Dr. David Schnare writes via email:
In addition to Myron Ebell and Amy Oliver , the following were just named as on the “landing team”, the group who will go to EPA to collect information needed for the transition. Here is my statement:
The President-Elect’s Transition team named me and others to the EPA Transition Landing Team today. This will upset some of you and will please others. My approach, and that of the entire transition team, is to be highly professional as we seek the information the transition team needs to create its action plans. Our job will be to ask appropriate questions and to listen. Any of you that would like to meet with our team, please let me know and I will transmit that to our team. In the mean time, I will have nothing to share on the team’s activities and I’ll not be airing my own opinions until our job is done. Best to you all. – David Schnare
Environmental Protection Agency
David Kreutzer
Employer (current or most recent): The Heritage Foundation
Funding source: Private
Austin Lipari
Employer (current or most recent): The Federalist Society
Funding source: Volunteer
David Schnare
Employer (current or most recent): Energy and Environment Legal Institute
Funding source: Volunteer
David Stevenson
Employer (current or most recent): Caesar Rodney Institute
Funding source: Volunteer
George Sugiyama
Employer (current or most recent): The Sugiyama Group LLC
Funding source: Volunteer
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I got a chill up my leg. oooooooo
Chris Mathews had that with BHO.
Down Boy!!
keep a clear head and judge on actions, not cheap words.
Yeah, it’s hard to trust, as we’ve been burned before. But, this is a really good list of names.
Paul Westhaver — I am sure the EPA feels a trickle going down its leg. — Eugene WR Gallun
ok ok Eugene.. You got me there. Maybe a watery pasty heavy gurgle.
Yeah, but the trickle down the leg is a warm feeling, a la Charlie Brown?
Ah the beginning of Trickle Down Legonomics
Was it at the same time as the involuntary bowel movement?
@Hot under the collar: It all Depends.
Eugene: I suspect that was what gave Chris Matthews his thrill, and was ashamed to call it right.
That is a good list. EPA to shredder running on rooftop solar
Garment Change
NOTES FOR TRUMP
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/
Observations and Conclusions:
1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record
2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.
3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.
7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.
8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.
9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Allan MacRae, Calgary, June 12, 2015
The rock bottom quality of the research that has been performed to date ensures that we have learned nothing of value from it. Neither do we know that CO2 is a problem nor do we know that CO2 is not a problem.
+1
[snip]
Okay, but everyone here thought it was funny!
This team does not make sense when combined with the Al Gore meeting, unless it was just to tell him to pound sand.
Hopefully Trump asked Gore to show actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming. Then Gore would have told him to watch “The Inconvenient Truth” Gore then left because Trump could not stop laughing at him.
+1
..Remember Lucy from the Peanuts cartoon ?? Gore and Romney are running at the ball and Trump is about to yank it away, all the while laughing his tushy off ….IMHO….Revenge is sweet…
If Trump is the genius I hope he is, he will use Gore to garner support for Gen. IV nuclear with the alarmists. One of his technology advisers is Peter Thiel, who is heavily invested in that tech. We can only hope.
Thanks Gregory White,
I didn’t know that Peter Thiel is into Gen. IV nukes. We can pray that his words carry weight.
I’m a maximum Trump contributor, ie primary, general and 2020 (I know…). My well-placed friends in his camp assure me that, while in Ivanka’s circle it’s oh, so chi-chi to be, oh so climactic, her dad is committed to the interests of the coal miners and auto industry workers who elected him.
I posted here earlier today worrying about this meeting, but feel fairly reassured now.
Meant climatic, but the Freudian slip is probably also apropos.
Now that makes me sad. Trump should be committed to science and the truth, not political solutions.
That attitude is just as bad as the alarmists.
No problem keeping coal miners and other fossil-fuel-extracting workers busy, Roy–there’s no scientific proof that CO2 is dangerous for the climate and plenty of evidence it works wonders with foodstuff-generating plants.
You’ll find Trump considers the science and truth in all his political solutions. You might ask why the Left has dedicated three decades of Fake News to the climate and was soundly rejected politically.
My guess was that Gore is freaking out and desperate to convert Trump. It is the last chance to save the world. Got through to Ivanka first. Then to Trump. Climate freaks are going to be shut down.
Roy Denio December 5, 2016 at 7:46 pm
Climate science is political hence a political solution is needed
I’m pretty sure Trump was just trying to keep Gore away from Ivanka.
