The Hill E2 wire reports:
House GOP spending bill prohibits funding for EPA climate regs
A government spending bill unveiled Friday night by House Republicans would prohibit funding for Environmental Protection Agency climate regulations through September of this year.
The continuing resolution, which would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, is the latest attempt by Republicans to stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Republicans argue that pending EPA climate rules will destroy the economy and result in significant job losses. GOP lawmakers, including House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), have introduced legislation to permanently block the agency’s climate authority.
The bill would block funding for all current and pending EPA climate regulations for stationary sources.
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on interior and the environment, said he worked closely on the language with Upton. He said the language would give Upton time to move forward with his legislation.
“It has become clear to me in talking to the job creators in this country that allowing these regulations to go into effect would prevent job creation and inhibit economic growth at a time when our economy is still struggling,” Simpson said in a statement. “It should be up to Congress, not the Administration, to determine whether and how to regulate greenhouse gases, and in attempting to do so without congressional authority, I’m concerned that EPA has overreached.”
The continuing resolution makes massive cuts to the EPA’s budget. The legislation cuts EPA funding by $3 billion, 29 percent below fiscal year 2010. Overall, Simpson cut $4.5 billion from his subcommittee’s budget.
Full report here: House GOP spending bill prohibits funding for EPA climate regs
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
davidmhoffer says:
February 14, 2011 at 5:14 am
R. Gates;
Truth is what works. That’s the only truth one needs to know and what should be taught.>>
I repeat the question: Whose truth? Who decides? Was there an Armenian genocide or wasn’t there? Shall you teach history according to Turkey or the Armenians? Does CO2 heat the planet? Whose version of physics will be taught? You think that there some actual thing as Truth? The only actual truth is that when someone puts a capital T on it, death is coming, in waves
_____
Whose version of physics? Do you really think that science is like history? Perhaps the history of science, but not the science itself. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and through its real measureable effects, does keep the earth warmer than it would be if there were none in the atmosphere. If there were no CO2 in the atmosphere, we’d be an ice-planet. Why? Because water vapor is a condensing gas at the temperature range found on earth, and it would all condense out of the atmosphere as it cooled. CO2 is all the stands in way of a return to an ice-planet. But I suppose some skeptics might want to teach their children that this tiny trace gas has very little real funtion in the atmosphere, and could drop to 0 ppm without consequence. Probably the same type of person who’d teach their kids that the earth was created 6,000 years ago…
To R. Gates.
I don’t know where you got your science education, but it is messed up. Water is the temperature regulator on earth. Any minor affect CO2 has is lost in the variability in the energy exchange in the processes of evaporation/condensation and freeze/thaw. (And don’t give me a positive feedback reply, the tail isn’t wagging the dog.) CO2 is just going along for the ride and is a lagging indicator of climate change.
Fred H. Haynie says:
February 14, 2011 at 2:13 pm
To R. Gates.
I don’t know where you got your science education, but it is messed up. Water is the temperature regulator on earth. Any minor affect CO2 has is lost in the variability in the energy exchange in the processes of evaporation/condensation and freeze/thaw. (And don’t give me a positive feedback reply, the tail isn’t wagging the dog.) CO2 is just going along for the ride and is a lagging indicator of climate change.
_______
Oh, I guess the American Association for the Advancement of Science, (AAAS) is not a good enough source of research for you? Would you like to insult me based purely on your odd belief that CO2 is only “along for the ride”? I thought I had some respect for you, but now must doubt that decision. Before you come here and insult me again, please find out the difference between a condensing and noncondensing GHG, and why that makes a big difference, read these articles, and then we might have a reasonable scientific conversation without your appeal to unfounded and standard skeptical nonsense:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101014171146.htm
http://amanwithaphd.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/non-condensing-greenhouse-gases-are-why-we-are-not-a-frozen-wasteland/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3650/carbon-dioxide-is-key-on-earth-and-mars
http://machineslikeus.com/news/carbon-dioxide-controls-earths-temperature
The heated argument above might find common ground at this site:
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
R. Gates,
I’m not insulting you as you are trying to do to me. I’m stating facts that can be varified with observed data. You have to have some basic scientific education to be able to understand what you read in scientific journals. The more complex the science, the more education you need to be able to understand. Think about it. How much energy is transported from the oceans to the air as it evaporates? Compare that to the little amount of energy that a couple of vibration frequencies in CO2 trap low energy photons. Better yet. Calculate the thermodynamic functions for the reacting ingrediants using the rigid rotator, harmonic oscilator approximation. If you feel quailfied, “peer” review my presentations on the subject. http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf, http//www.kidswincom.net/CO2OLR.pdf, and http://www.kidswincom.net/arcticseaice.pdf. My e-mail address can be found on my website if you don’t wish to reply here. If you wish to read some of my peer reviewed publications, Google “Fred H. Haynie” where you will find more than blog comments.
R. Gates;
Whose version of physics? Do you really think that science is like history?>>>
Once again you neatly sidestep the question. Who decides?
But in answer to your blatant attempt to misdirect attention from your original premise that has so many holes in it that it would be better described as a sieve with a hole in the screen, I will answer your question above.
Science is EXACTLY like history. What people believe to be true, why they believe it, and who pursuaded them is malleable. It does not matter one whit if we are talking science or history. The actual fact, theory, and belief are never congruent, and always in flux.
History is written by the victors they say. True. The history, the Truth, the FACTS of global warming were written over the past few decades by the victors who not only silenced their critics, but in many cases destroyed their careers. Little difference to what Jones, Mann, Briffa et al did than did the victors who wrote the history books. Dissenting opinion, and the facts it was based on, were buried and the writers of science went on as if they did not exist. A popular revolution is now sweeping them from power.
Whose version of physics? Let’s take the IPCC’s. CO2 doubling results in a direct increase in radiance of 3.7 w/m2 which results in a temperature increase of about 1 degree. ACCEPTED. Some physics that you can find in the fine print in the back pages in the list of references that the IPCC doesn’t care to EDUCATE ANYONE ABOUT AS A DELIBERATE CHOICE and which you can verify with very little effort:
The IPCC says that the average surface temp of earth is 15 C.
FINE PRINT – the 1 degree temp increase they calculate is at the effective black body temperature of earth as seen from space, which is -20 C. Apply the known physics that the IPCC buries in the FINE PRINT but which you can look up easily under Stefan-Boltzman Law which relates power (w/m2) to a constant times T (degrees Kelvin) raised to the power of FOUR.
FINE PRINT – 1 degree = only about 0.6 degrees at surface.
FINE PRINT – that is an AVERAGE.
Apply Stefan Boltzman Law P=5.76×10^-8xT^4 to expected temperature fluctuations at earth surface.
Tropics – about 0.1 degrees
THAT IS ALSO AN AVERAGE
Tropics, daily high +.02 degrees.
Tropics, daily low +.2 degrees.
Temperate Zones – warmer winters, summers about the same, daily highs little change, night time lows change more.
Arctic Zones – much warmer, summer a little warmer. day night same issue.
Am I making this up? No, it is ALL in the fine print of IPCC AR4.
Is the physics right? Yes, all of that is EXACTLY what Stefan Boltzman says should happen.
What about the data? Why it AGREES! NASA/GISS and HadCrut both show very little change over the last 150 years in the tropics, more in the temperate zones, but mostly in winter and mostly at night time lows, and still more in the arctic zones, almost all in winter at night time lows.
So the real meaning of +1 degree is almost meaningless because of the high’s don’t change and the tropics don’t warm, then all we are worried about is the polar bears and how they will survive -30 during their hibernation instead of -40. Poor bears have quadruped their population. Huh. Answers that question. and the temperature record AGREES.
So Mr Gates, go read the IPCC fine print. Go read the Wikipedia article on Stefan-Boltzman. Think about what you have been taught, and who taught it to you. And I repeat my question:
Whose science? And who decides?
That would have worked in 1995 (and did back then when all you had was the Big 3 and CNN), unfortunately for the Dems there is Fox News now (and it pulls in more viewers then CNN and MSNBC combined) and the internet which has been getting larger and larger share of people turning it for news. So no, the Dems won’t have it their way like they did when Clinton was able to pawn everything off on Gingrich. Like I put up just take a look at Obama’s numbers for handling the Economy, Debt and Deficit and they are still falling.
@boballab
I won’t argue with what you’re saying about Fox news & the internet, but that won’t stop the MSM from spinning things that way. They still try – and they’ll keep trying as long as they’re around. They just don’t know any better.
Fred H. Haynie says:
February 14, 2011 at 6:36 pm
R. Gates,
I’m not insulting you as you are trying to do to me. I’m stating facts that can be varified with observed data.
____
Fred, you first opened up on me by saying “I don’t know where you got your science education, but it is messed up…”
I’ve read your presentation and have no issues with the basic science you present. Yes, everyone knows that water vapor is more potent greenhouse gas, etc., but that was not my point before, nor the point being made in the numerous links I provided. Not once did you mention a very KEY difference between CO2 and water vapor. Not once did the words “condensing” or “non condensing” even appear in your presentation. Why would you leave this out? This is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between these two gases as they operate in our atmosphere. When the earth’s was in one of it’s “snowball” periods and the oceans saw ice nearly to the equator, it is was not water vapor that pulled the planet out of this condition, nor was it Milankovtich cycles, but CO2. This tiny trace gas, that you assert is “just along for the ride” did not condense out of the atmosophere as water vapor does when things get so cold. A great period of volcanic activity, which brought great quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere is what finally got the earth out of that period. That tiny trace gas “just along for the ride” broke the back of the snowball earth period. Yes, water vapor is more potent, but it does no good at all when it is essentially completely condensed out of the atmosphere. CO2 was the key, and still is. Yes it is not as potent a GHG in a specifed temperature range, but it can act over a much larger temperature range. So, before you come back to insult my science education, I would hope that you read up both on the differences between condensing vs. non condensing GHG’s, as well as the roll of CO2 in ending the snowball earth period around 700 million years ago…
R. Gates, CO2 was important then and was also important in the dry glacial periods to bring us to the current interglacial. In the interglacial, it loses its importance. How much importance remains is the crux of the debate.
R. Gates,
It’s basic science. The processes of evaporation, condensation, freezing, and thawing is how water controls temperature. . Evaporating water adds energy to air without raising the temperature. At night when the surface cools by radiation, The air near the surface is cooled down to the dew point. While dew is forming, the temperature remains at the dew point taking energy out of the air. In the Arctic, the formation of sea ice serves as an insulator controlling the rate of heat loss to space. In the arctic, there is very little water vapor in the air during the winter and you should see an effect of CO2 because that is when it is at it’s seasonal highest. With fifty years of increases, CO2 has not reduced OLR in the Artic. The Arctic has been warming and reducing it’s ability to suck up CO2 so CO2 continues to rise. It is at it’s seasonal high in winter because the Arctic is covered with ice and the sink is stoppered.