Supreme Court puts Obama’s “climate saving” power plant regulations on hold

From the skeptics and common sense win one department…

Tanner Creek Power Station in Lawrenceburg, IN - closed in 2015 by new EPA regulations. Photo by A. Watts

Tanner’s Creek Power Station in Lawrenceburg, IN – closed in 2015 by new EPA regulations. Photo by A. Watts

A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday abruptly halted President Obama’s controversial new power plant regulations, dealing a blow to the administration’s sweeping plan to address global warming.

In a 5-4 decision, the court halted enforcement of the plan until after legal challenges are resolved.

The surprising move is a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents that call the regulations “an unprecedented power grab.”

By temporarily freezing the rule the high court’s order signals that opponents have made a strong argument against the plan. A federal appeals court last month refused to put it on hold.

The court’s four liberal justices said they would have denied the request.

The plan aims to stave off the worst predicted impacts of climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions at existing power plants by about one-third by 2030.

Appellate arguments are set to begin June 2.

Full story here (h/t to Charles Rotter)

188 thoughts on “Supreme Court puts Obama’s “climate saving” power plant regulations on hold

  1. Thank You, Lord.

    (Well, I prayed. And given the greed and l1es we are up against, prayer is our best weapon.)

      • God has a plan for us. And He is rolling it out before our eyes. He has raised up a new POTUS for us, choice among men, with balls of steel. And Trump will become President. And Gina McCarthy shall kneel at his feet, as he speaks the words “Gina, you’re fired!”. And the scourge of climate alarmism shall be laid low, and trampled under foot, and shall be gone from the earth. And lo, the power grid shall be restored to it’s celestial glory. Amen.

    • You may be right. I come here daily and wonder whether there’s such a thing as Karma or a God who tires of endless lies to the detriment of poor people and other AGW victims. Alas, God has no sense of urgency.

      • God has his own perfect time table. And He knew we are all so wicked, that he appointed His Son to die for our sins.

      • True, Mr. Kafkazar. God is never in a hurry. But, God is always right on time.

        God has not intervened to stop the socialist juggernaut in the U.S., yet…, “… ‘But I have been watching!’declares the Lord.” (Jeremiah 7:11)

        God watched the anguish and horrors of slavery in the U.S. for a long time. And then, Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States. And God said, “Enough.”

        Take heart, O Battle-weary Truth-in-Science Warriors!

        Truth — will — win.

        Pharaoh’s army did NOT slaughter the escaping Israelites…. slavery in the west finally ended…. women did get the right to vote…. the Third Reich isn’t …. the USSR didn’t “bury” the west …. the Berlin Wall fell…. we now treat stomach ulcers with antibiotics….

        In the end, truth wins, every time.

        Truth is marching on.

        CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED. :)

      • You know, paraphrasing some of the comments above and transliterating the Arabic version, we’d have:
        allahu akbar!

        This is, in my opinion, an odd place to wave the banner of religious conviction.

      • Hey, Mebbe,

        At 4:58pm today, I simply stated:

        1. My gratitude
        2. Why I was grateful

        You don’t know my writing on WUWT very well, apparently…… “BANNER WAVING??!”

        YOU WANT “BANNER WAVING??!!”

        That post may be what mebbe would do (with his or her own heartfelt message) to wave a banner, but it most certainly wasn’t Janice “banner waving.”

        I wonder why it bothered you enough to write about it, though…

        Well, I’ll leave that to God to handle (iow: pray for you :) ).

        Janice

      • Janice,
        What on earth made you think I was alluding to your comment?

        Surely, you won’t quarrel with my pointing out that all languages have their own way of saying “god is great!”

        I am very gratified that you are now wondering and not waving.

      • Janice Moore February 9, 2016 at 8:32 pm

        You are being set up.
        mebbe February 9, 2016 at 8:12 pm

        Coptic Catholics speak Arabic, “God is Great” goes back to the time of the carpenter son.

        The phrase was borrowed- stolen.

        twentieth century use -properly…. Allah Akbar Haile Selassie ! (Ethiopia vs fascist Italy)

        michael

      • Please, everyone,
        Leave religious beliefs (whatever side you may bat for) out of this discussion.
        This is a site that sticks to science and not belief. Let’s keep it that way.

        BTW Janice, typing in bold and caps, quoting the bible, and liberally sprinkling exclamation marks across a comment is definitely banner waving. You have many good things to say from which I’ve learnt a lot during my time at WUWT, but keep it rational and calm. Remember: talk softly and carry a big stick – the stick being the stick of scientific knowledge.

      • David Smith on February 10, 2016 at 7:49 am

        “Please, everyone,
        Leave religious beliefs (whatever side you may bat for) out of this discussion.
        This is a site that sticks to science and not belief. Let’s keep it that way.

        BTW Janice, typing in bold and caps, quoting the bible, and liberally sprinkling exclamation marks across a comment is definitely banner waving. [. . .]”

        David Smith,

        You have made a reasonable appeal to commenters to focus on the basis of science focused on climate versus focus on religious beliefs. I think WUWT benefits from self-discipline in that regards.

        I think the exception is when a religious aspect is offered up in a WUWT lead post.

        John

      • Dear David Smith,

        If you now realize that you do not always like what “Janice Moore” says in her comments, then, just don’t read them. Why is quoting part of one Bible verse (on point, by the way, so, perfectly rational) so upsetting to you that you felt the need to rebuke me?

        Your annoyance at my comment was very rational, no doubt.

        Janice
        **********************************

        Dear Mebbe,

        You: “…comments above …” — two of those comments above yours were mine. You are either posturing or pretty limited in your ability to read English to not realize why I thought you might be addressing me.

        Janice

        ***************************

        Dear Michael (not a),

        Thank you.

        Janice

      • emsnews, you really shouldn’t comment on the beliefs of Christians until you actually take the time to learn what they are.

      • As a Christian, I looked at Janice’ (and other people’s ‘spiritual’ talk) as humor nearing sacrilegious – but still humorous. If we have to kick humor off this site, Josh is gone. Ease up a little, guys! I sure as hell won’t be thanking the SCOTUS when they eventually rule for the EPA!

      • SCOTUS already ruled for EPA when they decline to intercede against EPA classifying CO2 a “dangerous pollutant”.

    • Hello Janice
      Thanks for the posting tip, will use it from now on.

      My big problem now is trying to convince my 16r old son about the science but it gets pushed down his throat so much by is school it his very much an uphill battle, he thinks I am nuts LOL take care

      • Hi, Kyle,

        You’re welcome — glad you found it useful.

        Take heart in the fact that 16-year-olds disregard a lot of what their parents say….. at the time. It’s getting through, though, dad. All you can do is plant the seeds, for now. And let it go. He’ll figure it out. The facts against AGW speak quite loudly for themselves and he will not be able to ignore them forever.

        And, someday, he will realize what a great guy his dad is (and was). He respects you far more than you (and, perhaps, at this point, even he) know. Mostly, now, it won’t be what you say to him. Mostly he is “hearing” how you live. That has earned you his respect. Later, because he respects and admires (oh, yes, truly, he does) you, he will take very seriously the words you said.

        Good for you to do what you can to give him the facts!

        You take care, too,

        Janice

    • Believing in prayer to a god to fix your a perceived problem is the same as believing in climate models giving us the fix to our overheated planet. But if it makes you feel better then OK just don’t ask me to believe along with you.

    • Imagine the outcome had just one more Supreme Court justice retired in last couple of years. Elections matter.

      • What came to mind was the axis of evil – Obama the EPA and the Democratic party’ yes we can slip the UN into that rotten group!

    • The 4 are a liberal voting block. They always vote as a block. At least the other 5 now and then break ranks and actually take a look at the law. It depresses me that the Supreme Court has become just another politicized wing of government, the law be damned.

      • Science and the Constitution should have been buried beside each other after their untimely deaths at the hands of a government that is here to help us from ourselves.

        At least we could pay our respects to them.

      • The upsetting thing to me is that “the four” pay no regard to the Constitution, but rather what they feel is “good for the country” (in their opinion of course) based on present (and ever changing) mores. (Definition of marriage, and government run healthcare are just two examples). That role of course is assigned to the Congress as part of their law making responsibilities.
        One justice even believes the US should consider “foreign and international law” including LEGAL BLOGS in their decisions.

    • Nah, we long ago slipped off that edge and are glissading freely down the blade. Every now and then though an imperfection throws up a spurious positive result.

    • In the first ObamaCare ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the penalty for not having sufficient insurance is both a tax and not a tax at the same time.

      • What Roberts said was the penalty was indeed a tax and only Congress can change tax laws. Hint, Hint to Republicans: change that tax to $0.

      • If it’s a tax, then the bill is unconstitutional since it originated in the senate. Tax bills have to originate in the house.

    • Barely. A 5 to 4 decision.

      And who knows maybe Obama will pass a presidential ruling that the White House only has to follow Supreme court decisions he agrees with. Or maybe he’ll call CO2 emissions terrorism and invoke his granted executive powers in fighting terrorism. Sure that sounds stupid, but unilaterally creating legislation through the White House is kind of stupid too and he did it anyway.

      • Or he’ll order a false flag attack on the White House, declare martial law, and issue an executive order naming himself Obama The First.

      • Jorge, right from day one I’ve been expecting Obama to manipulate the law in such a way that he was able to crown himself Chancellor, or King. I’m yet to be convinced he’ll leave office after the elections.

      • At this point it seems appropriate to recall a speech by one of America’s Founding Fathers (emphasis on the parts that seem to apply to the instant situation):

        “This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Your President may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue forever unchangeably this government, although horridly defective. Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest, that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world, from the eastern to the western hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad?

        “Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.

        “If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design; and, sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens?

        “I would rather infinitely — and I am sure most of this Convention are of the same opinion — have a king, lords, and commons, than a government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a king, we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them; but the President, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke.

        “I cannot with patience think of this idea. If ever he violates the laws, one of two things will happen: he will come at the head of his army, to carry every thing before him; or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him.

        “If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne?

        “Will not the immense difference between being master of every thing, and being ignominiously tried and punished, powerfully excite him to make this bold push?

        “But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition? Away with your President! We shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch: your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?

        ~ Patrick Henry, Virgina Ratifying Convention: June 5, 1788

      • Do realize, don’t you, that none of our “presidents” have the gray matter nor the latitude to come up with this stuff? Look yonder behind the curtain and you’ll see the money masters pulling the levers and posting the teleprompters. It has been so since Woodrow Wilson sold his soul to these financial devils for their bankrolling and guaranteeing him the presidency, in exchange for an unconstitutional (Congress had the constitutional mandate to coin our currency. Why Andrew Jackson threw them out and Lincoln printed green backs) “right” for them to establish a 100-year charter for a federal reserve bank in the U.S.. Congress renewed their charter in 2013 with nary a peep. Presidents between Wilson and our next have simply been front men, town criers, carnival barkers, and lightening rods (e.g. the attempted rescue of the Iranian hostages on Carter’s watch) when things went wrong.

      • @dbstealey. Thanks for the enlightening post on Patrick Henry. We do live under a government with insufficient checks on Executive Power. 34 of 100 Senators can allow the President to rule despotically with a pen and a phone.

        I note that the 12 Amendments in the Bill of Rights (of which 10 were ratified) were sent to the states for approval in August of 1789, 13 months after Patrick Henry’s warning. Ironically, Virginia’s legislature was the last to ratify the amendments on December 15, 1791.

      • Wrusssr February 9, 2016 at 8:26 pm
        Hi
        “Do realize, don’t you, that none of our “presidents” have the gray matter nor the latitude to come up with this stuff ”
        Ah how many of the members of the constitutional convention became, oh Presidents?
        Oh and who were the first two presidential candidates to speak before teleprompters?

        Wilson? give me a break, he was crushed in Congress over the League treaty. Who led the oppression?and why. No modern revisionism,please but the real reason.
        If you don’t know off the top of your head maybe you should look to your own “grey matter”

        michael

      • I despise Obama as much as the next guy, however liberals were saying the same thing about Bush just a few years ago.

      • re: dbstealey February 9, 2016 at 8:00 pm

        A great reminder of why we have the 2nd Amendment and why those in power constantly work to get rid of it.

    • The SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) is supposed to provide the third side of the checks and balances of power for our Constitutional Republic. The problem is that Democrats always pack it with judges who have no intention of following the Constitution (either it’s original intent or even a modicum of reasonable interpretation). Supreme Court justices serve for life.

      Justice Sotomayer was chosen by President Obama because she is a liberal Latino woman, not because she has any skill and impartiality at jurisprudence. Quotes from Justice Sotomayor are quite revealing.

      “Until we get equality in education, we won’t have an equal society.”

      “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

      “I strive never to forget the real world consequences of my decisions on individuals, businesses and government.”

      Justice Elena Kagen was chosen by President Obama because she is a liberal gay woman, and again not because she has any skill and impartiality (or even any real legal experience) at jurisprudence. She was put on the court to ensure states are forced to accept same-sex marriage rather than decide themselves as the Constitution provides and because she helped write the Affordable Healthcare Act (which is an absolute disaster) and would then be in the tank to ensure it would be deemed constitutional.

      Justice Ginsburg, a Clinton appointee, has displayed no penchant for impartiality in any decision. Some key quotes:

      “Women will only have true equality when men share with them the responsibility of bringing up the next generation.”

      “The state controlling a woman would mean denying her full autonomy and full equality.”

      “I said on the equality side of it, that it is essential to a woman’s equality with man that she be the decision-maker, that her choice be controlling.”

      Finally, Justice Breyer, another Clinton appointee, is also a sure vote for any democrat cause that comes up before the court.

      If Hillary Clinton wins the 2016 election for US President, kiss the Constitution goodbye forever.

      Yes, elections matter.

  2. The best practical argument is that it is ridiculous for power plants to spend billions of dollars to start long term compliance modifications when the rule is only good until the next president is elected. It was ridiculous for Obama to push this kind of action without force of law thru Congress in the first place, but for Obama ridiculous is par for the course.

    What is hard to understand is how the federal appeals court and 4 Supreme court justices could not see the obvious practical issue but also the troubling constitutional issue; laws need to be legislated in Congress not the White House. The founders had a good idea with 3 separate but equal branches of government, don’t see any reason to start giving up on that.

    • Actually, once the EPA was allowed to claim CO2 was a pollutant, all the ill advised power of the clean air act gives EPA carte blanche to run roughshod over anything and anyone. Only if the SCOTUS overturns the clean air act itself will this improve. Right now the EPA interprets the act as giving them a free hand. Despite the 4th amendment’s explicit limitations on what the government can do with private property, the EPA feels justified in removing all economic value to lands they feel are “polluting”. They don’t even feel held to fair and just compensation when they de facto (if not de jure) take someone’s property.

      SCOTUS has an opportunity no previous court has had to overturn major portions of the clean air act because this administration chose to go all in on totalitarian control via the clean air and clean water acts rather than proceed with the usual death of a thousand cuts the previous administrations used. Freedom will eventually fall to the death of a thousand cuts, but a major blow will rile the victim up to fight back. When the pain is kept below the threshold, no one challenges it and tyranny creeps in. Too much, too quickly and we take notice.

      There are 4th and 10th amendment arguments that could beat this law if the court is not swayed by the “for the children” rhetoric and instead proceeds strictly on the constitution. Congress could rewrite it in a manner to make it less prone to abuse, but they probably won’t and this president would just veto it if they did anyway.

      • Wow. There there ya go then – the 4th and the 10th. Done deal. Good. Sounds convincing, but might you elaborate (for those world citizens among us)?

      • You caught me. I moved a clause from the 5th amendment to the 4th. It is actually the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution that requires the federal government to only take property for public good with just compensation to the property owners. This rule takes the value from a couple of billion dollars of power plants from the shareholders without compensation thus violates that amendment. Texas in particular has a very good 10th amendment argument since their electric grid is not connected to any other state, thus their grid can not be regulated under the interstate commerce clause, leaving the power to regulate that utility to the state or to the people as prescribed in the 10th amendment.

        The National Archives of the US has a nice resource at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html. The top is the actual proposed bill of rights consisting of 12 proposed amendments. The bottom is the actual passed Bill of Rights consisting of the 10 amendments Americans are familiar with. (The first two proposed amendments, dealing with number of legislators and how to deal with votes for pay raises were not passed)

      • Owen,

        Minor correction. “In 1992, 203 years after it was proposed, Article 2 was ratified as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution.” Sometimes the wheels of government roll slowly!

  3. This means that, while the case is pending, the Court will permit us to exhale. Knife edge indeed, Marlowe.

  4. Canadian Joke of the Year !!

    Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and her driver were cruising home along a country road, in Southern Ontario one evening when an old cow loomed in front of the car. The driver tried to avoid it , but couldn’t. The aged cow was struck and killed. Premier Wynne told her driver to go up to the farmhouse and explain to the owners what had happened and pay them for the cow. She stayed in the car making phone calls.
    About an hour later the driver staggered back to the car with his clothes in disarray. He was holding a half-empty bottle of expensive wine in one hand, a huge Cuban cigar in the other, and was smiling happily, smeared with lipstick.
    “What happened to you?,” asked Kathleen.
    “Well,” the driver replied, “the farmer gave me the cigar, his wife gave me the wine, and their beautiful twin daughters made passionate love to me.”
    “What did you tell them?” asked Premier Wynne.
    The driver replied, “I just stepped inside the door and said, ‘I’m Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne’s driver and I’ve just killed the old cow.’ The rest happened so fast I couldn’t stop it.”

  5. good…I hope these plants get the retrofits they need and the opportunity to do so…would be so much work upgrading current plants or converting to natural gas

  6. I’ve heard one legal theory that of all the EPA rules this one most approximates a “taking.” If that holds then the Feds would need to compensate all the utilities for unused capacity. The problem, from an administrative law standpoint, is that the EPA cannot come up with the funds without approval of Congress.

    Of course there are four commies who don’t think anything is a “taking,” and Kennedy and Roberts have both been know to invent some twisted logic to support rules by other admin agencies. So let’s see.

    My alternative theory is that Bernie Sanders wins the Dem nomination and becomes road-kill for Cruz or Trump, or maybe, if we all tithe and go to church twice a week, John Kasich.

    • My alternative theory is that Bernie Sanders wins the Dem nomination and becomes road-kill for Cruz or Trump, or maybe, if we all tithe and go to church twice a week, John Kasich.

      I’m not willing to bet money on any outcome. How about Bloomberg comes out of nowhere and clobbers them all. Can this election get any stranger? Sure it can.

    • if we all tithe and go to church twice a week, John Kasich.

      That will certainly help whichever church you choose, but, like prayer, won’t have any other effect.

  7. This is why you Vote. Presidents pick who will fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. A President will always have to balance different voter issues (pander) Supreme Court Justices do not.
    We may not always agree with their rulings, but they do tend to fellow the Constitution.
    As for those Justices who voted no. It was a “throw away” They could be political without risking the constitution. 5 beats 4

    Note Chief Justice Roberts vote on Obama Care. He took the heat, because it is not up to the court to write the laws. Only interpret their Constitutionality
    Vote

    michael

      • Joe Born,

        You mischaracterize Michael D. (not a morlock)’s assertion. Any scientist, looking at the data of SCOTUS decisions would say that there IS a “trend” of meaningful significance for its following the Constitution of the United States of America. You take anomalies and make THEM the trend. Michael D. is correct.

        Janice

    • He took the heat, because it is not up to the court to write the laws.

      but he didn’t even do that correctly.

      He did rewrite the law. The administration repeatedly argued that the individual mandate was not a tax. The Roberts majority opinion says it is so a tax.

      from Forbes…
      “The irony is that Roberts didn’t have to rewrite the statute in order to issue a judicially minimalist opinion. He could have done what the Obama administration asked him to do: if the individual mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, also sever the law’s guaranteed-issue and community rating provisions, and leave the rest of the law intact.

      Instead, he invented out of whole cloth a new definition of taxation that contravenes long-standing precedent. He added hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit, by way of his Medicaid ruling. And he forever tarnished his legacy as a Justice, and his promise to the nation that he would serve as an umpire, and “remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.””

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/07/01/the-supreme-courts-john-roberts-changed-his-obamacare-vote-in-may/#2715e4857a0b434fb9dc7c4c

      It won’t be very many years before we find out the rest of the story. I suspect we’ll find some nefarious behind the scenes blackmail going on. Someone high up found some juicy dirt on Roberts and he protected himself and wrote the most tortured opinion since the late 1930’s to support the ACA.

      Goodbye Constitution. Nice known’ ya’

    • It is not the Supreme Courts job to fix unpopular laws.

      Joe Born February 9, 2016 at 8:07 pm
      That was a good one. Who writes your material?
      So have you voiced your displeasure with The Chief Justice? Or do you just try to be clever with me?

      Boulder Skeptic February 9, 2016 at 8:19 pm
      You still have a constitution because of the court. They look just as much for reasons to state a law is valid as not. In the end can the public remedy a bad law. If the majority wants an unpopular law it is not the courts responsibility to over rule them unless it violates the constitution.

      Vote.

      michael

    • In the ObamaCare law, the court declared that the law as written made no sense, so they decided that what was passed couldn’t have been what congress meant and ruled based on what congress should have passed.

  8. This 5-4 decision highlights how critical it is that Republicans pick the strongest candidate for the nomination.
    If the Democrats get 4 or 8 more years, they will be able to pack the Supreme Court with activist justices and it will alter the course of the country for decades to come.

  9. Anthony — Shout out. My phone is out of commission and I can’t access my email. But for some reason I can get here.

    I’ll get in touch as soon as I can.

  10. There are 27 states out of 50 states who legally, culturally and economically oppose ‘The Clean Power Plan’ of the executive branch of the Obama Administration.

    An objectively beautiful wonder to behold! Somewhere underneath the thick smothering layer of the national media’s climate hype there are people, in the majority of the states, using applied reasoning to see through the hype to reality.

    John

      • And this is why, since Reagan began the overspending, both GOP and DNC Presidents do the same. I know many here are right wingers but really, get in touch with history once and a while.

      • As I recall Reagan’s proposed budgets were declared dead on arrival in the Democrat controlled congress. All but one of his eight proposed budgets were for less spending than the ones finally approved and thus required by law to be executed.

      • Oh, and this explains why right wingers hate Carter who dis NOT run up a huge deficit like Reagan and both Bushes as well as the Clintons.

      • emsnews, why don’t you learn a little actual history.
        It’s congress that passes the budget, and in Reagan’s time the Democrats owned the congress lock, stock, and barrel.

      • It was the Republican congress that balanced the budget while Clinton was in office.
        I love the way socialists actually believe that the president runs the country and all other offices simply don’t matter.

      • MarkW February 10, 2016 at 9:59 am

        “It was the Republican congress that balanced the budget while Clinton was in office”

        And who was the Budget Committee chairman who authored that budget? John Kasich

    • Marcus on February 9, 2016 at 6:36 pm

      Socialism is great, until they run out of OTHER peoples money !

      Marcus,

      It is arguably true that the US Federal government has long since started spending mostly other people’s money who are yet to be born. The unborn have no voice in the US Federal government.

      We can, using applied reasoning, separate politicians who want government to play a significantly larger and more central role in all aspects of our culture versus those who want to significantly shrink the role. Somewhere in there is clearly collectivism’s target.

      John

      • All the dollars are created through the authority of the government which is controlled by the people. The government can never run out of other people’s money. The economic and financial system are already completely dominated by the government. The only question is who is benefiting from that massive concentration of power. The government’s debt actually represents the huge shortfall in the income of the workers in the global economy.

  11. Remember that during all of the run up to this decision caused a number of coal industries to have their stocks drop a massive amount causing shut downs and bankruptcies and job losses. Then Obama’s buddies picked up the stocks for a song. Now those stocks will start climbing back up and make the Soro’s and Buffet’s ( and more than likely all DC’s insiders) even richer!

  12. The scientists are virtually unanimous that climate change is real, is caused by human activity and is already causing devastating problems in the United States and around the world. And, they tell us, if we do not act boldly the situation will only become much worse in years to come in terms of drought, floods, extreme storms and acidification of the oceans. Sadly, we now have a Republican Party that is more concerned about protecting the profits of Exxon, BP and Shell and the coal industry than protecting the planet. While fossil fuel companies are raking in record profits, climate change ravages our planet and our people – all because the wealthiest industry in the history of our planet has bribed politicians into ignoring science. Bernie Sanders

    Pity the USA and the rest of the world if this nut gets in. He just said AGW is real and is damaging the world,

    • These comments from politicians like Sanders trigger a Stevie Wonder song in my head,

      “You believe in things that you don’t understand”

      – Stevie Wonder, Superstition

      • FTOP,

        Don’t leave out the rest of the line: “…and you suffer…”
        Martin Amis said about communism, and it applies to Bernie, the system provides two inevitable things: famine and failure.

      • I remember when the Berlin Wall fell. A local D.J.offered up a song in remembrance of what we were leaving behind.
        despite all, I think we live in a better world even with all the crap. And am still optimistic

        And to answer the song . nope.
        michael

    • “The scientists” have no evidence that human CO2 emissions cause “climate change.”

      Dear Frownie-faced Kyle:

      What good is sitting alone in your gloom?
      Go out and learn to play!
      Hot rod a Chevrolet, old chum!
      Drive all your cares away.

      The planet can take care of itself, kid.

      Janice

      • Janice have you heard? The EPA has just put forward rules to outlaw Hot Rods!
        They MUST control EVERYTHING. It is the nature of bureaucrats to take control, of everything! they have to, it is their nature. They will squeeze civilization to death, as they always do, ALWAYS. It is them or us.
        We don’t need them…pg

      • Kyle was quoting Bernie Sanders and didn’t use the blockquote tag to separate it. It wasn’t his view.

      • Thank you, Owen, you and Kyle must be on the same wavelength. I saw the dangling “Bernie Sanders” as Kyle’s feeble attempt to endorse Sanders. Then, his last line and a half as sarcasm.

        And, I may be correct! But, I’ll take your word for it, Owen. You are a smart guy. I respect your opinion.

        Janice

        Kyle? ……. ??

      • pg,

        I commented several times on that thread… . Yes. Thanks for the heads up. I’m advocating doing it ANYWAY! Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaa!

        If the tire fits: burn it. :)

        Yes, indeed, die (politically), statists, die!

        Thanks again,

        Janice :)

      • Reading the whole paragraph is essential to understanding that Kyle was quoting Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail. Kyle needs to learn how to use the blockquote tag to make those quotations more obvious.

      • Sorry , I only cut and pasted his statement from his website, only to prove what a nut he is.
        I DO NOT believe in AGW Sorry again if I confused a few people, I will be much clearer next time !!!!

      • Dear Kyle,

        And I will try to be a more careful reader and TO REMEMBER JUST WHAT A FINE DEFENDER OF SCIENCE REALISM KYLE IS!

        I learned a little lesson. Let’s just hope I remember it… lololol

        And, thank you, for coming back and letting us know! :)

        Janice

        P.S. Kyle, not expecting a response to this, but, just FYI (and for others who might want to know) in CASE you would like this info. (I realize you may know it, but just had to type in a hurry — this is just in case):

        To

        blockquote

        (the blue background rectangle with the quote inside it): type the word “blockquote” with a > at the end of that word and a < at the beginning of it. Then, close or end the blockquote by typing the same thing but add a / after the first <.

        To bold: type “bold” with a > at the end of that word and a < at the beginning of it. Then, close or end the bold the same way you close or end a blockquote.

        See "Ric Werme's Guide to WUWT" (right margin of this page — bright blue square) for more formatting (bold, strike, etc…) details. Unfortunately, there apparently is no way to underline in a regular WordPress comment.

        Finally, pipe up and ask how if you see something another commenter does that you would like to do with your text.

        Oh, and one more thing, if you mess up the formatting, don't feel embarrassed — it happens even to the most experienced and saavy WUWT commenters.

        Happy commenting!

      • A dash in front of Bernie’s name would have been a standard way of signaling that the preceding matter was attributed to him.

    • One can spend hours attempting to imagine a proposition so preposterous that a scientist could not be found who would espouse it if it were in his financial interest to do so.

    • “The scientists tell us”? Well, no. A small number of scientists. There are plenty of other scientists who disagree but don’t get media attention. I lived through the time when “the scientists” were screaming that the Ice Age was right round the corner.

      The question is, “what do MEASUREMENTS tell us?” And the measurements tell us that it’s actually quite hard to detect any climate change signal at all and that if we *have* detected a change it’s within pre-industrial natural variation levels.

      As for the competence of those scientists who make a living spreading alarm, when I read the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, and then actually looked at the Fortran code, at last I was dealing with something where I had directly relevant professional knowledge, and with all the earnestness I possess I tell you that that code could only be correct by accident. I don’t know anyone who’s looked at the code who has a good word to say for it. Note: I am NOT alleging fraud or any sort of insincerity. I AM saying that the CRU people were seriously unskilled at computer programming.

      I’ve looked at two climate related programs recently. They are definitely better, but the documentation is poor (to put it mildly) and the code could easily be a lot better.

      I don’t expect scientists to be as good at coding and documentation and processes as professional software engineers, but when we’re talking about models that are driving global political decisions about the fate of our whole XXXXing *species*, they really ought to spend enough of the grant money on people who *can* do the job right. It’s like wanting to measure the upper atmosphere and using paper lanterns with candles instead of proper balloons.

      • I read about a month ago a thread somewhere saying that the White House in readying Biden to run if Sanders keeps winning primaries. Sanders spent his honeymoon in the USSR, I’ve read, which if true the GOP would exploit in a campaign.

  13. Sanders and Trump lead in voting! OMG! These are both control freaks. One wants communism and the other an oligarch. Is there a real American out there that believes in American values and the validity of the Constitution as a CONTRACT that must be followed in letter and intent…pg

    • Forecasts of a King Donald are greatly exaggerated.
      I know people who know his people who know him.
      He is not interested in an oligarchy.

      He is also no dupe and has dismissed most of the climate con for what it is.

    • Don’t be afraid of Trump. He will seek the advice he needs from smart people. A president has to bring a vision to the Oval Office and then learn what is sensible to be done and what not. Don’t let the stump speeches throw you. Reagan was similarly belittled and laughed at but, ending the cold war and giving Americans back the self esteem that they lost after the divisive ravages to society of the Vietnam war plus losing it. I remember comments about him being chided as a B-movie co-star with Bonzo. I think you folks need a guy like right now or you will be strumming belalleikas in the forest.and wondering how you got there.

      • Bloomberg. Forget Biden and Webb. Bloomberg is one of the richest men in the world, is very smooth and media savvy, well respected by the East coast-dominated media, and quite capable of mounting a campaign. If he gets in it’s a game changer. Biden is a laughing stock. Webb: “Who?”

      • “If he gets in it’s a game changer.”
        It would split the vote three ways and give the GOP a better chance of winning. Faced with that threat, maybe the Dems would nominate Bloomberg. That may be what he’s angling for.
        Jim Webb is a “blue dog Democrat”–someone who is down to earth and concerned about costs for working people. He could get a lot of votes.

      • Three ways? He might run as a Democrat, although he has recently called himself a Republican as few people are probably aware. The purest RINO in existence?

      • Correction: Bloomberg since 2009 has campaigned as an Independent. However, since running as an Independent would likely hurt Democrats’ chances, he would probably try to run as a Democrat, as complicated as that would be to become the nominee at this late stage.

  14. Well I’m happy about the decision, but a 5-4 vote by the SC is a ‘last chance’ type of wake up call. I wish there was a way get people who vote the party line to see that, even if you are a Democrat, this isn’t the party of your father’s and mother’s. I think this should be a slogan of some kind on the right. This isn’t even the “progressive” force that their supporters like to clarion. There is an end game to it involving slow but sure malignant changes to what America has been all about that made it great until the last 25-30 years or so. It is about incursions into American sovereignty by UN, EU and other anti-American international organizations with well-placed American supporters in government, academia, agencies of government, ‘learned’ institutions and throughout the whole fabric of American life that seek to destroy its economy and world power. It is about side-stepping Congress and even the constitution to avoid the checks and balances that were deliberately put into it. Most of the politicians are even unwitting useful fools in this.

    States and municipalities have bought into Agenda 21 thinking it a motherhood document of little importance, but it is there to undermine property rights, take away lands, forests, and even small creeks and ponds from their owners management for the ‘collective’ good. It is an integral of little changes designed by the UN and its comrades.

    The left needs to be firmly rejected by a large majority for an intervention in this downhill roll that may not be retrievable without a big response from the electorate. The left needs to take a breather while far-reaching repairs are being done in government, in institutions, in education K-12 and Universities before it’s too late. Their rejection would be a God send for them, too. They could rebuild their party and put it back on American rails and participate in the future greatness of America.

    I’m not American – why should I care. The whole world should care. With a stong America, EU and rest can tinker and play with totally bankrupt ideologies and fritter their economies with little concern outside of, hopefully, their own much put upon citizenry There is nothing out there that these people have that America needs. The reverse isn’t true.

      • Food for fodder

        Bernie captured 80% of the under 25 vote and the under 30K income vote. This is the same recipe that POTUS used in 2008. The book describing the recipe is Obama Zombies. I think I saw he captured 4 out of 5 female votes. These are all Dem voters btw.

        If I tried to cross reference the above to alarmists, I’m pretty sure a decent correlation would exist (not sure about fems though). What they’ve done is comingled the various social justice platforms with a dash of science and are basically seducing weak minds with a false utopia.

        Not news to most of the readers here but I figure I’d throw it out there and see if someone calls BS on what I see.

      • Unlike Dear Leader, Bernie will not benefit from “white guilt” and affirmative action impulses which helped get Dear leader elected. It’s also debatable how many “voters of color” will be stimulated to get out and vote for an old curmudgeonly white guy (or an old battle axe white woman.) Finally, “80% of the under 25 vote” means “80% of the ones who participated in the primary”. That doesn’t translate into a percentage of registered voters under 25 who will actually put down the video game, get off the sofa, go to a polling place, and vote for Sanders in a general election.

  15. 10 Feb: CNN: Supreme Court blocks Obama climate change rules
    By Ariane de Vogue and Dan Berman
    The decision means that Obama now has two major legacy actions — immigration and climate change — stuck in the court system with the specter of a Republican taking over the White House in January…
    “This is an exceedingly uncommon situation for the court to step in, and it jeopardizes the plan all together from going into affect while President Obama remains in office,” said Bruce Huber, professor of law at Notre Dame Law school. “The Supreme Court’s order signals serious misgivings among some of the justices about the legality of the plan.”…
    House Speaker Paul Ryan called the rule “unlawful” in a statement Tuesday.
    “This rule should be struck down permanently before coal country is destroyed completely, and American consumers are consigned to higher energy prices,” Ryan said…
    David Doniger, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said he is “confident the courts will ultimately uphold the Clean Power Plan on its merits. The electricity sector has embarked on an unstoppable shift from its high-pollution, dirty-fueled past to a safer, cleaner-powered future, and the stay cannot reverse that trend. Nor can it dampen the overwhelming public support for action on climate change and clean energy.”
    “If there was ever a Supreme Court decision that looked backwards instead of towards the future, this was it,” said Jamie Henn of the environmental group 350.org.
    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/supreme-court-obama-epa-climate-change/index.html

    • The last quote is a great example of the misunderstanding of the role of the SCOTUS by today’s Progressives (including those “four justices”).
      “If there was ever a Supreme Court decision that looked backwards instead of towards the future, this was it,” said Jamie Henn of the environmental group 350.org.

      The only way that quote makes sense is to assume the role of the SCOTUS is to decide “what’s good” for the country. The 4 justices don’t even pretend to judge whether the issue or law in question is consistent with the Constitution as written.

  16. read all:

    10 Feb: WSJ: The Carbon Tax Budget
    Robbing consumers of the benefit of lower oil prices
    President Obama rolled out his $4.1 trillion fiscal 2017 budget proposal on Tuesday, and the good news is that most of it has no chance of passing…
    That goes in particular for his proposal for a $10 a barrel tax on oil…
    And what a windfall the tax would be—about $650 billion over 10 years, according to Robert P. Murphy of the Institute for Energy Research. Mr. Obama says the tax as a way to fund about $32 billion a year in new “green infrastructure.” …
    The other goal is to punish fossil-fuel production. A White House memo admits the point by saying that one benefit is that the tax would provide “a clear incentive for private-sector innovation to reduce our reliance on oil.” Mr. Obama has been frustrated in his climate-change ambitions because green fuels can’t compete economically with oil and gas. So the oil tax is designed to raise the cost of oil production while subsidizing competitors…
    The White House is also dishonest about who will pay the tax, calling it a “fee on oil paid for by oil companies.” Translation: It is a tax on drivers collected by oil companies. Studies show that families that make less than $30,000 a year tend to spend more than 25% of their after-tax income on energy, while families that earn more than $50,000 a year spend less than 10%. Mr. Obama’s proposal would increase inequality…
    Mr. Obama’s oil tax is one more sign of the left’s shifting climate-change priorities. The greens used to favor mandates for energy efficiency and reduced carbon consumption. But as that agenda has foundered on economic reality, their new campaign is to stop as much oil and gas production as possible. The new command is to “leave it in the ground.” …
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-carbon-tax-budget-1455064173

    • It can be argued that a good approximation is that everybody, rich or poor, spends 100% on energy. It’s just stored energy and energy used elsewhere, f.ex. in China.

      (It can also be argued that “everybody, rich or poor, spends 100% on energy” is a circular reasoning, or a dogma. But it’s a useful one.)

    • Enjoy the schadenfreude while it lasts. This is only a posponement. EPA still have the mandate to save the planet until Congress revokes that, and a President signs off.

  17. When this is all over, I’d like a few things.
    I’d like to see science get a good spanking. Wake the hell up.
    I’d also like to see the internet be used to post all raw data for any publically funded endeavor.
    And stop culturally insisting that my offspring need to allow for the abusive behavior of others.
    I want some other things, but this is a science site and I’ve already strayed.

  18. Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
    Sooner of later everyone who believed in CO2- and Climate threat will understand that they faced the worst Scam ever. Follow the money. Money-routes never lie. There must be at least a dozen out there who knows how to write an algoritm if they aren’t in bank-it sphere…..

  19. Barak Hussein, the former Barry, Obama, the GOD KING born to EARTH has been … [pruned] lie quivering … on the ground.

    Ha ha

    [You’ve tried writing like this before. Cut it out. .mod]

  20. Well five judges just put their country and the law first . Congratulations !! When the Republicans get in
    I hope they dismantle the entire EPA and stop grants to green mask groups who are out to destroy the USA economy .

  21. Supreme Court blocked Obama’s Climate change
    .

    Coal stocks will rally big tomorrow
    Sanders will be worse the Obama did you hear his acceptance speech. climate scientists science is settled. this will become an election issue.

  22. Anyone know anything what Ted Cruz actually said that might have led to the attributions below?. I see two articles putting the same improbable word combinations in his mouth. Is it plagiarism, or did he really say something such that two people would paraphase it the same way? (Same author?) Both speaking on Climate Change said Ted “reckons lefties cooked it up”. Organized smear, plagiarism or did he say it?

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/02/americas-battle-over-climate-change
    http://telegraphvoice.com/2016/02/10/mead-praises-high-courts-decision-to-delay-clean-power-plan/

    • IMO that’s a paraphrase. Ted has correctly pointed out that Warmunistas have reverse engineered the so-called “surface data” to create activist-made “global warming”. Thus they are Lefties who cooked the books. He’s easily demonstrated right.

    • I would say it’s more like temporary setback for progressive over reach tactics and the U.S. Constitution as inconvenience in the time table. Advocacy truth and science does not have time for this or fact checking either.

    • More like:
      Constitution 1
      Obama 167

      Please do not take that as any kind of endorsement or support for Obama, it is just a commentary on the ineffectiveness of Congress.

  23. Before you wear yourselves out victory dancing, consider SCOTUS already affirmed EPA had the right and power to declare CO2 a “dangerous pollutant”. This doesn’t change that. All they’re doing here is giving the states a fair chance to challenge EPA’s plan. But in the end I expect SCOTUS will reaffirm EPA’s right to mitigate the effects of the dangerous pollutant CO2. That’s what Congress empowered EPA to do.

    • Or perhaps they see that coal is still a viable fuel source until they come up w thorium package plants. The Supreme Court is in a nifty position of power much like the Federal Reserve w QE and the like.

      BTU used to be 1000 +, now trading round 3. There’s waaaaay more money to be made manipulating the comeback of coal than the tired meme of alt energy.

      My monthly cash flow indicators for coal don’t trigger a purchase yet, but obviously it has unrecognized value. If you believe in such things as political backlash voting, the GOP has a good shot.

      Thanks for bringing it to my attention GloatMax. Things are beginning to line up to schwing.

      • If I had to guess, when and if this issue ever gets back to the Supremes, they’ll nix coal. But by then there might be a new justice or two.

    • That case needs to be revisited due to the collusion between the EPA greenies and the State of Mass greenies. Another State (maybe Texas) needs to file action on this.

      • I don’t recall SCOTUS’ ruling leaving the door ajar for another state to try again. In essence they said “Congress must redress this, as Congress endowed EPA with carte blanche rulemaking power.” How does a state tackle that?

  24. The updated US dietary guidelines published in January 2016 are likely to do little more than perpetuate dangerous myths about nutrition. I say dangerous because you only have to look at the effects of the guidelines on health since they were unleashed on an unsuspecting public four decades ago: global epidemics of obesity, diabetes and heart disease, to name a few non-communicable diseases (NCDs) also known as lifestyle diseases because of their link with diet. The problem with the US guidelines is not just their lethal lack of good science, but how influential they are. Most countries across the globe, Canada included, follow them slavishly. Yet the US guidelines have been pilloried from scientific pillar to nutrition post – by researchers with no ties to Big Food and Big Pharma. My daily rant on USDA and UN’s world health org., This is big big Business, yet not a word from Government. Health Care costs would be cut in half if addressed properly. Climate Change is following in the same foot steps.

    • I agree. “Settled science” and “97% consensus” brought us “butter kills”, “eggs kill”, “animal fat kills”, “food-borne cholesterol kills”, and “anti-oxidants prevent cancer”, “omega-3 fatty acids extends lifespan”, etc etc, all now either retracted of hotly debated by thoughtful researchers who dare to question the consensus. Meanwhile, billion-dollar food industries were created by touting “settled science”, to save the children.

    • +1 with a double finger whistle.

      A poster here once recommended a book called Hubris. It did a fine job elaborating on this theme.

      So much nonsense out there. I wish there was a reliable sentiment gauge for such an issue.

  25. At this point, even when the news on the surface appears good, I’m already looking for the ‘RF’ factor.

  26. I scanned through the comments rather quickly so I may have missed an explanation as to what went on here. My apologies if I did.

    It seems the EPA really p.o.’d Roberts. The EPA ‘knew’ their action could be ultimately struck down. But, in the length of time it took to wind through the appeals process the affected utilities would be sitting on the fence with a fixed deadline waiting. With an uncertain outcome in the wings they’d go ahead and comply – there was a deadline after all. The EPA deliberately set the deadline short: they’d get the outcome they wanted regardless of the ultimate ruling. They’ve even crowed and boasted about this strategy. They’ve done it many times.

    The high court had finally had enough. So they stayed it. Justice has been served. Rules are rules. The game’s been stopped; at least for now.

  27. One of the first acts of Obama was to order the NRC to stop reviewing the review of the repository for spent fuel at Yucca Mountain. It did not even get to SCOTUS. A lower court ruled that even King Obama must follow environmental regulations enacted by congress.

    I point this out because the power industry has good lawyers. POTUS Clinton tried some of the back door stuff too which was rejected by the courts. Bush and congress acted laws and regulations to clean up power plants built before the clean air act.

    Dirty coal plants are a thing of the past but it cost a lot of money. Congress could debate spending the money on new nuke plant. It is interesting that Sanders and Obama are against nuclear.

    • “It is interesting that Sanders and Obama are against nuclear.”

      Only on the surface. Please understand that they say what is needed to get elected. Easy enough to believe. The real work is done by the anointed NGOs who are mostly spoon fed the dictum by the Intellectual elite … primarily out of Boston area.

      You have to do a fair amount of work to find the trail. Money leaves a scent. The elite are actually proponents of new Gen nuclear but they can’t be upfront about it because they’ll scare the weak minds they are seducing.

      • I judge people in office by what they do in office.

        There are a number of democratic leaders who promote nuclear power. It is not something that is a political issue unless you make it one.

      • Retired Kit P,

        Please advise who “are a number of democratic leaders who promote nuclear power”. I will judge whether it is a political issue with them myself if you don’t mind.

        John

  28. The standard explanation of the UHI effect simply defies common sense.

    Here in the UK weather forecasters typically quote a nighttime differential of 5 degrees C between urban and rural areas. To imagine that a winter sun which is low in the sky and frequently obscured by cloud can heat a cityscape sufficiently in 8 hours to maintain this sort of temperature differential throughout the ensuing 16 hours is ludicrous.

    The differential clearly comes from the heating of the buildings from the inside. This heat does not of course stay in the cities but gets dispersed throughout the atmosphere. Given that the number of centrally heated buildings must be way more than 50 or 60 years ago, as must the number of cars and commercial vehicles, I would like to know what ground level temperature rise would result from all the additional heat being generated. There must be some effect, it’s a question of how much. Can someone do the calculations?

  29. SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia dead at age 79. Now redo your calculations on EPA’s chances again, and get back to me.

Comments are closed.