The Gore meet was at Ivanka’s request.
Wise fathers who love their daughters listen to their concerns. Listening to daughters is a skill too many men take for granted. Al Gore went of course b/c it was an oppo to be in front if MSM cameras again.
What comes remains to be seen.
Al Gore in Dec. 5, 2016 NY Times article:
lol
Translation: Gain for climate hu$tlerS: NOTHING.
**********************************
And, yes, Mr. Adams. “Go pound sand” is exactly what Trump’s actions meant.
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaa!
Yes, Trump’s meeting with Gore was a bit disturbing. We can hope it was done in the spirit of “meeting with the enemy.”
Btw, here’s an outstanding video that calls out Al Gore’s lies in his movie about CO2, and shows in fact that there is ZERO evidence that CO2 affects climate temperatures:
Gregory Adams: Sure it does. It makes perfectly good sense.
Trump said he had an open mind and will listen to all sides. He’s even hired people who disagree with some of his positions so he can be informed of all sides if an argument. Trump is unique… I cannot wait to see how all of this pans out. I have high hopes.
Mario
Good point, Mario. As any good litigation attorney knows, you have to know the other side’s case inside and out to be able to effectively counter their arguments and defeat them. I have high hopes, too!
If one has an open mind, and is interested in the truth, then one would not be afraid of talking to someone on the other side of the issue. Even if you don’t expect your mind to be changed, it is still good policy, as well as good politics, to hear out all sides. Like it or not, Gore is considered an important player in this area, so it makes sense to give him an audience.
Ivanka arranged the Gore meeting… she is apparently interested in climate science and wanted Trump to hear what Gore has to say.
Unfortunately he is the LAST person anyone should visit to discuss climate.
David Schnare — EXCELLENT choice. (the others no doubt are, too — I only briefly researched that guy)
(Source: Hostile witness dismayed at Schnare, “The Guardian,” opinion piece by R. Schiffman, Jan. 9, 2014)
Heh, heh, heh.
sinister snicker… 🙂
#(:))
And add to that a hearty….
#(:V) Bwah, ha, ha, ha, HAAAAAAAAA!
David Schnare sounds like just the kind of person we need.
I suspect there are going to be a lot of problems with the hard drives at the EPA (& other deparments) in the next 40-some days.
The Trump group better get in there and make sure stuff is preserved. A lot of shenanigans happen during the change of admins.
” the private correspondence of these academics?”
=======================
how is this correspondence private? if it was done in the course of their activities with the university, and the university is in any way government funded, the public has a right to know how their money is being spent.
“trust us, we are from the government” has now become “trust us, we are from the university”
ferd berple:
I wonder how many people read the documents they sign when they join a company or government organization? I would love to quote from the one I had for my company, though it is similar to other companies and government agencies. (I wrote it based on a consultation with a group of companies and government agencies updating their privacy documents back in the 90’s as we were computerizing just about everything and everyone was updating their employment policies to include digital information. Of course I can’t, because it isn’t mine even though I wrote it.)
Basically all employees are(were) told that everything they did on company equipment (computers or otherwise) was subject to review, in real time or later, and that everything was considered company product, nothing was personal and IT could watch keystrokes and screens in real time or pull from history. It was clearly indicated that all employees should consider email to be similar to a postcard – it could be read by anyone with appropriate access (or hacked). Misuse of company equipment was cause for dismissal. There was a long list of issues but basically everything belonged to the company/government.
I don’t know if this has changed since I retired 15 years ago. But I am always surprised by people that think emails and other computer data is personally owned and “private”. Unless you are a one person band it isn’t. And a one man band that archives stuff on the cloud is might find it isn’t so private as they had hoped.
(y)
I feel “anointed”. Christine McEntee complained to my employer (I used a private e-mail but stated who I am).
I in so many sarcastic words called her recent “Sign The Letter” of “Science” From AGU to the President-Elect, pathetic, misguided and stupid.
Guess she does not have a sense of humor, now being the biggest looser. 🙂
!
Way — to — go, Bom!
“Christine McEntee complained to my employer (I used a private e-mail but stated who I am).”
You ought to sue her. She was trying to do you harm because of your opinion. A judge might see it your way.
Watch what he does not what he says or who he meets. I got the distinct feeling from Gores demeanor he got nowhere but did want to admit it.
Yes, I detected at least three “factual inexactitudes” in Gore’s statement to the reporter, which shouldn’t surprise anybody.
You call it the EPA ‘transition’ team. I hope it is a “transition” to a department with zero budget and zero employees. Think of the positive environmental impact that will have.
While I dislike the current version of the EPA, I don’t want to remove all regulation. Why? Because people are pigs who will urinate in the drinking water if given a chance.
I’d put in a team charged with looking at every EPA reg and seeing if it is justified. If not … out.
w.
“people are pigs who will urinate in the drinking water”
I have only done that once. And I had a lot of beer and I was a freshman.
Willis the solution is simpler than that. Congress only needs to return to the Constitution, and stop relegating their authority to bureaucrats. All laws have to come from the House of representatives. Article I section 8, and the 10th Amendment.
Now Congress allows the EPA and other agencies to make laws. The Congressman can take credit for good and popular laws, while blaming the EPA and other .bureaucracies for bad unpopular laws.
Hey! Urine is generally free of any harmful bacteria and safe to drink in a pinch. The EPA should not have any jurisdiction!
The symbiotic relationship between EPA and environmentalist has to end.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/02/06/how-the-epa-helps-environmental-groups-sue-the-epa/
Most of EPA’s traditional regs (water, air, haz waste, etc) are formally delegated to and implemented by the States. In the past, EPA fulfilled a role in developing and assisting States in how to implement and enforce these more or less appropriate regulations. Since climate change came into vogue, however, far too much of EPA is now oriented towards ridiculous activities to reduce CO2. It is time for EPA to be gone.
Gandhi drank his own urine; just saying.
projection pig is in the house
cohenite December 5, 2016 at 9:19 pm
“Gandhi drank his own urine; just saying.”
If you want to look like Gandhi, be my guest.
looking at every EPA reg and seeing if it is justified
===============
Every bureaucracy will try and expand its sphere of influence to infinity given the chance, and human beings have an infinite capacity to rationalize any decision.
For example, the EPA endangerment findings are based on the notion that making a lot of people a little bit sick is the same as making a few people sick to the point of death. in other words:
small illness X lot of people = big illness (death) X a few people
As soon as you accept this equation as true, then all sorts of irrational regulations are justified, because any problem then becomes about killing people.
Me neither. We wouldn’t have had catalytic converters without the EPA enforcing them. Absolutely nothing wrong with regulating the minimum safety levels for air and water. In fact, essential. Richard Nixon did a good thing setting that up.
Regulations are also the people’s way of saying OK, government, you can do this but not that…and we want you to police this activity because it ain’t good for the country as a whole. “The People” don’t have time to babysit every government action. We have jobs and responsibilities, and Little League games and fantasy football. Regulations ensure that we don’t have to. I’d rather have the regulations slapped on government (charging them with carrying them out) than private companies.
Let the states regulate it.
LIKE MANY. I like Trump’s clean water comment. But then, I worked in water supply and waste treatment for decades. We need to get back to providing clean water, appropriately treated waste streams (air or water), safe food, shelter, and a reasonable level of health care and transportation and stop tilting at windmills (you know the kind I mean.) Of course, engineering types like me, have a brain that works differently from a lot of folks.
People have pushed the “Best Available Technology” out of the envelope. The “Most Appropriate Technology” is a better term.
We don’t need to do expensive Bardenpho waste treatment plants where a simple facultative lagoon would do. But we should construct a Bardenpho or like system if nutrient removal is critical and ECONOMIC.
Similarly, let’s do CLEAN coal rather than litter the prairies with uneconomic wind farms – unless of course you can do it economically and effectively and you have figured out how not to kill raptors and bats or site them away from where they live (is that even possible?).
It will be interesting to see how this all looks next December. (And hopefully not 25C below outside like today.)
Well, time to put the snowsuit on and go feed the animals.
My only real problem with the EPA is that it has no congressional oversight, like the state depth or defense. It is accountable only to the President. To me that is wrong.
Roy Denio
December 5, 2016 at 7:54 pm
“All laws have to come from the House of representatives. Article I section 8, and the 10th Amendment.”
This is not correct. Laws can be introduced by either the House or the Senate. You may be thinking of the restriction that laws to raise revenue must originate in the House… “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” Article I, Section 7.
The Tenth Amendment says nothing about this.
“Now Congress allows the EPA and other agencies to make laws.” Once Congress creates a Federal Agency with an Administrator, etc., that Agency is part of the Executive Branch, and reports to the President. It must follow the law as prescribed by Congress. It can promulgate rules and regulations in furtherance of its interpretation of the law… Though I agree that “regulations” often have the effect of “laws”, that is generally the intent of creating such an Agency in the first place. Congress cannot pass a law for everything and must rely upon the executive branch to implement its will correctly. Therein lies the rub.
@Wayne Delbeke, December 6, 2016 at 12:41 pm
Agree. Like the most appropriate tech point.
Let the states enforce it. Clear air and water can’t be defined by states. You can’t have a clean Minnesota and foul Dakotas and hope to have Minnesota stay clean. Or, say, the Mississippi River. Can’t be polluted in one state and pristine in another and have those conditions stop at the border. That’s nutz.
Some things have to stay federal, imo. But it should have congressional oversight. It’s insane that it doesn’t.
Nah, zero regulatory ability is a bad idea. Leftists will definitely take advantage and start polluting again, and of course will blame conservatives.
There needs to be clearly defined limits to the power that the EPA can have. I’m personally fine with real-world practical limits to actual pollutants, however calling CO2 at the levels we emit a “pollutant” is mind numbingly political and needs to be immediately overturned.
The left, as usual, have overreached and made a good idea into a horrible monster that eats people and jobs.
So limit their powers, and make it so they can only report and recommend charges on actual polluters to the DoJ or some other agency that isn’t so mindlessly political.
All congress has to do is declare Co2 a non-pollutant. Game over
I think they need to be disarmed. Seriously. I also think the Department of Education and all the other three letter federal agencies need to be disarmed. This nonsense has to stop.
I’m not terribly concerned the EPA will be stripped of power and cast out into the wilderness. That’s OK for now. A housecleaning is in order. 4 years of starvation will sort the wheat from the chaff as it were. The planet won’t suffer at all if the EPA is sent to the woodshed for a few decades much less a few years. It’s out of control and needs to be eliminated and re-established after its current denizens are either dead or too old to cause trouble. I’d say 20 years minimum.
Not sure why people are calling for erasure of the EPA. Certainly the carbon dioxide wibble needs to go but we most certainly do need to look after the environment. It’s just that the job needs to be done by rational scientists with no political interference and no bullying from green activists.
Having the EPA as a separate organization has tended to lead to it attracting green activists as employees, like the Forest service attracting other greens or the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms attracting anti-gun activists. To reform the behavior of the organization, it very well might be neccessary to disestablish the organization as such and transfer the useful roles to other agencies.
“the job needs to be done by rational scientists with no political interference”
Might as well wish for fairies and unicorns.
It is the nature of any bureaucracy to grow. No matter how much you cut back the EPA now, the monster will re-emerge in a few decades.
How about their anointing every puddle with the holy status of “protected water body”?
And no more “sue and settle” wherein the EPA and a leftist organization agree that their goals cannot me met by science, they sue and settle. The leftist organization sues EPA and then EPA settles the lawsuit before a judge to get the regulating power they couldn’t get any other way and the court appoints the leftists a big settlement to be used in the future when EPS secretly tells the leftists what and where to sue.
There is hope the Climate Hustle is in its final months.
It’s over.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Akademik-Shokalskiy-Australasian-Antarctic-Expedition-Footloose-Fotography.jpg
Only empty threats and hysterical shrieks: “You better do what we say, Mister Trump! Or else!!!!”
**
Trump: (silent stare….. smile slightly……shake head, turn and walk out of the room)
**Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/us/politics/donald-trump-transition.html .
SS Climate Change.
Unsinkable.
http://i68.tinypic.com/24xfmmf.jpg
Did those hundreds of scientists supply proof besides their pay stubs?
NYT, a ‘Fake News’ outlet!
David Schnare’s work at the EE Legal Institute was very powerful. He is a great addition.
I am a lawyer. Please tell me why a lawyer should head up the EPA? What is his science background? Do you want lawyers running NASA as well?
davidgmills. It’s a transition team that is put together to advice Trump, not an inquisition. Please read the article.
David…is it better to have lawyers or politicians running the EPA and NASA, because right now we’ve got politicians running both and I’m singularly unimpressed.
When Uri Geller, an Illusionist was bending spoons they investigated him with a team of scientists not fellow Magicians. The scientists still believe in Geller’s mystical powers.
In my opinion the Climate Debate stopped being about science after Anthony found thermometers had been shifted next to carparks and buildings and Steve McIntyre performed a Monte Carlo on Mann’s hockey stick algorithm. Everything since has been about regulation and legislation, the access to and control of the facts.
So send in Lawyers who believe regulation should have a purpose and to that end should be enforced. The EPA will be full of the trash out of Arts Law Faculties, those who use laws as weapons in a quest for their Totalitarian Utopia.
PS. Take a water bottle, building map and a chemical toilet, this will be a hostile environment.
davidgmills-
Why should a lawyer head up EPA? Because, as originally constituted, they were an enforcement agency. In the 1970’s I proposed a research project to a branch of EPA, and was told they could not fund pure research, that they could only fund research that was tied to enforcement. Their mission is more about enforcing their regulations; others are supposed to do the science. Maybe not the best approach, but that’s the way they saw themselves in the past.
Proof positive that low-information voters are not necessarily uneducated. They only have to be Leftists.
For the transition team – who better than an expert in environmental law? We can hope that there are some referrals to the new DOJ for prosecution…
David: I, too, am a lawyer. With an undergraduate degree in Chemical Engineering. Some of my lawyer frieds also have science degrees, math degrees, physics…you name it. Virtually every patent lawyer has a technical background. (I practiced patent law for years before doing general legal work) I have no idea what Schnare’s background might be, but as a lawyer you must be familiar with thinking things through, examining the evidence, looking hard at the opposing party’s position, etc. All valuable in examining scientific as well as business matters.
As to relying on the experts: I had two instances of …strange…behavior on the part of PhD chemists. In one case, a PhD chemist submitted to his VP a detailed critique of a new process and concluded that it would not work. His recommendation? Give the guy a contract to work on it. The VP brought it to me for comments. Geez.
The second was in the case of a reactor vessel that exploded. The PhD had a theory based on a rare type of reaction. I asked what would happen if the fluidized bed collapsed. You got it: The bed had collapsed.
So my trust in PhD experts is somewhat less than unquestioning.
Jim B
RR: “lawyers or politicians”?? A Venn Diagram would have 90+% overlap!
I believe this is just a transition team, not the new EPA leadership. Replacing the head of the EPA will come later, and may be one of those positions that must be approved by Congress.
DavidGMills:
1. As pointed out, even if Dr. Schnare were not a scientist (he is — Please see below), he could be (and is) well-qualified to reform the EPA.
2. To answer your question:
1)
(Source: http://eelegal.org/who-we-are/ )
3. Further info. (just FYI)
(Source: http://thehardlook.typepad.com/about.html )
Great reply and info, Janice!
Do any of your remember the cynical little sh1t that got fired from the EPA for bragging about storming into a company like the Roman Army to make examples of non-compliant companies? Where is he now? Inquiring minds want to know.
…probably helping Stein and (ostensibly) Hillary in the recount effort.
Is this the enviro P.O.S. to which you refer?
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/e-p-a-official-resigns-over-crucify-flap/?_r=0
Dr. Al Armendariz.
He went back to his Mother Ship (the Sierra Club) here:
https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/06/29/al-armendariz-to-join-sierra-club/
Oh Yeah! Joel you nailed it!!!
Now…
Exactly what is this P.O.S. saying now that Trump is about to go Visigoth on his 5th century Roam azz.
Whatever they are planning, be assured it is ***NOT*** their nature to slither off quietly into the darkness for 4 years.
They have Tom Steyer’s and Soros’ billion’s bakrolling their camapign of deception and half-truths. Spend it they will.
lol
When I meet scientists online from other countries I ask them whether requests for grants to solve “climate change” are on the uptick or trending down in their institutions. They always tell me the requests are increasing.
Gravy train effect.
Throw in a line or two about Climate Change affecting in some way your conclusions…
And Viola!!!! It’s the magic phrase in getting your next grant application a higher score.
Does not matter your field of science.
– Microbiology/virology…. human diseases from vector carriers (mosquitos, flies, ticks, fleas) increaseing due to CC.
– Immunology/Rheumatology… Asthma-allergies increasing due to CC.
– Plant science… Rust diseases, parasites, grasshoppers increasing due to CC.
– Earth’s magnetic field…. decreasing as a warmer expanding atmosphere slows the Earth’s rotation.
– human pychoses …. Increasing due to climate change trauma and stress.
– condensed matter physics … Increasing CO2 might do something we can’t anticipate, needs further study….
etc…
The liberal (and other) media is agog about The Donald saying he had an open mind about climate change.
What better way to mitigate the inevitable kiniption the left will go through as dangerous AGW power and control “climate policy” fails before their lying eyes?
…so do we all, and our minds are open enough to recognize truth and call out Fake Science with respect to anthropogenic global warming.
Man can control a lot of things, but there’s no evidence he can control the climate–it’s just too big.
Job 1: Send Paris Treaty to Senate;
Job 2: Fire McCarthy and her crew;
Job 3: Approve DAPL permit
Job 4: Take CO2 off pollutant list
Job 5; Hold a televised panel discussion on climate science – the long awaited but never materialized “debate” which is claimed to have been settled but never actually happened. Use their own science to hold a mirror up that that damned overdue emperor (not Obama – the one who is not really wearing any clothes).
Fire Gavin and close GISS, NCAR and other centers of disinformation.
Hire McIntyre to conduct a legitimate audit of temperature data since 1850.
Proceed from this scientific rather than political basis.
Steve Mc and Tony Heller in tandem would be awesome. Steve for audit Tony for data management.
Bloody awsome
Skeptic funding already hired the Berkley Earth project to look at temperature data from 1850, including whether it was influenced by UHI effect.
This independent study concluded humans were warming the planet and UHI effect not biasing the record.
Is there any lie so pedantic that Griffie won’t repeat it over and over and over again?
Making stuff up again, Griff?
That’s a porkie pie, and you know it.
“Skeptic funding already hired the Berkley Earth project to look at temperature data from 1850, including whether it was influenced by UHI effect.
This independent study concluded humans were warming the planet and UHI effect not biasing the record.”
Yup.
And we basically used methods that key sceptics had suggested:
A) use All the data not just USHCN (like Tony Heller does)
B) Use raw data
C) When stations or instruments move.. create a new station ( Willis and Roman M)
D) Use Krigging ( various guys at climate audit
E) Look at adjustments from a new perspective,
F) Use better metadata to identify Urban stations.
“Job 5; Hold a televised panel discussion on climate science – the long awaited but never materialized “debate” which is claimed to have been settled but never actually happened.”
YES
+10
Mario
No ¨Plays into the hands of the money men.
How about somebody really smart with a gift for writing, like Willis, draft a letter with actions that the folks at WUWT would like to see taken so that we can each download it and send it into the Trump organization. Can you just imagine the Trump organization getting thousands of these letters. I love the idea about a debate or panel discussion. With the Donald’s flair for promotion, a series of YouTubes on the corruption of the science would be fitting as well as all the uncertainties. The fact that the EPA labeled CO2, a gas essential for life on this planet, a pollutant with no pushback from the MSM or the science community is infuriating. A lot of YouTube about the science are out there, they just have to be promoted to a wider audience.
+100
These people have the difficult task task ahead of them, of sorting scientific fact from propaganda. My best wishes go out to them, as they will no doubt encounter resistance and much turmoil in the science community as it now exists.
Pop Piasa,
I think it is easy. Cut off the money ….so serious talks will ensue. (I bet $5 Trump does this right away)
Not so easy. There are congressional budgets and appropriations that have already been made. The President can unilaterally decide to not spend those funds. But we’ve already had recent 8 years experience with decree by dictatorial fiat. I, for one, have grown quite tired of it. What I’d like to see is a grown-up discussion of how to bring the EPA under control
Good point, but I think the biggest problem will be controlling the green folks ensconced in the EPA, because they will do everything to sabotage the effort to clean the swamp including leaking to the NYT. As I recall Bush had a lot of troubles with the Dept of State trying to undermine the policy as did Hanson.
It is difficult to fire a government employee.
Buy them off with an early retirement or large separation package. It would save tonnes of $$$ in the long run.
Then cut off their funding and let them work for free. What they’ve given us so far is worth every penny.
“Ron Abate December 5, 2016 at 8:46 pm
Buy them off with an early retirement or large separation package. It would save tonnes of $$$ in the long run.”
remove the parasites now and save tonnes of $$$ immediately.
if you don’t stop hosting the parasites you breed an ever larger population of them.
then see how you like your long run.
supposing they aren’t ‘green’ but honest scientists, reporting the world as they find it?
Another strawman from Griff?
“supposing they aren’t ‘green’ but honest scientists, reporting the world as they find it?”
Tough.
It will teach them to be more careful who they associate with in the future.
In any case, I suspect their number will be vanishingly small.
Congressional oversight. Just like every other fed agency. The EPA does not have that. Reporting twice a year to Congress would be an interesting brake on their ambitions. Right now all they have to do is get the Prez’s Science advisor to agree with them and they’re home-free.
Some real positives with Kreutzer;
http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/k/david-kreutzer#
Hopefully meeting Gore was strategic to neutralize leftist attacks by pretending he might deal.
I hope this transition team is getting 8 years worth of email backup tapes and as many texts as the can round up, including uncovering all aliases. Should make some really great reading this spring…
What’s a “landing team?”
The paratroopers who arrive in advance of the Coup d’état
Of the group affiliations I recognize, like Heritage and The Federalist Societiy, I am in general agreement with them. Notably, there is no one from a rent-seeking green blob group, like FOE or the Sierra Club. Gore must be feeling disappointed.
Really? They seem like rather dubious, secretive organisations funded by fossil fuel interests and billionaires to me.
How many American workers contribute to organisations like that?
I think the people paying for them are probably the people who export jobs from the factories they own to China and Mexico
That may be what you think but, look what you’re thinking with.
Griff
December 6, 2016 at 4:57 am
Really? They seem like rather dubious, secretive organisations funded by fossil fuel interests and billionaires to me.
Really? So who is funding you, Griff? Since CO2-Climate Change is Scientifically Falsified by its [100%] Prediction Failure, I want to know if your Puppet Masters should be investigated under the RICO Statutes.
Heck, I am entirely self funded… I have no remuneration from, nor membership in, nor employment or any benefit in kind from any group or organisation involved in climate research or activism, nor any political party, private individual or secret cabal… (left or right or masonic!)
Plato is a man. All men are liars. . . (actually I just think you are a True Believer, or work for them)
Griff, I applaud your continued efforts.
Generally the only people that question funding sources are those that don’t have the facts on their side. Also, I’d like to see some PROOF that these people (most of whom are volunteers) have been funded by fossil fuel interests. If you can’t then it’s just smear to accuse them. And even if some of the organizations they have worked for have, from time to time, accepted some fossil fuel money for various projects, so what? This does not prove they or their work are tainted. Smacks of McCarthyism to me. Not to mention that many green groups receive much more money from fossil fuel interests and billionaires (like Soros) than skeptics. By several orders of magnitude. So take your FUD and logical fallacies somewhere else and let the adults have a intelligent conversation here.
Anyone who believes Peter Gleick has lost any chance of ever gaining my respect.
It really is sad the way Griff once again proves that he is incapable of actually thinking for himself.
Griff: “I think…”
I think not.
Make stuff up – yes.
But think – no.
Action plan:
Have oxygen declared a pollutant.
Start the clean up process by removing it from all EPA offices.
Well oxygen is a corrosive is it not.
Not really corrosive, an “oxidizer”. It’s toxic (according to the US Navy and many other informed agencies) at concentrations above 1.6 ATA for more than 20 minutes. That’s why divers are limited to using oxygen at depths of 20 ft. or less.
Oxygen is certainly a toxin in amounts that are too large, as is CO2. Water will also kill you. I see no real problem with the EPA putting limits on CO2 above 30,000 ppm (3%) of the atmosphere.
Second thought. CO2 above 15,000 ppm. The effect varies.
O2 is a pollutant. CO2 however occurs naturally in the atmosphere. Someone should tell the EPA.
Oxygen is a known DNA mutagen. There’s a lot of it too. An average person breaths in about 500 gram per day of it. It’s estimated that up to 2% to 3% goes astray in that it is not all used by the right metabolic pathway. That’s about a third of a mole per day of wayward oxygen our body must daily deal with. 2 × 10²³ rogue molecules of oxygen for about 70 trillion human cells; about 3 billion rogue oxygen molecules per human cell, daily. Fortunately oxidative damage to DNA can be repaired by the cell itself. Does excess oxygen cause even more DNA damage?:
— Oxidative Decay of DNA, by Kenneth B. Beckman and Bruce N. Ames
It looks like the effect of extra oxygen damage is prevented by a hormetic effect.
Is that why there is the claim that we need to have antioxidants in our diets?
Invoking Poe’s law on the Dawg.
This is all very nice and I wish them well. But for Christ sake when are they going to stop the cows from farting in California!
Have no fear, Jerry Brown has all the California cows under control.
Better known as the “Cal’s frat tax’
EPA … fade to black: 45 days. http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?p0=263&iso=20170120T00&msg=Time%20left%20until%20Obama%20leaves%20office
Well, let’s hope that the “climate change” daughter doesn’t influence anyone (including Trump) and that the EPA doesn’t label CO2 as a pollutant…
Listening to this it sounds like Trump has made an excellent chice:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/11/meet-the-man-trump-is-relying-on-to-unravel-obamas-environmental-legacy/?utm_term=.be560e84c5af
The EPA has a purpose, albeit it has gone way beyond it’s necessary boundary. I like the approach. Listen and learn, then adapt without the agenda driven purpose that currently invests the agency.
Hummm, I said infects, but invests may be just as good. Voice to text is not perfect yet 😉
https://wordpress.com/post/madmikedavies.wordpress.com/365
All I need is the Air that I Breathe
Posted on March 1, 2012
by madmikedavies
The current composition of the atmosphere is as a result of CO2 breathing organisms (plants and bacteria) and is composed primarily of a neutral molecule N2 and a POISON. This POISON is O2, and is a waste product of photosynthesis. The evolution of higher lifeforms was a response to the pollution of the atmosphere by early life.
Oxygen breathing life evolved to utilise this waste product and balance the atmosphere. Nevertheless, the CO2 breathing lifeforms have been winning the war of waste products and slowly poisoning themselves
.
Humans are the final link in the chain, our evolutionary purpose is to change the balance of power, and reverse the trend of lower CO2. We need to release fossil CO2 to the atmosphere so that the cycle of life can continue.
Mad Mike
Wellll……..never looked at it like that, but yes.
Although we like to see ourselves at the top of the hill, as the masters of the planet, and that everything is here for our consumption…it is hard to argue with your logic. It is a valid viewpoint and an interesting one to contemplate. This makes us humans neither overlords nor devils, but a necessary element to help maintain the balance of lifeforms on this planet.
Jon, Paul,
I have been looking at the problem for years as a systems technical engineer my conclusion is
Conclusion the evolution of life on earth uses and is dependant on the terrestrial carbon cycle, and the values of CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere are fundamental to life. The biosphere has operated as a carbon sink for much of earths history, such that the atmosphere is seriously depleted in CO2 compared to historical levels, the fundamental purpose of the evolution of human intelligence is to reverse this trend and remove CO2 from the lithosphere, where residence times are measured in millenia . Unlike the H2O cycle which has short residence times the long residence time of carbon in the lithosphere has had a cooling effect which lead to the last glaciation.
Humans have evolved to burn fuel and recycle the atmospheric greenhouse and return climate norms to Miocene levels.
While this is an excellent landing team for whom I have high hopes, I’m not going to get excited yet, for two reasons:
1. Politicians are almost always more moderate in action than they are in rhetoric, and;
2. EPA has a deeply rooted culture, and deeply rooted cultures are almost impossible to reform from the outside. Several examples no doubt come to mind for many people, but I’d rather leave global politics out of this one, and so will use a corporate example instead. Many of the computer technologies that we take for granted today were invented at Xerox PARC. While the Xerox executive saw clearly the end of the gravy train when their patents on photo copiers ran out, and invested in new technologies, they failed completely at getting the people who worked for them to sell those products. The culture was all about photo copiers, and attempts to change that culture nearly bankrupted the company. They gave up and sold the new products off for a fraction of their eventual value. Similarly, large corporations sometimes outsource large chunks of themselves, the internal employees being transferred to the out source company. They are typically departments which have become unresponsive to the needs of the company (sound familiar?) and resist change. It is less expensive, less time consuming and less traumatic to the company to outsource and make the problematic culture someone else’s problem.
This team has a major challenge on their hands. Unfortunately, one can’t simply outsource the core functions of the EPA, some of which are important.
another similar analogy would be the Republican party and coal power plants…
Griff, your ability to completely misunderstand the point is amusing. Not the clever ha ha kind of amusing.