the historic temperature record? What does the $ sign mean in fortran (or IDL)?”

    ^^^^^^^^^^
    Yes indeed. I wrote forcasting models in fortran (years ago)and they weighted the heat in the 30’s downward and the recent heat upward. Who needs a thermometer?
    By adding so much in the last years, it bends the curve upward and sharply steepens the slope. Mann bent the line to create a vector. Taking the last 2-3 points, we have a steep slope in a vector and he uses the tree proxy (singular) to negate the actual temp reading.

    If you use his formula and altered data, you replicate his resuslts. If you assess the raw data and create an equation from your own analysis, you can’t replicate his results.
    Now to answer the “dumb question”. What is the basis for adjusting the data by reason of weighting in certain years?

    It is personal preference. It gets them the number they want the Power Point presentation to show.

  54. Everyone seems to forget that
    USA UK Australia New Zealand et al CONNIVED
    with the hacked scientists to
    get the results they got–

    They would have received no funding if
    they had not made it clear to their masters that they would
    produce positive agw results —

    they would have been simply persecuted like
    all other agw opponents had there been
    any hint that they would NOT fudge
    the data.

    In fact the emails are so outrageous–and possibly
    unnecessary–that it appears that
    the intention may have been to
    have them forwarded to
    certain govt officials to show them
    the efforts being exerted on their behest
    and perhaps encourage more funding–

    Contrary to the media fecal spin that
    USA UK Australia New Zealand et al
    are not neck deep in this fraud–

    USA UK Australia New Zealand et al

    did pillory castige and still
    intend to prosecute(under antiterror laws) those scientists and
    pundits opposed to the
    agw train–
    the fact that the wheels are coming off
    this govt backed runaway train has no effect
    on it –there are no brakes –it will roar ahead
    like any other imbecilic govt backed policy–
    and long after the total wreck the
    history books will still be
    glowingly portraying
    the remarkable forsight of the
    sponsoring govt officials–
    (contrast the prosecution and
    guillotining of the pioneering utah cold
    fusion scientists 20 years ago vs the current
    resurgence of cold fusion research with no mention
    of them or their achievements)–

    anyway–
    here is a bit of current reality
    weather as opposed to climate

    Early sea ice formation traps
    Greenland towns and stops supplies
    until spring–
    http://sermitsiaq.gl/indland/article103562.ece?lang=EN

    First time in 20 years–
    Early sea ice formation traps
    Greenland narwhales in ice
    and they are shot–
    http://sermitsiaq.gl/indland/article103734.ece?lang=EN

    http://englishrussia.com/?p=2495

    http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/hires/global.xml

  55. Everyone seems to forget that
    USA UK Australia New Zealand et al CONNIVED
    with the hacked scientists to
    get the results they got–

    They would have received no funding if
    they had not made it clear to their masters that they would
    produce positive agw results —

    they would have been simply persecuted like
    all other agw opponents had there been
    any hint that they would NOT fudge
    the data.

    In fact the emails are so outrageous–and possibly
    unnecessary–that it appears that
    the intention may have been to
    have them forwarded to
    certain govt officials to show them
    the efforts being exerted on their behest
    and perhaps encourage more funding–

    Contrary to the media fecal spin that
    USA UK Australia New Zealand et al
    are not neck deep in this fraud–

    USA UK Australia New Zealand et al

    did pillory castige and still
    intend to prosecute(under antiterror laws) those scientists and
    pundits opposed to the
    agw train–
    the fact that the wheels are coming off
    this govt backed runaway train has no effect
    on it –there are no brakes –it will roar ahead
    like any other imbecilic govt backed policy–
    and long after the total wreck the
    history books will still be
    glowingly portraying
    the remarkable forsight of the
    sponsoring govt officials–
    (contrast the prosecution and
    guillotining of the pioneering utah cold
    fusion scientists 20 years ago vs the current
    resurgence of cold fusion research with no mention
    of them or their achievements)–

    anyway–
    here is a bit of current reality
    weather as opposed to climate

    Early sea ice formation traps
    Greenland towns and stops supplies
    until spring–
    http://sermitsiaq.gl/indland/article103562.ece?lang=EN

    First time in 20 years–
    Early sea ice formation traps
    Greenland narwhales in ice
    and they are shot–
    http://sermitsiaq.gl/indland/article103734.ece?lang=EN

    http://englishrussia.com/?p=2495

    http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/hires/global.xml

  56. Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472
    RE: Proposed Rule making to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards

    I petition the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reject regulating carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles as unjustified. Such regulations unnecessarily harm the economy, limit transportation, increase the cost of vehicles and reduce jobs.

