We enter the age of "…or else"

washingtonpost.com

Excerpts from: EPA left to pick up climate change where Congress dropped the debate By David A. Fahrenthold and Juliet Eilperin

The Obama administration told Congress to find a way to regulate greenhouse gases — or else.

Last month, Congress refused: Democratic leaders in the Senate declined to take up climate legislation before their August break, which means it looks effectively dead for this session.

Now the White House is stuck with “or else.”

The Environmental Protection Agency will soon begin regulating greenhouse gases factory by factory, power plant by power plant. That could be unwieldy, expensive and unpopular — even President Obama has said it’s not his preferred solution.

But for now, it’s his only option.

The next few months could bring a climax to the long-running debate over how to combat climate change, with the EPA trying to implement its rules and industry groups and opponents in Congress seeking to block it with lawsuits or legislation.

The administration will cite a mandate from the Supreme Court, which ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases could be regulated like other air pollutants. But opponents will say it has chosen an approach that stretches the law and could impose serious economic costs.

The result of their fight could be the first limits on greenhouse gases from American smokestacks — or a significant defeat for the White House and environmental groups.

The administration “wanted to be able to hold out the threat of clean-air regulation [by the EPA], as a way to . . . try to get people to the table,” said Jeffrey R. Holmstead, an EPA official under the Bush administration, who now works for the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani. “They’re now faced with the kind of unenviable task of trying to make it work.”

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

Read complete WaP article: EPA left to pick up climate change where Congress dropped the debate

Advertisements

154 thoughts on “We enter the age of "…or else"

  1. I can’t think of a thing this “administration” has done that isn’t a complete failure. But then, they have absolutely no experience beyond campaigning, which means in the real world they’re clueless.
    Next time we elect somebody, would the voters please look at the candidate’s resume? It just might give a clue what they’re “electing”.

  2. I will bet there isn’t a Democrat Congresscritter that isn’t sweating this and hoping nothing is done until after the election.
    Meanwhile the EPA War on the Kulaks er,American Farmers continues….

  3. “— even President Obama has said it’s not his preferred solution.
    But for now, it’s his only option.”
    Oh I know, being a dictator in a representative Republic is hard work and full of reprisals, until one gradually begins to feel a trace of absolute power.

  4. Given the ruling of the SCOTUS, I don’t see how this gets reversed unless 1) An overwhelming majority in congress decides to handcuff the EPA.(The majority would have to be 2/3 in both houses to override a veto.) or 2) We get a president that handcuffs the EPA himself. Either way, we’re going to have to wait for more than 2 years for even a remote possibility. We need to hold everyone that had a part in the real travesty accountable.

  5. I figure if the mms can be broken up and reformed .. any agency is subject to the same rules. EPA is bloated and corrupt .. they’d best remember the current ruling class will not always be in power.

  6. If they don’t watch it they could cause the entire clean air act to be rescinded just as a means to fight this off…

  7. I opened a coke can just now and a bunch of fizzy stuff came out, should I report that to the EPA ?

  8. What Obama and the rest of that crew fail to understand is that the American People don’t respond well to threats. Never have, never will. All it does is get our backs up.

  9. PW Townsend says:
    August 4, 2010 at 11:38 am
    ‘As soon as the EPA institutes regulations it all goes to the courts. Get ready to rumble.’
    Bingo, we have a winner
    Or congress could declare CO2 a non pollutant and take it out of the EPA hands. It would save the Tax Payers/Consumer a lot of money and Law Makers’ jobs.

  10. Texas declared War on the EPA yesterday – read this:
    http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/epa-texas-letter.pdf
    I’ve never read an official government document that bitter and that contemptuous of the Fed’s. It’s amazing!
    And the dems have vastly overestimated the ability of the EPA to make this stick. The biggest problem is that *everything* the EPA does is going to reduce manufacturing jobs in the affected areas; imagine how it will play for the Feds to be actively killing jobs while unemployment is still near 10%!!!
    And the new Congress has a very effective tool – they don’t need to pass anything that would get vetoed, they just need to slash funding for the EPA by 75% and see how it takes to get their attention. A Republican house may not be strong enough to dictate specific policy changes, but in deficit obsessed, budget cutting world they can play hell with the EPA’s day to day operations.
    I think we are about to see a 2 year war inside the government as different factions controlling different pieces of it are going to go after each other. As in all civil wars, those who seek chaos are guaranteed the win.

  11. Curiousgeorge says:
    August 4, 2010 at 11:52 am
    What Obama and the rest of that crew fail to understand is that the American People don’t respond well to threats. Never have, never will. All it does is get our backs up.

    You’re right. But I wonder how the EPA beaurocrats respond to threats? We can save $100 B over the next ten years if we shut the agency down and put all of them on the street.

  12. When people get their backs up, they tend to do even more strongly that which they have been threatened not to do.

  13. (Cross-posted from previous thread – more on-topic here).
    On can see how strong the EPA is on a scientific defence of the IPCC from its passage defending the IPCC over Amazongate. For example, the EPA report states:
    “Furthermore, as this finding is specific to the Amazon region, petitioners’ claims are not relevant to the Endangerment Finding. ”
    Even skeptics do not dismiss claims that atmospheric CO2 is dangerous, using the argument that it is only dangerous to people living in other parts of the globe! This is mind-boggling. It really looks like an “anything goes” style with the EPA.
    http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/epa-flubs-amazongate/

  14. mike sphar says:
    August 4, 2010 at 11:50 am
    I opened a coke can just now and a bunch of fizzy stuff came out, should I report that to the EPA ?

    As long as you plant a tree each time you open a can, you will be ok.
    If you don’t, I’ll report your a.. 🙂

  15. Pkatt:
    The problem is that when the Republicans get in power they don’t clean house as effectively as the Democrats do.

  16. It all boils down to political power. If control of one house of congress changes hands in November, the EPA will be forced by political reality to, well, “rethink” the wisdom of regulating CO2.
    If the Democrats retain control of both houses in November, then there will be an ugly legal fight on EPA’s CO2 regulations, which will be bad for Mr. Obama’s re-election chances in 2012.
    But regardless of control in the Senate, there will for sure be enough shift in the composition of the Senate to eliminate the possibility of approval of any kind of treaty that limits CO2 emissions. International agreements are dead for at least two years, and maybe indefinitely.
    Mr. Obama would be (politically) wise to put the leash on the EPA dogs, but I am not sure he can bring himself to do it.

  17. I’ll have the beer and popcorn ready for the November elections. It’ll be like watching NASCAR only with more crashes. Team red is in for it.

  18. I voted for Obama, but I hope that next time around I have an alternative other than Sarah Palin types. I’m unhappy with nearly everything he’s brought forward from his ill-advised and out of touch curbs on carbon dioxide to his horrible education policies to his failures to get out of Guantanamo and Iraq, and to his new Vietnam in Afghanistan, a country that was untamable by the Brits and the Russians.
    I’m sorry to say that he simply doesn’t understnad how things work. A brilliant guy who has nary a clue. While Bush damaged everything he touched, Obama has done nothing to fix anything that Bush touched, and is actually just maintaining the status quo.

  19. James Sexton,
    Either house of Congress can effectively block an EPA regulation; one house or the other can make the EPA administrators lives miserable, for as long as desired, by forcing them to testify before multiple committees, and can refuse to approve the EPA budget in the absence of a specific agreement to not implement a specific regulation. If either house changes hands, CO2 regulation by the EPA is dead.

  20. The Environmental Protection Agency will soon begin regulating greenhouse gases factory by factory, power plant by power plant. That could be unwieldy, expensive and unpopular — even President Obama has said it’s not his preferred solution.
    But for now, it’s his only option.

    No it’s not his only option. Option 2 is to listen to the majority voters that stood against Cap and Tax and not try and implement regulations by Executive Fiat based on flawed science.

  21. The Environmental Protection Agency will soon begin regulating greenhouse gases factory by factory, power plant by power plant. That could be unwieldy, expensive and unpopular…
    you forgot illegal

  22. A Constitutional challenge will put an end to the EPA. SCOTUS left that door open by ruling the CO2 could be ruled as an air pollutant but said nothing whether or not the EPA has the constitutional power to control it—that, I believe, rests with the states.

  23. As an outsider its a pity when I read the posts that the debate about climate change in America is about Democrats versus Republicans. Just reinforces that the ‘science” has become very political. I’m sure there are many Demos who don’t believe in AGW as there are Repubs who don’t !!
    Just my observations from down under. Cheers.

  24. PW Townsend says:
    August 4, 2010 at 11:38 am
    “As soon as the EPA institutes regulations it all goes to the courts. Get ready to rumble.”
    Except the courts have already stated the EPA could treat GHG’s as pollutants.
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
    So we’re stuck until either congress or the president changes. But likely, it’ll have to be both to force a change at the EPA.

  25. Yesterday, Missouri voted 70% against the individual mandate in Obamacare. If the EPA “forges ahead” and voters are given the opportunity then they will vote at least 70% against EPA regulation of CO2. Their first opportunity might be the November election. At this moment, Obama is probably getting an earful from just about every Democrat congressperson. If Obama tells Lisa to “forge ahead” then we have to worry whether he is bent on destruction of his presidency and the Democrat Party.

  26. Did you see the article, yesterday, where the EPA is going to try and regulate ‘dust’ on farms?….they should come to my farm…..I have something for them

  27. This presidency and Congress can only be described as follows:
    !! IT’S AMATEUR HOUR !!
    They are not seriously going to force electricity rates to skyrocket and expect to gain popularity, are they? How politically imbicilic can one get?
    They’re going to end up hurting a lot of poor folks.

  28. Douglas DC says:
    August 4, 2010 at 11:39 am
    I will bet there isn’t a Democrat Congresscritter that isn’t sweating this and hoping nothing is done until after the election.
    Meanwhile the EPA War on the Kulaks er,American Farmers continues….
    _________________________________
    ‘”The Socialist Revolution in the US cannot take place because there are too many small independent farmers there. Those people are the stability factor. We here in Russia must hurry while our government is stupid enough to not encourage and support the independent farmership.” V. Lenin, the founder of the Russian revolution
    And the US government has been waging war on the independent American farmer ever since.

