Emails show indications that the EPA is corrupt – kowtows to green groups

E&E Legal Releases Updated Report with New Emails and Video Detailing Extensive Collusion Between EPA and Green Activists in Writing 111(d), 111(b) Rules


Washington, D.C. – Today, after a long-delayed, nearly 500-page document production from EPA last week, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) updated its report detailing the degree to which EPA worked with outside special interest groups such as the Sierra Club, Clean Air Task Force and NRDC to craft its global warming rules. This report includes new revelations about senior EPA officials’ work on what one called an “offline channel” with reporters, industry lobbyists and green groups on numerous EPA rules with the intention to circumvent federal record keeping and transparency laws. These are included in an appendix to the report. Even Democratic congressional aides sought to use the “offline” account to coordinate on EPA issues.

As regards EPA’s greenhouse gas rules, one of which faces a major challenge next Tuesday before the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, these emails show how EPA, rather than using its own experts to craft a rule in the public interest, chose to allow outside groups to draft its core foundations.  Outside activists — who this report shows one senior EPA official, a political appointee, even agreed to raise money for in what would be a thoroughly unethical use of appointed office — drafted and provided their proposed key elements of the plan, and other comments to EPA officials, on the officials’ private email accounts. The report details the correspondence and how those outside special interest groups were allowed to produce EPA’s GHG “Options memo”.

Worse, because the comments and drafts of outside special interest groups were not incorporated into the comments docket or the Federal Register, the public never knew about what EPA was up to or who authored the proposed rule, and was deprived of its opportunity to meaningfully comment on EPA’s backdoor dealings.  This makes EPA’s rule illegal.  A new video also released by E&E Legal at the same time details much of this evidence, which the D.C. Circuit ruled it will not consider in determining whether the rules will survive before last week’s document dump.

Key emails documented in the updated report show that EPA lawyer Michael Goo, who was also assigned the responsibility of drafting of EPA’s “Options memo”, acknowledged to the industry lobbyist for the “Clean Energy Group” that his Yahoo account was an “offline channel” to correspond, one obviously kept outside of EPA’s system. Then-Administrator Lisa Jackson called the CEG EPA’s “industry validator” for its global warming rules in emails obtained previously by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Newly discovered documents show further collusion between the Clean Air Task Force and Goo including confirmation that Goo and CATF’s Conrad Schneider discussed, in detail, how Goo could speak to CATF’s foundation donors to encourage financial support.  This is the same group to which he outsourced EPA rule-drafting responsibilities. Such efforts to encourage donations for a private group crosses a new ethical line for a Federal employee. Other Yahoo email shows Goo was personally close with such donor-group officers, who corresponded on his “offline” account to plan how he might use his new position at the Department of Energy to advance shared goals.

The updated report details how major-outlet environmental reporters, including those writing “Cool kids” and other fawning pieces about Goo used Goo’s Yahoo account to correspond on EPA-related matters, presumably keeping their correspondence outside of the legally required systems.  This represents journalists remarkably and deliberately skirting a law, FOIA, that reporters otherwise purport to hold as sacred. One Politico reporter took the circumvention so far as to text Goo’s cell phone to tell him to check his Yahoo account.

Other emails show a former senior Harry Reid staffer turned lobbyist — and, now, Goo’s employer — used Goo’s Yahoo account to suggest that Goo use his new position at the Department of Energy in a way that would help the lobbyist’s work on the very EPA rule before the D.C. Circuit on Tuesday. Goo responded enthusiastically.

The update also shows how Goo worked with Sierra Club’s John Coequyt by text message on the fracking issue even while EPA and the Sierra Club were in litigation against each other on the same matter.  Goo suggested to Coeyqut a strategy to get around OMB’s objections to regulating fracking, telling Coeyqut that Goo would need to “talk sense into OMB dickheads” who did not share the pair’s zeal for EPA regulation of the process in a certain rule.

The report concludes that the next administration must make rounding up the complete public record in the face of such widespread abuses is an imperative, however unlikely it is that each of the candidates would prioritize correcting abuses found on “offline emails”.

“We hope this report will show the public what sort of tricks EPA engages in when they think no one is watching,” said Craig Richardson, Executive Director of E&E Legal. “We also have new perspective on congressional opposition to oversight of these violations, and media reluctance to cover them.”

Added E&E General Counsel, David Schnare: “EPA apparently sees no distinction between its public interest function and the special interests that lobby it. The courts need to take a hard look at this collusive behavior, and carefully examine the legal implications of EPA drafting rules in this fashion.”


The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) is a 501(c)(3) organization engaged in strategic litigation, policy research, and public education on important energy and environmental issues. Primarily through its petition litigation and transparency practice areas, E&E Legal seeks to correct onerous federal and state policies that hinder the economy, increase the cost of energy, eliminate jobs, and do little or nothing to improve the environment.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 20, 2016 9:35 am

..Conspiracy Theory, what Conspiracy Theory ? / sarc..LOL….Great catch, we should pass this on to Trump !