    EPA proposes to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks, “because of the critical need to address global climate change.” (74 Fed. Reg. 49454). This is a false very weakly founded basis.

    Peaking of Light Oil
    The EPA findings are fatally flawed by ignoring global oil production rates and the necessity of rapidly finding alternatives to replace rapid declines in existing oil production. US light oil production unquestionably peaked in 1970. The OilWatch Monthly by ASPO Netherlands clearly shows that Non-OPEC oil production peaked in 2004/2005. The International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook 2009 reports at least 6.7%/year decline in existing global oil production. It is forecasting a near term supply crunch before 2030 with significant probability before 2020.

    The UK Energy Research Centre reviewed 500 global oil depletion models. See: “Global Oil Depletion, An assessment of the evidence for a near-term peak in global oil production” the 198 page 2009 UKERC report. ISBN 1-903144-0-35
    It finds the rate of decline is a critical issue that must be addressed, even more than the exact timing of the oil plateau/peak. More than half to 2/3rds of current production must be replaced by 2030. Add even 1.5%/year increase from population growth results in needing 100% replacement of current production within 20 years by 2030. This requires the equivalent of six new Saudi Arabias by 2030!

    The more conservative Uppsala World Energy Outlook (2009) models existing fields and prospects and projects declining global fuel availability. This will dominate all climate change considerations. See:
    Kjell Aleklett, Mikael Höök, Kristofer Jakobsson, Michael Lardelli, Simon Snowden, Bengt Söderbergh, “The Peak of the Oil Age – The Uppsala World Energy Outlook”, Energy Policy 2009 (in press) http://www.fysast.uu.se/ges/en/headline-news/the-peak-of-the-oil-age

    Rate of Alternative Fuel Production
    The EPA findings are critically flawed by ignoring the costs and rate limitations to providing alternative fuels. See publications by Robert L. Hirsch:
    Hirsch, Robert L.; et al. (2005, February), Peaking of world oil production: impacts, mitigation, & risk management, US Dept. Energy/National Energy Technology Lab., pp. 91
    Hirsch, Robert L. (February 2008), “Mitigation of maximum world oil production: Shortage scenarios”, Energy Policy 36 (2): 881–889, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03014215

    Investment required for alternative fuels
    The EPA findings are further critically flawed by ignoring the investment required to develop alternative fuels. The marginal cost of developing alternative fuels was about $100,000 / bbl / day in 2008. e.g. for Canadian Oil Sands to synfuel. Replacing the current 82 million bbl/day and expanding to 100 million bbl/day would nominally require $10 trillion investment. e.g. over the next 20 years. Declining availability of light oil with consequent skyrocketing fuel costs will make it increasingly more difficult to obtain the investment needed to provide sufficient alternative fuels.

    The rapidly increasing cost of fuel, massive investment required for alternative fuels, and fuel shortages will high likely cause far greater and immediate harm to the US and global economy than any foreseeable increase in CO2 emissions.
     
    The highest priority must be to focus on urgently reducing the USA’s dependence on imported oil by increasing alternative fuels, and reducing transportation fuel use.

    Politically Biased Science
    By relying only on the IPCC, the EPA’s science is politically biased. The IPCC has a political mandate to find evidence for anthropogenic climate change. The EPA has NOT included major body of peer reviewed science disputing the IPCC findings. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, summarizes voluminous scientific evidence, ignored by the IPCC, that climate change is dominated by natural, not anthropogenic causes. See:
    Climate Change Reconsidered, the 880 p 2009 report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.(NIPCC) http://www.nipccreport.org

    Unreproduceable Biased Temperature
    The IPCC is relying on HadleyCRU temperature data base. The CRU “lost” their original data and refuses to release the data and models for independent scientific review. Recently released CRU emails (“Climategate”) from Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit, and Michael Mann, Pennsylvania State University, show scientists systemically biasing paleo temperature science by keeping reports out of the IPCC reports, manipulating data, forcing editors to leave, and “hiding the decline” etc. The EPA is thus relying on data and models that violate the scientific method.

