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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

246 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
asybot
April 12, 2015 7:43 pm

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.)

Reply to  asybot
April 12, 2015 9:09 pm

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.

April 12, 2015 7:47 pm

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).

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
April 12, 2015 8:07 pm

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.

markl
Reply to  kokoda
April 12, 2015 8:21 pm

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

Mark and two Cats
Reply to  kokoda
April 12, 2015 8:35 pm

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.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  kokoda
April 12, 2015 8:36 pm

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.

Chris in Hervey Bay.
April 12, 2015 8:43 pm

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 ??

icouldahad
Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay.
April 13, 2015 7:02 pm

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.

Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay.
April 13, 2015 9:42 pm

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.

April 12, 2015 9:09 pm

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.

Chris in Hervey Bay.
Reply to  dbstealey
April 12, 2015 9:20 pm

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.

Chris in Hervey Bay.
Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay.
April 12, 2015 9:29 pm

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 !!

Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay.
April 12, 2015 11:19 pm

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!!

Chris in Hervey Bay.
Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay.
April 12, 2015 11:46 pm

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

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay.
April 13, 2015 4:40 pm

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

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay.
April 13, 2015 4:41 pm

DB,
Sheridan was no gentleman. He was a psychopath.

Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay.
April 13, 2015 8:10 pm

Catherine Ronconi,
In those days they all acted as gentlemen and ladies. Whether they were or not.

Chris in Hervey Bay.
Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay.
April 14, 2015 12:09 am

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.

icouldahad
Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay.
April 14, 2015 7:58 am

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.

icouldahad
Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay.
April 14, 2015 8:08 am

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.

mikewaite
Reply to  dbstealey
April 13, 2015 9:30 am

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

Reply to  dbstealey
April 13, 2015 8:11 pm

j.peter,
It’s a real shame you can’t finish a sentence. ☺

April 12, 2015 9:23 pm

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.
~ Voltaire

SAMURAI
April 12, 2015 9:26 pm

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….

Reply to  SAMURAI
April 13, 2015 1:45 am

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

April 12, 2015 9:38 pm

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?

April 12, 2015 9:45 pm

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.

Reply to  Pippen Kool
April 12, 2015 10:22 pm

Pippen Kool,
Back again, eh? Are you a masochist? Anyway…
The EPA is deliberately gutting the country’s power plants:comment image
When you see your utility bills escalate — and they will — the blame must be laid right at the feet of your HE-RO:
http://www.moonbattery.com/greatest-president-evah.jpg
Too bad the rest of us have to pay the price.
But we can always dream:
http://www.moonbattery.com/outsourced-big.jpg

Michael
Reply to  dbstealey
April 13, 2015 2:01 am

I also note that the EPA have requested in excess of $50 billion in the 2016 U.S budget to fight lawsuits against it’s Clean Power Act. It seems to be that the simplest way to neuter them would be to deny therm this funding,and tell them to fight the lawsuit using their own funds,as they decided that they could win a potential lawsuit against their act,after being advised that it appeared to be a violation of the U.S constitution on numerous issues.

Andrew N
April 12, 2015 11:15 pm

“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.

tango
April 12, 2015 11:38 pm

please forgive him as he does not know what day it is

Bryan
April 13, 2015 12:13 am

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?

Reply to  Bryan
April 13, 2015 1:53 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  markstoval
April 13, 2015 8:17 am

Ms Clinton is far to the left on even the most moderate Republican running.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  markstoval
April 13, 2015 12:01 pm

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.

Reply to  markstoval
April 13, 2015 1:00 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Bryan
April 13, 2015 8:16 am

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.

Patrick
Reply to  Bryan
April 13, 2015 10:37 pm

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

Jake J
April 13, 2015 12:29 am

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.]

Reply to  Jake J
April 13, 2015 4:22 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Jake J
April 13, 2015 8:18 am

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.

Jake J
Reply to  Jake J
April 13, 2015 2:06 pm

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

Reply to  Jake J
April 13, 2015 2:22 pm

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.]

Jake J
Reply to  Jake J
April 13, 2015 3:57 pm

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.

Jake J
Reply to  Jake J
April 13, 2015 4:06 pm

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.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  Jake J
April 13, 2015 4:27 pm

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.

Jake J
Reply to  Jake J
April 13, 2015 4:42 pm

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.

Reply to  Jake J
April 13, 2015 4:58 pm

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.

Reply to  Jake J
April 13, 2015 7:37 pm

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.

Jake J
Reply to  Jake J
April 13, 2015 8:08 pm

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.

Jake J
Reply to  Jake J
April 14, 2015 8:42 pm

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?

Reply to  Jake J
April 13, 2015 9:46 pm

Jake……Anything of importance is political.

Jake J
Reply to  kokoda
April 13, 2015 11:00 pm

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.

Robertvd
April 13, 2015 1:11 am

The land of the free and the home of the brave.
https://youtu.be/5yWjrp1zr1s

Pointman
April 13, 2015 2:24 am

Obama is trying to circumvent congress and the constitution, and that degradation of the Office of the President is being resisted by the likes of Laurence Tribe, who’ll pay the price.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/the-curious-case-of-laurence-tribe/
Pointman

Admad
April 13, 2015 2:34 am

“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!

pat
April 13, 2015 2:45 am

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

April 13, 2015 3:42 am

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.

Walt D.
April 13, 2015 3:57 am

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.

Editor
April 13, 2015 4:16 am

The lack of intelligence of the deluded left wing is summarised by the slogan that has appeared on Facebook for the party faithful to show to the world: https://www.facebook.com/labourparty/photos/a.249540562410.149481.25749647410/10152699033667411/?type=1

Chris Lynch
April 13, 2015 4:36 am

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.

Reply to  Chris Lynch
April 13, 2015 4:56 am

This is the same Met Office that predicted Easter would be a wash-out, the very opposite happened!

April 13, 2015 5:59 am

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

SDK
April 13, 2015 6:45 am


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/

Udar
Reply to  SDK
April 13, 2015 6:57 am

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?

SDK
Reply to  Udar
April 13, 2015 7:11 am

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.

Reply to  Udar
April 13, 2015 12:01 pm

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.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Udar
April 13, 2015 8:52 pm

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”.

MarkW
April 13, 2015 7:51 am

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?

Resourceguy
April 13, 2015 8:09 am

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.

Steve Oregon
April 13, 2015 8:15 am

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.

mikewaite
Reply to  Steve Oregon
April 13, 2015 9:39 am

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.