Reply to  Marcus
September 20, 2016 2:50 pm

Communism wasn´t a conspiracy – was it?
“As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism.”
– Vaclav Klaus

Reply to  Marcus
September 20, 2016 8:00 pm

This sounds like a criminal conspiracy involving members of the government, NGO employees, and the press. They should be prosecuted together and jailed together.

Reply to  Bob Shapiro
September 22, 2016 8:29 am

Wouldn’t this conspiracy be covered under RICO? After all it does also include money changing hands, though indirectly.

September 20, 2016 9:43 am

It’s a shame the video comes off like a sleazy partisan campaign ad. It would have been much more effective if it would have been done in a style similar to the Prager U videos.

September 20, 2016 9:48 am

Great work, Craig! The dominos are falling, aren’t they?
My new Web site is ready for publication. What do you think. Also, I will sharing your news release with 4500 of my energy, broadband and technology closest friends.

September 20, 2016 9:49 am

Government is force, and force is always corrupting.
That’s a fact of life that most people quickly forget, especially when they rely on government for free stuff.
Those who work for government want government to grow, for multiple reasons.
1) Job security.
2) The more power they have, the more money they can “earn”.
3) The desire to fix the world, even if the world doesn’t want to be saved.

Reply to  MarkW
September 20, 2016 10:40 am

4) A deep-down envious sentiment towards those that went on to get better jobs in the real world.

Tom Judd
Reply to  RWturner
September 20, 2016 1:11 pm

I all due respect I must disagree with you. One is hard pressed to get a better job than a government job: excellent benefits (especially retirement), salaries that are at least as competitive if not often more generous than the private sector, job security, and performance requirements generally much more lax than the private sector.
No, it’s not envy, it’s a misplaced feeling of superiority over those who actually have to work to put food on their tables. These people are elitists who plunder the labor and savings of others.

Reply to  RWturner
September 20, 2016 4:31 pm

A whole lot of them (government workers) perceive that the private folks have it very easy … they are indeed envious because they think they have it hard and the private money is the easy money.

Reply to  MarkW
September 20, 2016 10:42 am

Those who do, do, those who can’t do, teach, and those that can’t do and can’t teach, regulate.

James Fosser
Reply to  RWturner
September 20, 2016 1:29 pm

I will borrow that. In my day it was .Those who can, do,Those who cant , teach. Those who cant teach , teach Phys Ed.

Reply to  RWturner
September 23, 2016 8:55 pm

In my day (as a former maths/science teacher), …. those who can’t teach, teach teachers

John Boles
September 20, 2016 9:53 am

Let the EPA shut down enough power plants to cause some brown outs and black outs and the EPA will have hell to pay, it will make the people sour on the EPA.

Ian W
Reply to  John Boles
September 20, 2016 4:00 pm

Not at all. They will blame the corrupt power companies and point out how much the CEOs of the companies make. Watched just his happening in UK. Whatever happens the EPA (and the government) will never admit that it is at fault.

Reply to  Ian W
September 21, 2016 7:04 am

And they will tell us that if we would just spend MORE MONEY on a carbon tax, then none of this would have ever happened.

Reply to  John Boles
September 20, 2016 9:08 pm

Companies buying protection hasn’t worked in the end.

Reply to  Barbara
September 21, 2016 7:14 am

Even if your goal is to be eaten last, you still get eaten.

September 20, 2016 9:56 am

Watermelons are corrupt? They collude with government officials and the media? Government officials try to circumvent laws to push their agendas by using unauthorized means of communication? Liberal activist judges that like to write laws from the bench are not going to allow this information to be admitted as evidence? I’m shocked, I tell ya. Shocked I say… What crock of smelly brown fecal matter.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  SMC
September 20, 2016 11:23 am

Of all the crimes political watermelons have committed, besmirching the tasty treat that is the plant is perhaps their worst.

Reply to  SMC
September 20, 2016 12:48 pm

Oh poo.

Reply to  SMC
September 20, 2016 1:32 pm

That the EPA encourages NGO to sue it and then proceeds to deliberately lose the case, so that they can get court orders requiring to do things that congress never authorized.

Reply to  MarkW
September 21, 2016 7:05 am

They don’t “lose the case”…the do a friendly settlement, saving us tons of money.
/sarc off

Dr. Dave
September 20, 2016 10:00 am

Something else for the Department of (Anti)Justice to ignore. This, like many, many other examples illustrates why a permanent special prosecutor law must be enacted!

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Dr. Dave
September 20, 2016 2:16 pm

A permanent special prosecutor undermines the purpose of the position, which is to bring in someone beholden to no one that has no bridges that he would hesitate to burn. However, one needs to be appointed to prosecute the clear abuses of executive authority and violations of oversight and documentation laws.
I mean. A Yahoo account? You can’t get less secure than that without having your password 12345. There is no possible justification for this.
And the defense suggesting tactics to the litigants in order to throw the case? That undermines the entire premise of the courts. We knew the EPA was barely defending these cases, but this is absurd.
This makes a mockery of our judicial and executive systems, as well as all requirements that we have to prevent abuse of these systems.