    Scientific Forecasting
    The EPA’s findings are critically flawed by ignoring the Principles of Scientific Forecasting. See
    Armstrong, J.S. (2001). Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners. Kluwer Academic Publishers. http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/

    The IPCC reports violate at least 72 established principles of scientific forecasting. See: Kesten C. Green and J. Scott Armstrong, Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts, Energy & Environment, Vol 18 No. 7+8 2007
    http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf

    Models of Polar Bear endangerment are also flawed. See:
    J. Scott Armstrong, Kesten C. Green & Willie Soon, Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit, Interfaces Vol. 38, No. 5, September–October 2008, pp. 382–405
    http://kestencgreen.com/polarbears.pdf

    EPA can only achieve valid results by auditing ALL climate models it uses to ensure that ALL 132 principles of scientific forecasting are adhered to.

    Hurst-Kolgomorov Statistics
    The EPA/IPCC projects are critically flawed by ignoring Hurst-Kolgomorov parameters of natural climate change. e.g. See publications by D. Koutsoyiannis et al.
    G. G. Anagnostopoulos, D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Efstratiadis, A. Christofides, and N. Mamassis, Credibility of climate predictions revisited, European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2009 Vienna, Austria, 19‐24 April 2009
    Climate change as a scapegoat in water science, technology and management
    http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/865

    D. Koutsoyiannis, TA Cohn, The Hurst phenomenon and climate, EGU General Assembly 2008, Geophys. Res. Abstracts, 2008
    http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/849/2/documents/2008EGU_HurstClimatePr.pdf

    Solar impact on Climate
    The EPA reliance on IPCC models is fatally flawed by ignoring the major impact of solar/climate correlations, and overestimating the influence of CO2. See publications by Nicola Scafetta http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/
    N. Scafetta, “Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change,” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2009), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.07.007. PDF
    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-JASP_1_2009.pdf

    See also Nicola Scafetta’s presentation to the EPA. “Climate Change and Its causes: A Discussion about Some Key Issues”  Nicola Scafetta. Invited author at the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, DC USA, February 26, 2009.
     
    Futile regulation
    The proposed regulation will fail to achieve EPA’s stated goal. EPA’s regulation states that the carbon dioxide reductions “are projected to reduce global mean temperature by approximately 0.007–0.016°C by 2100, and global mean sea level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.06–0.15 cm by 2100.” This is a negligible result will not affect global climate at all nor will they affect “public health and welfare” (See Clean Air Act Sec. 202).

    This will cause a massive constraint and financial impact. The National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated that increasing fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 would cost the car companies $114 billion. (See Detroit News, “Fuel Plan Would Cost Big Three” (March 1, 2007). EPA and NHTSA’s plan will increase costs for car companies and further reduce auto company jobs. Higher priced cars and trucks will make life more difficult for American families who need affordable transportation options.

    EPA would be forced to regulate greenhouse gases under Clean Air Act, sections 108, 111, and 112. This would seriously harm our economy, reduce American jobs, and worsen our employment situation.

    I pray the EPA not to regulate carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

    These regulations would severely worsen our economy, and massively increase our high unemployment. It would result in negligible reduction in global temperature while diverting effort from the critical issue of providing alternative fuels to manage global peaking of light oil.

  57. Nylo, glad to hear that upon second thoughts you oppose the EPA rule. By all means let us all limit the amount and place of exit of dangerous pollutants. That will not happen by limiting CO2 or fuel when the rule or legislation is all cost and no benefit. We must live in the real world and not a romanticized version of it. Living has a cost; all living makes waste (entropy, if I am accurate enough); affluence — living well enough — enables us to be inventive in sorting out, curtailing, corralling, and eliminating that waste. It provides the essentials for technological development.

