The Obama climate monarchy

Using the EPA, CEQ and other federal agencies to fundamentally transform America

president_official_portrait_hiresGuest essay by Paul Driessen

ISIS terrorists continue to butcher people, while hacking into a French television network. Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons remains on track. In a nation of 320 million people, American businesses hired only 126,000 workers in March, amid a pathetic 62% labor participation rate. Wages and incomes are stagnant.

And yet President Obama remains fixated on one obsession: dangerous manmade climate change. He blames it for everything from global temperatures that have been stable for 18 years, to hurricanes that have not made US landfall for nearly 9.5 years, and even asthma and allergies. He is determined to use it to impose energy, environmental and economic policies that will “fundamentally transform” our nation.

He launched his war on coal with a promise that companies trying to build new coal-fired power plants would go bankrupt; implemented policies that caused oil and gas production to plunge 6% on federal lands, even as it rose 60% on state and private lands; proclaimed that he will compel the United States to slash its carbon dioxide emissions 28% below 2005 levels by 2025, and 80% by 2050; and wants electricity prices to “necessarily skyrocket.” His Environmental Protection Agency has led the charge.

EPA has targeted power plants that emit barely 3% of all mercury in US air and water, saying this will prevent IQ losses of an undetectable “0.00209 points.” On top of its recent “Clean Power Plan,” EPA is taking over what used to be state roles, demanding that states meet CO2-reduction mandates by reorganizing the “production, distribution and use of electricity.” The agency justifies this latest power grab through a tortured 1,200-page reinterpretation of a 290-word section of the Clean Air Act.

The injuries, abuses and usurpations have become too numerous to count, and involve nearly every federal agency – as the President seeks to make the states and Executive and Judicial Branches irrelevant in his new monarchical “do as I tell you, because I say so, or else” system of government.

Now even the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is getting involved, by dramatically retooling the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA requires that federal agencies consider the impacts of their significant decision-making actions on “the quality of the human environment,” anytime they issue permits for projects, provide government funding or conduct the projects themselves.

The law has avoided many needless impacts but has also enabled activists to delay or block projects they oppose on ideological grounds. The new White House/CEQ “guidelines” were issued on Christmas Eve 2014, to minimize public awareness and response. They require that federal agencies henceforth consider potential impacts on climate change, whenever they provide permits, approvals or funding for any federal, state or private sector projects, on the assumption that such projects will always affect Earth’s climate.

Problems with the new diktats are far too numerous for a single article, but several demand discussion.

First, CEQ uses US carbon dioxide emissions as proxy for climate change. This assumes CO2 is now the dominant factor in climate and weather events, and all the powerful natural forces that ruled in past centuries, millennia and eons are irrelevant. It presumes any increases in US “greenhouse gases” correlate directly with national and global climate and weather events, and any changes will be harmful. It also considers emissions from China and other countries to be irrelevant to any agency calculations.

Second, CEQ employs the same “social cost of carbon” analyses that other agencies are using to justify appliance, vehicle and other efficiency and emission standards. This SCC assessment will now examine alleged international harm up to 300 years in the future, from single project emissions in the United States, despite it being impossible to demonstrate any proximate relationship between asserted global climate changes and any US project emissions (which are generally minuscule globally).

Moreover, the entire SCC analysis is based on arbitrary, fabricated, exaggerated and manipulated costs, with no benefits assigned or acknowledged for using hydrocarbons to improve, safeguard and save countless lives – or for the role that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide plays in improving crop and other plant growth, thereby feeding more people, greening our planet and bolstering wildlife habitats.

Third, the expensive, time-consuming, useless, impossible exercise is made even more absurd by CEQ’s proposed requirement that agencies somehow calculate the adverse global climatic impacts of any federally approved project that could emit up to 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide or its equivalents per year. A single shopping mall, hospital or stretch of busy highway could meet this threshold – triggering endless “paralysis by analysis,” environmentalist litigation, delays and cost overruns.

Fourth, CEQ also wants agencies to somehow evaluate “upstream” and “downstream” emissions. In cases reviewing highway or hospital projects, this would entail examining emissions associated with mining, processing, shipping and using cement, steel, other building materials and heavy equipment before and during construction – and then assessing emissions associated with people and goods that might conceivably be transported to or from the facility or along the highway following construction.

CEQ likewise wants project proponents to offset these alleged impacts with equally spurious mitigation projects, which will themselves by subjected to still more analyses, contention, litigation and delays.

Fifth, the proposed CEQ guidelines would supposedly evaluate any and all adverse impacts allegedly caused by climate changes supposedly resulting from fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions. But they do not require federal agencies to assess harms resulting from projects delayed or blocked because of the new climate directives. Thus agencies would endlessly ponder rising seas and more frequent and/or severe hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts that they might attribute to particular projects.

However, they would not consider the many ways people would be made less safe by an analytical process that results in more serious injuries and deaths, when highway improvements, better levees and other flood protections, modern hospitals and other important facilities are delayed or never built.

Nor has CEQ factored in the roles of ideologically motivated anti-development bureaucrats in the federal agencies – or the ways Big Green campaigns and lawsuits are sponsored by wealthy far-left foundations, Russian money laundered through a Bermuda law firm, and even grants from the government agencies.

Sixth, in many cases, the CEQ rules could actually be counterproductive even to the Administration’s purported energy and environmental goals. Its war on coal is intended to replace coal mines and power plants with “more climate-friendly” natural gas. However, CEQ’s new guidelines for methane and carbon dioxide could delay or prevent leasing, drilling, fracking, production, pipelining and export of new gas. That would hardly seem a desirable outcome – unless the real purpose is to keep fossil fuels in the ground, increase energy prices, compel a faster transition to unreliable wind and solar power, cause more brownouts and blackouts, destroy jobs, reduce living standards, and keep more people dependent on government welfare and thus likely to vote Democrat.

NEPA is supposed to improve the overall “quality of the human environment,” and thus human health and welfare. That means all its components, not merely those the President and his Executive Branch agencies want to focus on, as they seek to use climate change to justify shutting down as much fossil fuel use as possible, in an economy that is still 82% dependent on hydrocarbons.

The CEQ and White House violate the letter, spirit and intent of NEPA when they abuse it to protect us from exaggerated or imaginary climate risks decades from now – by hobbling job creation, families, human health and welfare, and environmental quality tomorrow. That their actions will impact poor, minorities and working classes most of all makes the CEQ proposal even more pernicious.

When will our Congress, courts and state legislatures step up to the plate, do their jobs, and rein in this long Train of Abuses and Usurpations?

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.

Advertisements

246 thoughts on “The Obama climate monarchy

  1. “When will our Congress, courts and state legislatures step up to the plate, do their jobs, and rein in this long Train of Abuses and Usurpations?”
    When Obamao finally leaves the White House. Let’s just hope enough people finally wise up soon enough to keep his clone in chief Hillary out of the White House in 2016. Otherwise, the beat will go on, and then God help us all.

    • I am not American and do lot live in the US but when Obama came to power, I sighed. When he came to power *AGAIN* I sighed even more. If Hillary comes to power in 2016, and I think this is a strong possibility not for her ability or views, but simply because of her genes, she’s a woman. The first US female President? She’s no Thatcher. The US has had it’s first “black” president. I fear for your first female President. This post is not meant to be racist nor sexist, just an external observation.

      • If I could make any recommendation for the next election it would be “No more Bushes, no more Clintons, and no more social experiments”. I’d like to think the political landscape has changed since Reagan left office but the current crop of POTUS wanna-be’s suggest otherwise. I’d also like to see a return of the checks and balances the founders wisely put into the governmental structure but that would take more backbone than our beltway bandits possess.

      • I am a 19 year ex-pat American, now a citizen of Australia for the last 13. My option of Obama in his first term was positive. Again this is from an outsider looking in. During a trip back to The States a few years back, my Mum and I had a rather heated discussion regarding Mr Obama’s performance. She was decidedly less than impressed, after all she lives there, I don’t.
        I must say that perception has taken a 180 during his second term.. With regards to The Hil-da-beast prospect in 2016. God help you.

        • @pat
          At a news conference early Feb. 2015 in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
          “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
          The CC hoax is an ideological means to an end, using Gov’t power and their unlimited funds. The future of W. developed countries is dim, unless funding for all the involved culprits is slashed dramatically.

      • We have had a run of mediocre US Presidents of all hues over the last decade or two and few of the hopefuls for 2016 look much better.
        However, I was intrigued by this sentence in the article;
        ‘The agency justifies this latest power grab through a tortured 1,200-page reinterpretation of a 290-word section of the Clean Air Act..’
        I did not see what the 290 words actually were nor what they have been reinterpreted to. Can we have some clarification please?
        tonyb

      • I agree, the Clinton genes are not good. She is an elderly white woman, not a good CV for President.

      • I agree….. to paraphrase….. I have a dream that one day the most qualified candidate will be elected.
        Cheers,
        Joe

      • If you need any proof that a “Female in the White House”would be better,look no further than our own “Worst Prime Minister”Julia Gillard.With-out a doubt she would put you off voting for the “Hildabeast”God help us all if she gets in.

    • Tragically, we are all screwed.
      Remember, that the American people elected Obama. Not just once, but twice.
      Given that these same people will be voting in the next election, why would anything change?
      Stupid is as stupid does, and we see abysmal stupidity every day. And not just in the White House.

      • An african american friend out of blue recently told me that she had voted for Obama twice and that she now bitterly regretted having done so.

      • The electorate is not voting people into office on account of their legislative or administrative capacity. The electorate is voting on a soap opera and there is really no difference between “Days of our lives” and “General hospital”. Democrats and Republicans will continue swapping power because public opinion amounts to gossip over hairdos.
        The political agenda itself is not political at all. The demagogy might be political (occasionally) but the actual actions of the White House are seldom politically coherent. Consider that, after all, the Nobel Peace Prize at the Oval office is just another war maniac that has been for years having “foreign nationals” illegally detained, tortured, and assassinated. This is no figure of speech.
        In short, the electorate could put a cucumber into office if that cucumber “hit the spot”. Furthermore, the actions of the next US government can make “climate change” its raison d’être or avoid it entirely, be that next government Democrat or Republican.

      • AB, what are the odds that your friend will still vote for who ever the Democrats run next year?

      • Unfortunately I think you are correct. After 8 years in office, Obama has carefully crafted support through enormous government handouts, as well as added hundreds of thousands of “immigrants” to the system. This is the so called Free Shit Army which will strongly continue to vote for more and more of it. I doubt this country will ever see a non-Democrat President until after the “great reform”.

        • Would that there only hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens.
          “Only” as many as 20 million is the best case estimate. More realistically estimated at 30 million illegal aliens.

      • RACook,
        Thirty million is a conservative estimate. And there are many thousands more flooding across the long U.S.–Mexico border every month, encouranged by both the U.S. and Mexican governments. This includes thousands of children every month!
        They learned a lesson from 1980, when President Carter foolishly goaded Fidel Castro into releasing Cubans who wanted to leave.
        What happened? Castro emptied his prisons and his insane asylums, and sent more than 100,000 “Marielitos” to the U.S. in what was called the ‘Mariel Boatlift’. Cuban-Americans hated them because they were nothing but trouble for everyone.
        Today they are sending their druggies, misfits, gangbangers, lunatics, criminals, and orphans across, to be taken care of for life by the hard-bitten american taxpayer.
        Thanks, Obama.

      • Right. The “mexicans” did it. Particularly the gazillion illegal ones. Those are the voters that decide elections.
        As I said, a soap opera…

      • DB:
        You forgot “diseased”. Health problems that the US had solved have again reared their ugly heads because of uncontrolled immigration.

    • climatereason:
      Yes, it would be nice to have references, wouldn’t it?
      I believe the EPA started by declaring GHGs as pollutants from motor vehicles under Title II, Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act:
      http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf
      Once so declared as “pollutants,” they became applicable to fixed sources under Title I, Part C.
      I cannot find the 1200-page reinterpretation or 290-word section referred to by Mr. Driessen.

      • I hold no brief for Jeb, who is really a RHINO. Better him though, than the Beast from Hell.

      • I’m a registered Independent, but will vote in the GOP primary next year. My present choice is anybody but Bush. The GOP has an embarrassment of riches in candidates this go-round, instead of just plain embarrassments.
        But even RINO Jeb is infinitely preferable to Hitlery, the candidate of tax consumers rather than payers.

    • Hillary isn’t a Obama clone, I’d classify her as Obama’s philosophical progenitor, deep down I suspect Obama’s real role was to pave the way for Hillary. Federalized healthcare was a long-time Hillary project from her days as First Lady finally put into effect by Obama, Filegate has striking parallels with the IRS scandels involving conservative non-profits applications.

  2. He’s also been dicking around with Alaska trying to make the Alaska oil pipeline dry up. There’s no other way to say it. He and his cronies want to make Alaska into a total National Park so that no further natural resources can be developed there. Another reason to be very careful who we choose for the next POTUS. (president). And in addition, who we elect in Congress and in the Senate…
    I have my eye on several candidates who I will contribute to. and I have never got involved in politics directly before, but this is not science but pure politics…
    Find out which ones want to eliminate the EPA, and support them – DIRECTLY, not their “party”.

    • Well, the Alaskan House just passed a bill that ‘orders’ a federal land transfer.
      “Rejecting the advice of its legal sraff, the Alaskan House of Representatives approved a bill Monday ordering the federal government to hand over most federal land in Alaska to the state by Dec 31, 2016….”
      Of course, the democRats are up in arms over this, but looky here:
      “Anchorage Republican Rep Gabrielle LeDoux compared it to the marijuana initiative approved by voters last fall and similar actions in Colorado and elsewhere: “Guess what? the federal government blinks. If enough states do it, if enough states say what they want and say we’re going to take it, we just might get what we want.”
      https://www.adn.com/article/20150406/alaska-house-brushes-constitutional-claims-orders-massive-federal-land-transfer
      And I agree, never fund the party, just the candidate.

  3. Vote, it’s our only hope. This is a political issue and should be treated that way. If it’s not obvious to everyone the real goal is wealth distribution and central government, not temperature control.

    • Far from if Markl,
      If a government is running amok you can simply declare a 1 week nation wide strike to bring it to heal. If that is not enough do another 4 weeks, if that does not work shutdown the entire economy and financial system for 3 months of sustained national strike. At some point Obama and his crew will either relent his powers of Emperor and do as indicated, or be ousted. Voting clearly has not worked, it got everyone to this dictatorial foolishness.
      Voting within that morass isn’t going to fix a thing.

      • A reminder of some of the articles of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a path for effectively dealing with a government that is running roughshod over the people.
        Article 7.
        All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
        Article 12.
        No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
        Article 19.
        Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
        Article 20.
        (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
        Article 21.
        (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
        Article 23.
        (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

        You can organize to strike to protect your interests from exploitation and dictate.
        You do not have to go on to the street to strike as public meetings and forums can be virtual. In fact it would be best to no protest at all, you are striking not protesting. These are different things, and one need not produce or occur in parallel to the other.
        You can mass withdraw trade and labor and leave it at that until the government is forced to relent.
        Martial Law would be ineffectual, the system has no effective recourse or counter to a nation wide withdrawal of labor.
        Remain away from confrontation and do it in an orderly peaceful manner and clearly know and concisely declare the objectives, and stick to them until achieved.
        A malign government will be forced to submit or will be dissolved or ousted if the whole country does that.
        No sordid or confrontational behavior is necessary.
        It is your right to freely associate and speak freely and to not be infringed upon while doing so, and to organize and withdraw trade or labor as needed, if necessary.
        Be civil, be smart, don’t be a victim of voting for this endless dictates and arbitrary excesses and abuses of power.
        Don’t start a fight, start to win back control from overlordish behavior and nonsense vindictive laws, over reach and abuse.
        That is a perfectly valid and just civil recourse.

      • Unmentionable. I agree that the strikes you propose would result in martial law, and that might be followed by much worse. As long as the Republican leadership campaign for what the public wants and then after election roll over for Obama nothing will change. Also, please consider that the Democrats (radical leftist) maintain a dependency servitude of 50-100 million people plus their cronies in the big technical industries, The dependents vote Democrat to keep the welfare and socialism growing, illegal aliens vote for Democrats to keep the border open, and large tech companies distribute a few million $ each to the Democrat party and derive untold $ billions in crony deals, payoffs, etc. With such support for the Democrat Party, which all block vote for Democrats, and with such cowardly Republicans, the future for America looks grim.

      • @Unmentionable
        I find it difficult to concede to anything the United Nations dictates, especially its fake ‘declarations of rights’. We have our Declaration of Independance and Constitution and don’t need no stinkin’ UN to tell us what our rights are. Besides, according to the UN those rights are GRANTED TO YOU through the generosity of the bureaurocracy whereas real Americans know our rights are NATURAL/God given and no ‘government’ can strip them from you.
        This trouble with bureaucratic supremecy began with FDR’s New Deal and the creation of the Federal Register. The Constitution says only Congress can pass laws but then Congress gave away its power by accepting these sinecures’ rules, regulations and codes as law and allowed them to bypass Congress’ own power. Unless Congress grows a pair and takes back their power, we’re doomed.
        And why do all these bureaucracies fall under the Executive chair? If they are passing what becomes in effect ‘law’, they should fall under the Legislative Branch.
        Everything these departments propose should have to pass through Congress for a vote, but since that will never happen we will just have to wait for the whole thing to collapse so we can start again with, God willing, something better. The Constitution needs to be tightened up like a boa constrictor on its prey.
        I would love a pesidential candidate that would do away with the EPA and the hundred other abc sinecures that wreck havoc on America.

  4. Meanwhile the EIA projections show that the non OECD ( China, India etc) will emit over 90% of increased co2 emissions until 2040. The Western countries have gone barking mad.
    They will spend trillions of dollars over this period for a guaranteed zero change to co2 levels and temps. This giant con and PONZI scheme makes Bernie Madoff look like an economic conservative and rational thinker.

  5. Kamikazedave…..Your God I hate posts that end in “God help us all”. Just vote as you feel appropriate and otherwise suck it up. Your God will not bail you out of the self imagined hell you find yourself in. Write letters and complain to the people who count …if you want any chance at change. When did this site become 97% political?

    • Kirkc commented:. When did this site become 97% political?
      When it became obvious that the problem is political and not scientific. I enjoy reading the technical comments and understand most of them and need to research a lot to understand the rest but being technically ‘right’ with respect to AGW means nothing in case you haven’t noticed. It’s mutual mental masturbation. The 97% you despise are actually trying to fix the problem.

      • It has always been a political site supporting right wing politics. In the run up to the US and UK elections we can expect a higher level of electioneering on behalf of the Conservative parties than usual. It confirms the fact that many many skeptics are opposed to accepted climate science for political as opposed to scientific reasons.

      • “Right wing politics” eh? I don’t think either Willis Eschenbach or Richard Courtney will thank you for that characterization.

    • ” When did this site become 97% political?”
      I’m not sure, Kirkc. Perhaps when CAGW became 100% political?

  6. Speaking of mercury, I remember using Mercurochrome as an antiseptic in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s – and never had any adverse effects on me that I know. The FDA now bans it in the USA but I know doctors that get Mercurochrome in Mexico and still use it as the best local antiseptic I live here in Mexico.
    (of course some of my liberal friends probably think that my brain has been affected.)
    On a different subject, I remember in the 50s that shoe stores had x-ray machines that you could see your toes wiggle in your shoes. So far I haven’t gotten cancer of the feet, but I’ll let you know if it happens.

    • I used to play with mercury with my fingers if my mother broke a thermometer, and even in science class, and I remember Mercurochrome. I mainly remember how much it stung. I didn’t know it had mercury in it.

      • Tom: IIRC Mercurochrome was used because it didn’t sting. Tincture of Iodine was the one that stung. It was the same color as Mercurochrome.

      • We had merthiolate, which did sting badly. When I was a tad, I really hated it when we ran out of Mercurochrome and had to rely on merthiolate, because it always turned a minor cut or scratch into a major injury (in my little mind, anyway).

  7. I would love to see a debate between Hillary and Ted Cruz. It’s probably not going to happen, because the GOP will probably back another progressive (moderate) republican – I hope not.

    • What’s “progressive” about returning to 1800s Marxism / WW1 Leninism, pre-1950 power generation, 1960s gender and race wars, pre-1980 Iran reconciliation, repealing the constitution, pre-1900 Alaska development the anti-vax Luddites, and every other unwinding of the progress of the past century?
      Obama is a Regressive. So is Hillary. So are the BANANAs in Oz. In fact, the mere mention of the P-word guarantees that the speaker is a Regressive.

      • @j.peter
        1. what is your point?
        2. what was required to win WW2 – total gov’t control of everything. It is possible that some time after WW2, that gov’t became the funding source for science, the uni science, education, etc. How do you think Common Crap, er, Core came into existence – the ov’t waved a lot of money in front of all the Governor’s faces; politicians never turn down money. This will create a full generation of stupids – maybe that is what they want.

      • j.peter “The point is the Manhattan project was not political, it was supported by both sides” What a crock no one outside of a few in the executive branch knew a thing about the Manhattan Project. For chrissakes you idiot even the vice president didn’t know. What a loon.

    • @j.peter – don’t disagree with your last comment(s), but to me that is zeitgeist; today, you cannot get a science grant unless it is something the gov’t wants. Today, especially under Obama, the gov’t wants studies to show anecdotal evidence supporting GloBull Warming. Science has been captured.

      • Speaking of the Manhattan Project, I proposed a Manhattan Project on on developing ANWR in Alaska to keep the oil flowing, but only the Alaskans agree. They say it would take 10 years to get oil from there, but if I was president, it would take less than 1 year…it can be done – Drill Baby Drill…

    • Agree, science is now political in the USA and throughout most of the world. Too much government money flowing to left wing universities and social scientists for more and more “science” of global warming studies.

  8. Unfortunately a high school dropout, barely cogent drunk living under a bridge provide betters oversight on our Obama shenanigans than the MSM. CNN has a headline currently running, “Glaciers Melting?”. The question mark is a nice touch, it basically allows a journalist claim anything without really claiming it. The author of the article is Bill Weir, so I guess anyone could write an article, “Is Bill Weir a paid operative for the White House?”
    I don’t know if he is getting paid by the WH, but I do know he is an idiot. He does not even get the irony of including in his own article that 600 years ago, when the glaciers were growing around Chamonix, local bishops tried to exorcise the demons in the ice to keep it from devouring forests and crops.
    Yes you moron Weir, cold bad, warm good.

    • “…that 600 years ago, when the glaciers were growing around Chamonix, local bishops tried to exorcise the demons in the ice…”
      I was wondering where all the climastrologists and AGW trolls came from…

  9. I wonder if there’s anybody out there who’d like to join me in some investments. I’d like to set up a futures market in tar. Oh, and also make an investment in a manufacturing facility that can make large cast iron pots that can both hold tar and swivel downward to pour it out. And, after that, I’d like to start a second futures market in bird feathers. Lots and lots of bird feathers.

    • Nah – add up 95% of the politicians, all the Banksters, all the owners of MSM, and a miscellaneous category and these wouldn’t be enuf to make the venture profitable. Unless we could air it on pay-per-view; potential for hundreds of millions or a few billion; it would be similar to attendance at the Roman arena.

    • Feathers are so passé.
      Use porcupine quills and cactus needles instead; they’ll help to keep the wearer’s attention on real problems rather than fake ones.

  10. “Fourth, CEQ also wants agencies to somehow evaluate “upstream” and “downstream” emissions. In cases reviewing highway or hospital projects, this would entail examining emissions associated with mining, processing, shipping and using cement, steel, other building materials and heavy equipment before and during construction – and then assessing emissions associated with people and goods that might conceivably be transported to or from the facility or along the highway following construction.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    As long as wind and solar have to follow the same rules …

  11. I am waiting peer-reviewed research that shows the optimum climate for our biosphere. The first question that would naturally flow would be where is our current climate and trend in relation to this finding.
    Strangely, nobody seems interested in this vital comparison. Not so strangely, the solutions that are frequently demanded in the most urgent voice, all converge on a socialist worldview: statism, bigger government, higher taxes, less personal liberty, even fewer people. That bigger picture tells me all that I need to know about “climate science”.

    • BW said: “I am waiting peer-reviewed research that shows the optimum climate for our biosphere.”
      Clearly BW, the optimum for Earth is a warmer climate than today, with more atmospheric CO2.
      OK peers, please review NOW: Agree or disagree – Trolls are not welcome to participate.
      Thanks in advance, Allan

    • theBuckWheat,
      The alarmist clique won’t talk about their climate scare. They tried debating, but they lost every debate. So now it’s ‘science’ by sound bite. That, and people like Michael Mann encourage their lemmings to argue incessantly, while Mann sits in his Ivory Tower, shooting out his tweets calling skeptics names.
      Scientific skeptics questioning the carbon scare and runaway man-made global warming (MMGW) have decisively won the scientific debate. So now the purveyors of those false alarms have moved the debate into the political realm, which requires no facts or evidence.
      That’s why I constantly ask alarmist posters a simple question: can you produce an empirical, testable, verifiable measurement quantifying the fraction of global warming attributable to human CO2 emissions?
      That question has been asked dozens of times, but never once answered. If they cannot even measure what they’re talking about, it must be extremely small, no? And without measurements, no one can possibly prove that MMGW exists.
      It’s the same with asking what is the optimum climate, or the ideal temperatire for Planet Earth. Since people tend to migrate to warmer climates, that seems to answer the question. Alaska pays thousands of dollars to residents every year from their oil sales in hopes of promoting immigration. But that’s not nearly enough. Hawaii, OTOH, has a steady influx.
      Which brings us to an overarching law of human nature, popularized by the internet:
      Fen’s Law:
      The Left believes none of the things they lecture the rest of us about.

      • Absolutely. In general, they are not predicting man-made global warming, they are actually hoping that thermageddon will come. And come soon.
        “If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.” – Phil Jones
        I’ve also noticed on a number of occasions that “the pause” or “the hiatus” is talked about in negative terms as problematic, or the very last thing that anybody needed right now.
        Hey, it’s a non-rise in global average temperatures during the period in which mankind has emitted 1/3 of the total amount of CO2 produced ever.
        So, what I want to know – is when do we get a refund on all the money that was wasted on deployment of immature or experimental technologies.
        Why is nobody on the left capable of calming themselves down enough to take a steady look at the RSS global average temps. data and realize that the predicted disaster is doing a fine job of not turning up.
        And what they tell us that they see happening can be accounted for as an age old phenomenon called “weather”.
        I can only conclude that these people crave catastrophe.
        And they will find their catastrophe, even if there is no catastrophe to find.

      • “The Left believes none of the things they lecture the rest of us about.”
        My momma told me that the people who holler “do as I say, not as I do” are hypocrites and all she had was a high school degree from the 1940’s.

      • “That’s why I constantly ask alarmist posters a simple question: can you produce an empirical, testable, verifiable measurement quantifying the fraction of global warming attributable to human CO2 emissions?”
        I notice the contrarians on this blog have left your question unanswered yet again. They seem to have boundless energy for back and forth postings except when it really matters where the rubber meets the road. Their silence is very telling.
        This question needs to be asked again and again. So much noise and sideshows are happening while ignoring this most important and fundamental question. This question deserves it’s own post!

        • Dave in Canmore

          This question needs to be asked again and again. So much noise and sideshows are happening while ignoring this most important and fundamental question.

          I would add another fundamental question:
          What is the probability of each of the following global average temperatures in the year 2100?
          + 0.0 deg C to slight cooling? What are the problems and benefits at each temperature range?
          +0.0 to +1.0 deg C? – Great problems for all, no benefits to anyone.
          +1.0 to +2.0 deg C? – No problems to any, modest benefits to all.
          +2.0 to +3.0 deg C? – No problems to any, greater benefits to all.
          +3.0 to +4.0 deg C? – No problems to any, greater benefits to most.
          Greater than +4.0 degrees C? – Some problems for a few, much greater benefit to many.

  12. Obama’s “climate” edicts are purely political.
    But you knew that and smarted off, anyway. Didn’t you.

  13. Lede sentence: ISIS terrorists continue to butcher people, while hacking into a French television network.
    Here I was thinking this was an article about Obama climate policy.
    (flush)

    • Flushed yourself down the toilet, again?
      Yes, it is so hard to keep two thoughts in your half brain cell. The article is about Obama’s fixation on climate change and CO2 to the detriment of other policies and the United States.
      Fixation, that psychological stalking illness so similar to trolls pestering and disrupting people discussing topics the trolls neither understand or appreciate.
      But that’s a third thought for your half a brain cell…

    • Aids the article’s overall “Nero fiddled while Rome burned” texture, wouldn’t you agree?

    • I agree Brandon, there is plenty of emotion on the religious side of this debate. The first two sentences are off subject in my opinion, too.

      • Thank you. If we’re to debate/disagree, let’s try to be on point. I’ll go first. You’re WRONG! 🙂

    • Brandon, if you understand that the first paragraph, not your isolation of one sentence, was about, ““Nero fiddled (with climate change) while Rome burned” then why did you not address that, instead of falsely portraying a non-sequitor by an out of context quote?
      many find Obama’s focus to be bizarre.
      “On Easter Obama stated…, I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian, I am supposed to love,” Obama said. “And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less than loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned.”
      Obama’s comments came just days after ISIS brutally killed 147 Christian students in Kenya. ISIS terrorists questioned each student and proceeded to release those who admitted to following Islam.
      Mark Styn said, “The Potus is a guy who’s happy to draw general lessons when a black youth gets killed in Ferguson, Missouri. That apparently has wide application for black people all over America,” Steyn said. “But 148 black corpses has no general application!”
      “Well Mr. President, “You dishonor those Kenyan students in death by not identifying them as Christians, as you dishonored the Egyptians only a couple of weeks earlier.”
      In short, his priorities are all messed up.

      • Not at all. They portray a clear and cogent image of a man running around calling tens of thousands of scientists deniers, trying to lay in bureaucratic layers of strangling control over all industry that will affect the GAT not one jot, while negotiating an awful agreement with a backwards dark age death cult trying to develop nuclear weapons. A cogent and spot on analogy which you “A” clearly failed to grasp, or “B” chose to misrepresent with a one sentence out of context quote.

      • David A,
        Note that not a single thing you’ve said addresses the actual headline of the article itself. You’ve taken the lede sentence and run with it. All you’re doing is building a case against Obama himself — which is fine, I don’t much care for his capabilities as an executive. My point is that an easily accepted “argument” is also easily rejected. Understanding the actual issue the title of this piece advertises is difficult because it is complex with many uncertainties. I don’t have firm conclusions either way, but I’m actually dubious that anything truly meaningful is happening, but for reasons which have nothing to do with ISIS = bad —> Obama not handle ISIS = bad —> Obama climate policy = bad because ISIS not dead.
        Red herrings are not the issue. The issue is the issue. I don’t take seriously arguments to the contrary.

      • Brandon says, “David A,
        Note that not a single thing you’ve said addresses the actual headline of the article itself. You’ve taken the lede sentence and run with it.”
        ==========================================
        Brandon, that is exactly what you did, not me. You quoted the lead sentence, out of context from the rest of the paragraph, voiced your view that it was an irrelevant lead in to the subject, and voiced no opinion on the rest of the article.
        I simply pointed out to you that the first two paragraphs portrayed a clear and cogent image of a man running around calling tens of thousands of scientists deniers, trying to lay in bureaucratic layers of strangling control over all industry that will affect the GAT not one jot, al the while ignoring the murder by ISIS of Christians, and making a mountain out of Fergusson and negotiating an awful agreement with a backwards dark age death cult trying to develop nuclear weapons.
        A cogent and spot on analogy of poor priorities which I embellished a bit myself. Your out of context quote of one sentence means “A” you clearly failed to grasp the Niro fiddled context, or “B” chose to misrepresent the context as a non sequitur.

      • David A,

        Brandon, that is exactly what you did, not me.

        Yes of course, on purpose.

        You quoted the lead sentence, out of context from the rest of the paragraph, voiced your view that it was an irrelevant lead in to the subject, and voiced no opinion on the rest of the article.

        As I said last post, easily accepted = easily dismissed. Which way that goes depends on one’s preconcieved notions of what is true.

        I simply pointed out to you that the first two paragraphs portrayed a clear and cogent image of a man running around calling tens of thousands of scientists deniers, trying to lay in bureaucratic layers of strangling control over all industry that will affect the GAT not one jot, al the while ignoring the murder by ISIS of Christians, and making a mountain out of Fergusson and negotiating an awful agreement with a backwards dark age death cult trying to develop nuclear weapons.

        So into an already complex topic, now we’ve got three more contentious to the point of intractably acrimonious issues to argue about. I’ll cancel all my appointments for the week.

        A cogent and spot on analogy of poor priorities which I embellished a bit myself.

        It happens, been known to do it myself.

        Your out of context quote of one sentence means “A” you clearly failed to grasp the Niro fiddled context, or “B” chose to misrepresent the context as a non sequitur.

        C: I simply don’t agree with the argument. That’s at least the third time I’ve said that on this thread to someone. Why is it so often assumed that someone who disagrees with one’s position must either be a dullard or a liar?
        That’s a rhetorical question, by the way. Please don’t think for a moment that I absolve myself of the same mechanism.
        Try this if you wish; ask me why I disagree with your interpretation of Driessen’s thesis. Note, however, I’m far more interested in discussing my disapproval of his methods.

      • Brandn, what you actually said was,
        “Lede sentence: ISIS terrorists continue to butcher people, while hacking into a French television network.
        Here I was thinking this was an article about Obama climate policy.
        (flush)
        ==============================================================
        I read his as saying the ISIS comment is not relevant to Obama climate policy, so I flush the entire piece.
        Now you say,
        ” C: I simply don’t agree with the argument. That’s at least the third time I’ve said that on this thread to someone. Why is it so often assumed that someone who disagrees with one’s position must either be a dullard or a liar?”
        I did not accuse you of being a liar. I said, ““A” you clearly failed to grasp the Niro fiddled context, or “B” chose to misrepresent the context as a non sequitur.”
        So, perhaps your poor articulation of what you meant, and not others assumptions, are the main source of confusion. So what do you disagree with? Are you saying you just do not like the Niro Fiddled lead in?
        If so that appears to be pedantic, and misses any detailed criticism of the post, which in itself contains six links, which is in my view very solid based on a far more extensive research.
        You have a tendency to criticize blog posts, (both main posts, and responses) meant to be a basis of further research for their lack of detail, but are very quick to ignore your own poor articulation.
        At any rate I find the Nero fiddled context of the first two paragraphs clear, and did not see your post as an acknowledgement of that context, but as a dismissal of the entire post (flush) based on a pedantic dislike of the lead in. I think that is a shame because their is extensive and detailed reasons to not like the anti-science, pro political power grab of Obama, regarding his climate policy. BTW, Obama’s power grab in climate, has clear context with his power grabs in foreign policy.
        If you had simply stated I do not like the lead in because the Niro Fiddled context is in itself a broad subject with many disparate views, and left out the “Flush” I would say nothing. However what you flushed” would perhaps have educated you, or at least others, so I consider your “Flush” to be pedantic and in no way addresses the substance of the post, but could have the affect of dissuading others from proper research.
        Your comment about, ” assumed dullardness” is what such a “flush” post projects, and entirely distracts from the head post.. (Which was apparently what you hoped to accomplish)
        My hope is that people read the head post, with the links, as it is a very supportable position.

      • David A,

        Brandn, what you actually said was,
        “Lede sentence: ISIS terrorists continue to butcher people, while hacking into a French television network.
        Here I was thinking this was an article about Obama climate policy.
        (flush)
        ==============================================================
        I read his as saying the ISIS comment is not relevant to Obama climate policy, so I flush the entire piece.

        Yes, I’ve noticed that you’re a very literal reader when you’re not reading between the lines.

        Now you say,
        ” C: I simply don’t agree with the argument. That’s at least the third time I’ve said that on this thread to someone. Why is it so often assumed that someone who disagrees with one’s position must either be a dullard or a liar?”
        I did not accuse you of being a liar. I said, ““A” you clearly failed to grasp the Niro fiddled context, or “B” chose to misrepresent the context as a non sequitur.”

        Yes, which is a choice between crap soup and crap souffle. Fortunately I reserve the right to author my own menu and not limit myself to others’ tactically imposed dichotomies. “C: I simply don’t agree with the argument” is what I selected for my repast, and did so in my original comment well before you arrived to dine with me.

        So, perhaps your poor articulation of what you meant, and not others assumptions, are the main source of confusion. So what do you disagree with? Are you saying you just do not like the Niro Fiddled lead in?

        I raised my original objection to what Driessen wrote, and it has not changed. While I’ve obviously been coy about exactly what that is, my comments sprinkled about the entire thread should provide somewhat of a breadcrumb trail as to what I’m getting at.

        You have a tendency to criticize blog posts, (both main posts, and responses) meant to be a basis of further research for their lack of detail, but are very quick to ignore your own poor articulation.

        Not always; I’m often quite explicit and detailed in my objections and arguments. My “poor articulation” here is for effect — it’s a technique designed both to get people to think and to provoke constructive responses. It’s also a welcome respite from writing so many extensively researched, long comments. I do different things at different times because I can, and because I get bored always doing the same thing.
        I have my own tactical considerations as well — on an opinion piece such as this one, I’ve often found that dredging up factoids of my own to counter is tedious and ineffectual. Overall I’m happy how this one worked out for me — yours is about the staunchest opposition of everyone who commented. Other posters who have disagreed with me in the past found some things to agree with in my comments.
        That is what I was playing for, and that is what I got. I believe that I know quite a bit about what I’m doing here on this thread and why — it’s very VERY deliberate on my part.

        Your comment about, ” assumed dullardness” is what such a “flush” post projects, and entirely distracts from the head post.. (Which was apparently what you hoped to accomplish)

        Thus we arrive at the point wherein reading me literally has been dispatched, and reading between the lines (AKA, pretending to be able to read my mind) comes to the fore.

        My hope is that people read the head post, with the links, as it is a very supportable position.

        Boiled down to its essence, your reading of Driessen’s piece is that it says, and I quote you directly: In short, [Obama’s] priorities are all messed up.
        I don’t disagree with your reading of Driessen, and consider the Nero reference apt imagery for the argument. I’m mum on the topic of Obama’s priorities — at any given time the US government has countless thousands of irons in its fire, the vast majority of which I’d wager we the public know little to nothing about.
        I could, if I wanted the brain-damage, make an extensive list of things I do read about and attempt to rank them. Having done so, I would not insist that my ranking was either well-informed, nor factually correct. I could make compelling arguments to support my case, sure, but it would never leave my mind that what I was doing was expressing an opinion based on my own ideologically biased pre-concevied notions about what I think should be the priorities of our nation — based on a necessarily very very tiny sample of everything which is available to me, which in and of itself is a miniscule portion of the sum total of the activities of the United States government and its agents worldwide.
        Driessen picked only but a few. His entire lede paragraph: ISIS terrorists continue to butcher people, while hacking into a French television network. Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons remains on track. In a nation of 320 million people, American businesses hired only 126,000 workers in March, amid a pathetic 62% labor participation rate. Wages and incomes are stagnant.
        I opine that few people in their “right” minds would argue that climate change is the more immediately pressing issue than those cited. Certainly not me — the most dire putative hazards of AGW are a long off, on the order of a century to a millennium depending on the specific risk factor being considered.
        Follow the breadcrumbs, mayhaps starting over at: Easily accepted is easily dismissed ….

    • Brandon, are you being paid to make yourself look dumb? If so, you are underpaid.
      The point of that line was to show that we have more important problems.
      But then, you already knew that.

      • You are the second person in this thread to confuse opinion with fact in response to my original statement. For as along as I’ve known it, the US government has been capable of doing more than one thing at a time.

      • The US government isn’t capable of doing even one thing at a time well.
        Except waste money & violate citizens’ rights.

      • How that addresses my argument I’ll never know, but your opinion is noted. My view is that governments define the rights of their citizens, and that a good government is consistent about ensuring that those rights are not infringed upon by other citizens or itself. That we as individuals think we should or should not be granted particular rights by our governing bodies is to be expected, and conflicts are inevitable.
        I believe that there are better ways of resolving those disputes than stamping around complaining that the gummint is evil, incompetent and not giving you everything you want.

      • The government most certainly does not define human rights. Not in the USA anyway. Our rights are inalienable, ie natural or from God, not from any government, least of all the federal one, created by the people to serve at our pleasure.
        Move to Cuba.

      • Brandon Gates
        April 13, 2015 at 1:43 pm
        That government is unspeakably evil should be self-evident. The question is how much of it is a necessary evil. IMO, very little to not much.

      • milodonharlani,

        The government most certainly does not define human rights. Not in the USA anyway.

        The US government clearly, factually does indeed both prescribe and proscribe the “rights” of its citizens. “Human rights” is something I consider a subtle yet distinctly different subject.

        Our rights are inalienable, ie natural or from God, not from any government, least of all the federal one, created by the people to serve at our pleasure.

        That’s what’s essentially written in the DoI, and I think it’s a powerful statement indeed. Jefferson was a very nuanced writer and a big champion of separation of church and state. He did not always get his way. But I digress. The very first words of the Constitution as presently in force are “WE THE PEOPLE”.
        WE THE PEOPLE do not always agree with each other, which simply cannot be helped.

        Move to Cuba.

        I’d love to go, but not to live — I prefer constitutional republican democracy to dictatorship. Tell you what though, let’s both take a 1-year holiday: you in Somalia and me in Cuba, and compare notes at the end of it. Assuming we both live to tell our respective tales.

      • Catherine Ronconi,

        That government is unspeakably evil should be self-evident.

        I wouldn’t quite put it that way, but I’m hard pressed to completely disagree. I’m more prone to statements like: politicians are by and large venal money-grubbing lying sacks of bull excrement; however, even manure does have its uses. So do sacks.

        The question is how much of it is a necessary evil.

        I’ve already played the Somalia bet to see milodonharlani’s Cuba, but I like where you’re going here, so I’ll take a different tack. Here are my particular definitions of some terms:
        0) Morality distinguishes good from evil.
        1) Evil is violating the will of another.
        2) Good is treating others how one would wish to be treated.
        3) One’s first moral duty is to oneself.
        4) Ethics is the practice of describing moral values for individuals and groups by attempting to resolve inevitable moral conflicts.
        5) Laws codify ethics into enforceable standards.
        6) Justice is the practice of enforcing laws.
        7) Government is the practice of administering the creation of ethical laws and executing justice on behalf of individuals and groups.
        I hold that government arguably does evil because it necessarily violates (1). I also contend that it necessarily does evil because without it, (3) favours the very strong at the expense of the relatively weak, which tends to maximize evil at the expense of good. Que Lord Acton.
        I’ll pause there and await response.

      • @ Brandon Gates
        How does the government
        “both prescribe and proscribe the “rights” of its citizens.”
        Show me this.
        And although Jefferson did believe in a separation of church and state, he was of the mind that the state had no business dallying in church affairs but had no problem with the church calling out the government when it went awry.
        You’re spinning makes everyone dizzy.

      • icouldahad,

        How does the government “both prescribe and proscribe the “rights” of its citizens.”

        My personal experience speaks loudly here. I was thinking of prescriptive easements on property for that case. I was thinking of murder laws as an example of a proscription against the “right” to take another’s life indiscriminately. Prescriptive/proscriptive is probably a better way to think about laws which are based on some set of assumed or stipulated rights, I appreciate you challenging me on it.
        It would have been better for me to have said that US Constitution does indeed define both claim rights and liberty rights of US citizens.
        I believe that milodonharlani is talking about a different subject, namely the distinction between natural rights and legal rights.

        And although Jefferson did believe in a separation of church and state, he was of the mind that the state had no business dallying in church affairs but had no problem with the church calling out the government when it went awry.

        Without a specific quote it’s difficult for me to rebut that. At risk of writing words in Jefferson’s quill, I broadly agree with that sentiment. “The church” is just people, and people should be able to call out the actions committed by government officials which they deem wrong according to most of our founders. The 1st Amendment takes some reading between the lines to get that message, though looking into the history of how it ended up being written is something I think is worth doing. I find that story to be another instance of Jefferson not quite getting his way; specifically, my reading is that he wanted it to be very specific that freedom of religion also meant not being compelled to choose a religion.

        You’re spinning makes everyone dizzy.

        I’ll be darned if I can figure out what you think it is that I’m not telling you.
        Aside: Interesting that you find it so easy to speak for everyone.

  14. At the gas station the other day; a woman pulled up to me and said “I like your bumper sticker”. the sticker reads “So Far the Change Sucks”.
    Casual quick conversations with strangers and viewing the postings on various sites, just about everybody hates Obama, except for the paid trolls (yes, they do exist) and the low-info public(lots of them).

    • I don’t hate the man, but I’ve gotten tired of him. He wasn’t ready for the job, it pissed off a lot of his own establishment that he got it. We needed FDR and got Carter. He got a second term because Romney is no Reagan. The Dems have been playing CYA since oh, 2003 and it shows. 2016 will be interesting.

      • “He wasn’t ready for the job… We needed FDR and got Carter. He got a second term because Romney is no Reagan.”
        Well put. Although I might have said, “We needed Ike, and got a Saturday Night Live caricature of Carter.” Brilliant orators who are also exceptional managers and also competent politicians and also ‘sexy’ and thus ‘electable’ in this era — like FDR and Reagan — are sadly very, very rare. And I see nothing even close in the top tier on either side this time around. I see inflexible ideologues and waffling, average career politicians, as far as the eye can see.
        OT but re some comments above and in the last several threads the past week I’m just catching up on, I appreciate your comments and arguments here. They are nearly always well thought out and referenced to the literature. I often disagree, but usually more in degree than in kind, and typically regarding the quality of the literature; a frequent and important part of the conversation here. It’s a pleasure to debate with you, on the rare occasions when I have the time. (and your “decibels’ comment was the best of the year so far…)

      • Bill,
        I would have taken Ike in a heartbeat. I’m completely with you about the inflexibility of the ideological extremes, both sides of the aisle. Far be it for me to have it all figured out — politics are murky and secretive by design — but it seems we’re in a vicious cycle of becoming polarized as a public, electing reflections of ourselves who once in office pander to what got them there, inflaming passions even more. Lather, rinse, repeat. We must break that cycle. I haven’t a thought in the world how that will actually happen that you should believe, but I’ve been known to tell a good yarn about it from time to time. Mostly I get puzzled stares and a lot of “yabbut, whutabbout, blah blah blah.” I may indeed be a dreamer, but I figure someone has to do it. More and more though, I’m getting cranky and retreat to being a snarky cynic to stave off complete pessimism.
        Thanks for your compliments about my posts. They’ve not all been winners I’m sure, and I’m glad you disagree with me, especially if those are the ones that are better thought out. That IS how this is suppose to work by my reckoning. Best regards.

      • PS: yes, decibels I think is my fav as well. There really was only one possible answer to that.

      • “The Dems have been playing CYA since oh, 2003 and it shows. 2016 will be interesting.”
        Both sides, really, play CYA constantly. A lot of Americans are abandoning the parties and becoming independent because neither party wants to actually address the issues that the voters have. As a result, the Republican and Democratic establishments are moving rapidly away from being useful for the population in terms of what their platforms are doing. On top of that, both parties are beholden to corporate requests that the voters find distasteful.
        Most Americans, if there is an issue, would like to see ideas brought about to fix that issue. For instance, if CAGW is an issue (as it may have been in the early 90s), then they would want to see solutions that aren’t just tax grabs – they want to see what the government will spend on and how it will affect them and the issue at hand. What they get is, instead, a lot of long-winded BS about feelings and the poor from one side and constitutional framers on the other.
        Instead they get legislation like magazine limits that are supposed to somehow reduce the damage at mass shootings. Every voter knows that reloading an automatic or semi-automatic weapon is a process you can practice down to a few seconds. So what has this sort of legislation done? Nothing effective – but it did give one side a way to go “We are helping! Look! Look! We passed something!” and the other side to denounce the legislation as “Against the founding fathers.”
        The process is reversed for things like the ACA, where one side passes bill after bill to repeal to say that they have done something and the other side whines about the poor.

      • Arsten,

        Both sides, really, play CYA constantly.

        Sure. When I wrote that I was thinking specifically of the neocons, whose main excellence was circling the wagons — CYA en masse if you will. Very effective if the policies implemented by such a united body are effective. My view is that they failed spectacularly. As a liberal, my lament is that the Democratic party has been severely divided, especially since Obama first won the nomination and general election, thereby failing to capitalize on the neocon meltdown. I think it would be much worse for them if Republicans had managed to put themselves back together.

        A lot of Americans are abandoning the parties and becoming independent because neither party wants to actually address the issues that the voters have.

        Ever since I was able, I’ve never registered as anything but independent. In the beginning that was because I knew I didn’t know enough to decide. Later I realized that part of my inability to decide was that each party’s platforms are riddled with self-contradictions. More recently I have come to believe that this is because the collective we are often so at odds with each other, but not in the exact same way. Trying to condense down the disparate views, wants and needs into two choices can’t help but fail to be internally consistent.
        Multi-party parlimentary forms of government look messy and complicated to US eyes, especially when an election results in a coalition government. However, I argue that such a situation may be more truly representative of the underlying wishes of the electorate.
        As I see it, the more pressing problem in the US is the ever increasing influence of special interests. Extreme ideologues on either side are not selling anything I find palatable, and I very much do not like it that such a small minority of well-feathered financiers can have such an outsized influence on propping up candidates or planks favourable to their own gravy train.
        I’m a liberal yes, but the radical left is both bonkers and well-funded. This is not good. I don’t believe that the far right is the correct antidote either.

      • Arsten
        Your second paragraph applies almost word for word to the UK, too.
        We have a budget deficit this year equal to £4 borrowed for every man, woman and chid in the country – every day – including today and Christmas Day.
        The world is not notably safer or more stable than five or ten years ago – AQAP, Putin, Fat Boy Kim, Boko Haram, and the Houthis leap violently to mind.
        London is almost drowning under Houses of Multiple Occupation – with a room costing a thousand dollars a month in some areas; and back garden sheds used for putting up workers [many believed to be migrants].
        And ‘deficit elimination’, ‘defence’ and ‘housing’ hardly get a mention [and if there are mentioned, it’s a soundbite, not a considered policy.
        Auto

      • See … parliamentary forms of gummint are so strange to my eyes that I can’t even spell the damn word correctly …

  15. It would be easy to keep it about science, but people like Mann and Hansen, and organizations like The IPCC have made it all about politics, so someone has to fight fire with fire.

  16. Good summary of some of the key issues for the next US election.
    There is a rumor that Hillary Clinton is a closet conservative, a realist, a thinker. Some say she will do what makes sense, if it makes sense for the US. It is a fact that there is no CAGW problem to solve. Regardless spending money or worst forcing money to be spent using EPA regulations to block what does make sense is madness. The green scams do not work.
    A leader must understand what is and is not a problem. A leader must understand what will and will not work to solve the US problems.
    The US has run out of money to spend on everything. The economic problem is a lack of good paying jobs which is due to structural problems and the spending problem. See Japan, France, and Spain for what to expect next. Japan is at the end, of the end of the process. Japanese accumulated debt is at 250% of GDP.

      • Hillary Clinton: Businesses Don’t Create Jobs
        Don’t let anybody, don’t let anybody tell you that, ah, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.

      • if you him , no problem, you can have him instead of Hillary – I mean “françois hollande” – event before 2017 – it’s a gilft, please don’t refuse

    • The woman who was kicked off the Senate’s Watergate committee because she was too partisan and dishonest is a closet conservative?
      I don’t think so.

      • She was fired because she withheld evidence and made ‘con-flicting statements’ to the lead Watergate investigator, Jerry Zeifman, general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee in 1974.
        Hillary Rodham’s 1974 Watergate “Procedures were Ethically Flawed”
        “By Jerry Zeifman
        IN December 1974, as general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, I made a personal evaluation of Hillary Rodham (now Mrs. Clinton), a member of the staff we had gathered for our impeachment inquiry on President Richard Nixon. I decided that I could not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust. “

        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/925684/posts

  17. Although I fully realize that the comments have become political, because the warmists have managed to invade this site by the “B (ucketload) asement load I will keep following WUWT although with reluctance. I am looking forward to more true science in the days ahead. ( I am also looking forward to the end of the weekend and the end of spring break.)

    • Big Government encroaches on everything. It will be immensely more difficult in the future to obtain ‘true’ anything, much less true science. Having read wuwt for quite a while, I do know what you mean by true science on wuwt , especially the posts/replies – half the time, I didn’t have a clue on poster’s comments. However, I will point out what I believe to be true (and I hope you understand this): that you and others are wasting your time arguing the ‘science’; that the true science is immaterial; that It is a scam; that most of the scientists on the alarmist side know it is a scam; but it is their breadwinner; same for the Universities. Look at history – see what people will do for money, power, and control; all the way from top to bottom.
      It is disheartening for me, as I know the U.S. used to have much more integrity.

  18. Sorry, when I see Obama and Climate Change/Global Warming, my hair stands on end.
    Some people think he is doing it on purpose for political reasons, but I think he is just stupid about the subject, and doesn’t understand the science. He has no background in science. There is in fact no record of his college/university records of grades in any of his subjects (all secret stuff).

    • J. >>>A Pres. is very, very rarely a scientist, economist, engineer, etc.; mostly, they are sociopaths, good talkers that influence the stupids (most of public) – bullshitters if you will, and connected. In other words, Presidents surround themselves (hopefully) with people that have knowledge of the disciplines. Obama is doing this for purely political and ideological reasons. The science doesn’t even enter into his picture.
      I truly don’t know why people can’t see that.

      • kokoda commented: ” Obama is doing this for purely political and ideological reasons. The science doesn’t even enter into his picture. I truly don’t know why people can’t see that.” +100

      • So true kokoda! obama doesn’t care a fig about science or whether man-made warming is real. For him global warming is a jackhammer to use on the foundation of our country.

      • When bands played “L’Internationale” at his campaign stops and the MSM gave it a pass and all the hip and coolsters swooned, the writing was on the wall.

  19. I am not an American, I live in Australia and I am an Australian Citizen.
    I know little of US politics, yet I visit family and friends in the East coast of the US every year for three months, all I am allowed under a visitors visa.
    Because the cheapest air fares are in the US winter, I arrive in January and leave at the end of March. So, I have seen two brutal winters, and coming from the tropics, they were BRUTAL Winters.
    My family and their friends are extremely well educated and switched on, as are many of the people I get to meet while in the US.
    But, for the life of me, I cannot understand how a Nation of well educated people can elect the likes of the fool Obama. The previous Post here on WUWT showed that. Hot bad, causes asthma, cold bad, causes a downturn in the economy.
    A close friend explained to me once, people only choose partners and leaders that are not as smart as them, it inherently makes you feel good.
    Need I wonder how that is working out ??

    • I didn’t like Romney, either, but if you look up ‘election fraud Romney’ you’ll find many articles about alleged black box rigging. I don’t really think BO won fairly 2nd time around. I think he probably won the first election because of the novelty of his color. I find it difficult to believe any thinking person could really fall for his ‘oration’ abilities, which I don’t feel he possesses at all. He can read ok, just don’t hand him a mic without a telepromptor – he’s an awful speaker. You’re lucky in Australia that you still have paper voting and don’t rely on computers.

    • Chris….”I cannot understand how a Nation of well educated people”
      Suggest you get on you tube and watch a whole bunch of vids from ” Watters World”. You may change your mind.

  20. Chris in Hervey Bay,
    The real reason that Obama was elected was as America’s apologia for slavery. We have been taught all through school and by the media to feel guilty for what others did. It’s almost never mentioned that more than a hundred thousand Americans died giving freedom to all slaves. But apparently that wasn’t enough.
    Americans have been so beaten over the head for something that no living person did, that we are desperate to show what good people we really are (by “we” I mean Americans in general, not necessarily anyone here).
    It didn’t matter that Obama doesn’t have a drop of slave blood in him. It didn’t matter that there are many other better qualified black men and women that Americans would have voted for. Obama appeared at the right place and time.
    The media was 100% in his corner, and they shirked their duty. To this day no one really knows Obama’s past, or if he’s qualified to be President. Even the WaPo (IIRC) could not find a single person who remembered him from college, after interviewing numerous dorm mates who should have known “Barry Soetero”. His whole past seems to be largely fabricated.
    Nothing mattered. Americans wanted absolution. And now they’ve got it — good and hard.

    • Yes, I do agree entirely.
      A tour of Gettysburg brought home to me that the Civil War has an impact on US culture in many subtle ways.
      I wondered if the essence of the Civil war is in fact over.

      • Oh DB, and you had better get off to bed too.
        I just got off Skype to my Aunt and she is off to bed.
        A Democrat and a Sceptic. There is hope !!

      • Yes, Chris, it’s time for me to bag it. But I enjoyed our little discussion.
        And yes, the Civil War still has an impact. More Americans were killed in that war than in all the other wars we fought combined — around 600,000 men, a really huge number from a much smaller population than today. (Northern Blacks were exempt from the draft.)
        Think of the Viet Nam war, where we lost something over 50,000 from a much larger population. That still has a big impact on the American psyche, and that impact will continue for generations to come. The Civil War was really horrible. In the South there was hardly a family that didn’t lose one or more men. So yes, we’re still dealing with the Civil War here.
        Final note before I hit the rack: During the Civil War battle of Missionary Ridge, Union Gen. Philip Sheridan noticed some Confederates peering at him from up on the ridge, while he was having a nip of liquid courage from his flask. He and his officers were simply observing the situation.
        Being a gentleman, Sheridan raised his flask to the Confederate soldiers and shouted, “Here’s at you!”, taking a drink.
        The Confederates responded by firing a volley at Sheridan, hitting the dirt and mud around his feet, and showering the Irishman and his officers with mud. Upset at that rude response to his friendly toast, Sheridan shouted up at the Rebels, “That was ungenerous! I’ll take your guns for that!”
        His troops, who worshiped him, mistook his outburst as an order. They charged up Missionary Ridge, fighting their way right to the top and winning the battle. The ridge was supposed by all to be invincible, but it was taken that day. It was a spectacular victory, which cost the South the war in the West, and it resulted in Sheridan being put in command of all Union armies.
        The rest, as they say, is history. I’ve always rememberd Gen. Sheridan’s immortal words:
        That was ungenerous! I’ll take your guns for that! LOL!!

      • One last thing, for all my friends in the US.
        If you could take on board some of our culture of your junior cousins down under, it could help.
        Although this doesn’t always impress foreigners, it can lead to the kind of mental freedom identified by English author D.H Lawrence when he wrote,
        “You feel free in Australia. There is great relief in the atmosphere – a relief from tension, from pressure, an absence of control of will or form. The skies open above you and the areas open around you”
        I would ask that all Americans that frequent WUWT to read from this web site.
        http://www.convictcreations.com/culture/index.htm
        And the other pages contained within.
        Nite Nite All

      • Australians are even more subjects of the state than Americans. For one thing, you’ve been disarmed.

      • Catherine Ronconi
        April 13, 2015 at 4:40 pm
        “Australians are even more subjects of the state than Americans. For one thing, you’ve been disarmed.”
        And willingly too ! We had an armistice and people gave up their guns to be crushed.
        Now, we don’t have police shooting people in the back as they are running away.
        We don’t have two police men getting shot in their patrol car while having a bite to eat.
        We don’t have mass shootings in our schools !
        Sandy Hook, Newtown, Connecticut ??
        Ferguson ??
        Need I go on. You guys have provided plenty of examples.
        People in glass houses comes to mind !
        We do get the news Here.

      • Sorry, Chris, I don’t agree that Australians gave up their guns willingly – they were forced to under the threat of imprisonment. Everyone knows that only tyrants remove the means of a people to defend themselves against the jackboot of governments. I don’t know how anyone can think well of Howard when he stands with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, Idi Amin, and the Kims of N Korea when it comes to denying the citizens of their weapons.
        [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8HDDpReVlI&w=420&h=315%5D
        I also don’t believe Martin Bryant commited that tragedy at Port Author and that it was a false flag operation like so many out there. I’ve watched several you tubes and suggest you take a look at them. How can someone with an IQ of 66 kill with such precision? I read something from a guy from a special ops group and he said that what transpired that day would have taken someone years of training. And just in case you don’t believe false flag operations exist, read the following:
        http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/41-admitted-false-flag-attacks.html
        No country is perfect, but some believe in the right of the individual just a bit more than others. I’ve asked Australians where their rights come from and the ones that think they know always say ‘the government’. That, in my mind, is truly a tragedy.

      • Sorry, Chris, I don’t agree that Australians gave up their guns willingly – they were forced to under the threat of imprisonment. Everyone knows that only tyrants remove the means of a people to defend themselves against the jackboot of governments. I don’t know how anyone can think well of Howard when he stands with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, Idi Amin, and the Kims of N Korea when it comes to denying the citizens of their weapons.
        [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8HDDpReVlI&w=420&h=315%5D
        I also don’t believe Martin Bryant commited that tragedy at Port Author and that it was a false flag operation like so many out there. I’ve watched several you tubes and suggest you take a look at them. How can someone with an IQ of 66 kill with such precision? I read something from a guy from a special ops group and he said that what transpired that day would have taken someone years of training. And just in case you don’t believe false flag operations exist, read the following:
        http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/41-admitted-false-flag-attacks.html
        No country is perfect, but some believe in the right of the individual just a bit more than others. I’ve asked Australians where their rights come from and the ones that think they know always say ‘the government’. That, in my mind, is truly a tragedy.

    • This reference, also quoted by one of your pals, was demolished a few days ago . Check back.

  21. The CAGW hypothesis is on the cusp of disconfirmation as NONE of CAGW’s hypothetical projections are coming even CLOSE to matching reality, and it’s been almost 19 YEARS without a global warming trend, despite 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being emitted over just the last 19 years… Oh, my….
    The political blowback to the Left will be devastating given the $trillions that have already been squandered around the world on this soon-to-be failed Leftist political agenda.
    The more draconian the Leftist CO2-sequestration measures become, the bigger the political blowback will be to the Left once the CAGW hypothesis implodes.
    Yes, the negative impacts of Leftist CO2 polices on economies around the world have been terrible, but hopefully this will utter failure of CAGW will lead to a moment of clarity, where voters will finally realize that BIG BROTHER is NOT a friend of the people….

    • Samurai, you are absolutely correct when you say:
      “The CAGW hypothesis is on the cusp of disconfirmation as NONE of CAGW’s hypothetical projections are coming even CLOSE to matching reality”
      To date, every major dire prediction by the IPCC and the global warming alarmists has failed to materialize.
      I suggest that we, and a few others like us, have been essentially correct in our predictions to date.
      I suggest that the individual’s predictive track record is perhaps the only objective measure of one’s competence.
      In 2002 I was asked by my Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (“APEGA”) to debate in writing the issue of catastrophic humanmade global warming and the proposed Kyoto Protocol.
      [PEGG debate, reprinted at their request by several professional journals, the Globe and Mail and la Presse in translation, by Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae]
      http://www.apega.ca/members/publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
      We knew with confidence based on the evidence that global warming alarmism was technically false, extremist and wasteful.
      We clearly stated in our 2002 debate:
      On global warming:
      “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
      On green energy:
      “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
      On real pollution:
      “Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.”
      On squandering resources:
      “Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.”
      I suggest that our four above statements are now demonstrably correct, within a high degree of confidence.
      Regards, Allan

  22. Reblogged this on Sierra Foothill Commentary and commented:
    Rural economies are in decline as the liberal/progressives continue to tighten the regulatory screws, using bad science for justification. The question is when will the people living in rural America rise up and take control, starting with the 2016 election. Read the whole article and then decide, what will you do?

  23. CFACT says: “EPA has targeted power plants that emit barely 3% of all mercury in US air and water”
    But the EPA says that Power plants are currently the dominant emitters of mercury (50 percent), acid gases (over 75 percent) and many toxic metals (20-60 percent) in the United States.
    So, I have a little trouble with your numbers.

  24. “This SCC assessment will now examine alleged international harm up to 300 years in the future…”
    Maybe if the founding fathers had thought 250 years ahead and done an analysis of the damage that could be done by an unfettered Executive and Congress creating unaccountable bureaucracies they may have drafted things a bit differently.

  25. Patrick says April 12, 2015 at 5:50 pm
    “I am not American and do lot live in the US but when Obama came to power, I sighed. When he came to power *AGAIN* I sighed even more.”
    Why?, please explain!
    ” If Hillary comes to power in 2016, and I think this is a strong possibility not for her ability or views, but simply because of her genes, she’s a woman. The first US female President? She’s no Thatcher.”
    Shes even worse.
    A right wing warmonger always eager to prove she has ‘balls’
    Look at her record on Iraq,Libya and Syria.
    ” The US has had it’s first “black” president. I fear for your first female President. This post is not meant to be racist nor sexist, just an external observation.”
    You could have fooled me!
    Why post on a site which would like to consider itself to be an objective non political look at climate science?

    • I read that Mrs. Clinton was the 3rd Republican to declare that she was running for the presidency in 2016, but she was running in the Democratic Party primaries.

      • Where, on this planet, did you read such a canard as Hillary Clinton being affiliated with the Republicans?
        She is a left wing ‘progressive’ socialist democrat.

      • MarkW: “Ms Clinton is far to the left on even the most moderate Republican running.”
        Her rhetoric is indeed that of an American Leftist. Her actions, on the other hand, are those of a corporatist rather than a socialist. Go figure.
        Mac the Knife: “Where, on this planet, did you read such a canard as Hillary Clinton being affiliated with the Republicans? She is a left wing ‘progressive’ socialist democrat.”
        Why I read it at the world’s most visited radical libertarian site, but have seen her called a “Republican” on many occasions over the years. You don’t seem to get the sarcasm.
        As a radical libertarian, I don’t really understand how some of you folks think there is a dimes worth of difference in the two major parties. (the reference is to the late populist Democratic Governor and presidential candidate from Alabama) The political game in America today is just the same as in professional wrestling. It is all for show. It is corrupt. It is all about gaining power.
        I figure the Republicans win in 2016. I also figure nothing much will change … other than the rhetoric.

    • Fascinating how the trolls always concentrate on the one issue that is important to them, and then they declare political allegiance based on that.
      Because Hillary joined with most of the world to support Bush in attacking Iraq, she must be a right winger?
      Never mind that her domestic and economic agenda is to the left of Mao, she must be a right winger because she doesn’t want the military to be disbanded.

    • “Bryan
      April 13, 2015 at 12:13 am”
      I guess you don’t read much. You could ask, and answer, the same questions yourself.

  26. Look, I am no fan of Obama, but I don’t come to this website for a god damned Republican election ad. Stifle the partisan b.s., will you?
    [Reply: Simply skip articles about politics. Problem solved. ~mod.]

    • Besides the problem that many of the comments on political matters are based upon ignorance and/or misinformation, the anti-CO2 folks use such comments to discredit the scientific discussions on otherwise useful and insightful websites such as WUWT. It might also discourage apolitical types who are looking for better sources of information. Despite that I don’t see any way to have both a widely read website and a politics-free one.

    • So you don’t care that Obama is ignoring the constitution to further his radical agenda.
      You just don’t want him to be criticized.

    • Very disappointed to see that Watts Up is now formally a Republican website. I guess tribalism rules here too. Sad, sad, sad.

      • Jake,
        Obviously you’re pretty new here. If you had read this site for a while, you would have seen lots of commenters state that they are politically liberal, or left of center. A lot of them say they are socialists. Richard Courtney comes to mind. There are many more.
        But we have one thing in common, no matter what our politics: we are scientific skeptics of man-made global warming [MMGW] being an emergency (with an occasional exception; you can never get 100% agreement. Or even 97%). The common denominator is that we don’t buy into the carbon scare narrative. We don’t think that MMGW is a problem.
        This thread is unusual, in that it is a political discussion. Most are not. But as the moderator above said, you can always just skip it, and go to the 4 – 10 or more new articles that Anthony posts every day.
        A final thought: in poll after poll, Americans self-identify as conservatives by a 2 – 1 margin over those who self-identify as liberals. That might explain what you perceive as a “Republican” website. [And FYI: IANAR. Never have been.]

      • I’ve been here for a year. This is the first example of overt political propaganda I’ve seen here. Yes, most of the commenters are conservative. (I’m genuinely independent, being pretty much disgusted by all the tribes, and increasingly so.) I can easily live with all that, because the site itself has published high-quality material. And many of the commenters are pretty good.
        But now the site itself wants to be a Republican tribal megaphone? For shame, for shame. I’ll still be here, but Watts Up’s credibility has taken a significant hit with me. Again, it’s not a matter of my being liberal. It’s a matter of tribalism and how it infects everything. So now it’s here. Reminds me of Poe’s Masque of the Red Death. Oh well, but someone needs to say what I’ve said, So I did.

      • I’ll try rephrasing.
        Until now, I’ve told people that Watts Up is a skeptic site with high-quality articles, a pretty high wingnut quotient in the comments but still, even there, a cut above the usual comment section nuttery you see in other places, left and right.
        Now I’ll be telling folks that Watts Up is a Republican skeptic site whose articles are high quality, but must be taken with a grain of salt because of the generalized partisan slant of the site owner. Hey, it’s Anthony Watts’s site. He gets to do whatever he wants. However, I think publishing partisan blather as part of his site, as opposed to whatever people say in the comment section, is a sad mistake.

      • Jake,
        Why do you suppose that allowing a post stating the facts about Obama’s insane, idiotic priorities makes this a “Republican” blog?
        Obama’s job approval rating in the 40s would not be possible if only Republicans objected to his unconstitutional misrule and disastrous economic policies.

      • Look, I am against Obama’s climate policy. “Stupid” and “dishonest” would be kind words. And there a bunch of other policies and actions of his that I either oppose or that don’t thrill me. My complaint is not that of an aggrieved liberal. I am every last bit as irritated by lefty tribalism. Independence is an ever-rarer quality, valued by fewer and fewer people.

      • Jake J,
        Apparently you missed my comment at 2:22 above.
        You write:
        … it’s Anthony Watts’s site. He gets to do whatever he wants.
        And you get to write whatever you want.
        Here’s what I see as your problem: This site has commenters from all along the political spectrum. Everyone gets their say. But it seems to bother you that the majority of commenters are conservative (you say “Republican”, but I’m not and never have been). Scientists in general tend to be more conservative. We think more logically than emotionally.
        And what’s a Republican, anyway? All it means is the way someone registered to vote in their county. It certainly doesn’t mean that readers are willing to rubber stamp anything the party says. I’ve never belonged to a political party. I vote for what I see as my best interest first, and my country’s best interest second. I don’t need that explained to me by a political party.
        You seem disgruntled. Why? If I didn’t know better I’d suspect that you’re from the left side of the spectrum, despite your disclaimers. If not, then I don’t understand. There are very few articles here that have anything to do with politics. And this was not even written by Anthony Watts, it’s a guest article. You are welcome to submit your own article if you like. What could be more fair than that? Why not do it, instead of complaining?
        I still don’t see what you’re unhappy about. If you don’t like this particular article, just skip it. MovOn. Or check out another blog. Because your complaints don’t make sense to me.

      • You guess I’m from the left side of the spectrum because you’re not accustomed to what was once the rule rather than the exception it’s become: that someone might apply a single standard of facts, analysis, and conduct to everyone, regardless of whether or not he might agree or disagree with their views.

      • Have you also noticed how political Judith Curry has recently become? She appears to have also become a part of the “Big Game of Installing a President” society.
        No, I haven’t. I am quite interested in the AGW issue, which I regard as a good example of our creeping social and intellectual dysfunction. But I can’t say that I track every skeptic. So has Curry started spouting tea party rhetoric or something?

      • To the extent that this site traffics in tribal propaganda, it will eventually become censored, just like the other ax-grinders of the Internet. You will laugh now, but you will see later.

  27. “First, CEQ uses US carbon dioxide emissions as proxy for climate change. This assumes CO2 is now the dominant factor in climate and weather events, and all the powerful natural forces that ruled in past centuries, millennia and eons are irrelevant. It presumes any increases in US “greenhouse gases” correlate directly with national and global climate and weather events, and any changes will be harmful”
    CO2 does everything!

  28. 13 April: Business Day, South Africa: Philip Lloyd: Why exactly are we buying into this exercise in futility?
    (Prof Lloyd is with the Energy Institute, Cape Peninsula University of Technology)
    ON APRIL 1 I received an invitation that I was convinced was a joke. Could I attend a Treasury meeting to consider a proposal to set up a huge bureaucracy to administer the running of all industry? Whatever else I knew about our government and its policies, I could not credit that we had stooped to the folly of central planning. I had had experience of Russia in its darkest days, when Moscow ran out of lady’s underwear (don’t ask me how I know!). Surely no-one of sound mind would wish to resuscitate that system?
    But no, it was not a joke. Our Treasury had hired Dutch consultants to advise on setting up a system to determine Z-factors, “to reward companies that have taken voluntary and early action to reduce their GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions”. This is eco-colonialism at its worst. Europe is struggling with its failed carbon trading system, which has cost it billions of euros in VAT fraud alone.
    The value of carbon has fallen to less than €7 a tonne, and is not expected to rise until at least 2020. At €7, not only have those who invested heavily when it was more than €20/t lost their shirts, but it now pays to build coal-fired power stations.
    According to The Guardian, “the Exchange Trading Scheme is experiencing a glut of more than 2-billion allowances as a result of factors including massive oversupply and recession”. Yet we are buying European services to tell us how to make the same mistake. The flaws in thinking are manifold. First, anything South African companies did to reduce their GHG emissions would be lost amid the surging emissions of other developing countries. Every year for the past 10 years, China’s and India’s carbon emissions have grown by an average of 520-million and 90-million tonnes respectively; SA’s carbon emissions in 2013 were 440-million tonnes.
    Second, the climate scam is in disarray…
    A study of Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) reports has shown that temperatures have indeed climbed due to human interference — by GHCN staff, who have “homogenised” historical data downwards and recent data upwards. Adjustments have artificially added about 0.35°C to the reported 0.8°C temperature rise.
    To add to the destruction of the carbon causes chaos theory, global temperatures had been warm but stable for the past 18 years, when theoretically it should have heated by another 1°C. Moreover, the “fingerprint” of climate change, the warming of the upper troposphere faster than the earth’s surface, has not happened. The Conference of Parties in Paris in November seems likely to make even less progress than 20 such summits that have gone before…
    All of this means that the rationale for curbing greenhouse gas emissions is weak at best. We have to ask whether it is sensible to set up a bureaucracy to licence industry…
    The point of licensing industry arises from the Department of Environmental Affairs’ White Paper “National Climate Change Response” 2011. This was based upon long-term mitigation scenarios, which should immediately warn any reader that the basis is flawed…
    It was in the light of this that the Treasury asked the eco-colonialists to draw up “benchmarks” and Z-factors against which individual industry emissions could be measured. A 255-page tome was prepared, covering iron and steel, ferroalloys, cement, petroleum, chemicals, pulp and paper, and sugar industries. Fortunately, perhaps, it is a case of Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus (Horace), because for most industries there are no data of any worth…
    What this means is that a carbon tax is an exercise in futility. A tax on energy is unlikely to have any impact on our carbon emissions. Have you seen any fewer 4x4s on our roads since they were taxed in the name of saving the planet? Have you used much less electricity because coal-sourced power is levied? What is more important — growing our economy or doing our insignificant bit to save the world from carbon chaos?
    http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/2015/04/13/why-exactly-are-we-buying-into-this-exercise-in-futility

  29. You got that PBO? “Pathetic” was the key word. Uncross those bony arms and get to work. You only have 21 months left and so far, a BIG FAIL s all you have.

  30. Obama’s energy policy, like Obamcare, is a tax. Obama’s push is towards socialism.
    Remember Economics 101
    When taxes are low the economy will grow. When taxes are high the economy will die.
    “Socialism means no toilet paper”.
    The whole system will fall apart when socialism means no vodka (in the old USSR) or no beer in the US.

  31. Meanwhile the UK Met Office is predicting unusually warm weather for the UK until July (Daily Telegraph 4/13/2015). Some people never tire of being wrong. But then again why would you if you’re never held to account. If past experience of UK Met Office predictions are anything to go by though I’d be battening down the hatches for the next two months if I lived in Britain.

  32. Now even the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is getting involved, by dramatically retooling the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA requires that federal agencies consider the impacts of their significant decision-making actions on “the quality of the human environment,” anytime they issue permits for projects, provide government funding or conduct the projects themselves. . .

    What the hell is this CEQ? Was it created by the NEPA in 1970? Time for Congress to sunset all these damned agencies and bureaucracies. With all these putative Presidential candidates popping up like mushrooms, let’s demand unequivocal statements from all of them that they will follow the 10th Amendment and return all but essential functions of the Federal government to the States, and to the People.
    /Mr Lynn

  33. @dbstealey
    You wrote:
    “That’s why I constantly ask alarmist posters a simple question: can you produce an empirical, testable, verifiable measurement quantifying the fraction of global warming attributable to human CO2 emissions?
    “That question has been asked dozens of times, but never once answered. If they cannot even measure what they’re talking about, it must be extremely small, no? And without measurements, no one can possibly prove that MMGW exists.”
    Yes, you’ve asked that before, and when I answered the thread was closed. Haven’t you figured out yet that it is simply not possible? I even left you these quotes from Curry and Monckton:
    Curry:
    “The CO2 no feedback sensitivity is an idealized concept; we cannot observe it or conduct such an experiment in the atmosphere. Hence, the CO2 no feedback sensitivity can only be calculated using models.”
    Monckton:
    We cannot measure total radiative forcing, with or without temperature feedbacks, because radiative and non-radiative atmospheric transfer processes combined with seasonal, latitudinal, and altitudinal variabilities defeat all attempts at reliable measurement.”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/25/the-collection-of-evidence-for-a-lower-climate-sensitivity-continues-to-grow-now-up-to-14-papers-lower-than-ipcc/

    • Well, since it’s not possible to measure it directly and since models have demonstrably failed, theory of CAGW can not be proven, and according to null theory concept should not be used for anything, correct?

      • Ok, so finally someone here who agrees with me that in fact it cannot be measured?
        One step at the time…The correctness of the models is a completely different issue.

      • SDK:
        Of course it can be measured. Curry and Monckton aren’t answering my specific question. But nice attempt at misdirection.
        The question of climate sensitivity is being constantly investigated, and that question has been debated for decades. But no one knows what the sensitivity number is, and the real world does not seem to agree with any sensitivity estimates except for Dr. Miskolczi, who has argued that it is zero.
        Can you follow simple logic? If we could measure the fraction of MMGW, we would know exactly what the climate sensitivity number is. That’s why so much money and effort is being directed toward finding that measurement.
        If the global temperature tracked the rise in human emitted CO2 (which we can measure very accurately), then we could reliably quantify the fraction of global warming attributable to human emissions. We would know exactly how much warming is natural, and the fraction of the total that is man-made. If global warming tracked 50% of the rise in human emissions, we would also have a verifiable measurement of AGW. That is why so many resources are devoted to finding measurements quantifying AGW.
        But no one has been able to produce such a measurement. There are two possibilities for that failure:
        First, MMGW is so small that it is unmeasureable. It is down in the noise, a third-order forcing swamped by larger second-order forcings, which are both swamped by first-order forcings. MMGW is so minuscule that it cannot be measured – thererefore it is inconsequential, and it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.
        Second possibility: MMGW is zero. I personally think that CO2 causes some minuscule warming. However, there are still no measurements, so we really don’t know, do we?
        Science is based on measurements. Thousands of well paid scientists have been searching for decades for a measurement quantifying AGW. If it was impossible, as you believe, then they are certainly wasting their time and our money, and their funding should have been cut off a long time ago.
        So you’d better trot back to SkS, or wherever you get your misinformation and talking points from, because your comment above is nonsense.

      • SDK,

        Ok, so finally someone here who agrees with me that in fact it cannot be measured?

        Strike while the iron is hot.

        One step at the time…The correctness of the models is a completely different issue.

        One of the better arguments for erring on the side of caution that I can think of. Or in the words of Willard: “Teh modulz are stoopid”.

  34. So we should ignore what the politicians are doing to advance the radical green agenda, just because you don’t like it when the politicians you support get criticized?

  35. They certainly go to great lengths to avoid helping the working class with real policy and progress. This administration’s tactic is the peace time equivalent of “Hit em where they aint.” Meanwhile agency operations are only recognized when a crisis boils over, as in the VA.

  36. To the few who are objecting to “politics” being discussed on WUWT I call BS.
    The marching left has ingrained politics into every one of their purposefully mendacious causes.
    It’s preposterous to demand their political movements go unchallenged as if there is some standard.
    The rancid politics involved in the AGW/CO2 boogeyman war should have been a prominent part of the skeptics battle all along.
    The feigned hyper-sensitivity to inclusion of political or partisan discussions is hypocritical.

    • There is plenty of science on WUWT – indeed for the general , not specialist , reader it is necessary to do a lot of additional reading around to find out what the specialists are saying on eg time series analysis , ocean circulation models , the kinetics of radiative transfer etc, etc.
      At times it is like being in a college tutorial session with the prof where everyone else seems to have done their background prep and you are lagging behind .
      The socio economic posts are a welcome relief some times.

  37. Since the CC meme became “settled science”, accepted by 97% of the cognoscenti, the US political class keep finding new uses for it. For example, scientists and others who have figured out that CAGW is and always was bogus, can be kept out of the mainstream of political and scientific life by inducing them to spend their time and intelligence writing comments on blogs. Most voters will never see or even here about the contents of these blogs or comments. I’m glad I’m too intelligent to ever get sidetracked like this ….um ……er

  38. Among the “other agencies,” NASA and the Department of the Interior are both pushing the “97% of climate scientists” claim.
    NASA:

    Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

    National Park Service:

    A recent survey of climatologists reveals that 97% of those scientists think that global climate change is occurring presently and that human activity is the primary cause…
    Let’s be clear. Climate change is happening all around us, and human activities are accelerating it. The evidence is overwhelming, and the theory of global warming is sound. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which conducted the survey above, consists of thousands of scientists from all over the world who specialize in difference aspects of climate science. A separate study by the National Academy of the Sciences drew the same conclusions.

    • Ooops, you got it wrong National Park Service. You might want to check your facts again:
      “…only 64 papers out of 11,944, a dizzying 0.5%, as endorsing the “consensus…”. – This has been proven over and over again. Lets get it right – maybe some of the smart Park Rangers can correct some of these fallacies..
      This junk science is in every National Park and National Monument website and brochure and other literature!

  39. “In a nation of 320 million people, American businesses hired only 126,000 workers in March, amid a pathetic 62% labor participation rate. Wages and incomes are stagnant”
    To put this in perspective, approximately 100,000 new workers are attempting to enter the job market each month. So that leaves 26,000 net jobs. That is a REAL CRISIS.

  40. It should be seamless over reach for Hillary while staying with soft, easy topics during the campaign. The real agenda comes later and stamped with voter approval too in the first of many reality warps.

  41. EPA has targeted power plants that emit barely 3% of all mercury in US air and water, saying this will prevent IQ losses of an undetectable “0.00209 points.”

    Can you point to a more reliable source than a newspaper for the 3% claim?
    The official number is 50%. See: http://www.epa.gov/mats/powerplants.html
    Besides I think an average IQ loss of 0.00209 points is substantial since the base for the average is the whole population of 320 million people.
    Everyone will not be equally affected you know. Most people won’t be affected at all but some will be.
    If one in ten thousand people is affected with 20.9 IQ points, and the rest are not affected at all, the average would still be 0.00209 points.
    One in ten thousand of 320 million is 32 000 people, reduced from being intelligent to rather slow, for lifetime.
    In addition there are Co-benefits such as also reducing particles and it is the feeling of security.
    For instance, I love to go fishing and take the fish home and serve it to my family, but I hate the nagging feeling that I may also poison my grandchildren with some mercury.
    /Jan

    • Jan, the statement is linked. it is total source of mercury, including NATURAL. Also the IQ link is not based on an average per capitia decline, but on an unscientific WAG of what the plus 3% to natural exposure will do to individuals based on a false linear projection of mercury harms.

      • Not based on average per capita decline?
        The only link given is to a newspaper article which says that the emission cuts will reduce the average per person IQ loss
        Do you have any other sources?
        And do you have any reliable sources saying that if we include the natural sources the emissions for the power plants is only 3%?
        /Jan

  42. Would it be possibe to use the regulation to stop any new ethanol plant or to put up windmills.
    Just a humble thaught.

  43. Hear, hear! I agree. I come to this site for data and the analysis of data — not political screeds. However, I’d also like to point out that Obama relies on his Science Advisor, John Holdren, for the information he uses for his policy decisions. Holdren is firmly in the man-made climate change camp (as are, I’m afraid, the majority of climate scientists). And why would Obama ever be exposed to contradictory views, when the media (which is largely owned by Corporate America plays up the climate change fears to get readers). Anyway, your battle is with scientists, not with the politicians who listen to the scientists.
    I would say that lefties are innately more trusting of scientists than righties. This, I will grant you, is weakness when it comes to seeking climate change advice. But I suspect a large proportion on the current Republican candidates would happily claim that the Earth was created in 4004 BC to kowtow to their fundamentalist base.

    • beowulf888

      I would say that lefties are innately more trusting of scientists than righties. This, I will grant you, is weakness when it comes to seeking climate change advice. But I suspect a large proportion on the current Republican candidates would happily claim that the Earth was created in 4004 BC to kowtow to their fundamentalist base.

      You lie.
      NO Republican candidate has EVER used that claim, nor HAS any Republican candidate ever had to pretend to make such a claim for his or her base. We are more intelligent, more informed than the liberal/democrat tell-me-what-to-do-voters.

    • Your suspicion is wrong.
      Even Huckabee won’t happily claim to know when the earth was created.

      I doubt that even a single GOP candidate in 2016 will be a bona fide Young Earth Creationist. Huckabee’s view resembles Jimmy Carter’s.

    • The only president with even a BS in a scientific discipline was Hoover’s geology degree from Stanford.
      Lying, World War II draft-evading, scumbag megalomaniac Carter claimed to be a “nuclear physicist”, when all the jerk ever did was attend the Navy’s nuclear reactor program.

  44. Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:

    Further proof the EPA is the most dangerous thing on earth. (And the CEQ.)
    Regulation at all government levels is a cancer. It is eating our country and our society. We must reverse it and rid ourselves of the regulatory agencies now, or it will be too late before we can do anything about it. Regulation is the greatest threat to all of us.

  45. When the Berlin Wall was torn down, everyone thought that that would be the end of those authoritarian tendencies that came out of Moscow, USSR. How wrong everyone was.
    Ronald Reagan must now be turning in his grave watching his beloved America adopting the flawed global warming doctrine … because he would know that, today, the greatest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity that he worked so hard for, is no longer socialism or communism but, rather, the ambitious, arrogant, and unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism. And Obama has become its greatest disciple. What Tom Cruise is to the Church of Scientology, Obama is to the “Church of Dangerous Man-Made Global Warming”.

  46. “When will our Congress, courts and state legislatures step up to the plate, do their jobs, and rein in this long Train of Abuses and Usurpations?”
    I guess you missed the fact that the President heads what is called The Executive Branch of government. You might want to study up on it – it’s important. As the head of the Executive Branch, he gets quite a bit of say in how that branch of government functions.
    Just like George Bush did before him. And please note the rather large number of Executive Directives Bush wrote – many of them in complete contradiction for the law of the land. Did you miss that? No, I’m e wrote – many of them in complete disregard for the law of the land. Did you miss that?
    No, I’m sure you did not, and you wrote fervently and publicly against it. Because politics doesn’t play a role in your objective analyses, as anyone can see by your gratuitous references to ISIS when speaking of President Obama.
    Good grief, man. Founding fathers rhetoric in a hatchet job?

  47. The MATS regulation is a tough decision for the Supreme Court. On one hand you have that the MATS regulation make the electricity from coal more expensive, on the other hand you have that Mercury make our kids dumber.
    But back to the first again, clever kids can be quite annoying, the slow one are easier to handle. I guess that makes it.
    /Jan

  48. Mr. Driessen makes a compelling case for the proposition that the president of the U.S. is a nitwit in key respects. He is a graduate of the highly ranked law school at Harvard University where he held the prestigious position of editor of the law review. Subsequently he was hired as a professor by the highly ranked law school at the University of Chicago. He is articulate and charming and comes across as unusually bright yet the basis for his position on global warming is pseudoscientific rather than scientific. He has fallen for an argument that is emotional rather than logical. This is not the mark of an intelligent person.

Comments are closed.