Reply to  Ben of Houston
September 22, 2016 3:45 am

“A Yahoo account? You can’t get less secure than that …”
I think you need to speak to Hillary. I think she has some ideas.

September 20, 2016 10:06 am

The EPA calculation of effect of ghg on global climate is at best misleading.
The US EPA asserts Global Warming Potential (GWP) is a measure of “effects on the Earth’s warming” with “Two key ways in which these [ghg] gases differ from each other are their ability to absorb energy (their “radiative efficiency”), and how long they stay in the atmosphere (also known as their “lifetime”).”
The EPA calculation overlooks the very real phenomenon that thermalization is about 30,000 times more likely to occur than emission of a photon by a CO2 molecule. Trace ghg (all ghg except water vapor) have no significant effect on climate because absorbed energy is immediately thermalized i.e. conducted to other molecules, warming the air causing it to rise. Jostling of the warmed molecules is thousands of times more likely to excite water vapor molecules to emit at wavelengths transparent to CO2.

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
September 20, 2016 11:42 am

“trace ghg (all ghg except water vapor) have no significant effect on climate”
It’s counterproductive to the skeptical cause to claim that GHG’s have no effect on the climate. The presumption that thermalization is 30K more likely than re-emissions is incorrect. Quantum mechanics tells us that a state change must be quantized in energy. While the fine structure of CO2 absorption indicates some conversion between vibrational modes and rotational modes, its equally probably that conversion can occur in either direction and to the extent that either mode can be converted into translational motion, the LTE effect on that motion will be zero. It’s also important to understand that the energy of a state change is EM energy stored as an EM fields motion and not the translational energy of matter in motion and that the conversion between these two is not arbitrary, but must follow very specific rules governed by quantum mechanical laws.
If we examine the kinetic energy of a 15u photon and that of an average atmospheric molecule in motion, they are close to the same. That being said, the most likely event to occur upon a collision between an energized GHG molecule and a N2/O2 molecule will cause that energized GHG molecule to emit a photon and return to the ground state and definitely not to increase the velocity of the colliding molecules. N2/O2 is primarily heated by convection from the surface, but since O2/N2 neither absorbs or emits LWIR photons, it’s apparent temperature is irrelevant to the radiant balance.
The basic issue is that quantum mechanics requires an entire quantum of energy be added to or removed from a molecules electron shell at once and at the energy levels involved, absorption physics does not support a mode where any net amount of the energy associated with a state change can be converted into the linear kinetic energy of molecules in motion, or visa-versa.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 20, 2016 1:38 pm

Wouldn’t “an average atmospheric molecule” be H2O, not CO2?

Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 20, 2016 2:22 pm

Robert, in this use the “average” atmospheric molecule would be N2 at 78%, followed by O2 at 21%. Water vapor (H20) is a trace gas, and though it is the largest contributor in the GHG category. it’s still less than 1% of the atmosphere.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Dubai
Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 20, 2016 10:13 pm

Great contribution. I will add a quibble that can help people consider things conceptually :
“It’s also important to understand that the energy of a state change is EM energy stored as an EM fields motion and not the translational energy of matter in motion and that the conversion between these two is not arbitrary, but must follow very specific rules governed by quantum mechanical laws.”
It is not really that they must follow very specific rules, it is they they do what they do and we have devised a model of what they do which has strongly predictive skill. The behaviour is not ‘governed’ by quantum mechanical laws, reality is poorly understood. The ‘laws’ as we call them model what happens very well. Not quite the same thing.
The reason I mention it is because your description provides a really good example of a model that ‘works’ and serves as an example of how very complicated things can be modeled accurately and make reliable predictions.
When we work out eventually how the atmosphere works, we will describe it and it will do what it does, and we will have predictions of what it will do in future, based on those models. Clearly, at present climate models are in their infancy. Nothing wrong with that, just don’t expect much from them and don’t bet the farm.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 21, 2016 4:48 pm

CO – I appreciate your comments but I have more interest in the truth than a ‘skeptical cause’.
I am always cautious that I might be wrong but I find your arguments unconvincing. That thermalization is 30k times more likely than emission is a calculation, not a presumption. Time between molecular contacts 0.0002 microseconds, relaxation time 6 microseconds. (links to the sources are in my blog). If relaxation time was zero, there would be no way to tell that a molecule had absorbed a photon.
A lot of my perception arises from the Kinetic Theory of Gases which is widely known and demonstrated. Given that, molecules can impact at any offset of from 0 to edge and conservation of energy and momentum must prevail. Thus any fraction of translational energy can be transferred. Molecular impact must be true for the observed thermal conductivity in a gas.
As to your statement “N2/O2 is primarily heated by convection from the surface”, my findings are the atmosphere is heated about twice as much by thermalization (less in deserts) as convection. My findings are corroborated by the observation that desert nights cool much faster and farther than where the air is humid.
It is unclear how this “quantum mechanics requires an entire quantum of energy be added to or removed from a molecules electron shell” is relevant to the discussion. My perception is that this does not apply to diatomic gases like CO2.
This “absorption physics does not support a mode where any net amount of the energy associated with a state change can be converted into the linear kinetic energy of molecules” is also refuted by the observation that desert nights cool faster and farther than where humidity is high.

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
September 22, 2016 11:54 am

“Time between molecular contacts 0.0002 microseconds, relaxation time 6 microseconds.”
You are assuming that upon the collision of an energized CO2 molecule with a N2/O2 molecule all of the EM state energy is converted into the linear kinetic energy of molecules in motion. This is absolutely not true. The most likely things to happen are that the energized GHG molecule will emit a photon and return to the ground state or the GHG molecule will remain energized after the collision. Even if some energy was converted into kinetic energy, it must be equally likely that the reverse will occur and linear kinetic energy will be converted into EM energy and the net exchange will be zero. So, while its unlikely for spontaneous emission to occur before a collision, the probability of stimulated emission is very high upon collision. Note that stimulated emission can occur as the result of either absorbing another photon or by collision. It’s also important to understand, that with regard to temperature sensors, most can not distinguish between a photon hitting the sensor and a molecule in motion hitting the sensor.
“my perception arises from the Kinetic Theory of Gases”
The Kinetic Theory of Gases pertains to the statistical averages of the translational kinetic energy of gas molecules in motion and does not apply to EM energy stored by a molecules electron shell which is governed by rules of quantization.
I should also point out that conventional climate science also assumes that energy absorbed by GHG’s is almost immediately converted into O2/N2 temperature and to the extent that this did occur, your analysis that heated O2/N2 rises and can not heat the surface is correct. However, consensus climate science is also incorrect and this fallacy arises as the result of the misapplication of equipartition of energy which assumes that EM state energy is a degree of freedom in the same way that motion in any direction is. Confusion arises by characterizing state energy as rotational and vibrational which infers attributes of kinetic motion when all that is really rotating and vibrating is the EM field surrounding the nuclei of atoms in the molecule and not the mass of the molecule itself.
“My perception is that this [quantum mechanics] does not apply to diatomic gases like CO2.”
No. Quantum mechanics ALWAYS applies to EM energy which must be quantized. While many consider linear kinetic energy must also be quantized, the quantization inferred is at the Planck scale and is far smaller than the energy of a 15u photon.
“desert nights cool much faster and farther than where the air is humid.”
And cold clear winter night cool further and faster too. But this has to do with the fact that the GHG effect from water vapor is significantly diminished.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 22, 2016 3:06 pm

CO – Again, thanks for your comments.
You say “You are assuming that upon the collision of an energized CO2 molecule with a N2/O2 molecule all of the EM state energy is converted into the linear kinetic energy of molecules in motion”. I make no such assumption. What I do ‘assume’ is that energy and momentum are conserved. I am aware of the equipartition theorem for energy and suspect that something similar exists for momentum.
My problem with this “probability of stimulated emission is very high upon collision” is that collision occurs in 0.0002 microsec while average relaxation time in the atmosphere is 6 microsec according to the ref. If stimulated emission occurred on collision then the 6 microsec must be wrong. Something is not completely sorted out here.
Sorry about the ambiguous ‘this’. I was referring to the part about electron shell not quantum mechanics. The stuff I have been exposed to asserts that quanta associated with electron shell change applies only to monatomic gases. I am suspicious that there is more to this story but don’t think it will make much difference to understanding climate climate change.
The ghg effect from WV consists of WV molecules absorbing terrestrial EMR and thermalizing it heating the other air molecules. Without this there would be no ghg effect. I see no reason that EMR energy absorbed by CO2 molecules should not also be thermalized. Thermalized energy carries no identity of the molecule that absorbed it.
I am OK with energy being quantized but the total quantums must come in various sizes apparently determined by different counts of Planck level (ca 6.6×10^-34 m^2 kg/s) quantums This would allow different amounts of quantized energy to be transferred at each of multiple collisions between molecules and be consistent with dry air cooling faster and farther than moist air at night.

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
September 22, 2016 4:40 pm

“If stimulated emission occurred on collision then the 6 microsec must be wrong.”
This is the relaxation time for spontaneous emissions, but that’s not the only way an energized GHG molecule can return to the ground state. Stimulated emission is a separate mechanism caused by either another photon or a collision. If the energy of motion is large enough, some fraction of it can be converted into EM energy stored in the electron cloud and visa-versa, but the required energies do not exist in the atmosphere and would likely cause ionization and disassociation anyway.
The KE of a typical air molecule in motion is about the same as an LWIR photon, so there’s a significant possibility that any collision will distort the E-fields around the molecule enough to kick out a photon. Keep in mind that the reason absorption is wavelength specific is because the resulting dynamic field must be in a resonant state dictated by geometry and consistent with the speed of light. Distorting the shape of this field alters the resonance and is why it may emit a photon if the resonant condition is no longer satisfied. This is also the mechanism behind collisional broadening which makes each line seem broader than it would be otherwise. Note that it broadens out on either side of resonance, so half the time it takes a tiny bit of energy out of the collision and the other half of the time it adds a tiny bit of energy to the collision as resonance is distorted around nominal and the net conversion of absorbed photon energy into translational energy is zero.
This increase and decrease in velocity upon collision is essentially reactionless propulsion and if there was any way that a 15u photon quantum of energy could be applied to increase the velocity of a molecule by about 41% (hv is approximately equal to 1/2 mv^2), we would have harnessed this and we wouldn’t need chemical rockets any more. Note that all of the energy of a 15u photon must be converted at the same time because there are no possible middle states between the ground state and the state of a CO2 molecule energized by a 15u photon.
“Without this there would be no ghg effect.”
The GHG effect is predominately a radiant effect involving the absorption and re-emission of absorption band photons by GHG molecules. Evidence of this is in the emission spectrum of the planet which under clear sky conditions, the energy in a saturated absorption line where all direct surface emissions would otherwise be absorbed is attenuated by only about 3db at TOA (about 1/2) below what would be expected without any absorption.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 23, 2016 2:54 pm

CO – Given that an analysis and measurable results agree it is easy to develop the perception that all is understood. But as Crispin noted above “When we work out eventually how the atmosphere works, we will describe it and it will do what it does, and we will have predictions of what it will do in future, based on those models. Clearly, at present climate models are in their infancy. Nothing wrong with that, just don’t expect much from them and don’t bet the farm.”, there might be more to the story.
This assessment is one of six, all completely independent, in which refute significant climate influence from CO2.
Water vapor obviously exhibits thermalization in the atmosphere (the difference in cooling rates of humid vs dry nights thing) and I have seen nothing that shows that CO2 (or any other diatomic gas which does not condense in the atmosphere) should be different. Also, some of your assertions require that momentum not be conserved at the quantum scale. But photon momentum is what produces the pressure from light and some of the stuff I have read on particle physics experiments talks about ‘recoil’. I suspect there is more to the story.
Atmospheric water vapor has been increasing. Equation (1) in my blog now includes an effect from water vapor and no effect from CO2. (Including CO2 and not WV produced unacceptably high influence from CO2) It produces a match (98% 1895-2015). The world wide increase in rain/flooding is looking more and more like a result of average global increased water vapor and less as bad luck in the randomness of weather. The current projection is a very slow temperature decline (if any) until 2020 with the following years depending on what happens with sunspots. I expect the added forcing from increased water vapor to be compensated for by negative forcing from increased low altitude clouds.

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
September 23, 2016 4:21 pm

“Water vapor obviously exhibits thermalization in the atmosphere”
Yes, and this comes from 3 sources. First as latent heat is released to water droplets as water vapor condenses upon them and they grow. Second is as energized water vapor molecules condense upon those droplets. Third, and the largest one, is as those water droplets (and ice particles as well) absorb LWIR photons across the entire spectrum, some of which may have been re-emitted by CO2 molecules returning to the ground state. As water vapor molecules condense, their combined electron cloud gains more degrees of freedom to absorb and emit arbitrary wavelength photons, as opposed to the fixed wavelength photons associated with individual gas molecules.
These water droplets then emits broad band BB radiation consequential to their temperature and its the return of these photons to the surface that slows down the rate of cooling which in fact is all that GHG absorption and emissions does, except that GHG’s operate at wavelengths restricted by quantum mechanical considerations. None the less, slowing down surface cooling is indistinguishable from warming the surface in the steady state and relative to the Earth’s surface, these are predominately radiative effects.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 25, 2016 6:56 am

CO – Water vapor obviously exhibits thermalization by slower cooling on humid CLOUDLESS nights. Your QM assessment is incomplete.
Your assessment of BB radiation from clouds is valid. Cloud emissivity varies widely but averages about 0.5. Average cloud temperature based on average cloud altitude is about 267 K. An increase of cloud altitude of only about 186 meters would account for all of the oft quoted 20th century temperature rise of 0.74 K. The simple thermal analysis that shows this is at

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
September 25, 2016 10:22 am

“Water vapor obviously exhibits thermalization by slower cooling on humid CLOUDLESS nights.”
This is incorrect if you consider thermalization to be the transfer of photon energy absorbed by GHG molecules to the kinetic energy of O2/N2 molecules in motion. What you are seeing is the quantifiable radiative consequence of additional GHG effects from increased water vapor recirculating more surface emissions back to the surface in the form of photons.
The flawed idea that a significant transfer of energy can occur comes from Trenberth who arbitrarily conflates the EM energy transported by photons with the non EM energy transported by matter when quantifying the radiant balance of the planet.
“Cloud emissivity varies widely but averages about 0.5.”
This depends on your threshold for cloudy vs. clear skies. If your threshold is such that you consider about 2/3 of the planet covered by clouds (for example, the ISCCP cloud data set), the average emissivity is closer to 0.75 which also means that on average, about 25% of the surface emissions pass through average clouds.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 26, 2016 7:55 am

CO – I can not see how your perception of molecular/EM action and KTG can both be correct and complete. How do you account for momentum?
Emissivity applies to the clouds themselves. It has nothing to do with cloud cover. The 0.5 is a WAG that I made about 8 years ago from this .

george e. smith
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
September 20, 2016 11:46 am

I don’t know why you say on your BlogSpot that only solids and liquids and GHGs can emit thermal radiation which can exit the earth.
The laws of Physics say that everything which is at a Temperature higher than zero kelvin (absolute zero) emits ” thermal ” radiation.
It is specifically required by Maxwell’s Equations of the Electro-magnetic field.
So gases are NOT excluded as thermal radiation sources. But the non GHG atmospheric gases, N2, O2, H2, etc. and Ar don’t radiate in the LWIR band from 5.0 to 80.0 microns, where the earth surface emissions are at its nominal 288 K Temperature.
The dumbbell molecules N2, O2, H2, for example don’t have a free flight dipole moment that could radiate in the LWIR, but they do have the dumbbell rotation modes which radiate in the Radio Spectrum. They also do have higher order antenna modes, such as quadrupole modes, maybe Octopole modes, or hexadecapolar modes. Those higher order modes are more directional than dipole modes, and of course are for free flight molecules.
But in thermal collisions with each other, even these dumbbell molecules have a transient dipole moment, for the duration of the molecular collision incident, which can seem like all day for processes that can happen in atto-seconds or less.
Maxwell’s equations require that accelerating electric charges must radiate energy, and during a molecular thermal collision, you get asymmetrical charge accelerations of both electrons and positive nuclei.
Human eyes are not sensitive to radio waves. so we can’t see just what the atmospheric gases are absorbing at those frequencies.

Reply to  george e. smith
September 20, 2016 12:35 pm

“that can happen in atto-seconds or less”
I’ve done these simulations and the periodicity of the vibration or rotation is so fast that it goes through many, many periods as the E-fields are interacting during a collision which is occurring over far more time than attoseconds. At 300 m/sec (typical air molecule velocity), it takes .33 ps to travel an atomic diameter (1E-10 m) and the E-fields of colliding molecules are significantly interacting over dozens of atomic diameters as the actual velocities go through zero and reverse direction. An attosecond is 10E-18 seconds, so we are looking at many millions of attoseconds …
Even the quantum mechanical processes involved in the absorption and emission of photons occur during an amount of time on the order of the relevant photons period (otherwise, speed of light violations will occur), which for a 10u photon is about .033 ps or about 10 periods during the time it takes for the molecule to travel just 1 atomic diameter. Note that the period of the vibration or rotation is also about the same as the period of the energizing photon. RF vibrations are slower, but are also associated with insignificant amounts of energy relative to the total energy emitted by the planet.

Patrick B
September 20, 2016 10:11 am

I’m sure in their minds it’s all OK because they are doing the “right” thing. Typical leftist behavior and thinking.

Reply to  Patrick B
September 20, 2016 1:34 pm

Noble cause corruption

September 20, 2016 10:14 am

Maoism never really goes out of style, it just gets a lot of makeovers.

September 20, 2016 10:16 am

Can someone explain why the Courts claimed that this evidence was not allowed to be presented? If the information was gathered through legal means (FOIA requests) then how can a court choose to “ignore” the evidence?

Reply to  jgriggs3
September 20, 2016 5:33 pm

Politics. If you get an incompetent judge they may rule according to what
their “side” believes is the “good” side. If you get a dishonest judge, they
rule based purely on politics, even if it is environmental politics. It can be
“just cause” corruption so some may be doing it out of the goodness of their
heart as well, even while following a straight political line.

September 20, 2016 10:21 am

Perhaps if the “green” groups were conservation minded, but they are actually lobbying groups for the windmill, photovoltaic, etc. industries, outsourcing interests, and political parties. #JusticeForBambi, Jiminy, John and Jane, etc.

September 20, 2016 10:23 am

And the enviro-activist side accuses the skeptic side of racketeering…………

September 20, 2016 10:25 am

It looks like letting lobbyists write the rules is the logical extension of the “sue and settle” strategy that EPA has apparently allowed in the past. The beauty of this method is that such groups can still sue if things go bad.

Reply to  Richmond
September 20, 2016 10:58 am

Irresponsible, corrupt and unaccountable custodian doesn’t care when contents of guarded object is rifled.

September 20, 2016 10:27 am

It’s frightening that the US government, an organism funded by taxation to provide administration of law and for the national defense, is now nothing more than a portal for interest groups that need to be separately funded by donations from those same taxpayers. We’re literally paying for an organization we have to pay for representation to talk to.
Congress is chartered with that role. They can’t abrogate their duties, as they very clearly have in the case of the EPA. The EPA should be defunded then abolished, it’s long since outlived its usefulness to the American people, as is in clear evidence with this discovery.

Reply to  Bartleby
September 20, 2016 10:48 am

Furthermore, contrary to “the science is settled” crowd, this is very clearly a scientific issue that has become politicized. Any regulation made (and in my opinion none is necessary) should, at the very least, be performed under the guidance of scientists who represent all sides of this debate, not the Sierra Club in a vacuum. That’s a grossly biased approach and can’t ever represent the will of American citizens at large.
Countless opinion polls have ranked “Climate Change” as the least important issue facing Americans today. Nothing at all should be done on the subject. We live in a democracy and the people have spoken. If that isn’t clear enough to Congress (and their orphaned child playing without adult supervision, the EPA), a referendum on the subject is in order.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Bartleby
September 20, 2016 5:34 pm

I’m not American so I’m a bit reluctant to weigh in but surely this is malfeasance. A firing offense and prosecutable to boot. These individuals are legally responsible to serve their organization according to its enabling legislation.

Reply to  John Harmsworth
September 21, 2016 7:17 am

The problem is that the agencies charged with enforcing good conduct, are in on the scam.

September 20, 2016 10:31 am

I’m shocked….shocked! The EPA corrupt? You mean they’re just like Michael Mann, Gavin, Seth Borenstein and the rest of the Warmer Mafia? Poor little naive me – my bubble is burst.

Reply to  Gandhi
September 20, 2016 2:55 pm

“Here are your winnings, sir.”

Reply to  Gandhi
September 21, 2016 5:55 am

When discussing corruption let’s not forget the IRS, DOL, DEA, FBI, DOJ, State,and who know how much the entire government is abusing we the people.

September 20, 2016 10:33 am

“EPA can therefore establish a performance standard that is not achievable”.
For example, the diesel emission tiers which seem to be aimed at eliminating diesels, not making them the best they can be.

Reply to  Toto
September 20, 2016 10:51 am

Let’s not forget declaring carbon dioxide, a critical component for life on Earth, a toxic pollutant.

Peter Miller
September 20, 2016 10:50 am

All part of the Obama legacy, which we have been told is magnificent in parts; if only one knew where to find those parts.

Reply to  Peter Miller
September 20, 2016 10:52 am

You only need to measure his hands…

September 20, 2016 11:17 am

Could fill an entire page on the CPP. Basically the lb CO2/MWh standards make coal power w/o sequestration impossible and gives a pass to NG Steam and efficient CCPPs. It’s about fuel composition and efficiency. Coal has very little H2, NG 25%. H2 carries 60,000 Btu/lb, carbon 14,000.

September 20, 2016 11:23 am

It’s not the EPA. It’s not the government. It’s not the Environmental groups. It’s the figures in the shadows bankrolling these useful idiots, carpetbaggers, and crooks to push their ideology and gain control. Obscenely wealthy people who really believe man is incapable of self government and they are saving the world.

Joel Snider
Reply to  markl
September 20, 2016 12:26 pm

Well, don’t discount the efforts of the EPA, the government, and the Environmental groups.

Reply to  markl
September 20, 2016 2:36 pm

Like this gang:
“So, what exactly is the Club of Rome and who are its members? Founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy, the CoR describes itself as “a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity.” It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN bureaucrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe.”
The Green agenda

Reply to  Science or Fiction
September 20, 2016 3:46 pm

Yes, that’s one of them. There are many and they all want to save us and the planet from ourselves because they know better.

Reply to  markl
September 20, 2016 10:00 pm

Karl Popper warned us about it:
“Aestheticism and radicalism must lead us to jettison reason, and to replace it by a desperate hope for political miracles. This irrational attitude which springs from intoxication with dreams of a beautiful world is what I call Romanticism. It may seek its heavenly city in the past or in the future; it may preach ‘back to nature’ or ‘forward to a world of love and beauty’; but its appeal is always to our emotions rather than to reason. Even with the best intentions of making heaven on earth it only succeeds in making it a hell – that hell which man alone prepares for his fellow-men.”
― Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies

Reply to  Science or Fiction
September 21, 2016 7:19 am

Any time you see someone trying to pass themselves off as a “world citizen”, you know they are up to no good.

view from the Solent
September 20, 2016 11:29 am

In the the USA is there an offence of malfeasance?

Reply to  view from the Solent
September 21, 2016 6:26 am

No, the government is just the vehicle for malfeasance. An arm vehicle at that.
“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.” – ILN, 4/19/24 GK Chesterton

September 20, 2016 11:35 am

EPA…Government agency…nuff said.

September 20, 2016 12:17 pm

It’s worse than that — huge public utilities have been colluding w/the Sierra Club for yrs, directly affecting
construction plans and customer prices.

Reply to  beng135
September 20, 2016 12:51 pm

Regulated monopoly (public) utilities will/must do whatever the controlling governmental entity directs, as long as it goes in the rate base and a sufficient rate of return is established.
There is ongoing mutually beneficial collusion between the regulated and regulator, as is true of all regulation. Sadly, special interest groups, including green NGOs, have undue influence.