  58. Stephen Shorland (06:52:27) : ice-momentors ?

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

    “Because water molecules containing heavier isotopes exhibit a lower vapor pressure, when the temperature falls, the heavier water molecules will condense faster than the normal water molecules. The relative concentrations of the heavier isotopes in the condensate indicate the temperature of condensation at the time, allowing for ice cores to be used in local temperature reconstruction after certain assumptions.”

    Note the important last three-word phrase: after certain assumptions …

    In the suggested chart:

    Note, the Temp curve (blue) leads the CO2 curve (green). Seen clearly at 150 thousand years ago – temp rises rapidly while CO2 is still low and even falling. (I use another open window as a straight-edge and line up the peak at 150 with the left-hand edge. Observe what the green line is doing.)

  59. Fwiw, I sent the following, probably trying in vain to get the EPA to act as though reduction of fossil fuel CO2 emissions is an alleged cure to an alleged disease. Fat chance, and I’m getting really much too sick of these self-inflated morons acting as though they are proceding rationally in order to save the World, when in fact they are doing the opposite. So my comment was only a general flail at the issue –

    Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472

    RE: Proposed Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards

    It has never been shown by any credible process that the alleged cure, reduction of fossil fuel CO2, is not worse than the alleged disease, Anthropogenic Global Warming. Think, for example, FDA rules on approving new drugs and other therapies on actually confirmed diseases.

    If Medical Science had proceded as has the ipcc’s alleged science, the health care cost problem would not exist, because no one in their right mind would ever want to go to a healthcare provider, if indeed anyone had survived to begin with after seeking care.

    But the attempt by the EPA to control CO2 is much worse than the above scenario, because people/our citizenry will be forced to essentially commit suicide as a result of Governmental fiat.

    People will note and remember your decision in this matter, that is, unless a foul and regressive decision emanates from the EPA, in which case we will have only so much time to remember anything.

    The following is a form letter objection which I’m sure you have seen or will see many times. So you don’t need to read it as far as I’m concerned, if you think you you’ve seen it quite enough already:

  60. Ryan said:
    I personally believe that it is our responsibility to do sensible things to reduce our impact on the environment. This is why I strongly support incentives for individuals and businesses to increase use of renewable energy, realistic proposals to reduce fossil fuel dependence (such as nuclear power), alterations to the residential and commercial building codes to improve energy efficiency, and, yes, increasing fuel efficiency for vehicles.
    You are the victim of fuzzy thinking, Ryan. Any sane, sensible energy policy must be based on science and on reality, not on science fiction and pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. Otherwise, you wind up with unintended consequences which can (and often do) do the exact opposite of the very thing you are trying to accomplish.
    Take ethanol. Please. And that is just one example of many.
    Once again, the ends, no matter how noble you may think they are do not justify the means.

  61. Nylo (01:18:39) :

    No Nylo, you don’t enact a lie into law.

    If they want an energy reduction program….. Then they should say so.

    ….This is about making CO2 a pollutant… Which it is not. This is how Fascist dictatorships rise.

  62. No sane person would go forward with any of this climate change nonsense until all facts are reviewed. Me thinks something stinks!

  63. Nylo, my hat’s off to you for jumping into the fray. I agree with pyromancer and J.Hansford.

    EPA (and greens) declare CO2 a pollutant => enact laws to reduce CO2 => reduce industrial output and reduce agriculture yields (and other unitended consequences) => increase human misery

    Maybe a bit dramatic, but you get the idea.

  64. Re: Bruce Cobb (09:06:09) :

    Perhaps you should read more carefully before replying. I specifically mentioned ethanol as something I do not support. You also failed to notice that the items I listed that I do support are anything but “pie-in-the-sky” and “wishful thinking”.

    You might consider clarifying your own thoughts before accusing others of fuzzy thinking.

  65. Richard deSousa (21:32:15) :

    “If the EPA muzzled it’s own people like Alan Carlin what are the chances it will pay any attention to our comments?”

    This is the front end of confrontation. We see hearings on fuel standards close Friday, Some car maker sues and says the “science” isn’t there and protests their penalties.

    Then they soepoena any and all internal correspondence and scientific studies that the EPA uses to fight CO2 and it drags on for 6-7 years.

    Here is the bottom line. The ePA claims to have a science basis for regulating CO2. The IPCC also makes the claim. But they do NO research. They accept unverified research from friendly outside groups like the CRU and NASA GISS>

    The EPA will lose in court because they have no foundation for their claim. MASSEY Coal or someone will be the first to fight.

    It backfires when the EPA muzzsles whistleblowers. That is the tobacco suit all over again.

  66. There are many good points here…

    First and foremost, however, you can’t legislate laws of physics. The ONLY way to reduce CO2 emissions with our current technology is to reduce the use of currently available fuels. There is no magic way to continue our current lifestyle while making any sort of measurable difference. WE ONLY HAVE our current technology.

    In other words, just because there is a reduction law in effect, just because there is CAFE, just because someone legislated CO2 reduction, does NOT mean that alternatives exist. They do not, period.

    It’s all very nice to talk about “alternatives” and “renewables” and “sustainability”, but look beyond these warm fuzzy “feel good” words to what they mean. They mean insufficient heat in winter, less A/C in summer, driving less, ridiculously expensive fuel, dismantling or banning many types of energy-intensive businesses (ie. jobs). The next step after legislation is enforcement, and that may well mean mandatory mileage reporting on your vehicle so you can be taxed more when you renew your license, at the very least. The next step would be worse.

    This is what needs to be fought. By this time, the gigantic AGW machine has been working for so long that even “skeptics” are talking about reducing CO2 emissions, even people who know better are stopping and thinking about what they do (which was the goal all along). There is no need, but even the most well educated is starting to roll over and let it happen.

    This WILL mean a dramatic reduction of YOUR quality of life. No more will it be “someone else”, but YOU.

    Those of you who have a hard time arguing against what the EPA is going to be party to need to seriously evaluate how it will affect YOU, because it will. There is no positive to this. None.

  67. May I repeat that:

    1) I’m only saying that increasing the miles you travel per galon of fuel is a good thing (especially because current technology leaves quite a lot of room to do that for quite a lot of cars), regardless of any consideration about how much CO2 you emit in the process, because you will also emit less of any true toxics in the process and be more cost-effective at the same time. Less fuel for the same output is a good thing, always. It’s all about improving efficiency.

    2) I don’t think that CO2 itself is a pollutant or has any negative effect on climate or air quality and I don’t think that it should be taxed. Measures that enforce efficiency gains in the use of fuel are good things, measures that make you pay for being as “evil” as to emit CO2 are bad things.

  68. Ryan O (10:33:15) :

    Re: Bruce Cobb (09:06:09) :

    Perhaps you should read more carefully before replying. I specifically mentioned ethanol as something I do not support. You also failed to notice that the items I listed that I do support are anything but “pie-in-the-sky” and “wishful thinking”.

    You might consider clarifying your own thoughts before accusing others of fuzzy thinking.

    It makes no difference that you are against ethanol; the fact remains that it was and is one of the harmful, unintended consequences of a wrong-headed energy policy. You mentioned “renewable energy”, but for the most part renewable energies, at least for now are just that – pie-in-the-sky. They cost too much, are often unreliable, and in some cases do more harm than good. As for increasing energy efficiency, the devil is always in the details. The crucial question is, what is the payback period for your investment in increased energy efficiency? And secondarily, with vehicles, you have the unintended consequence of lower safety with smaller, lighter vehicles to consider. As for more energy-efficient buildings, why would people need “incentives” to save money? I recently added insulation in my attic, and the only “incentive” I needed was that I wanted to cut down on my heating costs. I don’t want, or need Joe Public to help me pay to insulate my house.

  69. BBC Reporting Scotland News did not miss a trick tonight.

    Apart from the odd murder and Glasgow Rangers we had repeated stories (fiction) about global warming. I counted three global warming stories before the weather.

    There was a story about record rainfall and oh yes we have had rain, lots and lots of rain. We, the viewer, licences payers, were told that it is a record rainfall at Eskdalemuir and that Dundrennan had a wind gust of 74 mph!!

    How many people do you think who live in Scotland know where Dundrennan is? I know.

