EPA’s Clean Power Plan and its Moment of Truth

Guest essay by Stephen Heins, Energy Consultant, Business Writer and Practical Environmentalist

While many of us have actively tried to follow the broad-based scientific discussions about climate change including those at the Paris Meetings, most of us are stuck between to the “alarmist” and the “denier” narratives. The “luke warmers,” as we are called, suspect that the climate change discussion is far from over.

Most troubling to some observers of the current Washington DC bureaucracies, the FCC and the EPA, is that they fit the classic mold of federal agencies furiously trying to regulate industries while they themselves are many years behind the investment, technology and innovation of the industries they regulate.

Suffice it to say, the world’s 7.4 billion people of global economy and planetary environment are far too important to be left to silo thinking or national and global politics. This is especially true with the skyrocketing need for big data, huge wireless broadband and ongoing technological innovation, particularly in the under-developed and under-represented parts of the world.

With that in mind, here are several flaws in the final version of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) of 2015:

• The use of several studies (e.g. Harvard’s study of indirect health benefits) are likely examples of “study-bias;”

• Medical computations of indirect health benefits from the reduction of PM 2.5 (or fine particulate matter) have never been well demonstrated;

• The CPP places complete faith in the advancement of technology responding to political dictates instead of the marketplace;

• The CPP lacks a full accounting of the costs of stranding electrical assets and the large investment in new infrastructure, which essentially just replicate old distribution assets;

• The Clean Power Plan has never been properly vetted by the states, and there never was a state or national political mandate calling for its formulation;

• Currently, a clear cut democratic majority, 28 states, have officially challenged the legality of the Clean Power Plan;

• With the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia just beginning its En Banc proceedings, President Obama and Secretary McCarthy are likely to be in the rear view mirror by the time it is fully litigated;

• Indistinguishable from any political campaign, the robust public relations campaign conducted by the EPA and the White House, and a large number of related texts and emails, are shrouded in the lack of proper disclosure not unlike the Colorado Toxic Spills;

• Actual greenhouse gas reductions from the Clean Power Plan are miniscule, and, according to Scientific America and the Energy Information Administration (EIA), by 2015, 47 states had already achieved sharp decreases in emission from 2007 levels, with more than billion tons of reductions;

• The US is already on a glide path whereby America has reduced more Green House Gas (GHG) than any other country in the world, a fact which even the Sierra Club acknowledges;

• The EPA has never provided a real cost benefit analysis of the Clean Power throughout all versions of the regulations;

• The CPP gives the EPA and state environmental agencies first class status, making all other state and federal agencies (like the Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Committee, and State Utility Regulators) virtual second class citizens, with second class powers;

• With “cross state” and regional emission differences, the CPP makes states and regions compete against each other in energy markets previously regulated by states, and is de facto helping to create a national emissions market, which has already been defeated legislatively;

• The Clean Power Plan is fraught with backward looking and silo thinking, with no heed paid to the rapidly expanding convergence of energy, technology and wireless telecommunications. In the case of the above convergence, there is no consideration for the rapidly expanding need for electricity, big data and wireless broadband to allow significantly more energy efficiency, better environmentalism and economic development in all 50 states;

• The CPP has a serious lack of transparency, whereby much of the information remains undisclosed. Much of the grant money provided by the EPA for health and emissions studies (Harvard, Syracuse, George Mason et al) is essentially undeclared;

• The significant input provided by large environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the NRDC is largely buried in the footnotes or hidden in private emails;

• Finally, as Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard and the Wall Street Journal point out, the constitutionality of Clean Power Plan and its new found powers violate the separation of powers and the long standing principle of cooperative federalism between the states and the federal government.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 9, 2016 2:21 am

When you lose Tribe….

Reply to  kim
October 9, 2016 9:16 am

First you start with ~200 countries
190 of them get paid…
…10 pay
Then you vote….
It’s democracy you know……..

October 9, 2016 2:21 am

Am I right in thinking that the US’ CO2 emissions reduction is largely achieved by the use of fossil fuels (natgas)? [Note: I resent the word “emissions” being used to mean only CO2 emissions]

Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 9, 2016 2:45 am

That was my understanding too. Also the US started from a much higher per capital level.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 9, 2016 2:49 am


Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 9, 2016 4:49 am

reckon a lot of shutdown industry and people losing jobs and vehicles might also make up some of the absence in use too?

Dodgy Geezer
Reply to  ozspeaksup
October 9, 2016 7:42 am

Indeed. I thought that the best ever recorded ‘saving’ of CO2 was by Germany, when it absorbed East Germany and promptly shut down all its industry…
Britain losing most of its manufacturing to China also produced impressive CO2 savings….

South River Independent
Reply to  ozspeaksup
October 9, 2016 11:39 am

A lot of us Boomers are retiring and driving less. Before I retired three years ago, I was driving about 40,000 miles per year. Now I drive about 20-30 miles per week.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 9, 2016 12:49 pm

and the issue that pisses me off the most is that the advent of fracced Nat Gas was done mostly on private leases. The feds and their BS policies had nothing to to do with the reduction in GHG;’s

Phil R
Reply to  ARW
October 9, 2016 2:25 pm

And the second thing that pisses me off is it was done on mostly private leases, and state governments (I mean you, New York with the Atty Gnrl that goes after Exxon) have enacted bans on development, even on private property. IANL, but I always wondered if there was a “takings” issue here,

Mario Lento
Reply to  ARW
October 18, 2016 8:47 pm

If South Korea absorbs North Korea, they will cut their CO2 by close to 1/2. North Korea is the model the IPCC really wants for everyone, but not for themselves.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 9, 2016 1:21 pm

and the issue that annoys me off the most is that the advent of fracced Nat Gas was done mostly on private leases. The feds and their BS policies had nothing to to do with the reduction in GHG;’s

Phil R
Reply to  ARW
October 9, 2016 2:25 pm

Heh, got stuck in the middle.

Reply to  ARW
October 9, 2016 2:39 pm

ARW, yes, you are right about the fracking of NG with its environmental benefits and its US energy renaissance.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 9, 2016 11:30 pm

Also efficiency improvements.
By the way, research covering up to 2000 shows that North America is a net carbon dioxide sink, due to forest and field growth. The Japanese carbon dioxide monitoring satellite confirmed this ongoing after 2000.
Paleoclimatic reconstructions covering the last 600 million years indicate that the Earth has had much higher CO2 levels than present, it is the current levels that are anomalous. And previous levels exceeded Dr. Hansen’s “tripping point” by a factor of three to four, if you take the bottom of the error bar. And the “hothouse” mode of climate is more common than not. During which the polar regions were either temperate-warm or temperate-cool. No run-away greenhouse effect.
As we’ve discussed here before, Venus just has a lot more atmosphere than Earth does, it is both deeper and denser, so the blanket effect is naturally much greater.

Carbon BIgfoot
Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 10, 2016 5:11 am

CO2 is not an emission. It is part of the carbon cycle.

October 9, 2016 2:49 am

Blech. Gina McCarthy and the EPA propaganda machine.

October 9, 2016 2:57 am

China and India..
Suck it up, petal ! 🙂

Reply to  AndyG55
October 9, 2016 2:58 am

And Turkey,
and Poland
And soon, South Africa and several other African countries, (with China’s help)
PLENTY of CO2 for all ! 🙂

Reply to  AndyG55
October 9, 2016 6:38 am

Don’t forget Vietnam and Brazil – which have given up on new coal power plants.
SA’s coal plants still haven’t completed and its going renewable and maybe even new nuclear.
If you listed all the places which have given up on coal and where it is declining you’d have a very long list….

Reply to  AndyG55
October 9, 2016 7:52 am

griff~ if they are going nuclear then they are STILL going against what radicalized environmentalism wants. And you know that.
And if they are going renewable, well, let’s see how well they do in the dead of winter. In the midst of a days-long storm.

Reply to  AndyG55
October 10, 2016 5:51 am

Griff, where do you get your “facts?” Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? My news feed this morning says Vietnam is planning to increase its coal power plants from 19 to 31 by 2020.

Reply to  Paul Homewood
October 9, 2016 4:46 am

Aren’t we at war with them?

Reply to  AndyG55
October 9, 2016 4:04 am

“China and India..”
These countries plus several others are making the products that American industry used to make. Americans still buy products so we have just moved the site of manufacture to a location we don’t have to look at. And it makes our emissions look so much lower!
It is much like the left-lib-wienies who are so proud to drive an electric car which they say does not pollute. But all the left-lib did was move the location of the electricity generation off to some other location. I like the idea of electric cars, after all Dr. Dr. Porsche’s first major designed car was an electric. But I don’t want to subsidize someone else driving an electric car and claiming moral superiority after they used the government to loot the common people.

Reply to  markstoval
October 9, 2016 5:02 am

Correct. We offshored much of our industrial base not to mention other important functions. This has many disastrous downsides aside from our immense and deadly trade deficit.

Reply to  markstoval
October 9, 2016 8:45 am

No, the US is not at war with them; as always the enemy is within.
It began when the brown Trojan horse was manoeuvred into the White House.

Richard Baguley
Reply to  markstoval
October 9, 2016 9:16 am

The only “brown Trojan horse” I know of that is in the White House is this one:

Reply to  markstoval
October 9, 2016 11:36 am

Mark : “It is much like the left-lib-wienies who are so proud to drive an electric car which they say does not pollute. But all the left-lib did was move the location of the electricity generation off to some other location.”
Not only the generation of the electricity. They never talk of the pollution created by the manufacturing process, let alone the “recycling” of the cars, their batteries etc, after these “clean” cars are done.
Whenever I start with that subject in a conversation it doesn’t take long for me to stand alone with nobody to talk to.

Reply to  markstoval
October 9, 2016 11:42 pm

I think Mr. Tim Ball’s comment is over the line and should be removed by mod

Reply to  AndyG55
October 9, 2016 8:55 am

Our esteemed Mr. Kerry famously said that the western nations could take all of their CO2 to ZERO and it would not be enough to head off CAGW, due to the increasing developing world emissions. Why are we doing this again? Please remind me.

Reply to  oeman50
October 9, 2016 1:22 pm

Unalienable rights are annoying to Pharaohs, as I recall . .

October 9, 2016 3:18 am

Regarding “The CPP places complete faith in the advancement of technology responding to political dictates instead of the marketplace”: I am old enough to remember that America’s automotive industry was dragged kicking and screaming into putting airbags in cars.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
October 9, 2016 3:31 am

Weren’t airbags introduced in the US as a reaction against proposals for mandatory seat belts?

Reply to  Analitik
October 9, 2016 4:14 am


Reply to  Analitik
October 9, 2016 9:34 am

And now we have exploding air bags to fear. Your government at work.

Richard Baguley
Reply to  Analitik
October 9, 2016 9:43 am

JimB, I once had an air bag explode in front of my face. It happened about 20 milliseconds after the front end of my car hit a Jersey barrier. No need to fear them.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Analitik
October 9, 2016 10:45 am

Richard Baguley
You were fortunate you were saved. However, the NTSA admits at least 238 deaths due to exploding (different from deploying) air bags.
The issue causing concern (aka fear) is not so much the airbag concept, it’s the engineering & manufacturing quality control.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
October 9, 2016 6:10 am

I got my seat belts at an auto supply store before they were ever installed by the Auto manufacturer. And just as was the case for seatbelts in vehicles, it was the Insurers that were pushing for the air bags. The Insurers wanted air bags to increase their profits. And I know of no Auto insurer that offered an auto owner a lower rate if your vehicle had air bags thus enticing them to buy autos with air bags. If they had, the owners would have pushed the manufactures for air bags.

Reply to  usurbrain
October 9, 2016 10:09 am

I had an auto policy with a discount for having an air bag.

Reply to  usurbrain
October 9, 2016 12:14 pm

I remember when our parents got seatbelts installed front and back in our new 1955 Olds 98 . They were dealer installed but holes had to be drilled thru the floor to anchor them and they were a considerable extra cost .
The idea of police arresting and fining people for not using them grates my Libertarian soul . We have been reduced to a nanny police state ruled by a duopoly sham democracy .

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
October 9, 2016 9:28 am

US manufacturers didn’t do so well with airbags for awhile during initial implementation, and it didn’t help that idiot people were relying on airbags without buckling their seatbelts. The US law requiring them in the front seat was passed in 1991 but not applicable until 1997. They were a common and desired feature, so I’m not sure why the US auto industry would have been “kicking and screaming.”
Safety became huge in the 1980s (one reason the otherwise boring Volvos were everywhere…and once safety became commonplace, they seemingly disappeared). It was the fancy Euro carmakers like BMW and Mercedes with anti-lock brakes and/or airbags. Both were desirable and trendy features and generally gave you a discount with auto insurance. The marketplace gave airbags a huge push into political dictation.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
October 9, 2016 3:17 pm
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
October 9, 2016 4:04 pm

Given that the European luxury cars were already installing air bags and disk brakes; it didn’t take long for America’s big three to start installing air bags into the luxury lead sleds.
The biggest hang-up, everyone had about airbags in cars, were the costs. Airbag installation increased the price of new cars. Just adding them to a car’s option list didn’t work as most buyers refused the cost.
Seat belts were required long before air bags.

October 9, 2016 3:22 am

The majority of greenhouse gas emissions in the world today are H2O and not CO2 emissions. The CPP does nothing to reduce the world’s H2O emissions and hence very little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over all. The vast majority of heat trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere is really held by the non-greenhouse gases because they are such poor LWIR radiators. These gases capture heat energy via conduction and convection but then do not give the heat energy up via radiation the way that greenhouse gases do. Heat transfer by conduction and convection dominates over heat transfer by LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposphere.. The CPP does nothing to reduce the non-greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and hence, nothing to reduce heat trapping by gases. The CPP can have no effect on climate.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  willhaas
October 9, 2016 6:26 am

“The majority of greenhouse gas emissions in the world today are H2O and not CO2 emissions. ”
That is a pretty uninformed comment. Water vapour condenses and just returns to be part of the water cycle in the state it was before it was used by industry. Unless you have evidence to show that the extra WV stays in the vapour state where it acts as a GHG ( which you don’t ) you are talking nonsense.

R. Shearer
Reply to  Greg Goodman
October 9, 2016 6:51 am

It depends on what you definition of “is” is. Water emission from industrial power generation and transportation uses is in vapor form.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Greg Goodman
October 9, 2016 8:17 am

Greg Goodman, and just what the ell does “industry” have to do with the 2.0% (20,000 ppm) to 3.5% (35,000 ppm) of H20 vapor that is always resident in the near-earth atmosphere of the Temperate Zone (except where deserts are situate) ……. or the 3.5% (35,000 ppm) to 4% (40,000 ppm) of H20 vapor that is always resident in the near-earth atmosphere of the Tropical and Sub-Tropical Zones?
And Greg G, you do know what “humidity is, ….. don’tja?

Reply to  Greg Goodman
October 9, 2016 9:19 am

Water doesn’t have to remain in the vapor state to stay in the atmosphere. Clouds are either liquid or or solid (ice) aerosols. It captures IR in all states. In fact, liwater and ice have a greater greenhouse effect than vapor

Reply to  Greg Goodman
October 9, 2016 10:22 am

Regarding Samuel C. Cogar’s “the 2.0% (20,000 ppm) to 3.5% (35,000 ppm) of H20 vapor that is always resident in the near-earth atmosphere of the Temperate Zone (except where deserts are situate) ……. or the 3.5% (35,000 ppm) to 4% (40,000 ppm) of H20 vapor that is always resident in the near-earth atmosphere of the Tropical and Sub-Tropical Zones?”:
2% water vapor by volume, the way CO2 is measured to be ~400 PPM, (about 1.25% by weight) is the vapor pressure of water at 17.7 degrees C. Global average surface temperature is less than that, and average relative humidity in the temperate zone or the world as a whole is a lot less than 100%.
Global atmosphere average water vapor is about .4-.41% by volume.

Reply to  Greg Goodman
October 9, 2016 12:58 pm

When we are talking about greenhouse gas emissions we are talking about sources of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere. Far more H2O from evaporation from the surface of the oceans enters the atmosphere than CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Greg Goodman
October 10, 2016 3:59 am

Regarding Donald L. Klipstein comment of:

2% water vapor by volume, the way CO2 is measured to be ~400 PPM,

HA, “2% of H2O vapor verses 400 ppm of CO2” is exactly the way that the partisan CAGW’ers make statements that are intended to confuse and amaze the gullible public into believing their “junk science” claims.
Real scientists and other knowledgeable honest people would have stated the above either one (1) of two (2) ways, to wit:

02.0000% water vapor by volume, the way CO2 is measured to be 0.0400%,


20,000 ppm water vapor by volume, the way CO2 is measured to be ~400 ppm,

02.0000% verses 0.0400%, ….. or ….. 20,000 ppm verses 400 ppm

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Greg Goodman
October 11, 2016 6:35 am

And, ….. Donald L. Klipstein – October 9, 2016 at 10:22 am , …… also stated, to wit:

Global atmosphere average water vapor is about .4-.41% by volume.

Donald L, who the ell cares about “Global atmosphere averages” of entities that may, might or can be found in earth’s atmosphere …… other than those persons who are scamming, thinking and/or believing they have found some super, duper, stupendously scientifically factual info/data that proves the “religious beliefs” they are touting to anyone that will listen?
Donald L, do you know what the yearly “Global atmosphere average of in-flight aircraft is? ”, …… and iffen you did know what that “yearly global average” was, ….. who the ell cares?
Your global atmosphere averages of …… “0.4-0.41% for H2O vapor” …. don’t interest me one iota, but actual percentages or ppm quantities of atmospheric gases, especially H2O vapor and CO2, are of great interest to me. And for your information, ….. to wit:

Water (H2O) vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0-4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is. In the cold, dry artic regions water vapor usually accounts for less than 1% of the atmosphere, while in humid, tropical regions water vapor can account for almost 4% of the atmosphere. Water vapor content is very important in predicting weather.
Read more @ http://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.AtmComposition

Richard Petschauer
Reply to  willhaas
October 11, 2016 8:31 pm

The surface on clear days emits IR to outer space through the “atmospheric window” which is about 25% of that leaving the surface. Clouds also do, and if high enough, a large percentage because there is less water vapor above them. CO2 only absorbs about 25% of the IR mostly in the 15 to 18 micron wavelength range.

October 9, 2016 3:55 am

These types of posts tend to remind me of at least two things.
First, no one has ever come forward and proven that CO2 does warm the surface of the planet. We have a lot of “well what else can it be” but no proof. We also have various demonstrations of evidence that show that “climate sensitivity” (to CO2) is darn near zero even if it is not absolute zero as I believe.
Second, I am reminded that plants do better at much, much higher CO2 levels. One would suspect that those who believe in evolution would realize that looks to mean that CO2 has been much higher in the past and that it is good for plant life. CO2 is also good for humans also. Certain endocrinologists claim that higher levels of CO2 is good for us on a hormonal basis. I don’t know if that is true, but humans in submarines and other cramped situations do very well with much higher levels of CO2.
Besides the above, one must accept that outlawing cheap energy is going to kill economies and civilizations. I have often wondered if killing off people is the ultimate aim of many of these alarmists. I was told in the 70’s at university that the earth could not support more than 1 Billion humans maximum in the long run and that we had to reduce the population. I think many idiot academics still believe that even if they will not say it publicly. My question has always been, “who gets to pick the 6 plus Billion souls who must be killed?”

Reply to  markstoval
October 9, 2016 4:48 am

‘My question has always been, “who gets to pick the 6 plus Billion souls who must be killed?” ‘
That’s what Agenda 21 is for.

Reply to  ClimateOtter
October 9, 2016 6:35 am

Agenda 21 as you cite it is an irrational conspiracy theory

Reply to  ClimateOtter
October 9, 2016 7:54 am

I agree that you are irrational and like to believe in conspiracy theories, such as ‘big oil.’

Reply to  ClimateOtter
October 9, 2016 8:39 am

Griff, is that what makes it not real for you?

Ernest Bush
Reply to  ClimateOtter
October 9, 2016 8:41 am

Don’t play stupid, here. Agenda 21 is a UN document that you can be reading two minutes after Googling it. It has been replaced with Agenda 2030, however. It seems the U.N. has decided to hurry it up. The laugh is that the proponents of Agenda 2030 claim “we are determined to end poverty and hunger in the world.” All purely socialist governments do is increase both. Have a look at Venezuela.
Many U.S. cities have adopted parts of Agenda 21, already, the increasing number of bike paths being a big one. Another is city beautification that is so popular in smaller cities across our country. Yuma, AZ, even received a grant to paint a mural across it’s three water tanks sitting on a hill by Interstate 10. We also have some very attractive boulevards around town with more being built with your tax money, Griff. It doesn’t stop there.

Reply to  ClimateOtter
October 9, 2016 10:30 am

Nobody needs to kill anyone to reduce the population. Just have average birth rate less than 2 children per woman.

South River Independent
Reply to  ClimateOtter
October 9, 2016 11:49 am

Most Western countries have birthrates below 2.0 per woman, including the US, except for uncontrolled immigration.

Joel Snider
Reply to  ClimateOtter
October 10, 2016 12:52 pm

‘We also have some very attractive boulevards around town with more being built with your tax money, Griff.’
Griff is likely not paying American taxes.

Reply to  markstoval
October 9, 2016 4:50 am

I suspect my first comment on your question got limboed due to certain content. Anyway, rest assured that many of those academics and a large percentage of poorly-educated AGW alarmists and SJWs are hoping they are on the short list.

Reply to  markstoval
October 9, 2016 6:26 am

Who gets to pick? Why, Hillary Clinton and her cabal. They’ll start with the deplorables.

Tom Halla
October 9, 2016 4:13 am

The major problem with “lukewarmers” is that they will get labeled “deniers” as soon as they fail to be cheerleaders for the radical greens. The green movement is ideological, not scientific, and tends to get content free in its arguments.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 9, 2016 5:40 am

Stephen Heins accepts the underlying assumptions of the CAGWs but is nit-picking the details. I think he is still in the CAGW camp and won’t fall into tribal disrepute yet. IMO

Reply to  Tom Halla
October 9, 2016 6:22 am

Luke warmers are already labeled as deniers. If you are disagree with any aspect of CAGW agenda, no matter how minor or mild the disagreement may be, you are a denier. There is no middle ground as far as the Watermelons are concerned.

Reply to  SMC
October 9, 2016 10:56 am

James Hanson was labeled a denier when he said that we couldn’t decarbonise with just Renewables and needed Nuclear as well.
Like with any truly intolerant religion, the Climate Faithful will turn on anyone who shows the slightest hint of heresy. CAGW must be swallowed whole. Pointing out even a minor flaw in the faith opens up the whole thing to question, and we all know it won’t stand up to questioning for long.

Reply to  Tom Halla
October 9, 2016 6:34 am

“most of us are stuck between to the “alarmist” and the “denier” narratives. The “luke warmers,” as we are called, suspect that the climate change discussion is far from over.”
“Most of”? Hmm.
Um, to the “alarmists”, anyone not in agreement is a “denier” and for the most part they have defined the labels.
I’m of the opinion that a “denier” is one who does not agree that the contribution to a changing climate by human activities is sufficient enough that if curtailed there would be any appreciable difference.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  JohnWho
October 9, 2016 7:49 am

The real crowd that’s in denial are the defenders of the incoherent models who further complicate their distortions of physical cause-and-effect hoping nobody knows enough to apply Occam’s razor anymore.

October 9, 2016 4:18 am

If anyone thinks the DC circuit is going to stop anything the USEPA wants to do they are dreaming. And with the SCOTUS split 4-4 and soon to be 5-4 leftist there is no hope there.
Be realistic: This fight is lost. The only hope is that the left will overreach, as they so often do, and do so much damage to the economy that the voters will rebel. But with the media, the entertainment industry and academia firmly in the tank I’m not optimistic about that either.
I’m encouraging my grandkids to learn Chinese. I think it’s their turn to rule the world as the West abdicates.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Blackbeard
October 9, 2016 7:52 am

I fear this election will just be a census of how many are hypnotized by the media and how many still think for themselves.

Reply to  Pop Piasa
October 9, 2016 9:26 am

+ many Pop

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Blackbeard
October 9, 2016 11:21 am

Agreed! This is the real tipping point.

October 9, 2016 4:18 am

The EPA has no real oversight, other than the President. And the laws passed by previous Congresses make it the judge, jury and executioner of what is a pollutant and what the remedy should be. Further, there is no mandate to provide cost justification for regulations. Totally insane, appointed dictatorship by bureaucrats.

Reply to  Andy May
October 9, 2016 8:45 am

Could the USA EPA be dissolved by a sitting elected federal government and relevant authority devolved to the individual states as constitutional representatives of the citizens living in their environment? As for any cross – state issues regarding claims concerning water & air the federal judiciary system retains it’s right of juristiction to deal with issues between states.

Mike McMillan
October 9, 2016 4:28 am

What a depressing video. The lady’s pitch reminds me of this one.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
October 9, 2016 5:11 am

That video is great, and I loved the Trump Ad before it.

October 9, 2016 4:56 am

….most of us are stuck between to the “alarmist” and the “denier” narratives. The “luke warmers,” …
Make no mistake whatever you call yourself, unless you wholeheartedly believe both in catastrophic warming and agree with their “solutions”, to a warmist you are just another wicked denier. The absolutism of a denier is just another warmist myth, most of them are reasonable just like you.

October 9, 2016 5:02 am

And as always “as if carbon output” really means anything.

October 9, 2016 5:12 am

While many of us have actively tried to follow the broad-based scientific discussions about climate change including those at the Paris Meetings, most of us are stuck between to the “alarmist” and the “denier” narratives. The “luke warmers,” as we are called, suspect that the climate change discussion is far from over.

Don’t forget this is a “science.” Labels don’t matter, the data and truth is what matters. The Flat Earthers once ruled the day. The Eugenisists once ruled the day. The Earth was the center of the solar system once ruled the day. Misguided and uninformed opinions don’t determine the truth. In a real science the scientific method determines the truth.
1) Test the variation of temperature over the Holocene. The Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods were all warmer, and had lower CO2. The variation of temperature over the past 50 and 150 years are well within the norm of the entire Holocene.
2) The only “evidence” the Alarmists have are computer models. 100% of the IPCC models failed to demonstrate a causative relation with CO2 and Temperature, 100%. 100% of them overestimated temperature increase demonstrating an institutional bias of epic proportions. The skewing of model returns towards the stated desired effect should give any unbiased and reasonable scientist pause.
3) The oceans are warming. IR between 13 and 15µ won’t warm water. The warming of the oceans, and resulting strong El Ninos are evidence more visible/warming light is reaching the oceans. CO2 has nothing to do with the Oceans warming or El Ninos, and those drive the temperature of the atmosphere.
4) O3 is the most potent GHG in the stratosphere. Efforts to reduce the Ozone Hole has presumably resulted in more O3. Even with more O3, there is no tropical hotspot noted. People don’t seem to mind intentionally increasing the GHG O3, but claim increasing the GHG CO2 would have a negative impact? How do we know that the increase in O3 isn’t causing the warming?
5) CO2 has a logarithmic decay regarding absorption. Changes in CO2 from a level of 400ppm are basically meaningless. The fact that the IPCC models clearly detail a linear relationship between CO2 and Temperature proves they are either ignorant of this fact or simply want to produce the desired answer regardless of the physics.
6) Nothing man/Government has done has altered the rate of change in atmospheric CO2. Noting man/Government can do will alter that rate of change. The Oceans determine the level of atmospheric CO2, and unless we can stop the oceans from warming, CO2 will continue to go higher. It is simply Henry’s Law in action.
7) Does anyone really believe that electing Hillary will end Hurricanes? Just what is she going to do to stop Hurricanes? We can’t stop the oceans from warming or cooling. Controlling CO2 won’t impact Hurricanes, in fact a lesser temperature gradient will weaken Hurricanes. The very fact that a politician can convince people that they will “heal the earth, stop the temperatures and sea levels from rising” and now control Hurricanes proves what we have an unbelievably ignorant and gullible electorate that can be convinced of anything and that is extremely dangerous. Ignorant and gullible voters destroy societies, just study the classical age of Greece that peaked with the killing of Socrates, ostracism of Thermistoclease and defeat by the Spartans. Rome faired no better.
8) Wind and Solar will never meet our energy needs. Never. Cleaner and more effective energy sources will be developed long before Wind and Solar will ever produce significant levels of reliable energy. Hydrogen, Cold Fusion, Safe Nuclear Power, BioDiesel, Renewable Diesel, The Fischer-Tropsch Process and countless other methods are certain to provide better alternatives than wind and solar. Unfortunately, we focus on the 2 that are certain to fail.comment image

October 9, 2016 5:19 am

How does CO2 cause any of the problems She pointed out? CO2 is plant food. We exhale CO2, how could it possible cause health problems? None of what she says makes any sense? There is zero chance any changes we make will alter the rate of change of CO2. This is simply a Quixotic venture on an epic scales. The “Global Final Solution” is the quote people should pay attention to. This is all about forming a global enemy to unite the world against. It is all about global governance. The number of lies, distortions and deceptions in that video are mindblowing. We will only be as great as our leadership, the the EPA represents an epic level of failed leadership.

Paul Westhaver
October 9, 2016 5:37 am

Stephen Heins,
It is good of you to nit-pick the EPA plan. Nit-picking is good.
There, however; should not even be a plan. Your entire post assumes human beings have influence over something that is completely beyond human control. I think your effort to comprehend the EPA plan was a wasted effort.
Since the last ice age, the earth has been warming, all by itself, regardless of the level of human population.
You need to step back and think about making war with the details of a fantasy.
The EPA is implementing a plan for social engineering directed at wealth transfer and population control.
So…you’ve been hoodwinked.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
October 9, 2016 2:10 pm

Paul, no not hoodwinked. I am just trying to present a counter-argument to the EPA’s overreach and the major errors in their assumptions in the Clean Power Plan. Actually, I may be one of the few people who has read all 5,000 of the plan with its 3 iterations and some 15,000 pages of CPP analysis, so I had match my policy wonkishness against the EPA and its advocates.
Best, Steve

tony mcleod
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
October 9, 2016 3:15 pm

“Since the last ice age, the earth has been warming, all by itself,”
Well no actually. Apart from a couple of very minor bumps it has generally been on a gentle downward slope since the Holocene optimum. That tells me there could be something else going on now. Whether the human fingerprints are important, well, the next couple of years of ice extent are going to be telling.

October 9, 2016 5:48 am

Actual greenhouse gas reductions from the Clean Power Plan are minuscule, and, according to Scientific America and the Energy Information Administration (EIA), by 2015, 47 states had already achieved sharp decreases in emission from 2007 levels, with more than billion tons of reductions;

The quantifiable results of spending these trillions of dollars and disrupting countless lives on this war on CO2? An absolutely immeasurable impact on atmospheric CO2, absolutely zero impact other than a group of sanctimonious liberals can make themselves believe they are superior.

richard verney
Reply to  co2islife
October 9, 2016 7:53 am

I was making a similar point the other day with regard to wind turbines/windfarms.
There can be no case for wind given that the only reason for adopting wind is a reduction in CO2, but because of the non despatchable and intermittent nature of wind, which requires backup by conventional fossil powered generation, there is no significant reduction in CO2 emissions.
Renewables merely increase the price of energy and lead to grid instability. Whilst I do not consider that CO2 is a problem, if they do not reduce CO2 by any significant margin they are a failure and this ought to be obvious to any politician.
What is the point of pursuing a policy (and throwing huge subsidies at it) if it does not result in a worthwhile reduction in CO2? Politicians have lost all sense of reasoning.

South River Independent
Reply to  richard verney
October 9, 2016 12:07 pm

It is about controlling the economy, not protecting the environment. Communists (and other socialists) turned to environmentalism after Communism collapsed.

October 9, 2016 5:59 am

While many of us have actively tried to follow the broad-based scientific discussions about climate change including those at the Paris Meetings, most of us are stuck between to the “alarmist” and the “denier” narratives.

There’s something wacky about this article. Just to look at the above single sentence:
(1) What broad-based scientific discussions? It was assumed at the Paris outset what the “truth” should be.
(2) What are these “denier narratives” that some substantial but unspecified portion of “most” are stuck on? This is a direct and dishonest attack upon most of us here.
There is some evidence of proper analysis in the rest, but what the agenda really is here, I am not sure.

Reply to  Ron House
October 9, 2016 2:12 pm

No ask and no agenda. Just a counter argument against the overreach of the Clean Power plan.

October 9, 2016 5:59 am

… The CPP places complete faith in the advancement of technology responding to political dictates instead of the marketplace …

The space program speeded up the development of integrated circuits. One of the main reasons we beat the Soviets to the moon is that we had better computers.
The thing was that all the technology was in place. We had German rocket scientists ‘recruited’ after WW2. The integrated circuit had already been invented. No breakthroughs were required.
Folks who don’t understand technology use the space program as evidence that government money will cause technology to advance. They are wrong.
If a breakthrough is required, no amount of government money will speed up the process. Breakthroughs are a result of serendipity and prepared minds. Government bureaucracy is the mortal enemy of those things.

October 9, 2016 6:23 am

Stephen Heins – thanks for posting Gina McCarthy’s video explanation of the virtues and promise of the EPA Clean Power Plan. How depressing! She appears to have completely mastered the art of Doublethink.

Reply to  Tom Graham
October 9, 2016 2:24 pm

Tom, I think that Anthony Watts was kind enough to add it to my piece.

October 9, 2016 6:24 am

Folks who don’t understand technology use the space program as evidence that government money will cause technology to advance. They are wrong.

SpaceX, Amazon and Virgin are the best examples. They used a fraction of the money the Gov’t did to put a man in space, and eventually will make space travel accessible to everyone.comment image

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  co2islife
October 9, 2016 9:35 am

Well they had quite a head start thanks to all of the legwork done before them…plus advantages of using technologies and material advancements the gov’t didn’t have 5 decades ago.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
October 9, 2016 10:53 am

Michael Jankowski
NASA could use this same leverage from the past…however, they don’t. They are stuck in the “this is the way er used to do it” business.

October 9, 2016 6:26 am

Building blocks, emissions credit swapping, aggregation of EGUs, flexibility and autonomy in meeting the state’s goals all lip stick on the Federalist pig attempting to disguise its overreach. The states should take the initiative and EPA at its word and manipulate its EGUs as needed to meet their performance standard. WECC, ERCOT and the western states should get together and manipulate both existing and new generation to achieve their aggregate performance standards. Once the numbers fall chances are the impact on coal would be minor, certainly not fatal.
California with a lot of NG could swap with Utah allowing Intermountain, Huntington, Hunter, et al. to press on with little real change. Colorado and Nebraska trade with Wyoming and the Dakotas. Vermont has no coal fired EGU’s, but it does have other FF EGUs and should have a standard like every other state it could use to play in the credit swapping game.
Different standards for different states violates the equal protection clause. There should be one lb CO2/MWh standard which achieves the national goal of a 32% reduction and applied to ALL including Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Guam. All states with EGUs start with the same number of lb CO2/MWh chips which they can then trade, swap, sell, negotiate to achieve the national goal.
And what is the Clean Power Plan supposed to accomplish? A 32% reduction in CO2 output from US power generation (not just coal). The US is responsible for about 16% of the world’s CO2 output. Power generation represents about 31% of US CO2 production. Therefore – 16% * 31% * 32% = 1.6%. CPP will reduce the global C2 output by 1.6%. China and India will cancel that out with their next dozen coal fired power plants.
As Carl Sagan observed, we have been bamboozled, hustled, conned by those wishing to steal and waste our money and rob us of our liberties. Hardly a new agenda.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
October 9, 2016 6:38 am

And there are discussions on the internet that China is going to build power plants and transmission lines to sell electricity to the EU!

October 9, 2016 6:29 am

This is the material benefit of spending trillions of dollars and disrupting countless lives, and immeasurable impact on the rate of change of atmospheric CO2. All that effort had zero impact on CO2, zero. Imagine all the good that could have been done with all that money. What a complete joke the EPA and Climate Change spending is. What an expensive wasteful joke.

Reply to  co2islife
October 9, 2016 6:34 am

Again, If the Climate Change Plan was about reducing CO2 we would have 10-20 Nuclear Power Plants under construction in the USA just like China does. Yet China is also breaking ground on two Coal fired power plants every week. Proof that the AGW religion is not true.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  usurbrain
October 9, 2016 8:38 am

For all those who like to mention China’s ‘one new coal fired power plant every ten days’ or some amplified version of the meme, please realise that old plants that are inefficient and polluting are being replaced. It is not as if they are increasing the total number of plants at that rate.
Also note that many of these plants are used for highly efficient district heating in winter, the same as the many former Soviet Union cities in central Asia. In virtually all of those cities the district heating systems, all coal fired, are being expanded as rapidly as can be afforded. An example is the new 380 MW station in eastern Ulaanbaatar and the Chinese-built expanded station in Dushanbe, Tajikistan.
Some of these stations are replacements, often larger, of existing less efficient units from the Soviet Era.

George Daddis
Reply to  usurbrain
October 9, 2016 8:59 am

Granted many of the new plants in China are replacements for smaller, more polluting plants.
But in the context of EPA policy versus China’s policy, what’s your point?
I for one would be very happy if the EPA encouraged replacement of older coal plants where supported by the economics. Certainly not Hillary’s position that her policies will shut down coal mines and put a lot of miners out of work (Oops, she forgot which were her public vs private positions).

John Harmsworth
Reply to  usurbrain
October 9, 2016 11:41 am

The important point to me is that the Chinese, with better climate science than the West and 300 million people living in coastal areas, are completely indifferent to the dangers of global warming. Now why is that?

Reply to  usurbrain
October 9, 2016 12:27 pm

“Crispin in Waterloo” ” ‘one new coal fired power plant every ten days’ or some amplified version of the meme,” I would also suggest that you look at some of the better projections of the amount of coal that China (and India) are projected to burn over the next 20 years before they do anything whatsoever to reduce CO2 emissions. Regardless of how efficient, the amount of coal burnt is going to triple or quadruple the CO2 emissions from producing power for energy/heat, whatever. In ten years the depressed prices in NG will end, there will be none of the newer Enhanced Ultra Super Critical coal fired plants in the USA (which produce about the same amount of CO2 as a CCTG) per MWH. and electricity prices will double again. Keep in mind that the Paris agreement has Per Capita restrictions. China is going up in population and the USA is about level. Thus they get to make even more if/when they kick in. Then they are only “targets” and there are no actions that can be taken if they do not meet the “targets” other than shaming them into compliance. What is the USA going to do when all of our hard goods come from China and India to shame them? Stop buying from them? This deal is better for China that the Nuke deal was for Iran. They get paid to make the cake and eat it too.

Reply to  co2islife
October 9, 2016 6:35 am

About time you got a newer graph isn’t it?

Reply to  Greg
October 9, 2016 6:46 am


The steady rise caused by human fossil fuel use had made sub-400 ppm readings rare before the El Niño winter of 2015-16. In fact, last year, the rate of increase set a record, rising 3.15 ppm, an acceleration over the average annual pace of 2.1 ppm observed over the full 58-year Keeling Curve history. Because El Niños tend to prod CO2 levels upward, Keeling and other researchers had thought that levels below 400 ppm would not be seen again once the effects of El Niño dissipated this summer.

Official recognition that changing SST causes changes in atm CO2.

Reply to  co2islife
October 9, 2016 2:32 pm

At the risk of being tedious, I would like to point out AGAIN that there can never have been any .warming due to greenhouse gasses.

tony mcleod
Reply to  co2islife
October 9, 2016 3:18 pm

Right, so there is warming, it is caused by human CO2 emissions, but that’s ok ’cause its a good thing?

Reply to  co2islife
October 9, 2016 3:54 pm

At the risk of being tedious, I would like to point out AGAIN that there can never have been any warming due to CO2 or other greenhouse gasses
Warming HAS occurred, but it has been due to EPA-driven reductions in anthropogenic SO2 emissions.
Between 1870 and 2016 there have been 2 depressions and 28 business recessions. ALL are coincident with temporary increases in average global temperatures and ERSST
sea surface temperatures.
This warming is due to fewer SO2 emissions into the atmosphere due to decreased industrial activity during business slowdowns. The resultant cleaner air allows sunshine to strike the earth with greater intensity, causing surface warming.
Since unintentional reductions in SO2 emissions causes global warming, it is a scientific fact that the intentional reductions due to Clean Air efforts will also cause warming.
The amount of this warming is so large that it accounts for ALL of the temperature rise that has occurred. to date (apart from temporary El Nino warmings)
Thus, all efforts to control CO2 emissions will have NO climatic effect and will be a complete waste of money.
To avoid future increases in average global temperatures, all efforts to further reduce SO2 emissions must be halted AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

Reply to  co2islife
October 9, 2016 4:02 pm

You are completely correct. CO2 has never caused any warming, it is all caused by EPA-driven reductions in SO2 emissions.

October 9, 2016 6:29 am

The EPA also forgot to include and consider that longer lives means longer periods of illness, disability, suffering, etc. which also means more health care expenses, higher insurance costs, and decreased satisfaction with life in older age. More expensive lingering diseases are afflicting those in late life and cost much more to cure. Remember a study about ten years ago where healthcare costs went up with the decrease in percentage of smokers in several studies in the EU. There seems to be several reports on this topic on the internet this week.

Reply to  usurbrain
October 9, 2016 8:48 am

As a lifelong smoker I’ve always contended that I’m actually economically better for society because I’ll pay much more taxes over my lifetime and will probably die earlier and suddenly thus saving the government money over the long term. More taxes coming in for them and less social security checks going out.
But once assisted dying (killing) gets a foothold here it’s only a matter of a few generations that the government will have brainwashed people into willingly taking their own lives at a certain age because they will become unproductive and a drain on society. Star Trek TNG had an episode where an entire planet was like that and I’m convinced that’s the end game with doctor assisted dying, no matter how sympathetic the cause might be at this time.

Reply to  nigelf
October 9, 2016 9:32 am

The story of Logan’s Run explored that idea long before Star Trek copied it.
Margaret Thatcher also was cynical enough to commission a study on exactly that aspect of smoking: was it cheaper to have people smoke and treat them for cancer or have them healthy and need to pay them a pension.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  nigelf
October 9, 2016 9:38 am

Children of the Corn was in a similar vein, albeit a religious one in a rural Nebraska town…turn 18 and become an adult, and it’s time to die.

October 9, 2016 6:30 am

What? Those of us who are not “luke-warmers” are “deniers,” equivalent to “alarmists” in our scientific dishonesty or incompetence? The likelihood and danger going forward is now and always has been GLOBAL COOLING, not an alarming amount of warming or a luke amount of warming.
That view does not come from denying any science. It comes from the well-established theory and evidence that water vapor feedbacks are most likely negative: that they dampen rather than amplify temperature forcings. If net feedbacks are not actually negative then they almost certainly are, at the very largest, quite small.
From there it follows that late 20th century warming cannot have been mostly caused by increased CO2. The most likely alternative explanation is the high-level of solar activity from the 1920s through the end of the 20th century. If that is the case then the rational expectation going forward, now that solar activity seems to have dropped into a period of profound quiescence, is for global cooling.
It is commonplace in many debates for those who take a middle path to express the lazy conceit that both extremes must be in error, but reason and evidence are unaffected by the range of human opinion.

Greg Goodman
October 9, 2016 6:33 am

…the rapidly expanding convergence of energy, technology and wireless telecommunications.

Could you quickly outline how a ” rapidly expanding convergence ” works, I’m not familiar with this concept.

Reply to  Greg Goodman
October 9, 2016 10:24 am

In essence, it is now known as “Internet of Thing.”

Reply to  Steve Heins
October 9, 2016 4:22 pm


Reply to  rogerknights
October 9, 2016 4:34 pm

Thanks for correcting the typo, Roger!

Javert Chip
Reply to  Greg Goodman
October 9, 2016 11:00 am

This is not a difficult concept.
The Allegheny, Monongahela and Ohio rivers do it every time it rains in Pittsburgh.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Greg Goodman
October 9, 2016 11:47 am

It’s when things fly apart so fast they come together! Or maybe the opposite of that.

Mark - Helsinki
October 9, 2016 6:35 am

Is that the harvard study Joel Schwartz and co author worked on where they in total received $50m from the EPA and Schwartz actually asked the EPA for more money while working on the paper and the paper cites no COI?
I asked Oreskes about this and… tumbleweeds

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
October 9, 2016 2:17 pm

Mark, yes it the one and the same Joel Schwartz.

Bruce Cobb
October 9, 2016 6:55 am

Show me a lukewarmist and I’ll show you someone who:
Used to Believe, perhaps fervently, but somewhere along the way began to have doubts.
Perhaps began to look into it more, but, finding that caused even more doubts to arise, became frightened, so stopped looking.
Is heavily influenced and coerced by co-workers, friends and families to stay within the safe fold of Belief, or risk ostracism or worse.
Relies heavily on the Argument from Authority (who am I to question the “experts”?), and the Argument from Consensus (how can so many scientists be wrong”?).
Takes the middle ground as a way of both reconciling doubts with heavy compulsion to stay on the “safe” path, as well as getting the benefits of appearing “reasonable” and “fair”.
Is someone willing to compromise what is true with what is safe for him.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 9, 2016 9:49 am

Summed up very well and very nicely, Bruce. My sentiments exactly.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 9, 2016 11:50 am

Oh! Gee! I don’t know… Lol!

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 10, 2016 4:47 am

To be fair, it is a bit tough to commit career suicide. That’s why most of the honest ppl are retired

October 9, 2016 7:20 am

Atmospheric CO2 represents less than 2% of the biospheric carbon balance, fossil fuel’s share is 0.3%.(IPCC Figure 6.1) Where it comes from & where it goes is anybody’s guess. All the numbers on Figure 6.1 were just pulled out of somebody’s butt in the first place.

Christopher Hanley
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
October 9, 2016 1:24 pm

In the 4:31 min she never uses the term “ carbon dioxide”.
It’s a form of equivocation and intended to mislead, in other words lying.

October 9, 2016 7:59 am

CO2, the life-giving gas, not “Carbon Pollution”. A Limerick – and explanation.
What then is this “Carbon Pollution”?
A sinister, evil collusion?
CO2, it is clean,
Makes for growth, makes it green,
A transfer of wealth, a solution.
Let me first state I am serious about this Limerick. It is not even tongue in cheek. I am an engineer with a degree in technical physics and look at the earth as a “living” organism that responds to changes in its environment.
First, the increase in CO2 concentration itself and how nature responds to it.
Second, the effect it has on the earth’s temperature and all its consequences, and finally
Third, the acidification of the oceans. https://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/co2-the-life-giving-gas-not-carbon-pollution-a-limerick-and-explanation/

Bob Denby
October 9, 2016 8:15 am

Recognition of this grand deception, a amply illustrated above, is the first step in dealing with it. Where’s step two. Do we just sit on the railroad tracks and wait for the ultimate carnage?

Dave in Canmore
October 9, 2016 8:17 am

“The EPA has never provided a real cost benefit analysis of the Clean Power throughout all versions of the regulations;”
Hard to believe anything needs to be said beyond this!

October 9, 2016 8:23 am

The Final Solution to the skeptics (with reasoned questioning and open science minds) has come. “als Partisanen auszurotten”

The Old Man
October 9, 2016 8:52 am

I was curious about the relative Electrical Energy mix on Canada and the US January past: Quite different.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  The Old Man
October 9, 2016 11:59 am

As a Canadian I would have to say that this is one of the stupidest and most irrelevant things I have ever read.

Reply to  John Harmsworth
October 9, 2016 11:30 pm

John, when you use such hash words, I think you also should explain why you think so.
The discussion becomes much more interesting, and nicer, if you try to add some information to your statement.
I think this article was quite interesting. One can for instance wonder why US has such a great lead over Canada in wind power.

October 9, 2016 9:06 am

What is the ‘denier’ narrative? Most of the skeptics I’ve run across seem aligned with the definition of a ‘lukewarmer’. It seems that the ‘denier’ narrative is a fabrication of the alarmists who want you to believe that the small subset of skeptics who say CO2 has no effect represents main stream skepticism, when its absolutely clear that the alarmists as a group are the ones denying basic physics. Yet another example of psychological projection applied by the alarmists in a vain attempt to diffuse the truth.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 9, 2016 9:36 am

yep, those under the illusion that climate would be static if it were not for the presence of anthropogenic ‘forcing’ are the climate change deniers. Projection certainly.
BTW did you defuse the truth? Sceptics are the ones trying to diffuse the truth.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 9, 2016 10:00 am

For what it’s worth, while I don’t deny that there’s been warming, I will NEVER call myself a lukewarmer. It probably boils down to what anyone’s definition of lukewarmer is, but to me it means sitting on the fence trying to appease both sides or – worse – trying to look from all angles to be on the “right” side once this whole sham implodes.
I’m happy to be listed as a deplorable. 🙂

Reply to  A.D. Everard
October 9, 2016 10:26 am

Hmm… do you claim deniable deplorability or deplorable deniability?

Reply to  A.D. Everard
October 9, 2016 10:55 am

John – I claim full-blown evil variety deplorable deniability. 😀

Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 9, 2016 11:40 am

“main stream skepticism” equals “show me some proof”.

Reply to  TA
October 9, 2016 6:18 pm

“main stream skepticism” equals “show me some proof”
Yes, but isn’t this what main stream science should be?

Reply to  TA
October 10, 2016 8:17 am

TA: “main stream skepticism” equals “show me some proof”
co2isnotevil, “Yes, but isn’t this what main stream science should be?”
Absolutely. I don’t see how it can be anything else. Skepticism is the only rational position to take, until proof is presented.

October 9, 2016 9:58 am

All greenhouse gases have negative feedbacks because they “saturate:” diminish the fraction of the IR spectrum which is eligible for absorption by the specific greenhouse gas. CO2 has an additional negative feedback due to its removal from the atmosphere. The atmosphere loses a bigger fraction of its input CO2 than it keeps. This is derived and described in the following link:

October 9, 2016 10:25 am

The Niskanen Center recently came out in favor of a carbon tax in “The conservative Case for a Carbon Tax.” The argument is that IF the Govt. is going to try to limit carbon (whatever the rights and wrongs of that) then it were better done by a tax than by interfering in details. Leave it to the market.

Reply to  seaice1
October 9, 2016 11:07 am

Steven Mosher of the Columbia Environmental Institute has written a great piece arguing that neither a carbon tax or cap and trade will work. As a former member of the Chicago Climate Exchange (and informally the European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme), I can say there is just no way that either idea will work, because of the politicization of any operating model, the poor global economics and the gaming of any system would create a larger United Nations with even less credibility.

Reply to  Stephen Heins
October 9, 2016 12:04 pm

A lot of that applies to a cap-and-trade or global tax model, but not so much a US tax. Do you have the reference? I cannot find this piece you refer to.

Reply to  Stephen Heins
October 9, 2016 12:07 pm

There is some evidence that the BC tax is working -whilst looking for the Steven Mosher article you mention I came across this:
“Empirical and simulation models suggest that the
tax has reduced emissions in the province by 5–15%.
At the same time, models show that the tax has had
negligible effects on aggregate economic performance…”

October 9, 2016 12:15 pm

most of us are stuck between to the “alarmist” and the “denier”
stuck between or stuck to. Not stuck between to
Actual greenhouse gas reductions from the Clean Power Plan are miniscule
minuscule. But more people misspell it than spell it correctly…

Reply to  Leo Smith
October 9, 2016 2:15 pm

Thanks, Leo.

October 9, 2016 12:28 pm

First, here is a link to Professor Mosher’s piece: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/professor-steven-cohens-carbon-tax-feasible-practical-steve-heins?trk=mp-reader-card
Second, read this recent piece “A Growth-Friendly Climate Change Proposal, by Greg Ip of the wsj.com
Finally, The BC is really small sampling with little time of implementation under its belt. Greg Ip of the WSJ recently wrote a piece about the British Columbia experiment and the Carbon Tax.
That said, “Cap and Trade” and “Carbon Tax” gambits are too complex, too political, too gamable and too inefficient for a world of limited resources and poverty.” Steve Heins
Published on May 31, 2016
Principal at the Word Merchant, LLC
California’s Cap-and-Trade Bubble
The carbon-credit market sputters, as it also has in Europe. Wall Street Journal Editorial
May 30, 2016 5:25 p.m. ET
When carbon cap and trade flopped in Europe, liberals blamed design flaws and hailed California’s embryonic program as a better regulatory model. But cap and tax is struggling in the Golden State too.
A mere 2% of the carbon emissions credits that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) put up for auction in May were sold. The quarterly auction raised only $10 million of the $500 million that CARB projected. That’s awful news for Democrats in Sacramento who planned to spend the windfall on high-speed rail, housing and electric-car subsidies.
Each year, CARB ratchets down the statewide emissions cap. Most energy-intensive businesses including refiners, manufacturers and fuel suppliers must cut their carbon output or buy credits for exceeding the cap.
In 2005 the European Union launched its Emissions Trading System, which the Obama Administration and even some Republicans hoped to copy before Rust Belt Democrats revolted. Europe’s cap-and-trade bubble has since burst as sluggish economic growth and heavily subsidized renewables have produced a glut of credits. By 2013 the roughly €30 price per ton that was putatively needed to reduce use of coal had plummeted to a few euros. Politicians have been reluctant to withdraw credits to prop up the price because they don’t want to handicap struggling businesses. Regulatory uncertainty has amplified price fluctuations.
As Europe went, so heads California. CARB’s auctions kicked off in 2012 with robust demand and have raised nearly $5 billion. But demand has shrunk this year amid regulatory and legal risks. The California Chamber of Commerce has challenged the auctions as an illegal tax that CARB imposed without the constitutionally required two-thirds vote of the legislature.
Cap-and-trade revenues are supposed to fund only projects that reduce emissions, and the state Legislative Analyst’s Office has questioned whether the funding recipients are doing so. For instance, the bullet train will release more carbon over the next three decades.
The legislature will likely also have to reauthorize cap and trade beyond its 2020 expiration date, and many Democrats will want changes. In 2014, 16 Assembly Democrats exhorted CARB to exempt transportation fuels. CARB estimates that cap and trade increases the price of gasoline by about 12 cents per gallon.
While a Sacramento superior court has upheld the program, an appellate court last month appeared more skeptical. Traders who hoped to flip allowances at a higher price have since been offloading credits and undercutting CARB’s auction floor.
In 2014 then Senate President Darrell Steinberg warned that cap and trade was “asking the trading market to enter directly into the energy segment again and that brings back bad memories” of rolling blackouts and electricity price spikes last decade. Reading Europe’s tarot cards, he told the Los Angeles Times that “this is an experiment that is yet unproven.”
CARB says this spring’s auction bust is no big deal and regulators can withhold credits until the price rises. Unlike their European counterparts, California’s climate crusaders don’t seem to care if their businesses and consumers suffer.

October 9, 2016 12:38 pm

seaice1 now adds unfalsifiable economic models to unfalsifiable climate models. A heroic leap in justifying new taxes.

Reply to  charlieskeptic
October 10, 2016 6:43 am

I said there is some evidence – that is some evidence. What would you use?

October 9, 2016 2:04 pm

Not long ago Gina McCarthy said, ~”We’ll release our [already penned] Regulation when we finish the science.”
Quite “naturally”, such Totalitarian Administration Flaks no longer have to care about the Inconvenient Facts and Method of Pre-Post Normal Science, and can therefore ignore The Empirical Facts of its “False Consciousness”; which naturally the Totalitarians who just conveniently thought it up [Karl Marx] and who must otherwise be subject to their own mechanism of “False Consciousness”, naturally don’t have to apply to themselves.
Instead, their only “logic” in practice is that through a gradual process of thought control’s “nudge-nudge”* effect as it applies to America, means=ends=thought control=Totalitarianism, so that eventually all that’s left is “Might makes Right.” [*Cass Weinstein]
But despite the verbal gibberish Totalitarian shills and practitioners such as the Administration’s Gina McCarthy and now even James Comey employ in service of eventually Controlling the Planet, Nature, Humanity, and especially America, because it still is and has been their mortal enemy, the Empirical Facts negating CO2-Climate Change still exist because Reality does exist – it has to exist for even their own demonstrably “False Consciousness” to exist:
1] CO2-Climate Change is Scientifically Falsified by its [100%] Empirical Prediction Failure.
[Its current focus on Arctic ice conveniently forgets that its own ostensible Empirical Prediction also included a decrease in Antarctic ice, which “The Science” of its CO2 Polar Amplification itself dictates must also decrease. That equals another Failed Empirical Prediction – which also got wrong the necessity of an ineluctable Death Spiral once the Arctic ice significantly decreases, as they’ve already asserted over and over again: Degrees of Separation from what is said by their pliant, often source-fed Media don’t count – if anyone’s still counting the “how many ways” in which they feverishly and incessantly express their “love” for The Planet, Nature, all of Humanity, and sometimes even America, while still failing to show any real evidence of it, and instead somewhat more of a Pandora’s Box to the opposite.]
2] CO2 is not a “Pollutant” because of 1] alone.
[Although we could add on the fact that CO2 at levels above ~180 ppm are apparently necessary for the existence of the vast majority of Nature’s life as it exists today; and that also, so far even Fossil Fuel’s own CO2 Fertilization of plants is only inconveniently “Healthy” to the Plants. I know U.S. Government Forest Service Officials and on-the-ground employees who don’t know these facts, even though these same people are otherwise very dedicated to exerting what is objectively rational “management” of their charge – even when it comes to the promoting the “Values” Environmentalist Whackos say they want to preserve.
Naturally among the Whackos, Human Health and Well-Being now ranks last as a “Value”, although it used to come in at least tied for first back in the “False Consciousness” Days of John Muir, to whom our own Mental Health was perhaps even paramount.
“The Wild And Scenic Rivers Act” has Humans ranked last as a “Value” at #5, and that’s only for “Recreation” not Re-Creation. Not all or even most Americans can get close to a Wilderness as it is. And if the Wild and Scenic River Area I’m familiar with – because I’ve actually lived solely in it for net long periods of time – burns up in a Catastrophic Fire, the Wilderness almost completely surrounding it is going to get some of it too.
The USFS has a great Safety Project now in the Public Review Process planned for this Wild and Scenic River Area, with not much of a large opposition to it yet, although the so-called Environmental Stake Holders and their wannabe “secret” minions are firing some of their usual rounds of lies at the USFS and spreading their usual Propaganda in the Community, which need to be shot down again and again.]
3] CO2 is not a “Toxin” since our own Human Bodies run at a normal healthy CO2 level of ~56,000 ppm vs the Atmosphere’s “dangerous and becoming Apocalyptic” 400 ppm.
The large differential of our body’s CO2 level compared to the Atmosphere’s, allows for easier control of the optimal internal pH necessary for our metabolic reactions to take place in order to keep us alive and able to move around. Enough movement produces enough CO2 to require an almost instant response = increased rate and depth of Breathing = elimination of CO2, to keep the body’s pH where it should be at around pH = 7.41-7.43.
The rather inconvenient Pre-Post Normal Henderson Hasselbalch equation for H2CO3/Carbonic Acid still captures the elements of this physiologic response and is used very many times per day in figuring out the real causes of Acid-Base disorders in real people in and successfully treating them.
[Making a whole lot of ballpark assumptions, I calculated that the average production of CO2 for an average person in the world – who doesn’t even need to exist – is ~1000 gm/day. And a “U.S. Government” source comes in at 900 gm/day – but I can’t find how they did it. It’s also possible to calculate, from my old book on “Respiratory Physiology” – which also cites the above normal “5.6%” CO2 concentration in the human body I calculated long before I came upon it there, but which anybody can calculate using Empirical Data’s average real values – that a person ~”strenuously exercising” can produce ~one pound=454 gm CO2 per hour from calories; which in turn then still need to be resupplied mostly by direct Sun light, its Fossil Fuel, and money.]
But 4] quite..er..”naturally” the “mainstream” Climate Scientists who sit around “Addicted To Love” by their Warming Models and “Experimenting” right then and there on them, and therefore “proving” their great value toward “Saving the Planet!” don’t have to worry about these kinds of Inconvenient Facts or the Method and Principles of Real Science.
They are fed quite well by their Totalitarian Leaders, who have commandeered the real Wealth others have produced, and have then produced the gibberished “Equality” of North Korea, for example, which involves an Empirical Reality of equal Poverty, Slavery, and Death “for thee, but not for me, Of The All-Caring Communist Party!”
And after all, the Obama Administration’s Post Modern “good intentions” are surely not the way to pave a road leading to Hell! “B-but It’ll be different this time because we really care. Don’t we and the rest of all ‘real’ Americans know it’s true because we always say it’s true?”

Reply to  JPeden
October 10, 2016 3:04 pm

Um, that is blood pH. The working tissue pH is a bit lower (around 6.8 for working muscle, if I am remembering correctly). Stomach acid is a lot lower (0.1N HCl), except when there is food in it. Small intestine luminal pH is higher than blood pH once maximal bicarbonate secretion has occurred to 1. neutralize the stomach acid and 2. so that the alkaline optimized digestive proteins can function. Large intestine luminal pH varies a lot. Urine pH also varies a lot, too.

Reply to  cdquarles
October 10, 2016 6:55 pm

“that is blood pH”
Right. The diagnosis and treatment angle of this very pivotal “Arterial pH” is to get an idea of what’s going on with the blood during the repetitive circulation cycles of the blood as it get pumped out by the “Left” side of the Heart, to the whole body via the Arterial Tree/Supply System, and to the cells, tissues, and organs, including the areas you mention.
There the Arterial blood does it’s thing at a cellular and fluid level in the capillaries; and the cells, tissues, and organs do their own things, to produce a changed blood. The blood becomes “Venous” as it returns to the “Right” side of the Heart, and it’s pH does vary per organ or tissue. But all the returning blood is “well-mixed” to an average just before it gets to the “Right” side of the Heart, which pumps it to the Lungs, which then do their thing to pO2 and pCO2 before the blood returns to the Left side of the Heart again.
The Arterial pH is measured from blood drawn from almost any artery with a Pulse, such as the Radial Artery at your wrist, as a “Blood Gas” measurement giving the pH, HCO3- concentration, and pCO2 and pO2 as partial pressures of this Arterial blood before it gets to the rest of the body, but after it’s been ‘treated’ by the Lungs.
The Arterial pH etc values resulting help show how far the pH is from the normal/optimal, and where the problem is, starting with whether it’s related to the Lungs as “Respiratory” or the rest of the body as “Metabolic”. There are a bunch of possibilities involved with each kind, including both kinds.
But if the Arterial pH is way off, usually too acid aka “Acidosis”, bad things producing say Coma are happening to the metabolic processes within cells which depend upon a “normal” pH to function correctly, so that they don’t do what they should to keep you alive.

Reply to  cdquarles
October 11, 2016 7:36 am

[Acidosis can produce Coma and Death at an Arterial pH below 7.1 But in ~1973 I had a guy in the ICU with a Phenformin – an oral hypoglycemic med for Diabetes – Metabolic Acidosis of pH=6.9 who was awake and breathing like a Mad Man to drive down pCO2 to I don’t remember what, and he lived. I must have given him enough i.v. HCO3-, bicarbonate over time, until the Arterial pH became more basic back toward a normal Arterial pH by the Mechanism pH = pKa[H2CO3] 6.1 + log[HCO3-]/.03[pCO2] as his breathing slowed down, but I really don’t remember. MD’s are supposed to worry about giving i.v. HCO3- because it can theoretically worsen Brain pH by increasing its pCO2, because CO2 gets increased in the body apart form the Brain, then diffuses across the Blood-Brain Barrier before HCO3-, increasing the Brain’s acidity. But I always just said “screw it”, because there really wasn’t anything better to do. Weird things happen inside the Gold Mine.]

Reply to  cdquarles
October 11, 2016 1:01 pm

Hmm. I’ve never seen a metformin acidosis. I’d need to look it up. Anyway, people forget that hemoglobin also binds carbon dioxide through a pH mediated conformation change. Blood pH changes help pump carbon dioxide out and oxygen in, under normal (here read typical physiological metabolic chemistry).

Reply to  JPeden
October 11, 2016 8:17 am

Oops, “Cass Weinstein Sunstein”

October 9, 2016 2:51 pm

She should be called out on stating that these emissions are Carbon Pollution. She means CO2 (carbon dioxide) and CO2 is not pollution. I would love to get the so-called climate scientists on the record as to whether CO2 is pollution. I think they could all be lectured by one such as Dr, Patrick Moore.
Obama also calls CO2 carbon. It’s like calling water: hydrogen. (H2O)

Steve Heins
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
October 9, 2016 3:10 pm

Gina McCarthy should be called out for many, many reasons. I tried to do that with my wonkish piece.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
October 9, 2016 4:30 pm

Unfortunately, the alarmists have a comeback. They say that “carbon pollution” is an umbrella term for CO2 and methane.

Reply to  rogerknights
October 9, 2016 4:39 pm

Although, the environmental arguments haven’t measurably improved. New fracking technology is solving the methane leakage problems. North Dakota is the new frontier of global energy technology.

Reply to  rogerknights
October 9, 2016 5:07 pm

Well, they never say “carbon based pollution”, which would be a little more truthful…JPP

October 9, 2016 9:07 pm

“California with a lot of NG …”
I love when people explain how a plan will work based on getting the facts backwards.
Pipelines and power lines supply gas and electricity to California.
“we would have 10-20 Nuclear Power Plants under construction in the USA just like China does.”
China got serious about about building nuke plants in 2005 when they could no longer produce enough slave labor coal and had to import coal from places that observed safety rules for mining.
The reason only 4 new nukes are under construction is the price of natural gas in the US
As others have pointed out it all about economics and nothing to do with ‘clean’ energy.

October 10, 2016 12:18 am

“Medical computations of indirect health benefits from the reduction of PM 2.5 (or fine particulate matter) have never been well demonstrated”
I think Steve Molloy has already totally debunked the PM2.5 myth.

Berényi Péter
October 10, 2016 3:07 am

The Clean Air Act does not specify carbon dioxide as a pollutant, the matter hinges on whether the substance poses a danger to public health and welfare or not.
As carbon dioxide in conceivable environmental concentration is neither toxic nor harmful to human health in any way, what is more, it does contribute to increasing foliage coverage in semi-arid regions (greening of the planet), which is not exactly harmful to public health and welfare, the danger it poses should be established in another way.
That’s what IPCC does.
If climate model projections are exaggerated, carbon dioxide does not even pose a threat to future climate, in which case it is not a pollutant. If it is not a pollutant, EPA does not have the right to regulate its emission to the environment. It may still have the right to regulate other, possibly harmful substances, that may accompany it, but that has nothing to do with carbon dioxide as such.
Anyway “carbon pollution” is the silliest concept I have ever heard of, even if carbon dioxide is not completely benign.

Reply to  Berényi Péter
October 11, 2016 9:07 am

@Berényi Péter
“The Clean Air Act does not specify carbon dioxide as a pollutant, the matter hinges on whether the substance poses a danger to public health and welfare or not.”
Quote taken right from the EPA Clean Power Plan home page heading: “Learn About Carbon Pollution From Power Plants”.
And they are talking about CO2 – Carbon Dioxide…

Berényi Péter
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
October 12, 2016 1:09 am

The only way out I can see is an amendment by Congress to the Clean Air Act, that carbon dioxide is not Carbon, and those who say otherwise can’t be called experts, therefore their opinion is not an expert judgement, but just that, an opinionated opinion, with no relation to reality whatsoever.

October 10, 2016 7:20 am

Thermalization of terrestrial radiation explains why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com identifies the three things which do (98% match with measured 1895-2015).
Rising water vapor is the only significant factor countering the average global temperature decline which would otherwise be occurring.

Snarling Dolphin
October 10, 2016 8:29 am

Did she say “cobbin”? What the heck is “cobbin”? And “azmur”? Never heard of “azmur”. There’s nothing quite as unsettling as a self-satisfied un-elected bureaucrat touting the righteousness of his or her own opinion. The administrative state and this agency in particular are completely out of control.

Snarling Dolphin
Reply to  Snarling Dolphin
October 10, 2016 8:42 am

Hillsdale College Constitution 101 Lecture 9 totally nails this phenomenon. Worth a listen.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights