Hoisted with their own petard fighting a lawsuit
Story submitted by Eric Worrall
The EPA is fighting a desperate battle to sink a green lawsuit, a lawsuit which is substantially based on the EPA’s own climate narrative.
The Lawsuit, launched by the Center for Biological Diversity, seeks to impose enhanced clean water act protection upon the Pacific Coast. The suit argues that protection is necessary because, according to the EPA’s own climate narrative, ocean acidification is severely damaging the marine ecosystem.
According to the CBD;
“The CBD points out that the EPA has acknowledged that ocean acidification has killed billions of oyster larvae in the Pacific Northwest but still would not classify the waters as imperilled.”
http://www.law360.com/articles/568751/epa-seeks-to-sink-green-group-s-ocean-acidification-suit
The EPA’s response is that there is insufficient evidence to support an endangerment finding – an apparent contradiction of their own previous climate narrative.
“There were no in situ field studies documenting adverse effects on the health of aquatic life populations in either state,” the EPA’s motion says. “Nor was there any other information documenting effects on indigenous populations of aquatic life in state waters indicating stressors attributable to ocean acidification. The only information available regarding aquatic life in ambient waters under natural conditions was inconclusive.”
If I have understood this ridiculous situation correctly, the EPA is now in a position in which it may have to admit in court that some of its previous official statements about ocean acidification were not supported by available evidence.
Of course, if the EPA loses the case, an even more farcical situation may arise – the EPA’s failure may open the floodgate for compensation lawsuits against the US government, from people who claim their livelihoods are being damaged by ocean acidification, due to the EPA’s failure to protect the environment from CO2 “pollution”.
In some countries, the bureaucrats are held accountable for their actions.
This scares the poo out of those bureaucrats.
If this was applied to climate scientists’ and their cronies, then I think you would find the supposed problems of ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ would simply disappear.
Being made accountable for all the findings in their ‘research’ would undoubtedly make ‘climate scientists’ much less inclined to sensationalise the unsensational and/or peddle the results of dodgy computer programs.
The sue and settle tactics of the EPA and FWS are a major drain on public resources that many people are not aware of. Sue and settle has allowed for many environmental attorneys and administrators of environmental organizations to become quite wealthy while not contributing a single benefit to society.
Ocean pH is monitored at Monterey Bay, California. It shows no change:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/monterey_bay_ph.png
pH is monitored around the world, and it shows no dramatic change — or really, any change at all:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/ocean-ph-changes-graph-journal.pone.0028983.g002.png
Ocean pH has been both lower and higher over thousands of years, with no correlation to atmospheric CO2 levels:
http://s90.photobucket.com/user/dhm1353/media/pHvCO2.png.html
Here is another pH record, taken from the ocean intake pipe of the Monterey Bay aquarium, from a mile offshore:
http://sanctuarymonitoring.org/regional_docs/monitoring_projects/100240_167.pdf
Despite all the baseless assertions of “ocean scidification”, the real world does not support those claims.
Who do we listen to? The real world, with its empirical evidence? Or the people in cahoots with the EPA?
I smell a rat. Both the EPA and the people ostensibly suing them are on the same side. This is just an end run around the fact that the EPA could never get public support for the government to give them authority over ocean pH levels. They have repeatedly shown themselves to be dishonest and conniving. Does anyone really believe that this is all on the up-and-up? I don’t.
norah4you
August 25, 2014 at 12:10 pm
APRIL FOOLS
AEPRI FULES
EPRI RULES
EPA RULES
Not too good, but it’s the best I can do to represent a metamorphosis.
Re “EPA: Ignore our previous statements on Ocean Acidification 8/20/14:
The fate of the facts also besets the experts’ analysis. The surface layer of the ocean is supposed to be a bottleneck to the flux of atmospheric CO2 according to the equations of the “marine carbonate buffer system” and acidity. AR4, Box 7.3. These equations might apply were the surface layer only in thermodynamic equilibrium, but no part of Earth’s climate system is ever in that state.
This analysis on which EPA relies turns the atmosphere into a buffer, making CO2 a “long lived greenhouse gas” in queue behind deep ocean sequestration for up to 35K years, according to IPCC contributor, computational ocean chemistry Professor David Archer. In reality, the surface layer of the ocean is the CO2 buffer with no known change in acidity, while the flux follows Henry’s Law instantaneously on the time scale of climate, if not meteorology.
Besides all that, IPCC has zero net flux for natural CO2 while Anthropogenic CO2 is bottlenecked. The difference between the two is their mix according to three isotopes of carbon, and the two species soon enough mix irreversibility in the atmosphere. Moreover, no solution exists for three solubility coefficients to make one mix bottleneck and the other not.
It’s not sea water; it’s bilge.
When they say ocean acidification – you say ocean neutralisation. Neutral comes before acidification.
This is worrying because it is the same “sue and settle” model used to generate other EPA rules which gets around Congress having a say. Of course EPA have to defend themselves, but this defense is so weak it has to be designed to lose and then they can say that they have to regulate CO2 etc etc etc. This is simply a way to ship more taxpayer money to environmental pressure groups (and their lawyers) and to shore up the CO2 endangerment finding.
Coal/oil/gas entities could file a motion to intervene in order to avoid being thrown under the bus by EPA.
Does anyone have the text to the EPA response? Or know how to get it?…would be very useful to have it…cliff mass
This cannot end well. Either way, we get the shaft. If the EPA wins, they are undamaged and have no reason to back down from their opinion. If the EPA loses then we have some really crazy stuff going on. It sounds lose/lost for me.
EPA has to choose whether buffer components stabilize or destabilize the pH. The first compromises cAGW narrative and the latter elementary chemistry books.
Boss & Mods: The new format looks good.
—————————————————
Eliza August 25, 2014 at 12:38 pm
“AW Maybe you should enlarge your fonts …”
Assuming you are talking about this posting, regardless of how it is constructed, if you can (I’m using Chrome), just enlarge using the zoom function. I typically go to 125%.
This is an example of how the EPA advances it’s “regulate the economy into submission” agenda. It actually funds so-called independant eco groups to “investgate” eco problems which the EPA then says it can’t regulate under current law. The eco group then files a suit demanding the EPA enforce such and such law which then goes before a court who states the EPA has authority – then the EPA says Hey, the court instructed us to enforce such and such and we now have to pay such and such fines which serves to funnel more taxpayer funds to eco activist groups who then spend that money to “expand” their efforts to sue the EPA over other problems and so on and on it goes. Usually their legal firm that advises these eco groups and files the lawsuits is The Environmental Defense Fund. This is a hugh scam both from an self enrichment standpoint but also serves to quietly and out the public’s view advance an idealogical agenda. The cost to the taxpayer is not only the Govt funds spent but also the indirect affect of higher costs to industries with the result of higher prices to the consumer and eventualy the loss of jobs by the newly regulated companies.For the unknowing taxpayer it’s a double whamy.
This is unprecedented. You have to wonder why???? And How????? We simply must act now! It’s all for the little kids.
That’s the point, the EPA wants too lose these lawsuits to friendly NGO’s. That way they have to change policy in ways they could not legally.
lol. When I lived in the Seattle area the prevailing wind and rain came from the west, off the Pacific Ocean. Perhaps they should try suing Japan and China instead.
Party of the First Part – The Emperor’s cloths are shrinking!
Party of the Second Part – Then I’m suing you for failure to protect the Emperor’s cloths.
Party of the First Part – You can’t do that. There’s no evidence the Emperor even has any cloths.
Rodgerknights, if I commented as a career and not on an iPad during limited free time probably would post your requested link to ClimateEtc Shell Games. But since it is at most two Google clicks away from you, suggest you let your fingers do the walking. Cliff Mass also posted the link in his blog post on Sea Change oysters, previously linked above. Old news for which I thanked Cliff several months ago. When I post links, they are to stuff not so easily found via simple Google search efforts. See recent next book excerpt ‘No Bodies’ at Climate Etc. for a recent example.
All this seems to prove the adage that falsehoods spread around the world while truth struggles to get its boots on. The Internet is only a partial solution. Blogs are only a partial solution. But at least the Internet presents a viable guerrilla warfare equivalent to a false CONSENSUS, a special ops warfare now being conducted with my avid support. That metaphor is both apt and meant literally.
We are on the same side. but please stop demanding that some make it easier than easy for others. Won’t happen unless you have a large Koch paycheck waiting… In which case I firmly suggest it get sent divvied to A Watts, J Curry, J Nova, and A Monfort ( amongst others). Not me.
Hi Cliff. I will post this separately to you directly with more explication to a friendly acquaintance. An old legal adage is “80% of the answer is in the question”. OJ, if the glove fits, and all that.
To your question above, the answer is at 722 F. 3d 401 (Federal Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, 2014), in re No. 11-0293-JCVS, 2013 Wl 1729591. Google can take you there from here for free if you just use search terms Center for Biological Diversity EPA (the Google search algorithm does not parse either/or in this exact form, so is ‘forced’ to find ‘both’– precisely what you requested.
Good hunting.
Standard practice by EPA. Get sued by an NGO they are funding. Lose or settle, handing over taxpayer’s money to the NGO. Use the result to change the law, and obtain more authority, personnel, and funding.
This one will be interesting though, given the sparsity and variability of ocean pH data. My bet is EPA will try to settle, at least then passing on funding so the NGO can live to fight another day.
It would be nice to see somewhere a politician/congressman who recognized that this is a rort.
george e. smith
August 25, 2014 at 12:03 pm
‘Actually, this is not true. The USA, is the largest, and perhaps the only large land based carbon sink. We are not a net carbon source, our MAN MADE agriculture and farmed forestry, soak up more than all the MAN MADE carbon emissions of the USA. And then some of the natural NON MAN MADE carbon emissions as well, because the USA, is a NET CARBON SINK.’
‘ Of this area, 2,959,064.44 square miles (7,663,941.7 km2) is land, composing 83.65% of U.S. land area, which is very similar to the area of Australia. ‘
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contiguous_United_States
‘Australia’s landmass of 7,617,930 square kilometres (2,941,300 sq mi)’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia#Geography_and_climate
Australia is the third largest carbon sink according to IBUKI satellite, with USA a net emitter
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/05/the-revenge-of-the-climate-reparations/
It is time to defund the embarrassing EPA.
Once we do that who will the Eco-nuts sue?
Ocean acidification is a misnomer to scare people. The correct terminology is ocean neutralization. Seawater is basic pH 8.1. Add fresh water and seawater will become less basic because pure water is neutral pH = 7.0. No adverse effect on shellfish since pH of ocean is at optimal level (7.5 to 9.0). Besides the ocean is supersaturated on calcium carbonate. Supersaturation means excess solute not deficiency.
Cliff Mass August 25, 2014 at 3:35 pm
…
Cliff, in your response to the Seattle Times you claim that CO2 will be a great problem in a few decades. CO2-> ocean acidification can NEVER be a problem due to the underlying (calcium) carbonate structures of the ocean beds. Even at the locations of substantial undersea vents outgassing CO2 off the Papua New Guinea coast there is no ACIDIFICATION of the local waters.
Further, it is becoming clearly apparent that atmospheric CO2 is not causing the temperatures to rise … there is much evidence to this effect. The warming has stopped for +17 years (RSS) yet the CO2 continues to increase.
Your reference to future great problems in a few decades cannot be substantiated … if, and only IF, observed decadal increases continue, a problem MAY exist in a few centuries time by which time any amount of other catastrophes will have come to pass.
There is little evidence to link CO2 to any catastrophic outcomes, whether on and or in the sea.
Give volcanoes can punch out so much sulfur dioxide into the oceans and atmosphere it was a wise choice, because they couldn’t sustain the acid ocean farce any longer, it was either back it down now, or get hammered again by the natural variability facts.