    Eskdalemuir has again had a record rainfall; since records began.
    Some chap wearing an official Met Office jacket thing – it said Met Office and had stripes below – went to the rain gauge and pulled out a plastic bottle. Think it was diet cola or irn-bru, it had one of those plastic rims. Two litre I’d imagine.

    Are plastic bottles recognised now as official scientific equipment?
    Guess so, as the BBC Scotland showed the contents being poured into a glass/plastic measure. Definitely a record, no two ways about it, a record.

    It was worse last week, thankfully you all missed Fiona Walker’s three part series on Climate Change.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8364319.stm

    Please do not check it out, none of you have done me any harm.
    Even the BBC have lost the links to the remaining last two videos.

    Were in Scotland we have an EPA it is called SEPA, good name, has a kind of ring to it. SEPA SEPAAAAA.

    They know what climate change is all about; my life, yes my life and millions of others depends upon them and their scientific based decisions.

    “Professor James Curran of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) fears flooding is going to increase. ”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8373308.stm

    Please, please, please check this one out.
    I’m still in shock. A wee dram might just help.

    “He said: “Globally the temperature has risen by almost one degree celsius over the past century so that actually means there is no ……. ……. left.””

    No, sorry, I’m not going to spoil it, no no no no!
    Sit down, yes sit down, get a wee drink and have a look.

    Well?

    Please you guys in USA could you get us a green card?
    I could live in SW Florida. We like it there. Naples would be very nice somewhere beside the fishing pier would be ideal.

    Help Get Me Out of Here

  70. Nylo (11:29:00) :

    May I repeat that:


    2) … Measures that enforce efficiency gains in the use of fuel are good things,…

    Might I suggest they are BAD things. The best enforcer of efficiency is the free market. As a consumer, I’m more likely to buy or invest in efficient goods. Govt is dreadful at creating incentives without unintended consequences.

    As was mentioned earlier, wealth has been the driver to clean our industry and environment. The wealthier we are, the more we care about our environment and the more we are able to apply resources to improve it.

    I also want efficient fleets of cars, planes, trains, ships, etc. but govt regulation is not going to get us there.

  71. Re: Bruce Cobb (11:52:55) :

    Great. We agree on ethanol. Yet you still seem to think that something in my statement means I buy into some sort of “wrong-headed energy policy”. Eh? You also seem to have a preternatural dislike of renewables.

    Where I grew up (Montana), renewables are quite common. Ranchers use both microhydro and wind power to supplement power provided by the electrical grid. In the case of microhydro, they often install plants in the 25 – 50kW range, meet the requirements of a QF (qualified generation facility) and sell power back to the utilities as an independent company. In meeting those requirements, they have access to other tax incentives and rebates to offset the initial capital expense. Same with wind. While certainly no panacea as these two particular forms of renewables are all about location, location, location, the legal restrictions in some states that prevent (or cap) individuals and companies from selling excess power is a needless disincentive.

    Anyway, as long as you’re happy dismissing things like this as “pie-in-the-sky”, I’m happy to stop responding.

    ;)

  72. I am very sorry that the EPA needs to STOP further implementation of any efforts in regulating GHG.

    They need the entire organization purged.

    Congress needs to review if we even need a group of liars.

  73. This issues has become completely political. They claim that theglobal warming debate is over. Well I don’t ever remember there ever being a debate. All opposing non global warming science is being covered up. Diverse opinions are not tolerated. Do not trust your government.

  74. I just read an article about the Coca Cola Co. supporting the “Hopenhagen” website for climate change.

    Their primary product contains carbon dioxide, much of which is liberated to the atmosphere when a container is opened; even more is liberated in the carbonation process.

    I added the following to the petition requesting that EPA not rule to limit carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles.

    EPA has NO standing to regulate carbon dioxide under any conditions. While in sufficient concentrations carbon dioxide is a simple asphyxiant by nature of reducing oxygen concentration, the simple fact that carbon dioxide is found in foods and beverages indicates that it is not harmful to humans.

    If it were harmful to humans the FDA would have already ruled against foods and beverages containing carbon dioxide.

Comments are closed.