  29. The important information to take from this event is that pressure from private citizens has the incumbent politicians running for cover, as we enter the 2010 federal election cycle. The important actions to take now are directing our personal support (time, effort, and money) to 2010 candidates opposed to the AGW agendas… and making sure the politicians still supporting AGW know that your support is directed to their opponents.
    In Washington State, the overt and pointed objections by a majority of citizens has even the like of Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, and Dave Reichert (Senators and Representative, WA, respectively) reconsidering their obsession with AGW.
    Patty “Cakes” Murray has seen her private citizen financial support dwindle to nearly nothing. She must rely now on big special interest groups (SEIU, ACORN, Soros shell PACs, etc) to fend off her challengers. That just makes her an even bigger target. Of the three noted above, she is the least penitent. It’s too early to tell if she is seriously threatened, but the initial polling seems to indicate so.
    Maria Cant-Think-To-Well (Senator #2, WA) is not up for election until 2012 but she also has muted her vocal support of Cap and Tax. She has been clearly ‘put on notice’ that her constituents are not going to support her in 2012, if her AGW and socialist agenda crap continues.
    Dave Reichert (Rep., WA, 8th Congressional District) is starting to waffle and dissemble about his support for Cap and Tax legislation. A serious challenger may help him clarify his perspectives and get him adhering to fact based science rather than his own poorly supported beliefs.
    We have a scant 3 months left to ‘flip the House’ and assert some small measure of control on the Obama progressive socialism juggernaut. While venting on a blog may provide small relief, real change and improvement can only be had by kicking the incumbent AGW supporters out of office. That takes commitment in personal time, money and effort.
    With just 3 months to go, Please…. Please do more than just talk.

  30. James Sexton says:
    August 4, 2010 at 12:40 pm
    PW Townsend says:
    August 4, 2010 at 11:38 am
    “As soon as the EPA institutes regulations it all goes to the courts. Get ready to rumble.”
    Except the courts have already stated the EPA could treat GHG’s as pollutants.

    Not happy with mere legislating from the bench, the courts have now taken up kingmaking. Nothing is ever enough.

  31. Simplified English translation of the Texas Memo.
    Dear EPA & Washington,
    Blow Me!
    Love & Kisses . . . . Texas

  32. The EPA is hyperventilating on dust. If they rule against dust on dirt roads, we are stuck with paving all of them with asphalt or closing them. Bush was a get along with people even when they leaned to the irrational. This extremist craziness may be the tipping point. If either the House or the Senate changes majority, Browner will be in hearings explaining under oath all the science under CO2. It is impossible for her or any one to prove the greenhouse effect. They may try. Leaving out moisture and clouds will cause the EPA pain.
    It only takes one judge to tell us the “agency” is acting in an unconstitutional way and restricting commerce.
    If these eco wackos want to regulate the planet, why not make forrest fires illegal. With enough taxes they can regulate against even lightning.

  33. Jim G says:
    August 4, 2010 at 12:02 pm
    Rockyroad;
    Don’t blame me, I voted for the American. (I saw it on a bumper sticker.)
    ___________________________________________________________________
    I love it! I too voted for an American and not one of the two Manchurian Candidates we were supposed to vote for.

  34. I was aware of the EPA threat and figured we had to live with it for several years (until we could send the Community Organizer back to his community). However, in my short-sightedness, I forgot about an option on the table – Thank you WWS!
    If (and that is asking a lot) the republicans have the cojones, they can cut the funding! I think a majority of Americans would love to see that happen – especially since the deficits have trippled in 12 months under this regime! It sure would not hurt to cut some spending instead of just snipping at the rate of growth.

  35. I always wondered what those people with a pathological hatred of Dubya would do once he was gone, and I can assure you it has been entertaining to watch. “Their” guy, an utterly incapable man with no experience running anything, has made blunder after blunder but continues to get a pass.
    FrankK, it’s not likely that as many dems see through AGW, since they are far more likely to trust the media, the EPA, the education system, GreenPeace, WWF, etc. all of whom are singing from the same choirbook.
    I was a kid in the Carter era, and I can assure you I’m looking forward to the day zero uses the word “ennui” in a speech… (a little inside joke there)

  36. I know this is supposed to be more about CAGW than politics, but the only reason the EPA has this power is because ever since regulatory agencies were “invented”, and accepted as constitutional by the political establishment, that same establishment has been desperately trying to pretend that new “regulations” are somehow different from new “laws”. A new law of course requires passage by the House and Senate, then signing by the President (and no subsequent overturning as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court). A regulation however is based on Congress’ supposed power to “delegate” its powers to regulatory agencies, which then can — all on their own — propose new regulations, hold hearings on their suitability, and finally, if they want to, enforce them. The President can presumably forbid new regulations as head of the executive branch, and Congress can threaten to withhold funds — but both of these procedures are obviously just a sort of veto power. Congress and the President are elected, of course, so if the voters want to overturn a regulation they have to elect sympathetic Congressmen and a sympathetic President, and then maybe the regulation will go away (possibly to come back later, when a more different Congress and President are in power). Looking at this general pattern of rule making from a historical perspective, what we have here are laws — excuse me, “regulations” — proposed and imposed by a civil-service oligarchy. Citizens may vote for representatives who can then try to overturn these laws, so it’s perhaps fair to say that citizens still have the right to veto them, using a cumbersome and complicated representative apparatus (i.e. Congress and the Presidency). The overall pattern is all too much like that of the later Middle Ages (before European parliaments had acquired supreme power) where the King and his Court could propose new edicts which would immediately go into effect, and if their subjects didn’t like it they could elect sympathetic parliamentary representatives to try somehow to subvert the King’s edicts. For both “regulations” now and the King’s edicts back then, it is much easier to put them into operation (without significant input from the voters) than it is for the voters to cancel them once they are in place. This is a serious loss of the power by the voters, and it came about by pretending that regulations are different from laws. Take away that pretense, and every new regulation proposed by any government agency would end up being treated exactly like other new laws — it would have to be explicitly passed by Congress and signed by the President before going into effect.

  37. Don’t count your chickens ’til the eggs are hatched. The Obama administration got in because it out-spent the Republicans better than 2:1. He has already built up a sizeable sum for the Nov elections. Soros, Gore et al are keen to retain the current House. Be careful !!

  38. Folks, this is the end-game I’ve been waiting for….cap & trade was simply a financial mechanism to make imposition of carbon regulations more palatable to the private sector. Carbon regulation is coming, hold onto your hats.
    For decades, USEPA has regulated sewage outfalls via the Clean Water Act’s “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System” (NPDES) permitting and regulatory process, and they will simply adapt this model to the Clean Air Act for major point-source contributors of carbon dioxide.
    The Supreme Court has already ruled in the EPA’s favor, and the SCOTUS is only becoming more liberal, so I don’t expect legal challenges to stand up. Congress won’t be able to do anything, have you seen them trying to overturn CERCLA (Superfund)?
    That law certainly had vast economic impact and helped drive US manufacturing to Mexico and China.
    EPA is also considering carbon dioxide regulation using the Clean Water Act, under the premise that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to acidification of coastal waters. Please see:
    http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/03/12/12greenwire-some-see-clean-water-act-settlement-opening-new-4393.html

  39. John W. says:
    August 4, 2010 at 12:03 pm
    … But I wonder how the EPA beaurocrats respond to threats? We can save $100 B over the next ten years if we shut the agency down and put all of them on the street.
    _________________________________________________
    I think it is time to do a very though house cleaning of ALL the various bloated federal departments. I just talked on the phone to one of these people in a different federal department, and I swear the IQ was some where close to that of a turnip. I have more intelligent conversations with the 4 and 5 years olds I do entertainment for on weekends!
    Here is the REAL in government problem:
    THE INDUSTRY-TO-GOVERNMENT REVOLVING DOOR

  40. Texas has drawn a line in the sand. I suspect Obama will have to deploy the New Black Pampers to that state also.
    The states have a 21 month period to respond for which the EPA has given 2 months and ignored state responses.
    I can see Noviembre from mi casa.
    You can remove the “I voted for Obama” bumper sticker with acetone. Acetone is a VOC. Next year acetone may be an illegal contraband.

  41. “The Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990, requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR part 50) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act established two types of national air quality standards. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.” (http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html)
    The US Supreme Court ruled in April, 2007 that EPA had the authority to regulate the emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended. The Supreme Court decision was based on the potential endangerment which could be caused by climate change driven by CO2 and other GHG emissions, rather than on direct human endangerment resulting from exposure to these gases.
    EPA issued an Endangerment Finding regarding greenhouse gases in December, 2009. (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html) The language reproduced above states that EPA must now set an NAAQS for CO2 as well as the other listed greenhouse gases. The contemporaneous Cause or Contribute Finding was limited to new motor vehicles, though they are obviously not the only sources of CO2 and other GHG emissions of concern. For example, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO) has determined that “the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport.” (http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html)

  42. Gail Combs August 4, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    And the US government has been waging war on the independent American farmer ever since.

    Could one say that you have failed to show just _who_ and or _how_ ‘they’ would benefit by this action of winning the war on the ‘independent American farmer’?
    I mean, to believe in such an idea (US govt et al having it in for po lil dirt farmers) it would help some of us to actually understand how this works, as in, who benefits, who the players are (not like this is simple superstition or reading between some mythical ‘lines’ in historical documents) …
    And, I would also have to add caution, many rules are regulation are in-effect for the purpose of assuring food-purity, and now-a-days some means of providing traceability of a raw food product back to its source/supplier/farmer. You don’t suppose could be confusing/conflating rules/regulation with the intent to ‘stifle’ small farms/farming … are you?
    .

  43. The most dangerous threat of all:
    People like me who were once life long voting democrats, now willing to go on the stump for ANYONE running against a democrat. And get this, I am still a liberal. But I don’t suffer educated fools. It has come to this. I believe that stupid conservatives can govern better than educated democrats. Which brings me to the most insane thing I thought I would NEVER say! Bush Jr was a better pres than Obama will ever be. Now excuse me while I go throw up.

  44. Steve Fitzpatrick says:
    August 4, 2010 at 12:19 pm
    “Either house of Congress can effectively block an EPA regulation; one house or the other can make the EPA administrators lives miserable, for as long as desired, by forcing them to testify before multiple committees, and can refuse to approve the EPA budget in the absence of a specific agreement to not implement a specific regulation. If either house changes hands, CO2 regulation by the EPA is dead.”
    I’d like to share in your optimism. While you are correct in that if one house changes hands……. But, realistically, the Senate won’t. Only 1/3 are up for re-election. The house maybe, but I wouldn’t bet that way either. And even still, if it did change hands, it would need to political will to fight the onslaught of the MSM, the White House, and the Senate and the CAGW groups. I haven’t seen a conservative leader with that kind of intestinal fortitude since Reagan. OTOH, 2 years from now, I fully expect an entirely different political climate. Hopefully reminiscent of the global political wave that swept in about the 1980’s or so.

  45. I have that kind of dust too! Wonder if city folks now what kind of dust we are talking about.

  46. Wasn’t the SCOTUS ruling on regulating emissions from cars? If so, how does that give the EPA authority to rule on emissions elsewhere? From the decision,

    a group of private organizations petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin regulating the emissions of four such gases, including carbon dioxide, under §202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, which requires that the EPA“shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class . . . of new motor vehicles . . . which in [the EPA Administrator’s] judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution . . . reasonably . . . anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” 42 U. S. C. §7521(a)(1).

  47. PGOSSELIN writes They’re going to end up hurting a lot of poor folks.
    There are no “poor people” in Congress.

  48. President Obama is very like our former Prime Minister Blair.
    Each knows what we want to hear so they say it but it’s not backed up by any real worldly wisdom or any sound political philosophy.
    My opinion is that both the most influential western democracies, the US and UK have become progressively more decadent since WW2 and even more so since the fall of the old Soviet Union.
    The values of self discipline, hard work and personal responsibility that created our supremely successful societies and sustained us during periods of adversity have evaporated and the old certainties are now lost in confusion and doubt.
    It’s not just the climate that is forever cycling between one state and another. So also do human affairs cycle between freedom and authoritarianism and I fear that after so many decades of success the democratic, capitalist, freedom loving approach to human progress and societal organisation is fading away in our two nations as we move along the next downslope.
    It is always necessary to protect one’s freedoms or they will be lost but most citizens today are overconfident, satiated in most of their day to day desires and ignorant of the lessons of history.
    Any blame lies with our ruling elites who suffer from a guilt complex born of the emotional conflict between their personal good fortune and the observation that many remain poor and weak.
    Their lack of confidence has corroded our education systems and our economies with the consequences that are all too apparent.
    How to pull it all back ? There lies a problem. It’s a fine line between freedom and serfdom.
    Personally I think the vigour and developing wealth and capitalism of the world’s other nations will take over from the decadent west unless sense is restored very soon.
    India and China will not be denied. The day of the Western Powers would appear to be over unless we can restore our values without resorting to primitive authoritarianism which the so called ‘progressive’, ‘liberal’ types seem to advocate.
    Abuse of language is a feature that Orwell foresaw. The words ‘progressive’ and ‘liberal’ now represent those who seek to take power and subjugate the masses.
    They may try but with modern communications and systems they are already doomed.

  49. It’ not just until November we have to worry about – remember there will also be a ‘lame duck’ session. If Reid goes down, expect him to try to exact as much revenge as he possiby can.

  50. @ Pamela Gray says:
    August 4, 2010 at 1:28 pm
    The most dangerous threat of all:
    …………………………….. Now excuse me while I go throw up.

    Pam, purging is good for you. Trust me, you’ll feel much better after getting that pollution out of your system. 😉

  51. CO2 can only be classified as a pollutant because of it’s “GHG potential”. It’s beneficial for plants and life-preserving in human bodies (without CO2, hemoglobin wouldn’t give oxygen up).
    It shares all three aspects with H2O. So; why don’t you force the EPA to regulate H2O as well. For a start, they could enforce covering all water areas with plastic skins to reduce evaperation… Hey! I just solved the global warming problem.
    Cancun, here i come!

  52. Eric says:
    August 4, 2010 at 12:15 pm
    I voted for Obama, but I hope that next time around I have an alternative other than Sarah Palin types.
    DonB says:
    Being out of the US during the last election I am not sure what a “Sarah Palin type” is.
    Could you please define that term and give some concrete examples so that I will recognize one if I meet one. Is it something similar to an Al Gore type or a Jimmie Carter type?

  53. For the records: I am a european leftist liberal, as they can positively get!
    But, man, this current US-american administration really s***s (self-snip).
    And no, I DON’T buy the Global Warming-Myth (GWM)! That’s why I am here.
    And that’s why I will stay here – because there is no other place on the net for getting the latest comprehensive, as well as comprehendable FACTS on the global climate (“change” deliberately omitted!), like on WUWT.

  54. old construction worker says:
    August 4, 2010 at 12:01 pm
    PW Townsend says:
    August 4, 2010 at 11:38 am
    ‘As soon as the EPA institutes regulations it all goes to the courts. Get ready to rumble.’
    Bingo, we have a winner
    Or congress could declare CO2 a non pollutant and take it out of the EPA hands. It would save the Tax Payers/Consumer a lot of money and Law Makers’ jobs.
    ————————————————————————————
    But that would be logical, straightforward and sensible, Old Hand Worker – and hence, has no chance in hell to happen (Besides: You can bet, that two thirds of all members of Congress are heavily invested in the “Chicago Carbon Trading Exchange” already.)

  55. What these boilermen should do when the EPA arrives is shut all the dampers on their furnaces to make sure they’re only producing carbon monoxide and not It’s evil poisonous twin CO2 in this crazy upside down world.
    I remember when carbon dioxide was the targeted result of combustion and It wasn’t that long ago.

  56. Theo Goodwin says:
    August 4, 2010 at 12:41 pm
    Yesterday, Missouri voted 70% against the individual mandate in Obamacare. If the EPA “forges ahead” and voters are given the opportunity then they will vote at least 70% against EPA regulation of CO2. Their first opportunity might be the November election. At this moment, Obama is probably getting an earful from just about every Democrat congressperson. If Obama tells Lisa to “forge ahead” then we have to worry whether he is bent on destruction of his presidency and the Democrat Party.
    ________________________________________________________
    I think the “game” is much deeper than that. I think Obama’s mandate was to fatally cripple the US as a world power so as to usher in “Global Governance” http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/gganalysis.htm
    Energy – we already know about this and what it does to what is left of the US manufacturing base and American jobs.
    Money – Obama doubled the US money supply by April 2009. The Fed PRINTED (counterfeit) close to a TRILLON dollars in three months. Americans will now have to pay back that money to the bankers with real wealth, their labor, along with interest. Coupled with the multiplication factor of the fractional reserve banking system this destabilized the USA as the world’s “Hard Currency” in the eyes of China and Russia.
    Food – Almost there. The bill to wipe out US farming has passed the house. The famine set up by Cargill VP during Clinton’s watch is about to come home to roost. And even the EPA has gotten into the act with the threatened “farm dust ” reg. http://farmwars.info/?p=1565
    Educationby 12th-grade, we’re at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0804/0804textbooks.htm
    Economic principles: http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/28/the-timeless-principles-of-ame/2
    Money supply http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/BOGUMBNS.txt
    Minimum Wage http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/blminwage.htm
    The progressive (s) destruction of the USA (and the rest of Western Civilization) is absolutely terrifying if you actually bother to look.

  57. Henry chance says:
    August 4, 2010 at 1:08 pm
    “The EPA is hyperventilating on dust. If they rule against dust on dirt roads, we are stuck with paving all of them with asphalt or closing them. …..”
    Huh? When did they start having spasms over dirt roads? Geez, I can’t keep up with the insanity!

  58. I wonder if the EPA could be sued for regulating some greenhouse gases but not all of them? If they are forced to regulate water vapor, it may be their undoing.

  59. Obama finds himself in a difficult position. His financial master expected to cream the profits from a carbon tax, thus paving the way for world governance, but Obama has failed to deliver. Obama also knows the EPA is not going to do much any time soon, as the effort will get bogged down in litigation.
    Following Climategate, the whole world knows that CAGW is a myth and even if Obama had proved to be the popular leader hoped for he would have trouble getting a carbon tax through. I suspect that if his party does badly in the coming Senate elections he won’t be re-elected president in 2012.

  60. Right now the EPA is going after the Greenest of Farmers-Amish because of manure
    effluents SO now what? This cannot continue as the productive people may just
    ‘Go Galt’ on the Drone Class….
    I fear too- a cold nasty winter….
    No Coal for you!…

  61. ‘El Presidente for Life Obama’ is going to clean up the air but he can’t keep the borders secure, or end the Great Recession when we mortgage our great grand children with a Trillion Dollars we don’ have, or give us all better Health Care, or visit the Gulf of Mexico and look like he’s doing something to clean up the beaches, or pay old people their Social Security in the future? I don’ tink soooooo! Sounds like som’ting I hear Fidel say 50 years ago!

  62. So will the EPA wake up and start regulating water? I mean, really–it’s the MAJOR GHG (I think Henry chance got his list of GHGs from the EPA).
    Just think–with water all tied up, they will REALLY have us by the throats. It would be far worse than regulating CO2 anyday! And while I shouldn’t be mentioning it (on the off chance they’d read it here and pursue water regulation), I doubt anybody from the EPA ever visits this site.

  63. Jack the Farmer says:
    August 4, 2010 at 12:49 pm
    Did you see the article, yesterday, where the EPA is going to try and regulate ‘dust’ on farms?….they should come to my farm…..I have something for them
    _______________________________________________________
    Jack, many of the farmers I have talked to have a similar point of view.
    Go to the NoNais.org site and look at the Henshaw Incident. For other information see http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/
    NoNais.org has a list of other useful sites.

  64. Here is a fundamental truth: If a politician can convince the electorate to give their loyalty to him ( or her) then by definition he (or she) has subverted the right and proper loyalty of the electorate to the Constitution. Once that happens ( as it did in the last Presidential election ), then we are well and truly doomed to eventual dictatorship. The mechanics of that dictatorship are enforced thru the bureaucracy, which is ( at it’s top levels), composed of those who are loyal to the politician who appoints them. To change this situation, requires the removal of those who give their loyalty to the person, instead of to the institution that is the USA and that is described and constituted by ( I recommend reviewing the definition of the word “constitute” ) the laws and ideals of the People.
    The US Military (past and present ) is well aware of this, and it’s why our Oath is to the Constitution and not to any individual or party.

  65. Eric says: “I voted for Obama…A brilliant guy who has nary a clue.”
    If he’s so brilliant, how come Harvard was forced to seal his transcript?

  66. _Jim says:
    August 4, 2010 at 1:25 pm
    Gail Combs August 4, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    And the US government has been waging war on the independent American farmer ever since.
    Could one say that you have failed to show just _who_ and or _how_ ‘they’ would benefit by this action of winning the war on the ‘independent American farmer’?
    _______________________________________________________
    How about LOOKING at the reference I cited for once???
    Al Gore point blank said the plan was to get rid of US Agriculture. My County Extension Agent was at the ceremony and heard him say it. The Ag Journal, Billings, Montana backs up his eyewitness statement: “At a recent ceremony at the White House, Vice President and presidential candidate Al Gore let slip what many have long believed was his real intention as regards to U.S. agriculture.
    “While presenting a national award to a Colorado FFA member, Gore asked the student what his/her life plans were. Upon hearing that the FFA member wanted to continue on in production agriculture, Gore reportedly replied that the young person should develop other plans because our production agriculture is being shifted out of the U.S. to the Third World.”

    Here are some of the references from the article I cited. You can read the article and check out the rest of the references like you should of done several months ago the first time you picked this nit.
    [1] A.V. Krebs, The Corporate Reapers: The Book of Agribusiness. Essential Books, Washington DC, 1992, pp 289-299.
    [2] Agriculture in an Expanding Economy: A Statement by the Research Committee of the Committee for Economic Development, 1945. Republished by AstroLogos Books, New York. http://www.AstroLogos.org (Books on Demand)
    [3] An Adaptive Program for Agriculture: A Statement on National Policy by the Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development. The Committee for Economic Development. July 1962. http://www.normeconomics.org/adaptive.html
    [4] “A Farewell to Farms,” Time Magazine. July 20, 1962. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,896357,00.html
    [5] “Reorienting Agricultural Research Back to the Farm” by E. Ann Clark, Crop Science, University of Guelph, Ontario Canada. Presented at Practical Partnerships. A New England Sustainable Agricultural Conference, November 1997, Portland, Maine. http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/research/homepages/eclark/maine.htm
    [6] Joel Dyer, Harvest of Rage: Why Oklahoma City Is Only the Beginning, Westview Press, 1998.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    [36] Testimony of Michael R. Taylor, JD, Senior Advisor to the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services before Subcommittee of Domestic Policy Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, US House of Representatives, July 29, 2009, p. 8.
    http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/2009/07/t20090716a.html
    [37] William Sperber, Video of “Global Food Protection: A New Organization Is Needed” presented at Food Import Safety Conference, University of Wisconsin, Madison: http://mediasite.engr.wisc.edu/Mediasite/Viewer/?peid=a3f4fe4f0b75482f9f7ec0cd68ff3462
    [38] “Cargill Executive Cites Single Regulatory Agency as Necessary” The Food Safety Consortium Newsletter, Vol. 19, No. 3, Summer 2009.
    http://www.uark.edu/depts/fsc/news.current.htm

  67. Pamela Gray says:
    August 4, 2010 at 1:30 pm
    ‘I have that kind of dust too! Wonder if city folks now what kind of dust we are talking about.’
    Oh, you know, dust dust. The kind that Gail Combs will have to put a mask on front of her cows along with the GHG scrubber on the other end to protect the environment type of dust.

  68. Henry chance says:
    August 4, 2010 at 1:30 pm
    GHG’s
    NOX,COX,SOX, CH4 and CFC.
    ________________________________
    You forgot the really really big one WATER.

  69. About the only good thing I can say about this is that it might provide grounds for a carefully crafted lawsuit disputing the validity of the AGW theory.

  70. Oh and Jim if that one reference was not enough about the threat to independent farmers:
    The goal within the WTO, dating from 2000, is to extend patent laws over all plants and animals (Article 27.3b)..”
    http://www.africafocus.org/docs07/bio0712.php
    On 21st May, 2003, the European Patent Office in Munich granted a patent to Monsanto .., even though plants are not patentable in European Law. }http://www.countercurrents.org/en-shiva270404.htm
    “In the EU, there is now a list of ‘official’ vegetable varieties. Seed that is not on the list cannot be ‘sold’ to the ‘public’ .” http://www.realseeds.co.uk/terms.html
    In fact, the U.S. projections for the current year are that 53% of its wheat crop, 47% of cotton, 42% of rice, 35% of soybeans, and 21% of corn will be exported. This has only been made possible by the heavy subsidies and the removal of trade barriers or QRs in the developing countries.
    http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2002/0202food.html
    55 per cent of the crops needed to feed the human race are now grown by just ten corporations. The biggest players in this monopoly game are Bayer, Dow, Dupont, Syngenta (once Novartis), and Monsanto…
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n3_v50/ai_21031832/pg_9
    Food Policy in an Era of Corporate Power
    “Cargill is the second largest private corporation in the United States….
    http://co.blaine.id.us/vertical/Sites/%7BDDCFF136-A071-4998-93F2-2DDE77274A17%7D/uploads/%7BC08DFE30-212F-441B-BFB0-CDB149283710%7D.PDF
    Regs in the UK:
    April 3 2008 ~ “paperwork and restrictions on what farmers can do is a problem – it takes up around 60 per cent of Mr Lawton’s time”
    http://www.warmwell.com/aboutfmd08.html#farmland
    December 21 2007 ~ “… a death-blow at much of what remains of Britain’s hill-farming. http://www.warmwell.com/aboutfmdaug07new.html
    EU meeting states intent to get rid of small farms: 19.http://www.i-sis.org.uk/savePolishCountryside.php
    http://www.naissucks.com/index.php?con=4th_Component
    Investigating price-fixing:Supermarket sweep http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11289136
    Fast Facts of Corporate Consolidation of Industrial Agriculture
    http://www.ifg.org/pdf/indust_ag-fas=_facts_consol.pdf
    Agriculture and Monopoly capital: http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/company-structures-ownership/7895421-1.html
    OCM Leads Opposition to JBS Swift Acquisition http://www.competitivemarkets.com/index.php?Itemid=9&id=50&option=com_content&task=view
    Anti-Corporate Farming Laws in the Heartland http://www.celdf.org/AntiCorporateFarmingLawsinHeartland/tabid/130/Default.aspx
    American Farm Groups Demand Reform of US Ag policy http://lists.iatp.org/listarchive/archive.cfm?id=81749
    .
    .
    .
    I have lots more references.
    Corporate consolidation of the food supply is just as dangerous as Government control of Energy.

  71. OK, this is a political comment, ( I am not an American ), but hasn’t the President just shouldered all of the blame for any, ( er, read that as the destruction of the American economy ), adverse effects upon himself?
    I think this is suicidal politics, so there must be a huge feather bed to catch him when the dust settles.
    Apologies in advance to the mods.

  72. I will sic my Yama on him. http://www.boneroom.com/skulls/tibetanskulls.html Mine is not one of the ones shown but is similar to #45. Yama is the Tantric Buddhist god of death. You can go look it up on the net if you are curious. One of the purposes of these was to remind people that they are mortal. The skulls were from especially devout people who had died. Before you go yuk, remember that the Vatican is all full of dead body parts from various saints. To each religion their own. I think our Wimp in Chief would faint if he saw a real dead body.

  73. If memory serves me correctly, there are lessers at the EPA who did NOT want to go down the C02 toxic ruling road.
    And it was Jackson who defended and admitted to approval of the dispersants in the Gulf.
    Lisa’s Waterloo in the Gulf?
    In appearnces of operating under a double standard, she could be facing a new Congress eager to toss a bone to the public.

  74. Well I’ve said it before; and I’m not too bashful to say it again:- Anyone who seriously proposes to tax Carbon FOR ANY REASON, needs to be locked up in an institution for the criminally insane, for the rest of their natural life.
    We have an energy secretary who is going to let microbes and yeast provide us with fuel energy. Last time I checked; even they don’t work for free; so they are not going to volunteer to be Obamas’s neo-slave force; so they too need to be provided with food and energy; so sans fossils; we are back to old sol and his one kW/m^2 air mass one maximum.
    Well excuse me; I exaggerate; that is actually Trenberth’s 168 W/m^2
    So just how does that Cuckoo Chu plan to get all the solar energy to his little flea circusses to knit hydrocarbon molecules for him ?
    Speaking of Harvard; there’s a learned Study that says that Harvard is the number one ranked University in the whole world; and the University spends about $100 K per year on its students (each).
    So WHO paid for that for our Maxi Leader.
    But even Harvard doesn’t hold a candle to MIT; which is certainly ranked in the top 20; maybe top ten; but is clearly the leader in $ spent per student per year at about $240,000 a pop; hell no not MY Pop !
    Of course Universities don’t print money so somebody or somebody’s estate put up that money to mostly waste on a lot of people who should have dropped out based on their results.
    I believe my Alma Mater is ranked about #86; and luckily they didn’t 86 me. They also are the world’s highest ranked University in terms of world ranking per dollar spent per year per student. In fact three out of the four major Universities of New Zealand are ranked the world leaders in educational ranking per dollar spent per student per year. Well yes I knew we were poor; but didn’t realize we were that poor.
    I’ll bring in the full report because it has some interesting numbers. Stanford isn’t ranked that highly; although way ahead of my AM; and as I recall it spends somewhat more than Harvard; but somewhat less than Yale.
    I believe Harvard is #1 followed by Yale/Cambridge/Oxford; in some order I couldn’t separate; but Cambridge and Oxford spend way less than Harvard. I think Cambridge was actually ranked #2
    Hey if I had our maxi leader as a product; I would seal the records too.

  75. I was thinking about cow dung dust. Makes great rose tea. All you have to do is have a dirt manure pile and crowd the cows in. Let em poop for awhile then kick em back out to green pastures. Let the stuff dry and rake it into a fairly fine consistency. Package it up and when needed, add to water. Rose tea. Pour near the roots and you will have fabulous roses. I could send some to DC in little homemade tea bags if you think it would help. Since the Dems are full of s**t, my rose tea oughta be just their cup of tea.

  76. Eric says:
    August 4, 2010 at 12:15 pm
    I’m sorry to say that he simply doesn’t understnad how things work. A brilliant guy who has nary a clue. While Bush damaged everything he touched, Obama has done nothing to fix anything that Bush touched, and is actually just maintaining the status quo.
    ========================================================
    Eric, I think Obama has royally screwed up everything he’s touched. I can’t think of one thing he has touched that he didn’t make worse.
    Best we can hope for is he gets in a few hundred more vacations and golf games.

  77. Alan Simpson not from Friends of the Earth says:
    August 4, 2010 at 3:48 pm
    OK, this is a political comment, ( I am not an American ), but hasn’t the President just shouldered all of the blame for any, ( er, read that as the destruction of the American economy ), adverse effects upon himself?
    I think this is suicidal politics, so there must be a huge feather bed to catch him when the dust settles.
    _______________________________________________
    Unfortunately you are correct. How it all works is explained here:
    Revolving Doors? A Network Analysis of Corporate Officers and
    U.S. Government Officials: http://webuser.bus.umich.edu/gfdavis/Papers/etzion_davis_08.pdf
    A Matter of Trust: HOW THE REVOLVING DOOR UNDERMINES PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT
    http://www.cleanupwashington.org/documents/RevovDoor.pdf
    Here is an example of how it works: http://www.psrast.org/ecologmons.htm
    This is also a very interesting article by the guy who foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union: http://www.impactlab.net/2008/05/10/what-in-the-world-is-going-on/

  78. All regulatory agencies are governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) US Code 5, Sections 552-559. It governs how and when they can write regulations. Specifically, it says that if a regulation significantly affects the parties being regulated, it cannot be implemented without a specific law from Congress.
    It is time to go on the offensive with this rouge agency. The first business affected by this action must sue in Federal District court for an injunction. NO party who has ever brought a suit under the APA has ever lost a case against the government, including with the Rehnquist Supreme Court.
    I have numerous citations if anyone is interested in pursuing this: iluveyw@aol.com

  79. This is an interesting political analysis:
    http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/28/climate-change-movement-harry-reid-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html
    “Future historians will pinpoint Democratic Sen. Harry Reid’s energy legislation, released Tuesday, as the moment that the political movement of global warming entered an irreversible death spiral. It is kaput! Finito! Done!
    This is not just my read of the situation; it is also that of Paul Krugman, …”

  80. Henry chance says:
    August 4, 2010 at 1:30 pm
    GHG’s
    NOX,COX,SOX, CH4 and CFC.

    You forgot the most dangerous and obnoxious GHG: EPA.

  81. The problem is that when the Republicans get in power they don’t clean house as effectively as the Democrats do.
    Or at all. I’m thinking Bush keeping all fifty federal attourneys. Like right now the Democrats in California are seeking a compromise with State GOP. They want a tax increase, that first has to pass the legislature, then has to be approved by the public through a vote. Smart legislators would take advantage of this leverage.
    Personally, if I were King California Republican, I’d trade them tort reform for a tax increase with sunset provisions. Specificly I’d block NGO’s from bringing environmental court challenges. That’s the state EPA’s job anyway. The unions and Sierra club can go pound sand.
    I’m sorry to say that he simply doesn’t understnad how things work. A brilliant guy who has nary a clue. – No. The word you are searching for is “stupid” or maybe “boneheaded”. Anything but brilliant.
    Here try this, “a boneheaded guy who has nary a clue.”
    See how much better that works?
    FrankK, it’s not likely that as many dems see through AGW, since they are far more likely to trust the media, the EPA, the education system, GreenPeace, WWF, etc. all of whom are singing from the same choirbook. – I call it suffering from cranial rectum inversion.
    Jobs First – Yes on 23

  82. The Federal Government appears determined to thwart the will of the citizenry. During the past two weeks we saw Obama and a federal judge usurp the will of the people of Arizona, and it happened again today in California.
    From The Declaration of Independence

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
    He has refused for a long time, after such disolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

  83. Pamela Gray says:
    August 4, 2010 at 4:08 pm
    “I was thinking about cow dung dust. Makes great rose tea. All you have to do is have a dirt manure pile and crowd the cows in. Let em poop for awhile then kick em back out to green pastures. Let the stuff dry and rake it into a fairly fine consistency. Package it up and when needed, add to water. Rose tea. Pour near the roots and you will have fabulous roses. I could send some to DC in little homemade tea bags if you think it would help. Since the Dems are full of s**t, my rose tea oughta be just their cup of tea.”
    HAHAHA, that’s a beautiful idea!!! Be sure to send some extra to the EPA so they can share the gift with all in the office!!!

  84. The dictum is “you’d better do it, Congress, or we’ll get the EPA do it”. An interesting mindset is behind this threat. Congress created the EPA– would they have the guts to put their child back in its place? Probably not; and then there’s Obama’s veto power.

  85. I should have added that the Washington Post has enthusiastically supported using the threat of clumsy EPA regulation to dragoon the Congress into doing the “right” thing (or maybe it’s the left thing).

  86. Somehow, I don’t read the Supreme Court “allowing” CO2 regulation as a “mandate,” but I guess I’m just more familiar with the English language than the average WaPo employee.
    .
    Stephen Wilde says: August 4, 2010 at 1:48 pm
    President Obama is very like our former Prime Minister Blair.
    Each knows what we want to hear so they say it but it’s not backed up by any real worldly wisdom or any sound political philosophy.

    Not at all like Blair. I’ve watched Prime Minister’s Question Time on London layovers. Obama would be reduced to tears by grillings such as Blair handled. Blair can think on his feet, while Obama is a pathetic embarrassment if he doesn’t have a teleprompter to read from. Your Parliament, even those on his side, would not let Obama get away with blaming George Bush for everything.
    .
    Alan Simpson not from Friends of the Earth says: August 4, 2010 at 3:48 pm
    OK, this is a political comment, ( I am not an American ), but hasn’t the President just shouldered all of the blame for any, ( er, read that as the destruction of the American economy ), adverse effects upon himself?

    This President does not shoulder blame for anything. He had a veto-proof Congress, yet he blamed the Republicans for blocking his agenda. The American press lets him get away with it. Our recession would be over by now had anyone else been running the government, but he continues to blame George W. Bush. I can’t recall Dubya ever using the word “inherited,” but it’s every other word the Bamster reads off the teleprompter. No, Obama doesn’t shoulder blame. He has no shoulders. <rant>
    Gosh, I feel better now.

  87. Perhaps the power companies should try an experiment – shut down all fossil fuel plants for a week and check how the temperature changes!

  88. Eric says:
    August 4, 2010 at 12:15 pm
    As an Australian could some of the USA posters here please enlighten me as to what “Sarah Palin” types are and what is meant to be wrong with them?
    Those of us lucky enough to be married to tough, smart, competent, good looking women who have common sense in spades might like to know.

  89. From the other side of the ‘pond’ and perhaps the moon….
    “A dark ideology is driving those who deny climate change”
    “People who claim that climate science is a conspiracy or the work of charlatans are talking rubbish”
    Robin Mckie
    The Observer, Sunday 1 August 2010

    This appears to be one more article purporting that opposition to the AGW theory is a machination of the rich and powerful at the expense of the ‘little guy’ who will suffer the dire, runaway consequences of a 0.6 degree average temperature increase in the last 100 years.
    I would not be supprised if were the attitude of some of the new staffers at the EPA.

  90. stevengoddard says:
    August 4, 2010 at 4:50 pm
    “The Federal Government appears determined to thwart the will of the citizenry. During the past two weeks we saw Obama and a federal judge usurp the will of the people of Arizona, and it happened again today in California.”
    Yes, apparently the term representative democracy doesn’t register with those people. This, too, has its limits. Hopefully, November will slap them with some reality.

  91. Mike Borgelt,
    What was done to Sarah Palin was the classic Saul Alinsky tactic of personalizing the opposition and making the person the issue, rather than what the person stands for.
    The alarmist crowd did the same thing to Lord Monckton a while back. Not one of them was able to correct his science, so they launched a non-stop ad hominem attack.

  92. Henry chance:
    GHG’s
    NOX,COX,SOX, CH4 and CFC.
    ————–
    For a second there I thought you were about to recite a Variety Headline (Hix nix pix…)

  93. Mike McMillan says:
    August 4, 2010 at 5:03 pm
    Gosh, I feel better now.
    ======================================
    Me too!

  94. “The administration will cite a mandate from the Supreme Court, which ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases could be regulated like other air pollutants.”
    Emphasis on the word “could”. SCOTUS did not “Mandate” regulation. The next president (hopefully the new House Speaker after Obama and what’s his name get impeached) can clean up the EPA and NASA/GISS.

  95. Smokey says:
    August 4, 2010 at 5:31 pm
    Mike Borgelt,
    “What was done to Sarah Palin was the classic Saul Alinsky tactic of personalizing the opposition and making the person the issue, rather than what the person stands for.
    The alarmist crowd did the same thing to Lord Monckton a while back. Not one of them was able to correct his science, so they launched a non-stop ad hominem attack.”
    And they’ll continue to do it to all those they fear.

  96. Let’s hear it for the “or else!”
    There’s nothing quite as persuasive as a bureaucrat using the point of a gun as his final element in a syllogism.

  97. Yes, the blackmail didn’t work. Now Team Obama will either have to further retard economic activity–and bloat consumers’ energy bills–or go quietly into the night. They either hack off consumers and more of the unemployed or the fringe left of their base. I know which side has more votes…

  98. Mike Borgelt says:
    August 4, 2010 at 5:18 pm
    Eric says:
    August 4, 2010 at 12:15 pm
    As an Australian could some of the USA posters here please enlighten me as to what “Sarah Palin” types are and what is meant to be wrong with them?
    Those of us lucky enough to be married to tough, smart, competent, good looking women who have common sense in spades might like to know.
    ____________________________________________________________
    You have just given a lot of the reasons but they apply to Hilary Clinton too. The primary reason is because Palin is “very conservative” and religious therefore the liberals really hate her yet JF Kennedy was a Catholic so go figure.
    Sarah Palin is:
    Anti-abortion
    pro school prayer
    pro gun
    pro hunting
    favors the death penalty
    opposes gay marriage, but as Governor was tough on gay-lesbian discrimination
    very pro-ethics in government
    As mayor she kept her campaign promises by reducing her own salary along with property taxes.
    fiscal conservative
    http://usconservatives.about.com/od/sarahpalin/p/SarahPalin.htm
    She seem to be that oxymoron, an honest politician.

  99. Mike Borgelt says:
    August 4, 2010 at 5:18 pm
    As an Australian could some of the USA posters here please enlighten me as to what “Sarah Palin” types are and what is meant to be wrong with them?
    =========================================================
    Mike just keep in mind, the people that bash Sarah Palin, actually voted for Obama.

  100. Greenhouse gases are not pollution. To say they are is political propaganda.

  101. From the Washington Post article:

    The next few months could bring a climax to the long-running debate over how to combat climate change, with the EPA trying to implement its rules and industry groups and opponents in Congress seeking to block it with lawsuits or legislation.
    The administration will cite a mandate from the Supreme Court, which ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases could be regulated like other air pollutants. But opponents will say it has chosen an approach that stretches the law and could impose serious economic costs. . .

    What the article does not mention is that there are many scientists (not to mention innumerable informed laymen) who do not agree that CO2 is a ‘pollutant’, nor any kind of hazard whatsoever. They do not agree that there is any danger that CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels will affect global temperatures at all, and certainly not adversely.
    But that, of course, is par for the course at the Washington Post and other vanishingly ‘mainstream’ publications. They insist on parroting the official line that there is a problem with ‘greenhouse gases’. Why? Because that is what they are told by the ruling class, and theirs is not to question authority. And so it never occurs to them that the ostensible concern with ‘climate change’ is really just an excuse for the rulers to exercise more and more control over the lives of the American people.
    /Mr Lynn

  102. jorgekafkazar says:
    August 4, 2010 at 3:00 pm
    “Eric says: “I voted for Obama…A brilliant guy who has nary a clue.”
    If he’s so brilliant, how come Harvard was forced to seal his transcript?”

    I didn’t know that his transcript was sealed. Hmmmmmm…… now you’ve done gone and got my curiosity up.
    The transcripts of Bush and Gore were a bit of an item during their campaigns. IIRC, it turned out that Bush won with a ‘C’ average to Gore’s ‘C-‘ average. I could be wrong, but anyhow it was just the usual campaign silliness of “our candidate is smarter than yours.” It turns out they were both found to be unqualified for rocket science, rock science, or even rock-candy making.

  103. I don’t understand this – the US is the most powerful country in the world and seems determined to follow the example set by the British Empire – i.e. that decline is inevitable once the loonies and lefties get control of critical areas of government policy.
    This nonsense from the EPA is a symptom of decline and perhaps a timely reminder of the old time-proven adage:
    “Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.”

  104. it looks like Jeff Sprecher of ICE which bought the UK-listed Climate Exchange (CLE) is getting the message:
    4 Aug: UK Financial Times: US carbon emissions trading in doubt
    By Hal Weitzman in Chicago
    The future of carbon emissions trading in the US is in doubt because of the lack of cap-and-trade legislation, Jeff Sprecher, chief executive of Intercontinental Exchange , said on Wednesday…
    Although CCX’s (Chicago Climate Exchange) market is voluntary, since launching in 2003 it has attracted large US companies such as Ford, DuPont, Bank of America, Cargill, Monsanto, Honeywell, IBM, Motorola and Intel…
    In spite of luring big companies and possessing significant political clout, the receding prospect of the US passing cap-and-trade legislation has drawn into question the whole idea of carbon trading as a viable business…
    In the absence of new legislation, the EPA could implement a carbon regime based on the Clean Air Act that would set emissions limits but may not allow for carbon trading – raising the prospect of “cap, but not trade”, he (Jeff Sprecher, chief executive of Intercontinental Exchange) said…
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/55232080-9fe8-11df-8cc5-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss

  105. @ pat says:
    August 4, 2010 at 8:29 pm:
    In the absence of new legislation, the EPA could implement a carbon regime based on the Clean Air Act that would set emissions limits but may not allow for carbon trading – raising the prospect of “cap, but not trade”, he (Jeff Sprecher, chief executive of Intercontinental Exchange) said…
    ————
    As a consultant who worked throughout Europe and Latin America on Kyoto Clean Development Projects, I can tell you that the European model for carbon trading was rife with incompetence, dishonesty and downright thievery! No doubt, the Obama lesson has heard the stories about European Mafia involvement in carbon trading, re-selling of credits by some nations, etc.
    “Cap and not trade” will follow the Clean Water Act formula. The “trade” part was always optional, and it wasn’t as effective for acid rain abatement as some have claimed. Obama could give a hoot what the corporations think, he’ll get his money, either in permit fees, enforcement fines, or both.

  106. Have any of you seen the chart depicting the governments role in health care put out by Kevin Brady, representative 8th district in Texas, http://house.gov/brady? Look for the chart that his staff developed for the connections, new fees, bureaucracies, and programs connected as an organizational chart. It is absolutely shows how reckless congress has been in creating Obama care. The complexity is unbelieveable I wonder what the chart for the EPA will look like when the seek to regulate emissions of CO2.

  107. lol at Pamela Gray.
    When you look at western worlds it is really weird how they are all following the same agenda
    I look at the politicians in power and know we are in for a rough ride in Australia.
    Total incompetents governing at the moment.The opposition is better able to manage the economy because of the previous opposition,but all the people waiting in the wings scare me.Not a financial clue between them all.
    Here in Tasmania we have a woman aged about 30 running our health system.Same for education.Never run a business in their life.Been in politics since they turned 20.
    We are a small country so our brightest and best are snapped up by the private sector leaving the dregs to enter politics.
    America should be different,but the president looks like dregs to me.
    In my opinion Jackson is not a patch on Palin,but Palin is not a patch on Condolezza Rice.Some Presidents are smart in their choices,some are stupid,and go for dregs.

  108. Henry chance says:
    August 4, 2010 at 1:08 pm
    The EPA is hyperventilating on dust. If they rule against dust on dirt roads, we are stuck with paving all of them with asphalt or closing them.

    They’re closing them. About 18 months ago I was involved in a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) trail clean up project where our off-road club cleaned up a popular backcountry trail close to Las Vegas, Nevada (where I live). When we were finished the BLM official thanked us and informed us that the road was being closed to meet dust regulations. He firmly warned us that we would be fined if caught on the trail in the future.
    Since then, most dirt roads have been closed and we now have the “dust police” who watch for people driving on them. The shame is authorities have made little effort or expense to visually mark the closed roads, block their access, or publicize their closing. Many people don’t know that driving on a dirt road is subject to stiff fines. I’ve talked to several individuals who learned the expensive way.
    Our desert Southwest public lands are quickly becoming inaccessible. Thanks Harry Reid!

  109. Noelene says: at 10:22 pm
    “…When you look at western worlds it is really weird how they are all following the same agenda…Total incompetents governing at the moment…”
    Consider yourself lucky that you don’t live in Britain. Chris Huhne, our Energy Secretary, wants 468 more wind farms built. Britain will require 7,500 turbines in its coastal waters by 2020 to meet European Union energy targets. He also opposes nuclear, won’t allow any more coal, oil, or natural gas power plants to be built, and reckons we all should be driving Tesla electric cars, though naturally doesn’t drive one himself.
    There are currently 253 wind farms in operation in the UK with a further 12 operating offshore. The 2,909 turbines on these farms have the capacity to generate 4,580 mega watts of electricity, enough to power more than 2.5 million homes, although in reality due to the unpredictable nature of wind and inefficiencies in the generation process, the amount of power produced is a lot less. A further 27 onshore and 5 offshore wind farms are currently under construction while another 468 wind farms are planned.
    At least £30bn of capital investment in offshore wind farms is needed over the coming decade if the UK is to produce the 30% of electricity from renewable sources needed to comply with European regulations, according to a report from consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers. The number dwarfs current levels of investment, which run at around £8bn a year for all the utilities and National Grid combined. Given that the average offshore wind farm takes more than three years to construct, the £3bn annual investment requirement creates a capex exposure of £10bn by 2015.
    …And who do you think is going to pay for all this?
    Like I say, consider yourself lucky you don’t have idiots such as this running your show.

  110. James Sexton: August 4, 2010 at 12:40 pm
    …the courts have already stated the EPA could treat GHG’s as pollutants.
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
    So we’re stuck until either congress or the president changes. But likely, it’ll have to be both to force a change at the EPA.

    Not necessarily. If the Supremes can be shown that the EPA reps deliberately withheld information or — even worse — deliberately lied to further their case, and made fools of the Nine in the process, it’s Game On…

  111. About that dust – what’s wrong with it when it’s somewhere in the country? Dust is quite natural. I would understand people objecting to dusty roads near their dwellings, but a road somewhere in the open, used not too often…

  112. Gail,
    Talk about over regulations…
    The farmers in my area have PULLED all the apple trees.
    The Ontario government told the farmers that ANYONE in the fields MUST wear hardhats and safety boots and be covered for workmans compensation. All regulations from the construction industry to training and liciences (quite a few) on equipment are to be enforced.
    Wearing harnesses and being tied off as well to a tree when using a ladder.

  113. What frustrates me here is that the effort to debunk the junk pseudoscience of the climate alarmists is not being challenged effectively enough to throw a wrench into the plans of the EPA and the Obama administration. It needs to be challenged with a more effective national campaign, preferably on television. The alarmist science has not been scientifically proven beyond the shadow of a doubt (far from it), yet it is being treated as fact for political purposes and it shouldn’t be. Until the seed of doubt is effectively placed into the minds of the right people (and enough people), all of the political and legal efforts to block CO2 regulation will have doubtful success. I can see all those U.S. jobs going to India and China already.

  114. Sorry about the wording in my previous post. I meant to say that the junk pseudoscience of the climate alarmists is not being challenged effectively enough to throw a wrench into the plans of the EPA and Obama Administration.

  115. @ Sean Peake says:
    August 5, 2010 at 5:25 am
    Controlling dust?! I hope the EPA doesn’t look under my furniture.

    Just give it some time. Regulators get paid to regulate, remember. It doesn’t matter what gets regulated, and the possibilities are infinite.

  116. Henry Hancock @ 11:01–are those trails now closed to horses too?
    Here is my northern Virginia county they adopted a “historic roads district” that is literally the network of dirt roads and a buffer zone on each side.
    They will never be widened, improved, or God-forbid paved, because they are “historically dirt”, even though they are state roads and often even commuter routes for the folks who move to a new home on well and spetic 60 miles from their job, and then rail about other people “sprawling”.
    Funny, the “historic roads district” is smack dab in the heart of the foxhunting area.
    Cars do mess up the ability of groups of people on horseback to freely chase animals where they please!

  117. Gail Combs says:
    August 4, 2010 at 1:09 pm
    Jim G says:
    August 4, 2010 at 12:02 pm
    Rockyroad;
    Don’t blame me, I voted for the American. (I saw it on a bumper sticker.)
    ___________________________________________________________________
    “I love it! I too voted for an American and not one of the two Manchurian Candidates we were supposed to vote for.”
    Unfortunately, voting for 3rd party conservatives ensures left wing wins. The lefties rarely split their vote. And, by the way, JFK was much more conservative (with the exception of unions and labor) than most present day Republicans. Consider his positions on taxes and defense. Very much Reaganesque.


  118. At 8:52 AM on 5 August, Jim G had written:
    Unfortunately, voting for 3rd party conservatives ensures left wing wins.
    This leaves Americans with only the Republicans as an alternative to the National Socialist wing of our big, permanently incumbent, institutional Boot On Your Neck Party.
    Oh, yeah. They’re a national party, and they’re explicitly socialist, right? What the hell gives anyone to think that Thomas Jefferson – co-founder of the Democratic-Republican Party in 1792 – would have anything to do with the “Democratic Party” thugs and thieves of today?
    Might as well push for a bit of truth in advertising. “National Socialist” does it about right, doesn’t it?
    Hey, with their Big Labor connection, it might be even more appropriate to call them:
    The National Socialist American Workers’ Party.
    Hm. Yeah, that’s about right. Evocative, ain’t it?

  119. Rich Matarese says:
    “The National Socialist American Workers’ Party.
    Hm. Yeah, that’s about right. Evocative, ain’t it?”
    Even the Chinese are really more fascists today than communists. Big business and government, hand in hand. Just like us in many respects. Once you get rid of the constitution through judicial fiat, that’s what you get. We are just a lot less severe,…. so far.

  120. barbarausa says:
    August 5, 2010 at 7:25 am
    Henry Hancock @ 11:01–are those trails now closed to horses too?
    … Cars do mess up the ability of groups of people on horseback to freely chase animals where they please!

    To the best of my knowledge, horses and hikers are still permitted on dirt roads. There are a few backcountry byways in the area that are still open but the closing of all other dirt roads is forcing off-road enthusiasts to overuse these historic roads. As a result, there is now much clamor for the BLM to enforce group restrictions and/or permitting and also restrict the type of vehicles that can be on the roads. As the EPA tightens regulation of dust, I can only imagine how much more stupid things will turn.
    Nevada is mostly all desert. We have frequent wind/dust storms, primarily in the spring but they can occur at any time of the year. Huge dust devils towering hundreds of feet are a common site in the summer. What is the EPA going to do about that? If people don’t like dust, they shouldn’t live in the desert.
    Out here the only thing available to chase is rattlesnakes. I understand that chasing them with horses doesn’t work so well.

  121. Sarah Palin is openly despised by most of our “elites” in government, academia, and the press. She seems like a true conservative and is about as far removed from the DC beltway as you can get. There are pictures on the internet of Sarah actually working with her hands on their fishing boat, and I love the one of her next to a freshly shot caribou. Mrs. Palin is married to a very macho, working-class guy, and she got her degree from a college in Idaho of all places. She made her name in Alaska cleaning up (Republican) corruption, and she must seem like the anti-Christ to our Washington elites. They will do their best to destroy her when she runs for President. You go, girl.

  122. What I don’t understand (and I am not a scientist) is how a gas that I exhale (me and everybody else) can be regulated. Has the Supreme Court lost its collective mind?

  123. Hank Hancock says:
    August 4, 2010 at 11:01 pm
    Henry chance says:
    August 4, 2010 at 1:08 pm
    The EPA is hyperventilating on dust. If they rule against dust on dirt roads, we are stuck with paving all of them with asphalt or closing them….
    Since then, most dirt roads have been closed and we now have the “dust police” who watch for people driving on them. The shame is authorities have made little effort or expense to visually mark the closed roads, block their access, or publicize their closing. Many people don’t know that driving on a dirt road is subject to stiff fines. I’ve talked to several individuals who learned the expensive way.
    Our desert Southwest public lands are quickly becoming inaccessible. Thanks Harry Reid!
    ____________________________________________________________________
    It is part of the “wildlands Project” – “Rewilding the USA”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7974995.stm
    The goal is to kick Americans off most of the land in the USA. “They” (the UN) tried to do it in one huge law but it was stopped at the 11th hour. So now it is being done piece meal. It is called The Wildlands Project and UN Convention on Biological Diversity Plan to Restore Biodiversity in the United States.
    Wildlands Project map: (we get to live in the tiny green areas only) http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/images/wildlands_map.jpg
    Information about the whole project: http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles2/wildlands_project_and_un_convent.htm

  124. sdollarfan says:
    August 5, 2010 at 6:22 am
    Sorry about the wording in my previous post. I meant to say that the junk pseudoscience of the climate alarmists is not being challenged effectively enough to throw a wrench into the plans of the EPA and Obama Administration.
    ______________________________________________________-
    The politicians all know it is a hoax but they as well as the scientists involved are well paid to betray the rest of mankind. The mass media is controlled by five corporations who also are well aware of the hoax.
    If the mass media would not report the real story of the e-coli poisoning that killed a woman, then forget any true reporting of the CAGW hoax. John told me himself he was interviewed for three days by a well known New York magazine and the story was pulled by the magazine’s owner as it was to go to press.
    There are some very powerful people working behind the scenes and they call the shots not us.
    Read up on the crash of 1929 and who was behind it:
    http://mises.org/daily/3866
    http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm
    A PRIMER ON MONEY: by US House Committee on Banking and Currency

  125. Rockyroad;
    Don’t blame me, I voted for the American. (I saw it on a bumper sticker.)
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Gail Combs says:
    “I love it! I too voted for an American and not one of the two Manchurian Candidates we were supposed to vote for.”
    ____________________________________________
    Jim G says:
    Unfortunately, voting for 3rd party conservatives ensures left wing wins. The lefties rarely split their vote. And, by the way, JFK was much more conservative (with the exception of unions and labor) than most present day Republicans. Consider his positions on taxes and defense. Very much Reaganesque.
    _______________________________________
    Sigh, I am afraid you are correct, I should have voted Republican but I do not think he would have been much better.
    And Yes I liked JFK too. I wish we had someone of his statue to vote for. I am really getting sick of picking candidates by determining who I most want to vote AGAINST. Unfortunately money buys the candidates so we only think we have a real choice.
    At this point I am only hoping they kill the USA slowly enough that I get to die in the United States of America and not in the “The United Soviet Socialist States of the World”

  126. People like me who were once life long voting democrats, now willing to go on the stump for ANYONE running against a democrat. And get this, I am still a liberal. But I don’t suffer educated fools. It has come to this. I believe that stupid conservatives can govern better than educated democrats. Which brings me to the most insane thing I thought I would NEVER say! Bush Jr was a better pres than Obama will ever be. Now excuse me while I go throw up.
    ____________________________________________________
    Pamela. You have spoken with great wisdom and humiliation especially when you say — stupid conservatives can govern better than educated democrats.
    Obama only spoke well during the election. He said absolutely nothing.
    His actions since the election are those of a person who owes no allegiance to the American people as far as I can judge from here.
    Doug

  127. Dear WWS
    I much appreciate your reference to the State of Texas response to the EPA Tailoring Rule. Thank you from bringing it to our attention.
    Its come to my attention that the EPA is also attempting to remove the State’s sovereignty to manage thier own permitting process by bypassing state SIPs (State Implementation Plans) under the newly published “Transport Rule”. Most troubling is that the EPA is trying to implement the “Transport Rule” as a mandated FIP (Federal Implementation Plans) without providing the States the opportunity to develop their own SIPs. (Note: the “Transport Rule” covers existing pollutants [NOx, SO2, ozone, and 2.5 particulate]. The “Transport Rule” is intended to replace CAIR rules vacated by the DC Circuit Court).
    This is a radical departure from the consensual State/Federal partnership mandated by consitutional law and, in my view, violates both Federal and State constitutonal clauses and as well established judical intrepreation of federal enviornmental law at both the State and Federal levels.
    In effect the EPA is nationalizing the federal rule making process. This despite federal Clean Air Act law that directs the EPA implement it rules only after the State’s and Congress are provided a reasonable opportunity to respond to proposed rules; and only after the States are provided resonable opportunity to develop State rules/laws that conform to federal requirements.
    After reviewing of the Texas argument, I intend to incorporate many of the State of Texa’s argument into my organization’s response to the “Transport Rule”.
    Kforestcat

  128. Pamela Gray –
    You’re finally “growing up!” Fear of the Democrat is the beginning of wisdom. Lol!

  129. Rich Matarese: “Might as well push for a bit of truth in advertising. “National Socialist” does it about right, doesn’t it?”
    The other day, a post of mine was snipped because it referred to another poster’s use of a certain word which purportedly has connotations of Holocaust […].
    Above we have a poster who likens some people to Nazis.
    Why is it unacceptable to refer to one’s opponents as […], but OK to refer to them as Nazis?


  130. At 1:17 AM on 6 August, Brendan H complains:
    The other day, a post of mine was snipped because it referred to another poster’s use of a certain word which purportedly has connotations of Holocaust […].
    “Above we have a poster who likens some people to Nazis.
    “Why is it unacceptable to refer to one’s opponents as […], but OK to refer to them as Nazis?

    As I’d observed in that quoted post, the Blue wing of the Boot On Your Neck Party is national in scope and socialist in purpose. What’s more, they’re deeply involved in advancing the agenda of organized labor, an invidious force dedicated to the practice of pillaging end consumers of goods and services by forcing them to pay the costs of both higher labor compensation and reduced productivity through the “closed shop” system in which work rules are commonly imposed to restrict technological advancements and support “featherbedding” practices destructive of efficiency.
    Thus we might also call them “The National Socialist American Workers’ Party.”
    If this marks the former Democratic Party as identical in key regards to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (which flourished in Germany from 1919 to 1945), one must simply grasp the fact and work with it.
    After all, one outbreak of cholera tends to be much like another, does it not?
    The concept of “Liberal” fascism is well-supported by historical fact, and the ominous parallels have been remarked cogently and repeatedly over the decades.
    By the bye, the efforts to invoke Godwin’s law as a foreclosure of discussion is duplicitous, vile, and will not be brooked. What Godwin had observed, in fact, was that the probability of drawing comparison to the egregious brutality and disregard of individual rights instantiated in the rule of the NSDAP approaches unity.
    Human nature being what it is, and the trend of modern authoritarians to use the socialist masquerade as a means of exerting political power under the excuse that they want to “spread the wealth around”, we must look upon all socialists – whether they call themselves populists, Marxists, progressives, communists, fascists, falangists, compassionate conservatives, whatever – to be equally prone to the obliteration of property rights, including the individual’s human right to a property in his own person.
    The “spread the wealth around” impulse is based upon the unavoidable assumption that the wealth of the individual human being is entirely at the command of people like Barry Soetoro – a former “community organizer” who has never run a business, has never met a payroll, and appears never to have so much as worked an honest job in is carefully shadowed and comparatively worthless life.
    Somebody who has won a popularity contest – against a broken-down Republican Party hack – has, for example, overseen the issue of fiat currency such that in about a year’s time we have seen the “money” supply (M3) double.
    Not even the fiction of restraint under the rule of law survives in this time of Barry’s political ascendancy.
    This is certainly not capitalist (free market), is it? Can this action – and the rest of the malevolent accomplishments of the administration and the Congress dominated by Barry’s faction – be described as anything other than socialist?
    And is Barry’s political movement not a nationwide phenomenon, with branches in all of the several states?
    National Socialist.

  131. Rich Matarese: “If this marks the former Democratic Party as identical in key regards to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (which flourished in Germany from 1919 to 1945), one must simply grasp the fact and work with it.”
    The issue here is a double standard, whereby WUWT allows accusations of Nazism to be directed against its opponents, while forbidding certain terms that are said to have connotations of Holocaust […].
    So we can compare two claims:
    – That one’s opponents are “identical in key regards” to Germany’s Nazis, (ie they are identical to people who perpetrated the Holocaust)
    – That one’s opponents are like Holocaust […].
    One claim is allowed, the other forbidden. That strikes me as a double standard.
    [Reply: The “opponent” you commented on is a political party, not skeptics of runaway global warming. Please read and follow the site policy, which is explicit regarding unacceptable terms. Other sites have other policies, if this is too onerous to accept. ~dbs, mod.]

  132. Reply: The “opponent” you commented on is a political party, not skeptics of runaway global warming. Please read and follow the site policy, which is explicit regarding unacceptable terms. Other sites have other policies, if this is too onerous to accept. ~dbs, mod.]
    Are you arguing that the poster is directing his animus against an inanimate object? Not according to this claim: “What’s more, they’re deeply involved in advancing the agenda of organized labor…”. Who are the “they” here?
    I am not arguing that the rule is onerous, merely that it operates to a double standard.
    ***
    [Reply: I am not arguing. ~dbs, mod.]


  133. At 11:58 AM on 6 August, Brendan H had written:
    The issue here is a double standard, whereby WUWT allows accusations of Nazism to be directed against its opponents, while forbidding certain terms that are said to have connotations of Holocaust […].
    “So we can compare two claims:
    “- That one’s opponents are “identical in key regards” to Germany’s Nazis, (ie they are identical to people who perpetrated the Holocaust)
    “- That one’s opponents are like Holocaust […].

    No, the issue is not as Mr. H avers.
    For the modern American “Liberal” – who has been characterized as a species of “milk and water socialist” – the distinguishing characteristics of other socialist political system are always those which the “Liberal” can explain away as differentiating him from his collectivist forebears of the same intellectual, moral, and political heritage.
    To the methodological individualist – the intellectual proponent of individual rights, who treats the dignity and worth of the individual human being as the touchstone of moral value and for the benefit of whom we come out of the “state of nature” and into society – it is the common characteristics of all socialists which must be identified.
    It’s very much like the art of diagnosis. We look for the common features in disparate patients in order to discern, from case to case, the qualities which identify the pathology, and thus we look to the different kinds of socialism to read the common thread in each of these, which is always the abnegation of individual human rights.
    If this is found in the modern American “Liberal” – who understands full well that he and his predecessors over the past half-century have made the term “Liberal” so odious that today he falls back upon the antique euphemism “progressive” (which was the guise under which socialism was advanced in America during the early decades of the 20th Century) – then let it be discerned, and discerned clearly.
    Socialism is a doctrine which has resulted in death and destruction wherever and whenever it has been given full rein. The 20th Century was the century of socialism, and socialism made of the world a blood bath because socialism denies that the individual human being has any reason whatsoever to exist as an individual, and the denial of individuality is hostile to the human being’s nature as a creature capable of reason.
    That the rise of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party to complete power in Germany is perhaps the most clearly appreciable example of socialist butchery is due to the fact that the government of Germany was totally defeated in war, their records opened to dissection, their surviving leaders put in the dock and tried as criminals. No similar complete exposure of Soviet Communism or the murderous actions of the Chinese Communists has yet been effected, and historians may not for some many decades get access to the primary information required to make a proper assessment of the murderous effects of collectivist policies carried out in these polities.
    Socialists know to bury the evidence. Socialists know that they are criminals, that what they do to their neighbors is always a violation of their neighbors’ rights, that their neighbors – if clearly appraised of the socialists’ intentions – would kill them like rabid animals. Thus socialists tend to conceal themselves.
    Oh, true. They publish the occasional Communist Manifesto, the odd Mein Kampf, the episodic Rules for Radicals. Commonly enough, they “out” themselves from time to time, counting on their victims to react too sluggishly, so that the socialists can spin illusions to blunt the response that would result in effective opposition. Look into the ways in which Germany’s NSDAP and the Italian fascists and the Soviet Communists suckered Western intellectuals in the early decades of the 20th Century.
    Socialists have gotten good at “spin.”
    The modern American socialist is less interested in the extermination of “life unworthy of living” than their NSDAP brethren, true.
    Though as “progressives,” they were big on eugenics and euthanasia, weren’t they? Hm. That’ll be coming back courtesy of Obamacare, won’t it?
    But today’s American socialist – the “Liberal,” the progressive, or under whatever other false flag they choose to fly – is still striving to do away with the concept of individual rights, emphasizing the good of the collective at the expense of the “uncooperative,” the recalcitrant, the “reactionary,” scoffing at the doctrine of restraint of civil government under the rule of law, stressing – in this catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) fraudulence, for example – the good of Mother Earth and the vileness of humanity.
    If the objective of today’s American “milk-and-water socialist” does not drive directly at the death camps of Communist China, Soviet Russia, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and the NSDAP’s reign in the Greater German Reich, it should be suspected that it’s only because the modern American “Liberal” is aware that there are still plenty of people in these United States who retain the ability – in terms of both mental preparation and material resources – to kill him.
    Why else would one of the top “Liberal” priorities be the violation of the individual right to keep and bear arms?
    After all, who is it that fears the law-abiding private citizen – who neither sets fire to his neighbors’ houses nor runs down children in the street with his car nor even kicks a dog on the sidewalk – with lethal weapons in his hands?
    Clearly, only someone with criminal intention to violate that citizen’s rights to life, to liberty, and to property.
    The American “Liberal” and his political party.
    The National Socialists.

Comments are closed.