Reply to  charlieskeptic
September 20, 2016 1:40 pm

On the money. That system is easy to corrupt as long as the tax and rate payers foot the bill.

September 20, 2016 12:44 pm

Science is about openness and scrutiny. Green politics is about secrecy, collusion and obfuscation.
The executive branch of USA seems to have got green cancer.
And Obama claims that he is not signing a treaty about climate – but an executive agreement – give me a break.
It is about high time that the congress members live up to their oath:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Come on Americans – wake up and fight for your freedom.

Tom Judd
September 20, 2016 1:22 pm

I wonder how long it’ll take before people begin to realize that the Hillary email scandal was not at all unique but merely an example of a systemic corruption within this Nobel Peace Prize Winner’s administration. Don’t think for a second that this wasn’t all sanctioned right from the top. Everything was designed so that the public’s eyes were shielded from what the Davoisie, globalist, light walkers, had in store for us the unwashed. They’ve got lots of things to hide come November. One can only hope they get put in their place that Tuesday.

September 20, 2016 1:37 pm

We are often fortunate in our enemies. If we were given the chance we would have chosen Goo.
Using private email accounts to hide official activity is what the Clinton server issue is about. The EPA under Lisa Jackson used it extensively. That journalists participated is not a surprise. The Greens have built an iron triangle of power to achieve goals that cannot be realized through open government.

September 20, 2016 3:06 pm

Goo is obviously an idiot. Why didn’t he just set up a private email server in his home?

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  gregjxn
September 20, 2016 4:18 pm

It’s not done with the server; every new day you can be in need for EDV admin.

September 20, 2016 5:13 pm

this is huge and for me very timely
it is directly relevant to my current research
and consistent with the preliminary findings.
what a great resource this blog is
thank you.

John Robertson
September 20, 2016 5:29 pm

So what is new here?
That kleptocrats must lie and steal is not news, Goo is just working to Government Standards.
Good Enough For Government, where we taxpayers must accept arrogant,ignorant criminals as our “servants”.
Whenever a pool of wealth, wealth of money or wealth of power, creatures who exist to swim line up to sign up.

September 20, 2016 7:26 pm

Perhaps it will require a Grand Jury investigation to handle these affairs. Congress is unwilling to do so.

Reply to  Barbara
September 20, 2016 7:34 pm

POTUS could end up disgracing the presidential families of which he is member.

September 20, 2016 7:37 pm

More corruption form the leader of the democratic party.

September 20, 2016 10:40 pm

It almost looks they are making a game of it,
We know how corrupt we are,
How corrupt can we make everyone else.

September 21, 2016 5:30 am

There will always be politicians and bureaucrats blinded by power, greed, and hubris. There will always be private organizations willing to influence politicians for a variety of narrow interests. The piece that has come off the rails over the past generation or so is our fourth estate. The majority of the press has totally abandoned the guiding ethos of journalism and is now fully enlisted in the service of a sad confederacy of dunces, useful idiots, and voracious kleptocrats. As long as activists can prosper while pretending to be mainstream journalists our society will continue its spiral from democratic republic to bankrupt imperial kleptocracy.

September 21, 2016 7:13 am

Kowtowing? Heck it’s eager joint participation.

September 21, 2016 7:50 am
September 21, 2016 7:51 am

Makes one wonder, with all this purposeful corruption throughout this administration, if maybe, just maybe, the problem is systemic.
The more people one screws over the less punishment one receives.
Look at EPA’s Lisa (Richard Windsor) Jackson and John (CIA operative) Beale after serving his time.,d.eWE)
Jackson and Beale are both retired, well healed, respected warriors in the fight for social justice.

Rod Everson
September 21, 2016 8:14 am

The way I see it we have one more chance to make this right, and even if we do so we’ll have to be lucky.
In November we choose a new President. We know Hillary will continue to pack the courts with liberals and will continue to use executive orders to reshape American laws, rules, and traditions. The packed courts will acquiesce. That way lies a massive loss of liberties.
What we don’t know is whether Trump will behave similarly, especially in the sense of ruling by executive order. For now, the courts will rule against him due to the direction some of his orders will take, but if Trump wants to continue this country’s slide toward executive rule (lawlessness, or more precisely, dictatorial law-making) there’s little to stop him.
To get it right, and to be lucky in the bargain, Trump needs to be elected and Congress needs to rewrite virtually every law that delegates power to the administrative state, and thereby to the executive branch, i.e., the President. The only way President Obama has been able to take the country so far to the left so quickly is that Congress has delegated its rule-making responsibilities badly, mostly by writing laws that are so broad that it takes a regulatory agency to determine the rules, interpret the rules, and enforce the rules.
A President Trump will hopefully go along with, or even encourage, such a wholesale return of power to Congress, but that’s not a given, only a hope, for the moment.

Johann Wundersamer
September 22, 2016 6:19 am

Great stuff. Does it!

%d bloggers like this: