From the skeptics and common sense win one department…
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)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The EPA and their tyrant executive, just bit the concrete curb.
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.
Beautiful n wonderful Picture……!
Another reason to vote:
or any other religion
…with the exception of the religion of CAGW.
Jews and Christians must be eliminated so, it’s ok to destroy them.
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.
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…..
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]
And to think I self censored myself.
[Rather, consider that the mods believe you rationally and intelligently pre-censored yourself. .mod]
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 .
From Obama’s pov, that’s gotta hurt.
People first. Prophets and profits second.
Thank God for the American justice system, without which Obama would just be another dictator.
…Everything that Obama touches turns to Shiite’ !!
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.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/supreme-court-blocks-obamas-clean-energy-plan-2016-02-09
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 think it’s a paraphrase as well. One that is so odd and unique I doubt that two independent authors would likely come up with the same “derogatory” wording
That’s the US Constitution 1.
Obama 0.
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.
Coal stocks rebound. Party like it’s 1899!
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/consol-energy-soars-as-coal-stocks-rally–netflix-ramping-up-global-content–solarcity-plunges-155047935.html
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?
secession
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.
At this point, even when the news on the surface appears good, I’m already looking for the ‘RF’ factor.
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.
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
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?
“Please advise who “are a number of democratic leaders who promote nuclear power”.”
By a vote of 87 for and 4 against, the Senate on Jan. 28 expanded the role of nuclear power ….
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=2&vote=00007
SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia dead at age 79. Now redo your calculations on EPA’s chances again, and get back to me.
Man oh man, may he rest in peace. I would definitely consider this a difficult situation for the promoters of less government intrusion.