States Should Defy Unlawful EPA Carbon Dioxide Rules

Electrical Substation Near Denver Article Caption

Guest opinion by Steve Goreham

Originally published in Communities Digital News.

Last June, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed its Clean Power Plan as a nationwide regulation to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from electrical power plants. Comments to the EPA have now been submitted, and it’s not a surprise that a majority of state governments oppose the plan. In the best interests of US citizens, states should refuse to comply with the proposed EPA Clean Power Plan.

The Clean Power Plan (CPP), more formally named the §111(d) rule, Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources, calls for a 30 percent reduction in power plant emissions by the year 2030. The CPP sets specific CO2 reduction targets for each state, based on four building blocks: 1) improved efficiency of coal-fired power plants, 2) increased use of combined cycle natural gas power plants, 3) increased use of renewable and nuclear energy, and 4) increased energy efficiency by consumers and businesses. But the main thrust of the proposal is the shut-down and replacement of coal-fired power plants, which now provide about 40 percent of US electricity.

There are three major strikes against the Clean Power Plan. First, the authority assumed by the CPP is not granted to the EPA by the laws of the United States. Second, efforts to try to implement the CPP will degrade the finest electrical system in the world, hurting consumers and businesses. Third, if implemented, the CPP will not have a measurable effect on global warming.

The Clean Air Act of 1970 authorized the establishment of state and federal regulations to control air pollution, and established the EPA to implement requirements of the act. The Clean Air Act and its amendments of 1977 and 1990 authorize the EPA to establish national ambient pollution standards and to control pollution levels from individual facilities, but not to regulate state electricity markets. A September 2014 letter from 15 state governors stated that the EPA’s Clean Power Plan proposal, “not only exceeds the scope of federal law, but also, in some cases, directly conflicts with established state law.”

State electrical public service commissioners are tasked with providing reliable, low-cost electricity for the citizens of their state, while meeting environmental standards. Commissioners trade off the costs and benefits of hydrocarbon, nuclear, and renewable power sources, and they plan new power plants, electrical transmission lines, natural gas pipelines, and other facilities. CPP restrictions threaten to inflate the price and seriously degrade the reliability of US electricity for negligible environmental benefits.

The State of Indiana requested that EPA withdraw the CPP proposal, predicting an electricity price increase of more than 60 percent due to EPA regulations. The State of Arizona commented that the CPP is “not technically feasible” and will “seriously undermine the reliability of electric service.” The Public Utility Commission of Texas also urged the EPA to withdraw the rule, estimating compliance costs at over $20 billion and that Texas electricity prices would rise by more than 20 percent by 2020. NERA Economic Consulting estimated a consumer cost of up to $479 billion by 2031, or about $1,500 for each man, woman, and child in the US.

Some states have shown support for the Clean Power Plan, led by California and New York. Both states appear to be in a race to achieve the highest residential electricity rates in the lower 48 states. In 2013, California citizens paid 16.19 cents per kilowatt-hour, but New York was number one at a whopping 18.79 cents per kW-hr, well over the US average of 12.12 cents per kW-hr. Paradoxically, New York recently banned hydraulic fracturing of natural gas, a fuel that the CPP heavily promotes.

US Electricity Rates by State 2013

However, the Clean Power Plan, if implemented, will provide negligible environmental benefits. Evidence is growing that natural cycles of Earth, such as ocean currents driven by the sun, dominate global temperatures and that human influences are small. Today’s storms, droughts, floods, and surface temperatures are neither extreme nor abnormal by historical standards.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has admitted in Congressional testimony that the effects of the CPP and other EPA regulations will not be visible in the more than 25 indicators of climate change on the EPA website. Yet the EPA continues to push regulations based on the ideology of human-caused global warming. Hundreds of billions in consumer cost and degraded electrical reliability appear to be only a small price to pay for an unmeasurable change in global temperatures.

In the best interest of citizens, states should defy the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan.

Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism:  Mankind and Climate Change Mania

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 19, 2015 2:30 am

The states should follow Australia and Switzerland’s lead and reject all form of CAGW taxes – especially when they are based on phoney CO2 science…

Reply to  cnxtim
March 19, 2015 6:55 am

Exactly but the Swiss did it via national vote and the Aussies mostly the same by kicking out Gillard-Rudd.
In the US, the States simply cannot ignore the Federal (Central) Government (EPA). Surveying the landscape, there is simply little chance of change unless the States convene an Article V Convention. That will never happen. One might see a minor change in the rate of control by the Federals but a reversasl will not in the lifetime of this Universe.

Reply to  cedarhill
March 19, 2015 9:59 am

We have a problem in the U.S. I don’t know how it worked in those other countries, but in the U.S. the leeches of our society receive “free” energy in the form of “vouchers”. In effect, the poorest will not pay more because they receive it subsidized, like Obamacare. But the people who do not receive these “vouchers” will pay the entire cost, hurting the people just above the loafers the most. The problem is this effect wears off above a certain income level because a) some people have enough money that they just pay it then moralize about progressive “feel good” issues or b) they are heavily invested in “green” energy because they’re rich. In 2008 and 2012, the lower-middle and middle was outvoted by Obama’s top-and-bottom coalition. Do you have any suggestions how the middle can protest this and still support themselves?

Reply to  cedarhill
March 19, 2015 10:54 am

The states can absolutely ignore federal law and the last example of this is of course the medical and legalized cannabis in several states. A state can simply pass law nullifying EPA regulation and then the state law trumps federal. If the feds want to enforce their laws anyways they can do so and the state has options to fight back. If I were the attorney general for a state that was having it’s laws violated by the feds I would simply have state police arrest any federal agent violating state state citizen or business rights. If enough states band together on this issue then the feds will have no choice but to let the states have their way. It would be funny to see this law passed and only enforced in a few states that didn’t reject it.

Phil Sowerby
Reply to  cedarhill
March 19, 2015 10:59 am

Should nullification fail, there’s always secession.
That didn’t work out well the last time it was tried and a main states’ rights issue then was a very bad one, ie slavery, but that doesn’t mean a second attempt would meet the same fate.
Or maybe a convention to approve Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments.

Michael Wassil
Reply to  cedarhill
March 19, 2015 3:26 pm

Phil Sowerby March 19, 2015 at 10:59 am
Should nullification fail, there’s always secession.

Would it be ‘secession’ if the blue states decided to throw out the red, liberal states?

Michael Wassil
Reply to  cedarhill
March 19, 2015 3:28 pm

Sh…t! I meant red throw out the blue, liberal states. In Canada our colours are the opposite!

Phil Sowerby
Reply to  cedarhill
March 19, 2015 3:33 pm

My utopian solution would be that all the right to work states would form their own North American Union and all those states or parts thereof that wanted to emulate socialist Europe form their own imperfect union, then let’s see which polity has the most freedom with the greatest prosperity a generation later.
But that probably can’t happen because the Leviathan of the federal regime has so coopted liberty. How do we apportion Social Security, military retirement, and the whole host of benefits to which all are entitled, regardless of whether they live in Amercian-style states or under European socialist style regimes?

DD More
Reply to  cedarhill
March 19, 2015 3:34 pm

Michael, how about using the US House of the 114th Congress for the split.
A bit more area.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  cedarhill
March 20, 2015 10:11 am

DD More March 19, 2015 at 3:34 pm
Give the blue districts to Canada and Mexico.
Blue conservative and Red liberal should be here as it is in Canada and was in the US until recently, when the news media decided that associating Democrats with red was bad atmospherics.

Paul 767
Reply to  cedarhill
March 20, 2015 8:42 pm

The “Administrative Procedure Act” states that no federal agency can promulgate regulations which “significantly affect persons” unless they have specific lawful authority, in other words, they cannot just make up laws, they must have the authority spelled out by Congress.
Numerous case law has upheld this Act, in minor and major issues.

Reply to  cedarhill
March 20, 2015 8:50 pm

Sure they can. All that is required is for the states to tell the EPA that no support, including law enforcement protection, will be provided to them, and that criminal charges filed by residents will be enforced against them.

average joe
Reply to  cnxtim
March 19, 2015 8:04 am

How about this… Next President of USA rejects CAGW bullpucky, replaces EPA chief with someone who rejects CAGW bullpucky, and directs the EPA to stand down regarding CO2 regulation and abandons the 30% by 2030 target.

Reply to  average joe
March 19, 2015 11:05 am

If I were a Republican politician I would absolutely be using EPA and FWS overreach and fiat against the Democrats who support it. The only problem is the majority have absolutely no clue about all these draconian regulations being passed without checks and balances and unfortunately politicians typically don’t win by including such “boring” facts in their platforms. Only fluffy empty promises and memes like “hope and change” wins elections these days with the majority of Americans simply too intellectually numb or inept to learn about the issues.

DD More
Reply to  average joe
March 19, 2015 11:40 am

RWturner , some do.
U.S. Senator John Thune (R-South Dakota) today introduced a bill to block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from implementing what is expected to be its most costly regulation in the EPA’s history, setting the ground-level ozone standard at an unprecedented low level. Thune’s bill, The Clean Air, Strong Economies (CASE) Act, would stem the economic harm from a lower ozone standard by requiring the EPA to focus on the worst areas for air quality before lowering the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone across the country.
The map of the current non-obtainment areas. Blue ozone and Blue voting map looks very simular.

Reply to  average joe
March 19, 2015 3:03 pm

Here is a quote that directly addresses your question:
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.” – See more at:
Those fools will all be voters again in 2016. In fact, the percentage of fools is likely to increase. Recall that if Romney had faced the same demographic environment in 2012 that Reagan did in 1980, Romney would have won by a bigger margin than Reagan.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  average joe
March 19, 2015 3:30 pm

All it would require is the declares that CO2 is not a pollutant, which it obviously is not. The self-serving declaration that is, can be annulled.

average joe
Reply to  average joe
March 19, 2015 4:54 pm

TYoke: Nice quote. It hits the mark. History is rife with examples of societies that rise in power and wealth, but within a few generations it is lost. Where personal welfare is guaranteed by government, society loses motivation and skills to provide for itself. Where personal safety is guaranteed by government, the populace has no motivation to learn to protect itself. In a society where every decision is dictated by process, people lose the ability to think for themselves. How ironic it is that the best efforts of parents to create future utopia for their children sets the stage for future downfall. Happens over and over. It’s now America’s turn. The movie Idiocracy shows this well.
I’m generally middle of the road politically. bama’s dishonesty (or stupidity, not sure which) has me ticked off. At this pt I am ready to vote for any prez candidate that vows to dismantle and abolish the false science that CO2 is a pollutant. Bonus pts if they also vow to nuder bamacare. Republicans, there are a bunch of swing votes like myself out there who are ready to make the dems pay for what they have turned this country into. Take advantage of it.
There was a time when I could not fathom why anyone would ever prefer war over peace, such as people in the middle east. I now have come to understand that rage.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  average joe
March 20, 2015 3:29 pm

Even educated voters have no notion of what the EPA is doing. They hear “environmental protection” and think it’s still doing good things like keeping Lake Erie from catching on fire.

George E. Smith
Reply to  average joe
March 22, 2015 7:45 pm

Well the Republicans are just as in favor of green energy as are the democrats. They see shutting down existing energy supplies as increasing the pie available to their money losing, energy wasting “green” schemes.
Bill Gates and Elon Musk are all in favor of decarbonizing the USA.

Reply to  George E. Smith
March 22, 2015 8:21 pm

Except that neither Bill Gates nor Elon Musk are Republicans; they donate to Democrats.

J. Patterson
Reply to  average joe
March 29, 2015 9:07 pm

Holy Cow DD More: It would appear to a man that the liberal-progressive “blue state” and blue city areas are the ozone problem. Let them deal with it and not the rest of us that don’t even have a marking whatsoever on that map in their state for a ground level ozone problem! Seems to me LA, New Yawk, Bahstan (and the rest of the “progressive” usual suspects) are creating the bulk of the problem. So why must I and my family, and my people in my state suffer for their misdeeds? They create the problems, then the Fed Gov lays the cost upon the rest of us. If that’s not a case for states to tell the Feds NO. Plain vanilla NO. It’s not our problem, and/or for us to nullify their rules (they aren’t laws, they make rules!), and furthermore, should they arrive in our states to try and cause trouble such as arrest someone, or bring in the Army, or whatever other tyrannical things they are subject to do, then we arrest them. Some states now have laws stating just that: Some representative of Fed Gov comes into your state and attempts to do “this” or “that” unlawful act without the permission of the state (this is where Sheriffs really come in handy, since they are the most powerful in each county) and you’ll be arrested, fined, and/or possibly imprisoned. It seems that since the Civil War, the Feds have reversed how the Constitution works and the law works. It’s not an all powerful dictatorship that tells the states what to do. They have VERY limited functions and enforcement abilities according to the REAL law, and the rest goes to the states and the people. We must reverse that trend and let them know that it is not they that dictate to us, but it is us, the states and the people that dictate to them and if they don’t like it, come and do something about it if you think you can. The only way we’ll get back our liberty and freedom from a centralized over-zealous out of control thieving District of Criminals is to treat them like criminals, properly, if they try to invade our states and force any rules made by un-elected agencies that don’t even have Constitutional authority to exist in the first place. I could go on. And on. And on. And then on some more. But it is WE the PEOPLE who must act and who must refuse to do anything that we determine is outside the scope of their very limited powers. How did we let this happen to begin with? Why is it that we can’t seem to grow a spine? Why is it that our so-called representatives have no authority. Why is it that the Senate is elected by the people and the state governments now have zero representation and the Senate seems to over-ride the entire house over everything that comes up? How are these 100 people over-riding more than 400? Why is the House not doing their job and putting the lock on that vault of money that they control? I see no answer to the modern Federal Government created problems unless we seize our power back. They seized it from us illegally, now let us take it back from them, which is legal, and then tell them like a punk, “do something! Do it!”. Getting rid of those vermin called the (not really)Federal Reserve would go a long, long way to stopping the seizure of our powers and our rights by the Feds. Private owners of private banks and investment houses and corporations have bought the Federal Government. This is what I call, and I believe with a high probability, is called bribery in the dictionary. And how about this personhood ruling that corporations are people? The laundry list of problems is so large in this country now that the only way we’ll get our power back, and we’ll get our living standards back is to simply tell them to shove it. Shove it and if you don’t like that then come and do something about it. Are you afraid of them? I’m not. At this point they are so out of control that I don’t give a hoot what they try to do if we defy them. We shall remain peaceful, I’m sure, until they decide not to be. Should we defy them, and we should on every level, and then they try to use the force of violence against us then we have every right to reply equally. I fear them about as much as I fear their “terrurrist” machinations that they use as an excuse to pull all kinds of criminal acts against the people. Does anyone here actually fear people 8000 miles away with long beards in a desert? Do you really? Are you really buying into that? If they want to fight us then go pick them up and bring them here and drop them out of transport planes with parachutes. What have we become, America? Get with the program and grow some hair on your chest, and beat it like a man.

Lawrie Ayres
Reply to  cnxtim
March 19, 2015 8:47 pm

If price hikes are designed to slow consumption then how high do they have to go? Poor old New Yorkers pay 18.79 cents per kWh but here in New South Wales we pay 31.45 cents per kWh and we are the number one exporter of black coal. Seven years ago I was paying 5.9 cents per kWh for irrigation pumping. A 500% increase and now some irrigators are going back to diesel pumps because it is cheaper. BTW I haven’t seen too many large irrigation plants running off solar and absolutely none running off wind. The idiocy of the left is that they lack practicality and survive on dreams. I suppose if the dreams were based in real science and data they may be a little more practical.

Peter Miller
March 19, 2015 2:30 am

The way I interpret this is:
The more ecoloon a state is, the higher its electricity price is likely to be.
The more ecoloon a state is, the more likely it is to approve of the EPA’s new, economy busting, regulations.
Do the states have the power to give the EPA the finger, and if they did, could the EPA, or the federal government do anything about it?
I am sure this article is certain to attract an unusual amount of fatuous troll comments.

Reply to  Peter Miller
March 19, 2015 5:14 am

Of course they do, the USA is a federation of states, the states have the power to call a constitutional convention and change the constitution to excise the EPA from the federal government, returning , environmental management to the states. While they are at it, they should change the rules so that a simple no confidence vote in the president can recall the president to the will of the people ( president is sacked, and new election is called with incumbent president barred from standing). I’d also suggest a more westminster approach to the public service, excise the public service from the president and put the departments directly under ministers in congress.
Now I am not American but too much power resides in a single partisan person in the USA, the congress needs to be the legislators, not the president. As it stands at the moment, I think the USA is vulnerable to a totalitarian president.

Reply to  Bobl
March 19, 2015 6:26 am

Actually, the EPA’s various environmental programs are already Unconstitutional — The EPA only gets a pass when dealing with environmental conflicts between the state; i.e. Waterways, airborne pollution…..
Of course they EPA defined CO2 as a pollutant…. Always a way around a law if you don’t keep the spirit of the law in mind..
A no confidence vote, or the ability to dissolve the current government (using parliamentary terms) would be awesome. However I see no reason to disallow the sitting president to attempt to keep his seat — this would be a way for the people to keep congress’ power in check.
But I totally agree that too much power exists in the executive branch. It was supposed to be limited because the constitution limited the Fed’s powers, and congress passed the laws, and the judges could rule on them. But the congress keeps allocating more and more power to the feds, and are allowing horrific judges to sit on the supreme court. It is the sign of a dumbed down population, and I’m pretty sure there is no government setup that can survive that..

Reply to  Bobl
March 19, 2015 4:22 pm

The larger problem here is that federal bureaucrats are writing enforceable regulations at all. The US Constitution does NOT give Congress the authority to give their legislative power away, but that’s the way our government is working now. A federal agency had to be STOPPED from creating rules that were never voted on by Congress? That’s insane. That’s not how our system worked for the majority of its existence and the sooner the States and the Courts start drawing the line at Article I, Section 1 where Congress must create all legislation, 90% of this kind of Progressive bureaucratic BS will stop. Unfortunately, it will take a bunch of honorable, honest, law abiding politicians and judges to do that and the system is rigged against the few of those we have. They’ve been hacking chunks off of our Republic for decades starting with the 17th Amendment cutting the States off at the knees… and the current disastrously out of control oligarchical dictatorship we’re living under is the result.
The EPA is a direct result of what happens when you take government outside the bounds of our Constitution. There is NO authority for anything the EPA does in the Constitution. The so called “commerce clause” really means that the feds can keep the States equal if one tries to give its commerce an edge by creating “irregular” laws that unfairly benefit citizens of that State. For example, if California only applied its ridiculous rules for small engines only on those imported into CA and those made in CA were exempt from that stupidity giving the CA business an edge over say Texas or Michigan made engines. The feds are charged with making sure that kind of thing doesn’t happen and it may ensures that commerce is “regular.” That doesn’t mean write 80,000 pages of regulations every year, it means no letting a whole State take an unfair advantage. It worked fine and dandy for over a century and a half but back in the 1940’s the radically Progressive Supreme Court just decided that all of a sudden meant that the feds could control anything that had some tenuous connection to commerce… in blatant violation of the Constitution’s words and meaning. See what it got us.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Bobl
March 19, 2015 7:37 pm

Two words: general welfare clause.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Bobl
March 19, 2015 7:38 pm

Make that three words, dangit …. X-(

Mark T
Reply to  Bobl
March 19, 2015 8:45 pm

One word: promote. Not provide as is so often assumed to be synonymous.

Reply to  Peter Miller
March 19, 2015 5:27 am

red is the new green

Reply to  Peter Miller
March 19, 2015 7:19 am

“…flatuent troll comments.”
Fixed it.

average joe
Reply to  jimmaine
March 19, 2015 7:58 am

“…flatulent troll comments.”
Fixed it.

Reply to  Peter Miller
March 19, 2015 9:27 am

The more ecoli on they are, the more hypocritical they are. Look up where California gets it’s energy from and where it gets it’s crude to supply their oil refineries from.
Good publications.

Jeff Gauch
Reply to  Peter Miller
March 20, 2015 9:13 pm

Here’s roughly how the Clean Air Act works: the EPA is tasked with coming up with environmental regulations, but it doesn’t actually enforce them. The states generally write their own regulations that coincide with the federal ones, and those are the regulations that ate enforced. If a state refuses to conform it’s regulations the EPA draws up a federal plan for enforcement which it then implements.
So if Congress forbid funding enforcement of carbon regulations and the states refused to comply with CPP the plan would be a dead letter. At least in those states.

March 19, 2015 2:31 am

However, the Clean Power Plan, if implemented, will provide negligible environmental benefits.

. Of course, but that’s not the point. It will provide enormous political benefits and allow those in power to punish their enemies and reward their supporters all while becoming wealthy off their rake as money goes through their hands. Little gets done any more unless it somehow enriches the kleptocracy.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  H.R.
March 19, 2015 3:12 am

Oh so how true you that is! Same here in the PDREU/UK!

Reply to  H.R.
March 19, 2015 5:18 am

Add control to the list. It must be infuriating to socialists – UK, EU, US, Oz – that energy is controlled by free market – BP, Standard Oil, even ARAMCO etc. So vilify carbon and particularly carbon exhaust – CO2 – make it a “pollutant”. Pretend to Save the Planet so sheep will open wallets. Imagine backradiation thermalizing Gaia . . . Through the taxes, socialists gain control of energy. If you control energy, you have ALL the chips. Dole out some bird-beaters and friers.
Well, preaching to the choir here.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
March 19, 2015 7:28 am

It gets even better. Most (all?) state utilities are mandated by the state utility commishes to an “agreed upon rate increase.” This rate increase is ALWAYS a percentage.
So think about that. For example, if you’re the provider, and you get an annual rate increase of 5%, would you rather have a unit cost of $10…or $100? Ovbiously, the larger the base number is, the higher the percentage is, the better it is for the provider.
So I’m pretty sure that all of the posturing between state/local gummints and the local energy provider is all very well orchestrated with a wink and a nod, followed up by a good Cohiba and a spot of Bushmill’s, and a job well done all ’round.
And the residents all clap and applaud the commish, because they’ll see a rate increase for the coming year of ONLY 5%.
I used to watch this dance every year back in Mass. “Boy…I’m so glad our state officials are looking out for us!!!”

Reply to  H.R.
March 19, 2015 9:01 am

Spot on H.R.!
You have summarized the situation perfectly.

March 19, 2015 2:34 am

Simply defying federal rules is not a valid option. No doubt, there will be lawsuits on both sides so the rules will have to survive court and Congressional review.

David H.
Reply to  opluso
March 19, 2015 4:15 am

Tell that to Arizona. They outlawed Affirmative Action in 2010.

Reply to  David H.
March 19, 2015 9:57 am

Federal supremacy in matters of interstate pollution is fairly well established.
And although Arizona voters passed a state amendment to prohibit preferential treatment based upon race in state services, that is not the same as denying equal protection under the US constitution — in fact, it’s enforcing equal protection since Proposition 170 simultaneously prohibited discrimination based upon race.

March 19, 2015 2:48 am

Time to open a new frontier, as your ancestors once did, and leave the old country, with its crumbling institutions, to wither into senility.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
March 19, 2015 6:29 am

“…and leave the old country, with its crumbling institutions, to wither into senility.”
It might be better to retake our existing country. OR wait until the Liberal movement cycles through a generation, and swings back to “normal” again.

Reply to  Paul
March 19, 2015 12:06 pm

“…until the Liberal movement cycles through a generation, and swings back to “normal” again.”
Unfurtunately the Liberal movement hasn’t cycled through the hard times yet. We still await free train rides and free education camps. Give it another 1-2 generations, then we’ll have our nirvana. Polpot will look like a cuddley kitten by comparison.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  Paul
March 19, 2015 7:32 pm

There is no ‘normal’ for the socialist democrat movement. Only a continual veering further and further into the outliars (sic) at the left extremes of the distribution curve.

March 19, 2015 3:15 am

Resist the tyrants who ignore our constitution and trample our freedoms. The good guys are the only ones playing by the rules any more. Bring honor and honesty back to government.

March 19, 2015 3:39 am

Technically, under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the federal government has no authority to regulate pollution standards, so these should be under the control of each individual state under Amendments 9 & 10.
The Federal EPA should not even exist. Period (TM).
Accordingly, states are obliged to the their state residents to only enforce pollution standards passed by state legislatures.
States are very reluctant to nullify federal pollution regulations, as they fear losing $billions in various federal subsidies; the Golden Handcuff…
I’ve been very encouraged to see states like Washington and Colorado setting the precedent of nullify federal Marijuana laws, and hopefully other states will show some initiative and stop enforcing other unconstitutional federal rules and regulations, especially those of the EPA.

Reply to  SAMURAI
March 19, 2015 7:33 am

Back in the 80’s, I witnessed this in New Hampshre, the “Live free or die” state.
New Hampshire has always had extraordinary highways, designed primarily to get people with money throughout the southern New England states and New York, up into the mountains as quickly as possible.
Seatbelt laws became all the rage, and at the time, NH maintained a voluntary seat belt law.
Feds said that unless they made it mandatory, they’d lose their federal highway funds.
New Hampshire said…”That’s ok…we’ll get by”.
Over time, that changed, as the political climate within the state changed…but it was a proud moment for residents at the time.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  jimmaine
March 19, 2015 9:02 am

If I remember correctly, back during the 70’s energy crisis Wyoming told the Fed’s to take their 55 mph speed limit law and stick it where the sun don’t shine. The Fed’s threatened to cut off their federal highway funds. I don’t know whether they finally lost the funds, but Wyoming kept the higher speed limits. Everyone I knew cheered them on for standing up for state’s rights..

Reply to  jimmaine
March 19, 2015 2:08 pm

Re Wyoming speed limit
They passed the 55 limit with a $1 fine and no points. Feds sued and lost.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  jimmaine
March 19, 2015 2:42 pm

I’m more familiar with Montana’s $5.00 “gas conservation” no-points ticket. Violators had the option of paying the peace officer on the spot. I know this because I did that very thing several times. At the time, Wyoming had no such arrangement. This was 1989-1991.

Phil R
Reply to  jimmaine
March 20, 2015 7:25 pm

Hmm, I was hauling a$$ across Wyoming, Montana and Idaho in the summers of 1976 &1977. Never got pulled or paid a fine. Trips were spectacular.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  jimmaine
March 21, 2015 4:11 pm

Phil R,

Hmm, I was hauling a$$ across Wyoming, Montana and Idaho in the summers of 1976 &1977. Never got pulled or paid a fine.

As of 1982 according to the NYT, Wyoming wasn’t mentioned as one with a “gas conservation” no-points fine:
Last year, 33 state legislatures debated measures to repeal or weaken the 55-mile-per-hour limit. This year such bills were considered in 24 states. Arizona, Missouri and North Dakota have voted for repeal if the Federal Government first eliminates the national limit. South Dakota, meanwhile, passed legislation to deny the public, including auto insurance companies, access to records of speeding violations up to 65 miles an hour. Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Utah have replaced stiff speeding penalties with nominal ”energy wastage” fines of only $5 to $15 for those caught driving between 55 and the pre-1974 limits in those states.
Doesn’t mean it never happened, but by 1989 Wyoming was handing out regular old speeding tickets on highways and interstates while Montana still was not. A lot of my own a$$-hauling in Wyoming was done on farm and service roads paved in dirt which the local cops hardly ever patrol. What can I say … the washboards are far more tolerable at 80 than 35.

Trips were spectacular.

Ah, well there is that.

Bloke down the pub
March 19, 2015 3:44 am

If only we in the UK could have electricity for as cheap as 15cents/kwh.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
March 19, 2015 4:12 am

Yeh, I’m down the pub with you mate.
At 33 cents a klw in new south wales Australia, I can’t afford to drink after dark at home.
In Victoria they’re not far of that klw figure and they’re sitting on the largest reserves of brown coal in the world.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
March 19, 2015 5:39 am

Apparently the US is rushing to catch up with your costs and if possible surpass them. So who knows, if legal challenges fail, by 2020 we may be the ones wishing for costs as inexpensive as the UK.

Leo Geiger
March 19, 2015 4:00 am

If some state governments believe the rules are unlawful, they can take their arguments before the courts. Either that, or get this or some future government to change the rules.
It isn’t for Steve Goreham or anyone else to decide that some laws can be ignored, regardless of their opinions about the rules.

Peter Miller
Reply to  Leo Geiger
March 19, 2015 4:18 am

But isn’t that the point?
These are rules, not laws, that the EPA wants to thrust down the individual states.
Has the EPA been properly empowered to make and enforce these rules?
If these rules were put before the US Congress and Senate, they would be summarily thrown out, which is exactly why Obama is not seeking their ratification by the nation’s lawmakers.

Reply to  Leo Geiger
March 19, 2015 4:21 am

Do you believe it is OK for the President “to decide that some laws can be ignored”?

Greg Woods
Reply to  Leo Geiger
March 19, 2015 4:51 am

We, our ancestors, fought a war based upon fighting unjust laws. Who is the ultimate decider of just laws?

John in Oz
March 19, 2015 4:21 am

a whopping 18.79 cents per kW-hr

As the Monty Python sketch says – ‘Luxury’.
My current rates in South Australia (in $/KWh):
First 1200 0.3245
Next 2800 0.3304
Next 6000 0.381
Remainder 0.381
SA has been reported as having the highest rates in Oz. We also have the highest percentage of wind generated power but are assured that this is not the cause of the high prices (/sarc on permanently).
I have 5KW solar so my effective electricity bill is in my favour so I am not hurting with the current State Government fixation with ‘renewable’ energy and this is the only reason I have a system.
As far as Australia ditching a carbon price, there is still a long way to go to slay that beast:

Both of Australia’s major parties have agreed to a minimum national target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 2000 levels by 2020. The Emissions Reduction Fund is the Federal Government’s signature policy to achieve this minimum target.

Reply to  John in Oz
March 19, 2015 6:35 am

“My current rates in South Australia (in $/KWh):
First 1200 0.3245
Next 2800 0.3304…”
Is that per month, or a yearly total? That’s certainly is a steep price, but isn’t 1.2MWhr per month enough for a residential household? Am I missing something?

Reply to  Paul
March 19, 2015 9:02 am

Yes you’re missing that it’s kilowatt hour not megawatt hour!

Brian H
Reply to  Paul
March 19, 2015 10:46 am

Um, 1200 kWh is 1.2 MWh. Hello!?

Reply to  Paul
March 19, 2015 12:45 pm

“…but isn’t 1.2MWhr per month enough for a residential household?”
My guess is you don’t own a house or pay an electric bill. Seriously?

Reply to  Paul
March 19, 2015 5:31 pm

“My guess is you don’t own a house or pay an electric bill. Seriously?”
A bad guess. I own one home, and 2 cottages. All combined, they don’t use 1.2 MW/hrs per month. We’re in zone 5A, and our last bill was 625kWh & 254CCF. We heat close to 7,000 sq/ft (garage & basement), and cool around 4,200. Seriously.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Paul
March 19, 2015 8:40 pm

Then you like to keep your houses at fairly cool or warm temperatures depending on the season, and/or you use a decent amount of natural gas.
Then there are those of us who have our own wells and geothermal units that use 2-3 times that 1200.

Reply to  Paul
March 20, 2015 4:47 am

Paul, I was wrong. Please accept my apology.

Reply to  Paul
March 20, 2015 1:05 pm

” Please accept my apology.”
Accepted Eric, thanks,
Tsk Tsk says: “Then you like to keep your houses at fairly cool or warm temperatures depending on the season, and/or you use a decent amount of natural gas. ”
No, actually we keep our home at 73 all winter, We have low temperature radiant floors (105F max water), so it’s not at all the same feel as a forced air furnace at 73. I love cold winters…
Our boiler is rated at 60 KBTU/hr input, It has a 5:1 turn down ratio that allows it to run continuously for most of the winter. It provides both our warm floors, and all of our domestic hot water. Notice that I included both electric and gas usage for the month, neither is excessive by design.
For summer, it’s set to 74 during hot or humid nights. We have large overhangs that reduce the amount of A/C required to the point where humidity is hard to control. We have a pair of 2 ton 16 SEER heat pumps, with air handlers and ducts in conditioned attic space. It’s easier to drop cold air, than push it up from lower levels. Air exchange is with bath/kitchen fans, no HRV/ERV.

Richard G
Reply to  Paul
March 24, 2015 8:29 pm

We use about 335 kwh per month. It varies by month but totals 4015 kwh for the previous 12 month period. Our cost is $0.1644 per kwh which includes all taxes and fees. This is in California.

March 19, 2015 4:49 am

States should defy federal law? No. Defy unlawful EPA (federal agency) rules – which have the force of law. It would be unambiguous if congress would legislate these rules instead. Oh right – they refused to do so on several occasions over the past six years. No congressional committee oversees the EPA. The EPA was created with an Executive Order by Richard Nixon.
Rather than states defy the ‘law’ why doesn’t Congress enact a new law that reconstitutes the EPA. Break it up into smaller parts and establish proper congressional oversight. The executive branch will still enforce the law. Perhaps someday Congress will again make the law. Our Constitution talks quite a bit about Congress and its power to make laws. It doesn’t mention the EPA.

March 19, 2015 5:04 am

“Evidence is growing that natural cycles of Earth, such as ocean currents driven by the sun, dominate global temperatures and that human influences are small.”

Let’s see what the experts say about that:

“It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation.”

An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society

“The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.”

Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability. The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition.

Modern Global Climate Change
Thomas R. Karl, Kevin E. Trenberth

“There is very high confidence that industrial-era natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing except for brief periods following large volcanic eruptions.”

IPCC AR5, WG1, Chapter 8, p. 662.
“… there’s a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth’s temperatures over the past 50 years.”

Most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities“.

American Astronomical Society.

“The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.”

American Geophysical Union.

The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human ‘fingerprints’ also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice.”

U.S. Global Change Research Program
2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies
So there is no realistic doubt that human activity is now the dominant influence on global climate.

Reply to  icarus62
March 19, 2015 5:41 am

Argumentum ad populum. Albert Einstein said that he didn’t 100 scientists to prove him wrong. If he was wrong, 1 would be sufficient. It doesn’t matter how many people say something is true, it doesn’t matter if it is consensus. If it is wrong, it is wrong. And ignoring facts because the consensus says otherwise is not science.

Reply to  alexwade
March 19, 2015 5:48 am

They’re not wrong.

Reply to  alexwade
March 19, 2015 8:13 am

“icarus62 says:
March 19, 2015 at 5:48 am
They’re not wrong.”
Good response Icarus62, because that is really what it boils down to. Look behind the curtain – the charts, the pronouncements of confidence – and there is nothing there but humans coming up with – what they want to come up with. It’s the Wizard of OZ in the 21st century. It’s “believe us – because we know what is good for
you” That’s ALL it really is – it isn’t science, its’ just hand-waving to gullible people.
Anthony Watts is our Toto against the CAGW movement

Reply to  alexwade
March 19, 2015 8:33 am

Brilliant. You follow up the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy with no proof, no verifiable facts, just a continuation of the same logical fallacy. Brilliant. And you then present some facts while ignoring many others facts that are available on this website that are equally valid and counter your ad populum viewpoint.
Miasma theory was once consensus. All the evidence said it was true. People developed cholera when the foul air was around. Because of the miasma theory, London installed proper sewers and the city began to smell much better and cholera decreased. But it wasn’t true. It wasn’t the bad odor the human waste that was making people sick, it was the germs from that waste. When proper science broke free of the consensus, understanding of sickness took a giant step forward.
Break free noble Icarus before you fly too close to the sun.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  alexwade
March 19, 2015 7:48 pm


You follow up the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy with no proof, no verifiable facts, just a continuation of the same logical fallacy.

Most scientists agree: the Moon is not made of green cheese. “Prove” to me with verifiable facts that they are correct.

Reply to  icarus62
March 19, 2015 5:44 am

Hmm, lets see
Co2 85 % saturated
Temp rise from blackbody 33 deg
Rate of temp rise assuming CO2 cause of all warming instead of 10 degrees of it that those scientists you love to talk about is 33/85 per percent IR intercepted.
15 percent of energy remains unintercepted, temp rise for 100 percent interception (eg 100 % CO2 atmosphere) = 15 x 33 / 85 = 5.8 degrees, (or about 2 degrees if we believe those climate scientists that only 10 of the 33 degrees is due to greenhouse gasses)
IPCCs wild guess on temp rise for 100% CO2, 13 doublings x 3.3 degrees or about 43 degrees temperature rise…..
6 deg VS 43 deg, well I’d call that substantial doubt, the IPCC estimate doesn’t even survive a cursory sanity check.
Problem is that I’m not gullible, I don’t believe everything I’m told, very simple sanity checks like this one fail to substantiate those statements, until those august bodies address why, I think I have to assume they are WRONG.
This very basic parametrical check on warming shows that for the IPCC to be right, warming would have to be 20 times the rate in the future than the earth has seen so far – pretty unlikely.
Meantime you implicitly are advocating policies that would cut CO2 to 270 ppm, halve food production and freeze half the nothern hemisphere in a world of 6+ BILLION people (assuming that CO2 is the control knob you think it is). The famine your policies would cause would decimate life on the planet and perhaps kill almost 50% of all animal life on the surface. Seems a little extreme to me…

Reply to  Bobl
March 19, 2015 6:23 am

The evidence is quite clear. Here’s how the climate forcings of the last century or so break down:
… and here it is in summary:
So there is no doubt that anthropogenic forcings are now the dominant influence on global climate.

Reply to  Bobl
March 20, 2015 4:31 am

Hmm Icarus, where is friction from gravitationally or momentum driven wind or waves and Kinetic energy losses Arggh they forgot something, where is shortwave absorption by increases in photosynthesis by plants.. Oops, forgot that too, what about melting ice and other increases in entropy… Damn, forgot that too.
Seems your reference forgot a few forcings or losses along the way. I see you still have no problem promoting ideas that would result in the death of a few billion people though.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  icarus62
March 19, 2015 6:18 am

You sound like someone who can be talked into jumping off a cliff if enough people tell you it will improve your life. History is filled with such nonsensical group think that did indeed result in large numbers of people jumping off a cliff.
There is precious little difference between the cool-aid peddling Jim Jones of history and right sounding blood-letting authoritative experts urging you to take the jump. Precious little. And sad to say, you icarus62, are one of millions who have been led down the primrose path towards that cliff.
You can fool some of the people all of the time.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 6:28 am

If you look at the evidence, you’ll find that it confirms what all these august scientific bodies state.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 6:51 am

And he’s completely unaware of reality.
100% of Catholics believe there is a God and he controls every aspect of their lives.
100% of Protestants believe there is a God and he controls every aspect of their lives.
100% of muslims believe there is a God and he controls every aspect of their lives.
100% of Hindus believe there are Gods who control every aspect of their lives.
100% of climate change Alarmists believe that human releasees of CO2 (and other “greenhouse gases”) are causing climate change that will damage the planet.
Pretty safe to say that 100% of EVERY religion believes in an overarching power that controls their lives, and the entire planet. The humor is in watching the alarmists, MOST (that I’ve encountered, I know there are exceptions) of whom claim to be atheists, creating their own religion complete with a Bible to quote from and authorities to make pronouncements.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 6:58 am

The difference between religion and science is evidence. See above.

average joe
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 8:26 am

icarus62, the test of any hypothesis is to test it’s predictions. If data disagrees with predictions, the hypothesis is false. End of story. The modelers had their chance, and they failed. Miserably.
What part of “It failed” do you not understand?

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 8:29 am

Sure , CodeTech, there is an innate desire inside all of us to connect with something great, all-encompassing, and completely outside of ourselves. That deep, innate desire comes out in all sorts of different ways – many different ways, in just about all of us, including in most atheists. Each of us needs to figure out whether that innate desire is something we “evolved” to have, or not, and what it all means, if anything.
You’d likely say it’s a product of evolution and for some evolutionary purpose, I’d say the source of that longing comes from something else – but we both seem to agree it’s in all of us – and no matter how hard we might try to ignore it, it eventually comes flying out of us in one way or another.
You say tomato, I say tomato.
Wait, that last sentence doesn’t look right on the ‘net.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 8:54 am

@average joe: Climate models have been remarkably accurate in predicting global warming. Here’s one example from the early 1980s:
Black is the predicted warming, blue is observed.

average joe
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 8:54 am

icarus62: “The difference between religion and science is evidence. See above.”
Rather, the difference between religion and science is hard evidence vs. soft evidence. Hard evidence is where successful predictions have been independently reproduced many, many times in controlled experiments, with the outcome ALWAYS the same. The theory of gravity that Kerry referred to recently regarding an apples trajectory as it falls is an example of hard evidence. Soft evidence is something less than this, where predictions cannot be reliably tested. ALL religions have evidence, just ask the believers. But it is soft evidence and cannot be reliably reproduced in controlled experiments. “But, I saw that woman healed right before my eyes” is an example of soft evidence. All religions including CAGW are full of soft evidence. But nary a one has a shred of hard evidence. Had the CAGW models shown skill in predicting the future that would have been a step toward hard evidence. But they show no skill. With the results to date, any real scientist knows it’s back to the drawing board. When the believers will not acknowledge this simple truth, that is when it has transitioned from science to religion.

average joe
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 8:59 am

icarus62: Your graph doesn’t look like mine. Someone is lying. Let’s find out who.comment image

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 9:01 am

@average joe: That would be Roy Spencer.

average joe
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 9:10 am

icarus62: Who is the original author of your graph? They are very different, and I say yours is incorrect.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 9:14 am

@average joe: The blue data is simply the NASA GISTEMP data series, and it’s plotted against Figure 6 from James Hansen’s 1981 paper, here:

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 9:43 am

Your evidence is all climate models, Icarus62. Your forcing diagrams imply warming only after passing through climate models. But climate models have no predictive value. There is no reason to believe that they handle CO2 forcing properly. There is no reason to suppose that the warming they imply is happening, or will happen. What you supply for evidence is not evidence at all. It’s tendentious conclusion-mongering — choice of one preferred conclusion out of a large range of equally (or more) probable alternatives. Like offering the tomb of Muhammad as proof that Islam is true.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 9:58 am

GISS’ “temperature anomaly” is not “observed”. It is fabricated.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 10:00 am

Your wings are tallow Icarus62. Did you get your graphs from sks? Buntly, they do not match Hansen’s ‘peer reviewed and published 1988 paper’.
“1988: Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model. J. Geophys. Res.” Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone, 1988.
Under scenario A, business as usual, Hansen had the temperature anomaly at +1.0°C for 2010 and climbing to +1.5°C by 2020.
N.B. Hansen’s CO2 model did not include increased emissions from China and India.
Hansen’s explicit wording from the same paper is:

“…Another conclusion is that global warming to the level attained at the peak of the current interglacial and the previous interglacial appears to be inevitiable; even with the drastic, and probably unrealistic, reductions of greenhouse forcings in scenario C, a warming of +0.5°C is attained within the next 15 years…”

Fifteen years from 1988 is 2003.

“…The +1.0°C level of warming is exceeded during the next few decades in both scenarios A and B. In scenario A that level is reached in less than 20 years and in scenario B it is reached within the next 25 years…”

Twenty years from 1988 is 2008. Twenty five years from 1988 is 2013.
Your graphs are fake! You’re here bluntly and blindly spreading falsehoods! You really need to read the actual papers, not sks misrepresentations.
Hansen’s predictions are so far off the mark as to be a joke.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 10:07 am

: By all means read the cited paper yourself and plot the GISTEMP data against Figure 6. You’ll get the same results as I did.
Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide – Hansen et al 1981

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 10:45 am

Icarus62, where are the model error bars on Hansen’s 1981 projection?
Also, where are the error bars for systematic sensor measurement error on Hansen’s global air temperature anomaly plot?
Hint: nowhere. Second hint: never calculated.
Hint regarding conclusions: the plots are physically meaningless.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 11:19 am

icarus62 March 19, 2015 at 8:54 am
@average joe: Climate models have been remarkably accurate in predicting global warming. Here’s one example from the early 1980s:

Have you actually ready his paper (Hansen, 1988) – it’s absolutely clear that we are currently right on his prediction of “cut all carbon dioxide emissions” path, even though carbon dioxide has continued to increase.

average joe
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 11:57 am

icarus62: You did not answer my question. Who is the author of the graph you show? Is it yourself? There appears to be a large offset error in the comparison. When that is corrected you find that the models fail badly. So, who is the author?

average joe
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 12:09 pm

icarus62: “The blue data is simply the NASA GISTEMP data series”
What is NASA GISTEMP? Where does the dataset come from? Is it true that it is not based on actual data measurements as Catherine Ronconi points out?
My graph shows Hadcrut4 and UAH lower trop. This is real measured data. Where did you get yours?

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 12:53 pm

Icarus62’s plot is a lie.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 3:13 pm

Icarus62, you’ve lost your wings:
No-one can duplicate your graphs but you Icarus62.
Trying to identify exactly what graph and predictions you are claiming to duplicate is near impossible without explicit citation.
Returning to your claim of the Hansen 1981 et al paper. The only plot I find close to your graph is the last one, ‘Figure 7’, at the bottom of page 965.
That particular graph uses the slow growth CO2 scenario with model runs against CO2 forcing sensitivity. Definitely not the business as normal CO2 emissions that would represent current reality.
The temperature plot was intended to show how the CO2 level of forcing matched against natural climate fluctuations. Not that anyone has managed to match modeled output against natural climate.
You are still way off base Icarus62.
I also notice that you mention, long after others asked the specific genesis of your graph:

“…and plot the GISTEMP data against Figure 6. You’ll get the same results as I did.”

It isn’t Hansen’s graph and predictions. It is your dismal attempt to duplicate what you think are Hansen’s predictions.
Wrong on the CO2 atmosphere concentration.
Causes wrong estimated temperatures according to Hansen’s forcings.
Off on the GISTemp observations. Note that Hansen’s prediction graph uses observations, represented by the dotted graph line. Plotting GISTemp across the whole graph just illustrates how GISS loves to cool the past so the present looks hotter.
Try again, burned by the sun, wingless one.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 4:12 pm

Bart, Hansen’s 1981 projections are different from his 1988 projections. Icarus62 has somehow chosen the most opportune of the two projection sets.
Of course, the difference in projection sets opens the question of which should be accorded canonical authority by the faithful. Was the 1981 GISS climate model more wonderful than the 1988 version? If so, then Hansen’s 1988 scenarios A, B, and C should be discarded. But if the 1988 projections are to be sacralized, then the 1981 projection is out the window and icarus62’s correspondence graph amounts to eco-heretical backsliding.
From the scientific perspective, neither projection set has any physical meaning, but that flaw has never stopped the AGW alarmati from indulging a profound climatological exegesis.

average joe
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 6:22 pm

icarus62: You are doing exactly what the religious do. It’s called confirmation bias. When you start with a preconceived belief, and look for evidence, the human brain is wonderful at seeing only the data that supports your belief and ignoring data that does not. It is very good at this, in fact it does it without you even realizing it. If nothing else, the difference between science and religion is that the scientific method when practiced properly takes steps to identify and remove this bias, religion does not. What truly saddens me about this whole cagw scare, is that scientists trained in the scientific method who know better are choosing the religious approach, and this is truly a travesty. And like any religion, only those outside of it can see the bias, along with the occasional insider who is honestly searching for truth.
Even with your inappropriate use of Hansen’s 1981 paper to help you believe, bottom line is even that shows a prediction trend much steeper than current data. A very steep trend change that continues up for many years is required within next 5 years, otherwise even your deceptive graph will be screaming failure. Clock is tickin, you better pray to your god that your miracle comes soon, as you will be held personally accountable for the damage your religion has inflicted on society.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 7:56 pm

Catherine Ronconi,

GISS’ “temperature anomaly” is not “observed”. It is fabricated.

Prove it. What’s the true surface temperature trend of the planet since 1880? No appeals to motive, hard data, independently verifiable. Absolute proof.
Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty would concede that what I ask of you is impossible and that having an evidence-based discussion with me about my disbelief of your position would be fruitless.

average joe
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 19, 2015 9:46 pm

OMG icarus62 really is outright lying.This just got personal. For anyone following this lying piece of [trimmed], read ATheoK’s post above then follow iccy’s link to Fig 6 in hansen’s p1981 paper. That graph is model output using hansens lowest co2 scenario, for which we are way above. The appropriate model for comparison is for the actual levels of co2 in the atmosphere, and those have failed miserably by predicting much warmer temperatures than we have actually had. Icarus62 is either maliciously lying or he is stoned bonkers stupid and needs a swirly. Where’d you go iccy? Get back here and stand up for yourself.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 20, 2015 10:43 am

Brandon Gates @ March 19, 2015 at 7:56 pm
That’s a two-edged sword, Brandon. You cannot prove GISS is realistic. Why? Because it uses extrapolated information for areas that are not covered. And, if they are not covered, then they are not covered. You cannot just make up data, in contravention of basic sampling theorems, to add information where there is none. That is not science. That is pseudo-science.
If the warming GISS claims were real, it would show up in the satellite data, which has coverage of polar areas. It doesn’t, so it isn’t.
Pat Frank @ March 19, 2015 at 4:12 pm
So, basically, he covered every reasonably possible eventuality, and Icarus62 has drawn a circle around the shots nearest the target (and, nudged the bullseye closer to the circle by ATheoK). Quite the Texas Sharpshooter.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 20, 2015 11:52 am

Mike, every major temperature data set shows pretty much the same results except for GISS since about 2010, which is an outlier.
No, I cannot prove GISS is wrong, but I can prove sampling theorems, and I can tell you that it is essentially impossible to reliably reconstruct data from an undersampled and aliased record without an a priori, reliable model upon which the reconstruction can be based.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 20, 2015 12:08 pm

Temperatures rose between 1980 and today? Who’da thunk it?
This is not the question. The question is the plateau since 1998, and the last five years in particular in which GISS is an outlier.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 20, 2015 2:33 pm

Which has nothing to do with the conversation over whether GISS is an outlier. It clearly is. And, the infilling of unknown data points is technically indefensible, so you try to obscure it with fluff. Have fun. I have more important things to do.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 20, 2015 4:46 pm

Mike Borgelt @ March 20, 2015 at 3:00 pm
There is a rather significant difference between having data gaps in time, and having no data at all.
I understand that the only way to continue bitterly clinging to the AGW hypothesis in the face of what is now overwhelming evidence against it is to obfuscate, equivocate, and insinuate uncertainty where there is none. But, I will not participate in your self-delusion.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 20, 2015 5:21 pm

“Check out the NSIDC record that was set on Feb 25th.”
You do understand it is far below what the AGW modelers expected?
“Will you resort to name calling next?”
Sure, if you wish it. How about I tell you you’re pathetic?

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 20, 2015 5:43 pm

It was your preferred term. I thought you’d like it. I’ll send you the gift receipt so you can return it for something better.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 21, 2015 3:32 pm


That’s a two-edged sword, Brandon. You cannot prove GISS is realistic.

Nor would I attempt to in any non-trivial science based on inference. Proof is for math and logic in my book, not empirical study of large, fiendishly complex physical systems.

Why? Because it uses extrapolated information for areas that are not covered. And, if they are not covered, then they are not covered.

I find it difficult to believe that these implied pockets of cold atmosphere are conspiring to hang out in regions of zero instrumental coverage.

You cannot just make up data, in contravention of basic sampling theorems, to add information where there is none. That is not science. That is pseudo-science.

Sorry, but interpolation was not invented by climatologists, and it enjoys a rich tradition of successful use in many areas of observational science:
Those are the first three hits for the google search “history of interpolation”.

If the warming GISS claims were real, it would show up in the satellite data, which has coverage of polar areas. It doesn’t, so it isn’t.
And finally, what matters most:
I’m sorry, you were saying something about GISS making things up?
Trend for the same period (1979-present) is 0.468 K/decade, compared to 0.323 K/decade as calculated by RSS from satellite observation. Yes, calculated:
Uncertainty in our MSU/AMSU atmospheric temperature datasets
Why study the uncertainty?
Without realistic uncertainty estimates we are not doing science!
In the past, numerous conclusions have been drawn from MSU/AMSU data with little regard to the long term uncertainty in the data.
Most previous error analyses for MSU/AMSU data sets have focused on decadal-scale trends in global-scale means, while in contrast, many applications are focused on shorter time scales and smaller spatial scales.
Here we describe a comprehensive analysis of the uncertainty in the RSS MSU/AMSU products. The results can be used to evaluate the estimated uncertainty on all relevant temporal and spatial scales.
Our MSU/AMSU products use data from 14 different satellites. The data need to be intercalibrated before being merged together. This is a complex process, as shown in the flow chart below.
First, adjustments are made for changes in local measurement time (diurnal adjustment) and Earth incidence angle.
Then, intercalibration is performed by comparing measurements from co-orbiting satellites, yielding a set of “merging parameters”.
Uncertainty that arises earlier in the process (e.g. from the adjustments for local measurement time) can cause uncertainty in the merging parameters, which adds to the uncertainty in the final results.
Because of the complex nature of the errors, they are difficult to calculate and describe using simple statistical methods. Instead, we use a Monte Carlo technique to produce a large number of possible realizations of the errors that are consistent with the sources of error that we have studied.
A detailed description of the methods used to generate the uncertainty ensembles, and a summary of the results is given in Mears et al, 2011.

Here’s the link to Mears et al, 2011:
Which reads like pretty much any other paper on uncertainty done by the surface station folks. A sampling:
[11] Because of the complex interplay between various parts of the adjustment system (Figure 2) we cannot a priori determine the degree to which errors in various parts of the system are interdependent. Therefore a stochastic model is required to be employed that implicitly allows any such interdependencies to be expressed rather than making assumptions which would be hard to justify and could lead to either too liberal or too conservative a set of estimates. We therefore use Monte Carlo methods to produce a large number of instances of estimated error in the final data set.
If I didn’t know I was reading a paper on atmospheric temperature time series based on calculated estimates from satellite soundings, I’d swear this paragraph was something straight out of a paper about a GISS or HADCRU surface temperature product:
[14] In undertaking this analysis approach we are making an implicit assumption that the expression of the errors will be independent of the underlying spatiotemporal evolution of the climate system state (although this is partially captured arguably in the sampling error derivation, see section 2.2). That is to say that the overall magnitude of the internal uncertainty errors is independent of the timing and magnitude of natural modes of variability such as ENSO and the presence or otherwise of an underlying long-term climate change signal. This would include any long-term evolution of the magnitude of the diurnal cycle. Intuitively, any such impact would be very much a second-order effect and this assumption is likely to be valid.
Last one, which for me is the money quote:
[15] A further, more tenuous assumption made when adding this Monte Carlo simulation to the operational data set products is that these products themselves are essentially unbiased. Several studies have been published that suggest that our TLT and TMT data sets may contain residual biases [e.g., Christy et al., 2007; Christy and Norris, 2009; Randall and Herman, 2008]. These biases could either be due to the type of errors discussed here or to other unknown error sources that are not addressed in this analysis.
IOW, don’t assume our products are bias-free, we ourselves cannot say that with a straight face. As with any product relying on extrapolation — yes, extrapolation — from noisy observational data with many known complications and issues (not to mention all the things we can think of which might have gone wrong, but are difficult to test): caveat emptor.
Yet here you are, uncritically touting the satellite data as if they’re the Gold Standard of Truth, while claiming that polar warming isn’t showing up in their data. Which claim for the northern pole is patently false. “Yabbut, GISS is running hot by 0.145 K/decade, so GISS must be and IS wrong!!!” you protest. Ok, I’ll quibble about 0.014 degrees per year … once I choke down this spasm of giggles, that is.
Here’s the N. Pole from the slightly higher TTT channel:
The TMT weighting function goes a bit higher, but the fat part of the curve is about the same as TTT:
TTS higher still than the previous two:
TLS even higher, centered on about 18 km:
Shows cooling. The stratosphere channels, C10 through C25 show the same thing, but only have coverage from 1998, so are not directly comparable. What does TLS say about the entire globe?
Cooling. As expected. What I wouldn’t expect is the TLT channel, though closer to the surface than all the rest is still centered about 2 km up, and ranges ever so slightly past 10 km, to trend exactly the same as thermometers bound to the surface.
I believe that GISS and RSS are both wrong. I understand all too well that both are only estimates approximating the truth, and treat them both accordingly.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 21, 2015 4:43 pm

“I find it difficult to believe that these implied pockets of cold atmosphere are conspiring to hang out in regions of zero instrumental coverage.”
Science is not about belief. I personally find it absurd to believe that temperatures can be interpolated smoothly across the singularity zone of what is necessarily a non-smooth vector field on S2. You clearly would not understand that. Suffice it to say that successful interpolation requires specific conditions, and they are not always met, and are assuredly not met here.
Again, the issues involved with satellite time interpolation are very different from those involved with ground series spatial interpolation. There are excellent models for time interpolation. There are continuous data sets against which the results can be compared for consistency. There are no reliable models for spatial interpolation of surface measurements which exclude the poles. There are no consistent data available at all.
Why do you fools keep trying to draw trend lines since 1980? Has anyone asserted that temperatures stopped rising in 1980? Never mind. I know the answer. It is to obfuscate and misdirect from the era during which model projections have dramatically diverged from actual measurements.
No, GISS and RSS are not equally wrong. GISS is clearly being manipulated with an agenda in mind.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 21, 2015 10:21 pm


Science is not about belief.

I don’t subscribe to the tyranny of your ad hoc absolutist definitions. In my book, beliefs derived from inference are not a priori irrational. I call them beliefs unflinchingly because to call what we think we know “proof” of how things work is hubris of the absolute worst kind — the sort which leaves one resistant to acceptance of new data, or discovery of error, which is anathema to how I was taught to practice science. Which lessons I still remember even though I don’t. YMMV.

I personally find it absurd to believe that temperatures can be interpolated smoothly across the singularity zone of what is necessarily a non-smooth vector field on S2.

I personally find it annoying that engineers who lecture about such things conveniently leave the component of time out of their screeds. I agree with you to a point; if you took two temperature measurements at the same time from stations separated by 1200 km as the crow flies along the great circle route of S2, and confidently asserted that temperature at the midpoint was (T1 + T2)/2 +/- 0.01, I’d tell you to get stuffed. 30 years of data taken daily tallied up and averaged … even that simplistic of an interpolation becomes more robust.
FWIW, again from Mears (2011):
[10] Different uncertainty sources are important for different spatial and temporal scales. For example, radiometer noise is important only for short time scales and small spatial scales because its effects are rapidly diminished by averaging multiple observations together and thus it is not considered further in this analysis. Sampling uncertainty tends to dominate other uncertainty sources for a single monthly average over a 2.5° times 2.5° cell (the smallest temporal and spatial resolution we consider) but decreases rapidly when larger temporal or spatial averages are considered. Diurnal and merging parameter uncertainties are spatially and temporally correlated and thus do not decrease rapidly with averaging and thus become dominant for largest spatial and longest temporal scales.
Law of large numbers and central limit theorem. How is it that you put it?

You clearly would not understand that.

Yes, that.

Again, the issues involved with satellite time interpolation are very different from those involved with ground series spatial interpolation.

Zero apparent difference that I can see. Again I quote:
[14] In undertaking this analysis approach we are making an implicit assumption that the expression of the errors will be independent of the underlying spatiotemporal evolution of the climate system state (although this is partially captured arguably in the sampling error derivation, see section 2.2).

There are excellent models for time interpolation.

What is Kriging, with its dependence on Bayesian priors, if not a time-dependent operation in addition to its known suitability for spatial applications?

There are continuous data sets against which the results can be compared for consistency.

Good grief. I gave you Mears (2011) and you’re too stuck on your own narrative to actually educate yourself. Here. Read:
[9] It is difficult to determine the exact structure of the uncertainty in the absence of any reference data set that is known to be free from error. Sadly, such a data set has not existed, although efforts to create precisely calibrated ground-based [Seidel et al., 2009] and space-based [Space Studies Board , 2007] observing systems could help resolve this in the future. We therefore provide an informed estimate of the uncertainty internal to our data set, often based on an analysis of intersatellite differences and our knowledge of the merging procedures we used to produce the data set. In the following sections, we outline the overall approach and the contribution of each source of error to the total error.
Any other day of the week, you and yours would be howling about circularity. But not with satellites, no sir. They’re special. Infallible …
On February 3, 2014, the entire Landsat 8 archive will be cleared from the online cache and reprocessed to take advantage of calibration improvements identified during its first year of operation. All Landsat 8 scenes will be removed from the online cache at this time and these data will be reprocessed starting with the most recent acquisitions and proceeding back to the beginning of the mission. Data will then become available for download. Scenes waiting to be reprocessed will also be available for on-demand product orders. Reprocessing is expected to take approximately 50 days.
Changes to Thermal Infrared Sensor (TIRS) data
The TIRS temperature offsets noted on November 14, 2013 Calibration Notice on is a primary driver for this reprocessing effort.
These offsets remove 0.29 W/m2/sr/um (~2.1 K) from Band 10 and 0.51 W/m2/sr/um (~4.4 K) from band 11, relative to products processed prior to February 3, 2014. The offsets represent an average error introduced by stray light coming from outside the TIRS field of view and will improve the data accuracy for typical growing season data (10° to 30° C) where the surrounding areas are similar in temperature.
The Root Mean Square (RMS) variability of this correction is 0.12 W/m2/sr/um (~0.8 K) for Band 10 and remains greater at 0.2 W/m2/sr/um (~1.75 K) for Band 11. Due to the larger calibration uncertainty associated with Band 11, it is recommended that users refrain from relying on Band 11 data in quantitative analysis of the TIRS data, such as the use of split window techniques for atmospheric correction and retrieval of surface temperature values.

… NOT. It’s a horror show of adjustments. Why do you trust this stuff again?
There are no reliable models for spatial interpolation of surface measurements which exclude the poles.
1980-present, difference is 0.145 K/decade. Allowing for the fact that surface temps and TLT trends are well known, and expected, to not track with the surface … I call that pretty remarkable agreement.

There are no consistent data available at all.

That’s what makes science so difficult, and you so useless in a discussion of it … not least because of your inconsistency in recognizing inconsistent data.

Why do you fools keep trying to draw trend lines since 1980? Has anyone asserted that temperatures stopped rising in 1980?

If we had satellites going back to 1880, I’d gladly dispense with the time series trend analysis and shove a CO2 vs RSS TLT scatterplot under your nose.

Never mind. I know the answer. It is to obfuscate and misdirect from the era during which model projections have dramatically diverged from actual measurements.

By 0.25 K over 10 years. For comparison, two standard deviations from a 10-year running mean is 0.18 K. Two standard deviations of a CO2-only prediction since 1850 (HADCRUT4) is … 0.25 K.
CMIP5 does not do internal variability in aggregate. When are you and your merry band of uncritical satellite worshippers going to figure out that ENSO is not a viable explanation for 165-year secular trends? That a 20 year “hiatus” but half the time of two preceding events?

No, GISS and RSS are not equally wrong. GISS is clearly being manipulated with an agenda in mind.

ROFL!!! Ahem: Science is not about belief.
Make up your mind already.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 22, 2015 10:18 am

“30 years of data taken daily tallied up and averaged … even that simplistic of an interpolation becomes more robust.”
There are no 30 years of surface temperature data at the poles, intermittent or otherwise. There are, for all intents and purposes, no data at all.
GISS is interpolating boundary data across a non-smooth region based on essentially no information at all. They are claiming recent warming where the other data sets see none at all, and it is made up out of whole cloth. I do not know why you are having such a hard time with this concept, or feel a need to waste so much space on irrelevancies. OTOH, as stated before, yes I do. Time to move on.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 22, 2015 11:23 am

One station for a 14 million square km area 58 years ago. Umkay.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 22, 2015 12:31 pm

You guys are just flailing wildly. Give it up. It’s obvious GISS is just trying to keep the music playing as long as it can, but the only music continuing to play is their own humming.

NC Brian
Reply to  icarus62
March 19, 2015 7:10 am

Here is what I do not understand. Lets assume that you are correct and that human activity is now the dominant influence on global climate. Then logic says we should be reducing our carbon footprint as fast as possible.
I have been reading some of Jim Hansen’s writing lately. His take is that the developing nations will do what is necessary to bring their people out of poverty. That takes electricity. Wind and solar power can not provide the large scale reliable power needed. Nuclear power is the only non carbon energy source that is capable of doing the job.
I will believe that the concerned groups are sincere in their anti CO2 positions when they start to advocate moving billions of dollars from wind and solar subsidies to nuclear research.

Reply to  NC Brian
March 19, 2015 7:18 am

See Hansen’s opinion piece advocating an increase in nuclear power:

Reply to  icarus62
March 19, 2015 7:43 am

Your entire post is a regurgitation of statements made by a warmist community that is completely dependent upon being funded by the perpetuation of the same party line.
Whenever I enter into this discussion with friends and neighbors, all they can EVER do is what you’ve done here.
If I ask them for their thoughts on why the satellite-based data sets differ from the ground-based data sets…they have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about. All they can do is regurgitate the same headlines you have in your post.
IMHO, it’s a blatant display of intellectual laziness or deliberate promotion of a falsehood…take your pick.
If someone countered each of your above quotes with other quotes from other peer reviewed sources, what then? Does the one with the most quotes win?…and we’re back to science by consensus?

Reply to  jimmaine
March 19, 2015 8:03 am

This global scientific consensus exists because of the robust and overwhelming evidence. You could of course argue that the entire scientific community of the planet are all in on a gigantic conspiracy to raise your taxes, but is that really plausible? Reason should tell you it’s far more likely that the science is sound.

Reply to  icarus62
March 24, 2015 6:27 am

You folks always do this. You attempt to justify one extreme by stating that the other extreme is just impossible. You leave no room for the possibility that there’s anything in the middle. You attempt to oversimplify everything such that it fits inside your personal echo chamber. Good luck with that, but facts show otherwise.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  jimmaine
March 19, 2015 10:00 am

There is less than zero evidence in favor of catastrophic man-made global warming. All the evidence in the world is against it.
But, please, by all means present what you imagine to be this overwhelm ing evidence. Perhaps you can succeed where the IPCC has so miserably failed.

Reply to  jimmaine
March 19, 2015 10:29 am

Icarus62, wings of tallow:
There is no global climate consensus!
31,487 American scientists have signed the ‘Global Warming Petition Project’!
The most popular science blogs on the Internet are CAGW skeptical sites, especially WUWT the most popular and highest rated science blog.
Fifty former NASA scientists and astronauts signed and sent a letter to NASA Chief on March 28, 2012 The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr. NASA Administrator

“…unproven remarks…..not substantiated…..hundreds of well-known climate scientists…..tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief… is NOT settled…..unbecoming of NASA’s history…..advocacy of an extreme position…..damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA…..even the reputation of science itself…”

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
Not forgetting that those cutesy lovable climate hooligans you so devoutly believe have collectively perpetrated 129 Climate Scandals to date; many are very egregious!
The IPCC along with most of the devout climate alarmists have admitted that there is a pause in the temperature rise over the last 18-26 years, dependent on which data set is used.
Those same alarmist are getting ever more desperate to explain the pause. Especially since the alarmist’s claim that CO2 emissions cause lockstep increases. No increases in the global temperatures means no CAGW alarmism!
To date there are 66 excuses posed by alarmists as rationale for why temperatures are moribund. Not surprisingly, many of the excuses conflict with each other. Also not surprisingly, many of these postulated reasons were denied consideration for climate modeling.
Icarus62 with the droopy tallow wings; you are at a site where you can learn much, just by reading the stored knowledge herein at WUWT. Additional information and greater detail is available through many of the links provided by WUWT in the right sidebar.
Go! learn!

Reply to  jimmaine
March 19, 2015 12:46 pm

“This global scientific consensus exists because of the robust and overwhelming evidence.”
This is a throwaway line with no actual meaning.
“You could of course argue that the entire scientific community of the planet are all in on a gigantic conspiracy to raise your taxes, but is that really plausible?”
Or, you could note that the history of science is replete with instances where the consensus opinion was dead wrong.
“Reason should tell you it’s far more likely that the science is sound.”
That would only be the case if expert consensus were far more likely to be correct than not. However, once again, the history of scientific advancement is inconsistent with this claim. There is an actual Latin phrase describing this fallacy, due to its repeated failure to serve as a reliable guide to truth: ad verecundiam.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  icarus62
March 19, 2015 8:43 am

Do you actually think you’ve proved something here?
Nullius In Verba.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  icarus62
March 19, 2015 8:47 am

Oh, and
“The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming.”
is meaningless BS, because there is no definition of a “balanced” climate.

Reply to  Eustace Cranch
March 19, 2015 8:56 am

‘Balanced’ in this context simply means that there is no significant planetary energy imbalance.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
March 19, 2015 11:46 am

Accuracy of the measured TOA radiation is insufficient to resolve any difference between downward SW and upward LW at the limit needed to establish any supposed energy imbalance caused by GHG emissions.
See, for example, Willis Eschenbach’s detailed discussion of the data here.

Reply to  Eustace Cranch
March 19, 2015 2:16 pm

@Pat Frank: The planetary energy imbalance is significant as shown in several recent studies, e.g:

“For the 2000s… the total energy imbalance implied by ORAS4 is 0.91 ± 0.10W/m² “

Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo, and Magdalena A. Balmaseda, 2014: Earth’s Energy Imbalance. J. Climate, 27, 3129–3144.

“We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.”

Loeb, N. G., J. M. Lyman, G. C. Johnson, R. P. Allan, D. R. Doelling, T. Wong, B. J. Soden, and G. L. Stephens (2012), Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty, Nat. Geosci., 5, 110–113, doi:10.1038/ngeo1375.

“Argo era observed planetary energy imbalances are 0.70W/m² in 2003-2008 and 0.59W/m² in 2005-2010.”

Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, and K. von Schuc ann (2011), Earth’s energy imbalance and implications, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11,13,421–13,449, doi:10.5194/acp-11-13421-2011.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
March 19, 2015 4:34 pm

icarus62, from Graeme Stephens, et al., (2012) “An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations Nature Geoscience 5, 691–696
TOA Balance:
Shortwave in: 340.2(+/-)0.1 W/m^2
Shortwave out: 100.0(+/-)2 W/m^2
Longwave out: 239.7(+/-)3.3 W/m^2
RMS average uncertainty in the TOA energy balance: (+/-)3.9 W/m^2
The net(+/-)uncertainty in the surface energy budget is 0.6(+/-)17 W/m^2
Here’s how Stephens, et al., finish their paper: “Essential observations such as precipitation, TOA radiative fluxes, ocean surface winds, and clouds have to be sustained if progress is to continue. But even with these steps in place, the precision needed to monitor the changes in fluxes associated with forced climate change remains a significant challenge.” my bold
There’s a candid admission; and very refreshing it is, too, in a field so addicted to unphysical hyperbole.
So, explain how your sources get their supposed accuracy despite the very much larger measurement errors. And after that, explain how it’s possible to resolve a 0.035 W/m^2 average annual increase in GHG forcing in the face of measurement uncertainties in energy flux that are 111x and 485x larger.

Reply to  Eustace Cranch
March 20, 2015 4:52 am

Whoa, Icarus….
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about, there is NO requirement for the earth to be in radiative equilibrium, in fact such a requirement defines a perpetual motion machine. The only requirement is for the earth to be in an overall energy balance between all incoming sources and all outgoing sources across all time.
One would normally expect outgoing energy to be less than incoming because of energy exchanges from one form to another, these do not have to be balanced. For example when a plant absorbs some photons and produces a carbohydrate molecule those photons are then gone, turned into the bond energy of the carbohydrate, the climate scientists assume incoming energy must equal outgoing. Engineers will tell you that it’s never that simple there are ALWAYS losses!

Janice Moore
Reply to  icarus62
March 19, 2015 10:46 am

Here comes the Sun, Icarus:
Everyone (even Trenberth) seems to have gotten the memo but you.

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 19, 2015 2:11 pm

Global warming hasn’t stopped. It hasn’t even slowed down. Warming of the land surface continues unabated, as shown by both terrestrial and satellite data:
Warming of the oceans continues unabated, as shown by historical records and the modern Argo float network:

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 19, 2015 2:40 pm

Get real & draw a line through RSS data from the late 1990s until now.
You’ll find that not only has the warming stopped, but the cooling has begun.

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 19, 2015 3:33 pm

I’m beginning to think that Icarus62 is a cover for some clueless bloke named dana. Don’t they call him dumb devoted dana at sks or desmog or somewhere?
No wonder it takes thousands of words before he switches tack.
Wingless Icarus62:
Why are you showing that false ocean temperature chart? The one graphed in joules because trying to represent it in degrees °C would reveal that researchers somehow measured thousandths of a degree in ocean temperature.
You do realize it is another falsehood to claim exceptional precision from equipment unable to attain that level of perfection?
Don’t forget that according to those researchers, only one small area of the ocean is so affected. Nor could the same researches explain why they found fractions of a degree warming so deep in the ocean.
More absolute faith followed by more falsehoods and fabrications.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 19, 2015 3:34 pm

Catherine Ronconi
March 19, 2015 at 2:40 pm
Get real & draw a line through RSS data from the late 1990s until now.
You’ll find that not only has the warming stopped, but the cooling has begun.

It would appear that Icci is listening to the wrong alarm clock. 😎
Even his heroes admit the heat is “missing”. Their hypothesis and models predicted/projected it but it hasn’t shown up. Rather than admit they were wrong they claim it’s “hiding” somewhere. Perhaps in Icci’s graphs?

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 19, 2015 3:39 pm

I’d rather not speculate as to what Melt Away Fly Boy might be hiding up his cavities, if it’s all the same to you.
But thanks for your support!

Pat Frank
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 19, 2015 5:12 pm

Your trends in GISS and UAH data sets are just artifacts of the temperature step at the 1998 El Nino. But you knew that, didn’t you icarus62. Or did you?
The UAH trend from 1979-1997 is +0.035 C/decade, and from 2001-2015 is +0.072 C/decade.
For GISS, these numbers are +0.14 C/decade (1979-1997) and 0.035 C/decade (2001-2014).
Neither trend is consistent with the (non) predictions of climate models for the influence of GHG emissions, which invariably project increasingly rapid warming.

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 20, 2015 10:35 am

@Pat Frank: The multidecadal rate of global warming depends mainly on the net climate forcing, which apparently hasn’t risen since about the year 2000. Would you expect accelerating warming under these circumstances?

Pat Frank
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 20, 2015 11:38 am

You avoided the point, icarus62, which is that your warming trend is an artifact of a step-change. Air temperature step changes contradict canonical AGW theorizing.
Now you suppose that net forcing hasn’t changed since 2000, so as to account for the near lack of an air temperature change since 2000, making you apparently completely oblivious to the fact that your pronouncement about no net forcing since 2000 contradicts your prior post claiming a warming trend after 2000.
You’re just opportunistically shifting your ground, icarus62; a tacit admission that you’ve lost the debate.

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 20, 2015 11:57 am

You’ve demolished his argument, Pat. Icarus62’s excess smoothing to carry the pre-2000 warming forward is fundamentally dishonest.

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 20, 2015 3:09 pm

@Pat Frank: You don’t seem to understand how climate forcings drive global temperature changes. If the net forcing hasn’t increased since 2000AD, that doesn’t mean that the climate system shouldn’t be warming. There is a large planetary energy imbalance, caused primarily by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and it’s this which is driving global warming. The warming will not stop while that imbalance persists. The fact that the net climate forcing hasn’t grown since 2000AD just means that, all else being equal, the planetary energy imbalance should be declining, as global warming increases OLR to space. In reality, if we look at the climate system as a whole, we see that global warming actually accelerated since around 2000AD. Now, that acceleration could just be due to ocean dynamics which could reverse in coming years and decades, but it could also mean that new positive feedbacks are adding to the planetary energy imbalance. Time will tell.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 20, 2015 4:48 pm

Bart, you’re right, icarus62’s T-graph is heavily smoothed, propagating past warming forward. The content of his posts is suggestive that icarus62 didn’t know that, though.
Icarus62, measurement uncertainty shows that it cannot be known whether there’s a “large imbalance” in the terrestrial energy budget. So, your argument lacks a foundation.
Climate models are entirely unable to assign causality to the recent climate warming, so your claim that the warming is due to “anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions” is again without any foundation.
You wrote that, “global warming increases OLR to space,” which is not correct. Conventional theory has it that human-emitted CO2 slightly increases the height of the 255 K radiant boundary. The higher boundary plus the constant TOA temperature plus a constant lapse rate means that the surface must warm.
Your comment, “ In reality, if we look at the climate system as a whole, we see that global warming actually accelerated since around 2000AD.” is just hand-waving about Kevin Trenberth’s missing heat. Trenberth’s missing heat is a product of non-predictive climate models. No one actually knows whether it should really be there, or not.
What thermal change has been reported is so small in magnitude — ~ 0.06 C between 2000 and 2013 — that may be beyond sensor field resolution in any case. See the temperature graphics in Willis Eschenbach’s post here. Note that the NOAA plots have no error bars.

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 20, 2015 5:28 pm

“The higher boundary plus the constant TOA temperature plus a constant lapse rate means that the surface must warm.”
Must it? Must the boundary, in fact, appreciably move higher? In a system governed by purely radiative exchange, sure, I’ll buy that. However, convective overturning in our atmosphere has a dramatic influence on the lapse rate.
Is it genuinely well understood just what impact this has on the temperature profile? I suspect it is likely that the ratio of how well it is understood to how confident the climate community is that they understand it is similar to the ratio of how well the models track the “pause” to how much confidence is expressed in succeeding IPCC reports.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 20, 2015 6:15 pm

Bart, please note in my post: “conventional theory” 🙂 I was just correcting icarus62’s take on the global warming consensus argument.
My very considered view — like yours — is that conventional climate theory is not predictive. Agreed that convection will have a lot to say about whether emitted CO2 produces any detectible warming at all (along with cloud feedback and precipitation).

Reply to  Janice Moore
March 20, 2015 7:06 pm

Yeah, I know. I was just trying to bring a little discussion in.
It is something I have been thinking about a bit lately. The pat (no pun intended) storyline is what you said, that the CO2 would raise the ERL, effectively heating the surface. It is stated with grim certitude, and casually tossed off as something that was well known even in the 19th century. When the AGW’ers say “it is science”, and imply that it is inevitable as objects falling in gravity, this is the simplistic explanation to which they are referring.
Yet, this cannot be right, because rising temperatures necessarily induce an increase in atmospheric CO2. If there were, in turn, a rise in temperatures from CO2, then there would be a positive feedback loop, which could not be stabilized by T^4 radiation alone. A recent discussion of my thinking on this with Joe Born can be found in this thread.
The more I have considered it, the more I have come to believe that convective transport of heat from the surface to the radiating layers must be significantly greater than radiative transport alone. And this, I suspect, is why the simplistic explanation fails, and has failed to produce the expected warming of the last two decades.

Reply to  icarus62
March 19, 2015 2:47 pm

@icarus62…It took you, what, four postings, perhaps, to show that you were here to argue in bad faith?
You present a single example that you assert shows that predictions have proven to be accurate…but, faced with a graph with 85+ counter-examples, you can immediately identify the author of the graph. That means you know about the graph, and were aware of the overwhelming evidence against your contention at the time you stated it…but chose to present your contention anyway, as if it had value.
When you present a bad faith argument, you establish your untrustworthiness. When you do it here, where people are knowledgeable enough to call you on it, you are actually working against your own cause, because it raises the question: if your position were sound, why would you need to argue in bad faith?
That might sound like a suggestion that you stop poisoning your own well; on the contrary, please continue. In this way, your contributions to this website are invaluable.

Reply to  Rdcii
March 20, 2015 10:28 am

@Rdcii: The claim from ‘average joe’ was that observations have failed to match climate model predictions. Well, I showed that this claim is not true. Simply plotting NASA GISTEMP against Hansen’s 1981 climate model output (Figure 6) shows that it has accurately predicted global warming to this day. Graph it yourself to confirm that what I say is true.

Reply to  Rdcii
March 20, 2015 11:57 am

Icarus, pretender with false wings:
What is this Icarus? Sneaking back to a prior thread trying to get the last word; pretending that your last word is accurate? Which it is not!
Obviously you don’t bother to read rebuttals to your posts. As pointed out in an earlier comment;

“…Returning to your claim of the Hansen 1981 et al paper. The only plot I find close to your graph is the last one, ‘Figure 7′, at the bottom of page 965.”

Figure six is a plot of six plus scenarios of temperature responses to various fuel/CO2 emission scenarios.
Since we have to guess exactly what you are supposedly reproducing, from your descriptions and claims you are blindly attempting to duplicate Figure 7 in the Hansen 1981 et al paper; and doing a dang poor job of it too.
You can learn much here! Just leave the false ‘behind the woodshed’ claims with the other flammable volatiles.
Hansen’s temperature predictions are not even close. Don’t forget that according to Hansen, NOAA’s surrounding streets should be under water.

Reply to  Rdcii
March 20, 2015 3:12 pm

: You don’t have to guess anything – I’ve told you exactly which figure is the one plotted (Figure 6), and given you the URL.
Graph it yourself.

Reply to  Rdcii
March 20, 2015 4:56 pm

Here is your contention, in your own words:
“@average joe: Climate models have been remarkably accurate in predicting global warming.”
You knew, even as you presented your one wimpy example, that the evidence was overwhelmingly against your stated contention, but you presented your example anyway, as if it supported your contention.
You are transparently here to argue in bad faith, and are working against your own cause.

Reply to  Rdcii
March 21, 2015 8:57 pm

Is icarus62 a David Appel sock puppet?
Sure sounds like him.

Reply to  icarus62
March 19, 2015 5:47 pm

According to IPCC AR5 Figure SPM.5 the incremental RF due to anthropogenic causes between year 1750 and year 2011 (261 years, 26.1 decades) is: CO2, 1.68 W/m^2; GHGs, 2.29 W/m^2. Linear progression decadal equivalent: 0.129 W/m^2; 0.175 W/m^2. A paper posted earlier on WUWT concluded that CO2 RF is 0.20 W/m^2 decadal.
I searched through IPCC AR5 trying to find a comparable RF for natural atmospheric water vapor. Figure SPM.5 lists an RF for water vapor from anthropogenic methane, seems that would apply to atmospheric H2O as well. (lb H2O/m^2 * W/lb = W/m^2) As we all know, atmospheric water vapor isn’t considered in IPCC because: 1) it’s not anthropogenic and 2) it can’t be blamed on coal fired power plants. So I looked around. Ok, so it’s Wiki.
Clouds increase the global reflection of solar radiation from 15% to 30%, reducing the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth by about 44 W/m². This cooling is offset somewhat by the greenhouse effect of clouds which reduces the outgoing radiation by about 31 W/m². Thus the net cloud forcing of the radiation budget is a loss of about 13 W/m².[1] If the clouds were removed with all else remaining the same, the Earth would gain this last amount in net radiation and begin to warm up.
Per Wiki the net cloud RF is 13 W/m^2. The time frame is not listed, however after comparison to a couple of popular annual global heat balances, from the magnitude I take it to be annual or 130 W/m^2 decadal.
0.129/130 = 0.099; 0.0877/130 = 0.135%; 0.20/130 = .154%
So the net water vapor cycle could fluctuate +/- .1% and the RF of all the GHGs would simply vanish.
So what’s the problem again?

Political Observer
March 19, 2015 5:23 am

I am not a lawyer and I am not giving legal advice. However I have read a number of legal experts opinion on what states can do to oppose this action by the EPA. If I understand their arguments correctly the Clean Air Act while empowering the EPA with the authority to establish ambient air quality standards it does not allow the EPA to force these standards on the states. Instead in the interest of “federalism” the EPA can encourage states to adopt those standards and create plans to achieve those standards. States that elect not to be so “encouraged” can opt out. However in those cases the EPA can then choose to implement their own plan to regulate the emissions of those sources within those states. The “hammer” that the EPA uses in these situations is the threat that their enforcement will be far more draconian that what they would allow under the state plan.
The challenge for the EPA is two fold. The enforcement threat is only viable if a few states resist. The EPA does not have the resources to implement a nationwide or even regional approach and Congress is unlikely to appropriate additional resources. Second the coercive threat is much like the Medicaid threat to states in the Affordable Care Act which the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional.

Reply to  Political Observer
March 19, 2015 6:04 am

The EPA issues egregious fines to suppliers for acts like failing to file form XYZ in triplicate. It does not matter if there was no actual environmental infraction, huge fines are in fact imposed for clerical errors. This is all to say EPA has free license to be as draconian as they wish to be against suppliers, which is kind of like carpet bombing the populace in order to sway their government to surrender.
The EPA like many other parts of federal government is out of control. Make no mistake, even though the left is cast as “big government”, both parties in Washington want more control and use growing federal power as the way to grow their influence.

Don Bennett
March 19, 2015 5:53 am

I just got my last electric bill from HELCO (the Big Island electricity supplier). I paid $94.86 for 262 KWH for a rate of $0.3621/KWH so the map with rates is pretty much correct. Note that in Hawaii, each island has an independent electrical grid; there is no interconnecting of the grid between the islands. Of course, HI loves “green” alternatives which adds to the price of the electricity.

Tom J
March 19, 2015 6:00 am

I’ve got a great idea. Well, ok, it’s not really all that great but I’m practicing to be an egotist so I can maybe be President some day. Anyway, we petition Gina (does she wear her hair that way so she can wash it with a bar of soap?) McCarthy to ground Air Force One; and, by extension, the decoy that allegedly flies with it. No more trips to Chicago for mere birthday parties. No more holidays in Hawaii. No more vacations for Michelle and the lil’ ones to Idaho, the Bahamas, or Mexico. No more golf outings. No more fundraisers. Oh, and almost forgot; no more trips for official business – teleconferencing from now on. Now, with Air Force One (and the decoy) on the tarmac we just hook each one of those four jet engines per giganto luxury plane (they’re turbines after all) up to an electrical generator and we can run them the equivalent amount of time that all the foregoing trips entail. Voila, we will have generated enough electricity to shut down, not just 40%, but the entire electrical generating of, not just the United States, not just the whole world, but probably the whole goddam galaxy.

Coach Springer
March 19, 2015 6:46 am

I would have appreciated at least some discussion of what states would gain and what they would lose by defying the EPA.

Tom J
Reply to  Coach Springer
March 19, 2015 7:40 am

If the states did not comply the Federal government would almost certainly cut off their federal highway funding. That was the technique the Feds used to bludgeon the states (especially the western states) to comply with their despicable 55mph (NMSL) speed limit. The situation here may be different, however. Whereas the NMSL was a hindrance to commerce, an enforcement nightmare, and torture to every driver on the road, the consequences to the state residents in terms of “skyrocketing” electrical bills during a job anxiety economy coupled with the manufacturing shutdowns, job losses, revenue losses, brownouts, blackouts and such may prove far more costly than any highway fund loss. Thus, some states might likely be much better off converting their Interstates to toll roads, plus enacting modest gasoline taxes to cover the highway fund loss, and then looking the Federal monster right in the eye, lopping its head off, and shoving that head up where the sun don’t shine.

chris moffatt
March 19, 2015 7:08 am

Well here in Virginia the state will certainly not oppose the EPA regulations. In fact Virginia Power wants them and has just done a sweet deal with the Governor and legislature that allows them a seven year period completely free of oversight by the State Corporation Commission. This deal includes the ability of VA Power to increase rates unchecked to compensate it for the costs of complying with the EPA rules. That 10.84c/kWh rate will soon be history and those on low and fixed incomes will suffer most as usual.

Samuel C Cogar
March 19, 2015 7:26 am

West Virginia’s 9.52 cents per kwh electricity rates is about to take a giant leap upward because Mon Power is in the process of shutting down the last three (3) coal-fired power generating plants in the State by mid-summer of this year …. to comply with the phoney CO2 science of those new EPA rules.
Said “shut-down” will not only impose a costly burden on the poor and elderly residents of WV …. but it will idle thousands of coal miners and thousands of employees of businesses that depend upon coal revenues for their survival, ….. leaving all said employees without any means of feeding themselves or their families.
And tens of millions of dollars in coal producer’s tax revenues will be lost ….. as well as tens of millions of dollars in sales and income taxes that were derived from the employee expenditure of the aforesaid “coal dollars”.
And a few people are still wondering why the majority of West Virginians voted Republican for the 1st time in the past 80 years, ….. thus taking control of State government away from the Democrats.

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
March 19, 2015 7:58 am

Samuel, you’re right of course. These shutdowns are actually because of “mercury” rules, believe it or not — nothing to do w/CO2 yet. Obviously what has happened is that the Obozo Junta couldn’t pass cap-and-trade thru Congress, so they essentially instituted something even much worse thru the EPA — no Congress voting required.

March 19, 2015 7:41 am

Naw, the states, power company boards and corporate lawyers are in total complicity w/the EPA and Sierra Club. That decision was made decades ago.
Maybe a few small, independent operations or a rouge State could try, but any defiance will be met with harshly and immediately by every 3-letter government department that exists. Friends and family would be at grave risk.

Bruce Cobb
March 19, 2015 7:51 am

Here in the northeastern US, we have already had an anti-democratic Cap n’ Trade system in place for over 5 years called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). New Jersey was part of it until Chris Christie pulled them out in 2011. With Democraptic governors ensconced, the other states have remained, unfortunately.

March 19, 2015 8:04 am

A 30% reduction in CO2 output from US power generation will reduce the global CO2 burden by a whopping 2.27%
30% reduction in power generation CO2 times 38% of US CO2 contribution times 19% global CO2 contribution = 2.27%. Less than 3 cents to the dollar. Whoopee.

Janice Moore
Reply to  nickreality65
March 19, 2015 11:33 am

It’s even more ridiculous than that:
Total human CO2 emissions (approx.): 4%
Total U.S. emissions (approx.): 15%
“{China} emits nearly twice the amount of greenhouse gases as the United States, which it surpassed in 2006 as the top emitter of carbon dioxide. China accounts for about 30 percent of global emissions.”
{Source: }
Approximate reduction in total global CO2 emissions by making coal fired electricity unviable economically:
.30 x .38 x .15 x .04 = .000684
Or .0684%.
Summer air conditioning and/or winter heating cost too much, so, people die.
Energy costs take up all the money for medication, so people die.
Socialist Response: Oh, but, dear child, WE will pay for all that.
Realist Response: Taxes to pay for all those people’s air conditioning/heating or medicine kill the corporations/businesses (or they leave for economically viable locations) RESULT: Socialism goes broke (every time) –> people die.
Pretty nifty, huh?
(And CO2, even IF the tiny human percentage could be said to significantly affect ANY – thing, isn’t even a “pollutant” outside the EPA’s artificial constructs. In fact, CO2 HELPS the “planet.”)

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Janice Moore
March 19, 2015 5:19 pm

With all that CO2 and carbon spewing you would think otherwise. BUT they make the CRAPIEST pencils and pens EVA!!!! AND I have seen cellophane wrap thicker and more opaque than the lined student filler paper we get from over seas!

March 19, 2015 8:09 am

“States Should Defy Unlawful EPA Carbon Dioxide Rules”
The EPA is part of the obama shadow-government; to defy EPA is to defy obama, alayhi as-salam. He would call down the wrath of Allah upon any who would dare to oppose him. An EPA jihad would not be pretty – heads would roll.

Reply to  Mark and two Cats
March 19, 2015 2:41 pm

There’s already a plan in the mill for chopping off the heads of skeptics, or at least blowing them up.

Tom J
March 19, 2015 8:31 am

I think the Federal National Maximum Safety Limit (otherwise known as the 55mph speed limit) may possibly give us an historical analogy as to what may happen here. For almost a quarter of a century the federal government tried to bludgeon the states into relentlessly torturing their motorists. And, what it taught us (although we seem to have to always relearn this lesson) was that something that’s ridiculous and obnoxious will be treated as if it’s ridiculous and obnoxious. And also; the renegade, outlaw, and smuggler will compensate for society’s most egregious mistakes. The NMSL spawned the nascent radar detector tinkerers and catapulted them to a multi-billion dollar a year industry coupled with its own lobbying group. Laser radar? The industry responded with laser shifters, and laser jammers. Oh, and let’s not forget the truckers with their CB radios: an early warning system that worked its way down to the average motorist. Everyday drivers began to warn oncoming drivers of radar traps ahead by flashing their headlights. And the states began to learn how to cook the numbers on compliance that they had to report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Got an ice storm and everybody’s down to 25mph – voila, we’re in compliance. The great state of Nevada, limitless prior to the NMSL, eliminated the limit for a day, got its highway funds cut off, reinstated the limit – it was a form of protest. The great state of Montana charged any motorist traveling over 55mph, but not more than ‘100mph’, with nothing more than a $5.00 energy conservation fine, payable on the spot to the officer, and with no record kept. During all of this Brock Yates organized a Cannonball race from New York to California with the winning car, a Jaguar XJ12, averaging, with stops, a coast to coast speed of slightly over 90mph.
I suspect we can use the foregoing as a lesson. Diesel locomotives utilize electrical transmissions. Park ’em, run ’em, hook ’em up to the grid, and claim they’re a transportation device not subject to the same rules the utilities are. Backyard generators – get your’s now – sales tax exempt. No, no, no Mr. EPA, your carbon count on the powerplant’s wrong: I’ll see you in court. You fining me? – well, the check’s in the mail. Boing, boing, boing.

Ralph Kramden
March 19, 2015 9:19 am

I would like to see Congress weigh in on this. They could cut the EPA budget to the point the EPA can’t afford to have the lawn mowed at their headquarters.

March 19, 2015 9:39 am

The EPA and Obama Rule. Our legislative branch has no stones they passively gave away their authority over the decades. That’s why out of control agencies and regulations are out of control.

March 19, 2015 9:49 am

Goreham said: “First, the authority assumed by the CPP is not granted to the EPA by the laws of the United States.”
Actually, it is. A case went to the US Supreme Court, who ruled last year that the EPA can regulate CO2.

Reply to  Chris
March 19, 2015 10:19 am

I think in a court of law, you could prove that CO2 is not pollution! That’s one of their major points.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
March 19, 2015 2:50 pm

imho You may be wrong.
The SCOUS ruled the law says the EPA is to decide what’s doing the polluting, seek it out and regulate to their heart’s content.
Congress likes to delegate their power so when things go to hell they can march out together and say “hands up; don’t shoot.”

Mac the Knife
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
March 19, 2015 7:54 pm

Hands up, Don’t shoot”
Don’t go there. Eye witnesses verified it was not the truth in Ferguson. Using it perpetuates a deliberate false statement that remains as a smear against all policemen.

March 19, 2015 10:38 am

Wish we could.
The Constitution was created with
very powerful State governments
for this very reason. But that no
longer exists. Gunna have to vote
them out in 2016. Unfortunately,
most rules will take effect with negative
consequences about the time Obama
leaves office.

Reply to  Rob
March 19, 2015 2:52 pm

Better than congress passing and the prez using his pen to make laws to combat CAGW.

March 19, 2015 12:24 pm

The best way to fight this nonsense is to elect a Republican President in 2016. The “new” insane EPA regulations will not be able to kick in before then. A new administration can reverse dumb regulations.

Owen in GA
Reply to  pyeatte
March 19, 2015 2:39 pm

An establishment Republican will not reverse this! They see no problem with ever more intrusive government – they just want to be the ones controlling it. Both parties are infested with people whose first assumption is that most people aren’t smart enough to be allowed to make decisions for themselves. The ideas of the founders that contrary to the establishment political view today all power and important decisions reside within the individual and government is a necessary evil to manage the few innumerated tasks that an individual can not perform. (A powerful servant of the people but a fearful master, as G. Washington wrote in a comparison of government with fire.)
Maybe if there were a true conservative out there, but they all seem to be suffering from the same progressive infestation.

March 19, 2015 3:11 pm

Two guys to watch might be Rand Paul and Scott Walker.
Walker has executive experience and has faced down the unions.
We will need a true change in direction to get the independents onboard to beat Hillary.
So far there is nobody else out there that has a back bone.
I like Cruz but I doubt he could beat her.
The media will hammer any flaw from non-progressives until they get the candidate the democrats want the republicans to run.
We need to force the Presidential Debate Commission to put a 3rd candidate in the debate.
Walker or Paul would make the insiders squirm.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  mikerestin
March 19, 2015 3:25 pm

Conservative or libertarian third party candidates do nothing but guarantee Democrat dominance.
Much as I don’t like mainstream Republicans, the only real alternative is liberal Democrats. That’s where public opinion is now, after decades of vote buying by taking money from productive members of society, ie tax payers (not public employees, for whom tax paying is just an accounting trick), and giving it to tax consumers.
We are at the stage of democracy which the Founders feared and against which Tocqueville warned, wherein a sponging majority can vote to rob the productive members of society.
Forty percent or more will vote to rob the “rich”, however defined. It is the end of the American republic, an experiment in liberty that was perhaps doomed to fail, but whose decline was made certain by Obama’s scheme to let impoverished foreigners vote.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
March 19, 2015 4:40 pm

Dear Ms. Ronconi,
Your rationally-based, dire, conclusions may, indeed, be correct. I still have much hope, nevertheless, that we Constitution-honoring, liberty-loving, Americans can turn things around.
And you are SO right — the reason the Republicans lose is the Independent candidate that so many have over and over again stubbornly voted for EVEN THOUGH they knew it would (and did!) likely cost the ordered liberty candidate, i.e., the Republican (and yes, there are many who are only RINOs), the race. Ross Perot …. Ron Paul…. . I think, this time around, however, many of those libertarians who detest Republicans per se will do the pragmatic thing and rally behind what is (from their perspective) the lesser of two evils and NOT spoil the chances of the Republican from winning. It will be ANYBODY (as in whoever is the Rep. candidate) BUT THE DEMOCRAT, this time not just for the majority of us (that was me v. a v. (hold my nose) McCain).
A note of hope:
IF we ordered liberty people can EDUCATE those “impoverished foreigners,” that strategy of the Dems will BACKFIRE — big time.
MOST of those immigrants:
1. LOVE liberty (far more than the average socialist/democrat voter).
2. Are eager to achieve the American dream and take pride in NOT taking handouts once they have a good job.
3. Are far more entrepreneurial and enterprising than the poor who grew up in America — the immigrants WANT to own their own businesses/farms.
4. They want to keep their hard-earned money to help their family.
5. They value family VERY highly — far, far, more than they value “saving the planet.”
Conclusion: with excellent education, such “impoverished foreigners” will vote for free markets and ordered liberty every time.
Take heart! Truth wins. In the end, truth wins.
There is still time.
Your ally for CO2 truth and liberty,

Janice Moore
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
March 19, 2015 4:45 pm

My 3 favorite possible Republican candidates:
1. Ben Carson
2. Ted Cruz
3. Scott Walker (I keep mixing him up with that Playgirl Scott Brown (?) from Massachusetts (not him! he is a RINO).

Mac the Knife
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
March 19, 2015 8:33 pm

Catherine Ronconi,
Yours is a most depressive and discouraging comment. There is nothing in my soul that will ever make me capitulate so thoroughly as you seem to have. I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees. Your ‘certainty’ is PTSD, Post Traumatic Socialist Disease, I think. You need to step away from the negative, soul sucking socialist crap in the news that seeks to grind us down each day. Choose instead to surround yourself with folks that believe in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!
How can I help you? This land is worth fighting for…. to the last measure, if need be. There are many true conservative groups all across this land to affiliate with and provide emotional support for the weary ‘brave heart’. These groups are engaged in grass roots actions, as we prepare good candidates for local elections this year and national elections next year. Come help us. Would you consider running for a school board position? If you deny a socialist democrat that position, your philosophy and perspectives will have influence and you may find higher office in the coming years! It’s not too late…. and fighting and winning is soooooooo satisfying.
C’mon! Let’s go on offense!

Tom in Florida
Reply to  mikerestin
March 19, 2015 5:39 pm

John Kasich, current Gov of Ohio. While he was a Congressman in the early 1990’s he was the minority leader of the House Budget Committee. It was he, not so much Newt, that lead the way in fixing the economy. He is a straight shooter who has loads of respect from both side. That’s the guy we all need.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Tom in Florida
March 19, 2015 5:47 pm

He may once have BEEN free market, but, now he is a big-time windmill promoter. I think he has morphed in to a RINO, unfortunately.

David g
March 19, 2015 5:36 pm

Interesting article. Overwhelmingly stupid comments however.

March 19, 2015 5:40 pm

Here’s something I really don’t understand. All the AGW activists claim they wish to free us of nasty co2 creating dependence on fossil fuels. Well then lets do it! Let’s have a presidential address like Kennedy’s “to the moon” speech where the goal is to transform the personal transportation of Americans to electrical driven and to get there we streamline the approval and construction process to build the necessary nuclear facilities to power that and replace coal facilities as well as the attendant economic growth inevitable from having economical energy. Problem Solved. We might as well China doesn’t even wish to talk about co2 restrictions for 20 years or ,that is to say, until they have brought the currently under construction 28 facilities on line as well as the projected additional 30 facilities be tween now and then. Go figure greenies we are going to have to deal with nuclear waste like it or not!

March 19, 2015 5:57 pm

For Californians, that electriciy price is actually way to low for most people due to the tier structure. Most of my electricity comes in at tier 3 and tier 4. Tier four is a whopping 39c a kwh. My average cost is closer to about 26c a kwh. I am in the process of installing solar, but I calculate that is actually going to cost me about 24cents a kwh for solar before the tax deduction. But since I pay taxes, really CANT claim that as a savings because my (along with the rest of the people who pay taxes) taxes go up to cover the cost of the tax deduction. I am ALL for the states telling the EPA to shove it! Wish I could tell the disgusting Liberals that run the state in CA to go pound sand as well.

Brandon Gates
March 19, 2015 7:15 pm

Slicing and dicing the data from the EIA:
Rather unsurprisingly, the top plot shows more electricity consumed per capita [1] when price/kWh is low. Also not unexpected, as average per capita income rises, so do electricity costs.
Somewhat counter-intuitively, the bottom plot suggests that less electricity is consumed in states with higher average per capita incomes, and even more potentially bizarre, the penultimate plot suggests that states with the highest average percent per capita electricity expenditures have the lowest electricity costs.
Both are suggestions only, and both are counter-intuitive because the general rule of thumb is that individual consumption is proportional to wealth. But at the aggregate state level, the stats seem to show an inverse relationship. It might make sense in terms of thinking about housing costs in states with higher average electricity prices — folks are spending more of their incomes for smaller living quarters, which means less demand for electricity. And may also explain why in “ecoloon” states, which tend to also have high population densities and correspondingly high real-estate values, are more supportive of electricity rate hikes — it’s not as big a chunk of the average person’s budget. Or in other words, cross-state comparisons don’t show the expected positive correlation between wealth and energy consumption because housing situations differ so broadly between states that it swamps that particular signal.
I imagine a popular argument from the “greener-minded” folks living in coastal states will be, “c’mon, we’re already doing fine using less electricity per head than you guys, wot’s the big deal, eh?” I don’t think it’s a very defensible argument — not everyone wants to live in a one-bedroom apartment and pay about as much in rent (or MORE!) as people in Texas pay on their mortgage for a three-bedroom house. Speaking of Texas, the head post makes this point:

The Public Utility Commission of Texas also urged the EPA to withdraw the rule, estimating compliance costs at over $20 billion and that Texas electricity prices would rise by more than 20 percent by 2020.

That’s a big scary percentage in terms of per-unit electricity cost, but what does it mean for the average person in terms of their income? The 2009-2013 average per capita income in Texas was $26,019. In 2013, the average annual electric bill was $523 per head, or 2.01% of per capita income. Assuming constant 2013 dollars and no change in consumption, a 1.2% electric rate hike works out to $628 per annum, per person, or 2.41% of income. The difference is $105 per year per person, or 0.40% of income.
In Texas, that’s about half the average cost of a tank of gasoline, or one round-trip to and from work. Oh, but I snark … couldn’t be helped. Here’s what 2013-2014 electricity sales by state ranked by % income per capita looks like [2], with per capita income in absolute 2013 dollars for each state in the same order for easy comparison:
Again, the seeming oddity of higher income states spending less of a percentage of income on electricity is readily apparent. Head post continues:

NERA Economic Consulting estimated a consumer cost of up to $479 billion by 2031, or about $1,500 for each man, woman, and child in the US.

So, I went and read the actual report here:
$479 by 2013 comes from “Figure ES-2: Energy System Costs of State Unconstrained (BB1-4) and State Constrained (BB1-2) Scenarios” The text just below that table says:
The net cost of the State Constrained (BB1-2) scenario—which excludes end-use energy efficiency, renewables and additional nuclear energy from compliance—is substantially greater than the State Unconstrained (BB1-4) scenario.
Lo and behold, the report estimates that implementing efficiency would result in $366 billion in consumer costs by 2031, $113 billion less than the quoted $479 billion for the State Unconstrained (BB1-4) scenario. Always nice when a press release tells the full story, innit. There’s another oddity here in the $1,500 cost per capita calculation: $479 billion / $1,500 per person = 319,333,333 people, which is essentially the current population estimate. The US Senseless calls for a population of 361,685,000 by 2031. In constant 2013 dollars, that works out to between $1,012 and $1,324 per head by 2031. From the EIA data, I divine that currently, the average annual electrical bill per person is $485, so that would be a 109% to 173% increase in rates over 15 years, which is too high. Assuming Texas 20% increase over 5 years is representative, that’s a 3.7% annual rate.
Compounding annually again over 20 years and the increase is 73%. So $839 is the expected per capita annual electrial bill, a $353 per-head increase in 2013 constant dollars or about 1.36% of average US per capita income. Something is amiss. Oh look, the caption for Figure ES-2 reads:
Notes: Present value is from 2017 through 2031, taken in 2014 using a 5% real discount rate.
Well gee, a 5% discount rate will tend to inflate things. One page up from that figure, the body text of the report reads: Delivered electricity prices would increase by about 12% on average over 2017 through 2031 . However, these figures omit several factors that could add to impacts and costs.
And then just below the figure which breaks down those other factor, the top of the same page as Figure ES-2 says: Such a constrained compliance scenario would result in very large changes in the electricity system, including 169 GW of coal retirements, a 29% average increase in natural gas prices and a 17% increase in average delivered electricity prices.
We can quotemine this thing endlessly and have it tell us any story we’d like, especially if we’re prone to passing off present value calculations as if they were non-inflated constant dollars. And none of this will make any sense unless those huge billions of bux are expressed in terms of percentage of people and/or percent of per capita income.
That ALL said, the billion dollar question really is: what are the external costs of burning coal? NIH and WHO respectively estimate between 30 and 60 thousand premature deaths per year in the US alone. The EPA isn’t all about CO2 these days, despite contrary unpopular opinion.
[1] All demographic info in this post from this table:
[2] The sort is by 2014 electrical consumption. I should have used 2013 for consistency, but I’m too lazy to fix it.

Chuck Bradley
March 19, 2015 7:33 pm

There is a very simple solution to the problem of EPA overreach and a lot of similar problems. Congress passes a law that there are no regulations. The executive branch agencies can suggest and even draft laws. Congress votes to impose laws. Obama would veto it. Perhaps there would be enough votes to override the veto. If not, the next election can be settled by a simple campaign question: Do you want a government that you can throw out if it does not do what you want? Very few of those that voted to uphold the veto would survive.
However, I doubt it will happen. Most congress critters are cowards that dragged us into this problem by evading responsibility or hoping to be seen as “doing something.”

March 19, 2015 11:34 pm

What on earth is going on here?
‘But wouldn’t a much more effective and cheaper way of cutting emissions be to shut down Drax altogether, and replace it with clean new gas plants – which need no subsidy at all?
Mr Burdett said: ‘We develop our business plan in light of what the Government wants – not what might be nice.’’
These Green warmenistas are barking mad.

Catherine Ronconi
March 20, 2015 9:18 am

State Senator in MO fights back against EPA crackdown on BBQs and regulating motel showers:

Catherine Ronconi
March 20, 2015 10:03 am
Reply to  Catherine Ronconi
March 20, 2015 10:50 am

Maybe states could get together for some kind of a “class action suit” against the EPA…

March 20, 2015 8:24 pm

A year and a half ago, I addressed an EPA hearing on the proposed rules. In the 3 minutes that were alotted to me I claimed that the rules were based upon conclusions drawn from equivocations: examples of equivocation fallacies. Rather than try to refute my claim the EPA ignored it.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Terry Oldberg
March 20, 2015 11:01 pm

I admire your grip on sanity, Terry. The relentless insistence on what you know to be a false narrative must be very difficult to bear.

Samuel C Cogar
March 22, 2015 7:28 am

The EPA is “primed n’ ready” to come and getcha for your use of a charcoal or propane “fired” outdoor grills.
Next the EPA will be coming to getcha for your use of a propane or NG “fired” cooking stove or indoor grill.
Iffen you don’t convert over to be doing all of your cooking via Solar Panel generated electricity ….. then you will be in non-compliance of EPA Laws ….. and thus in BIG trouble.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights