We enter the age of "…or else"

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”.

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….

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.

If they don’t watch it they could cause the entire clean air act to be rescinded just as a means to fight this off…

nota bene – you’ve got some coding issues at the top of this post.
[Fixed, thanks. ~dbs]

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.

Rockyroad;
Don’t blame me, I voted for the American. (I saw it on a bumper sticker.)

Can it be a consequence of the current saturn-uranus opposition? 🙂

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

Or else…Obama is going to go Voodoo on them!

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.

Maybe shut down a power plant for election day?

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.

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.

In that case, may I suggest that Congress reads this paper;
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/paper-cosmoclimatology-is-real.html
Every time one shuts down a plant, its all for nothing………

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.

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.

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.

Jack, should I ask “in what gauge?” 🙂

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

@ 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. 😉

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?

Hear, hear! drum beatings in the middle of the jungle!…Carbon hunters approaching!

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.)

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.

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.

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!…

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.

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.

_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

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.

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.

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.

We live in a bureaucratic state, and maybe it is time to wake up and deal with that problem.

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.

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/

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, …”

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

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!!!

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).

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

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.

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

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.

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…

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.

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

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

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.

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!

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…

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.

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.

@ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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”

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

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?

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.]

—
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.
–