Trump’s full EPA transition team named

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


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Paul Westhaver

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.

Eugene WR Gallun

Paul Westhaver — I am sure the EPA feels a trickle going down its leg. — Eugene WR Gallun

Paul Westhaver

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?

Bryan A

Ah the beginning of Trickle Down Legonomics

Hot under the collar

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.

Pierre DM

That is a good list. EPA to shredder running on rooftop solar

Garment Change

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.






Okay, but everyone here thought it was funny!

Gregory Adams

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.




..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…

Gregory White

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.

…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.

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.

Stephen Richards

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.

Janice Moore

Al Gore in Dec. 5, 2016 NY Times article:

… It was a sincere search for areas of common ground …

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!

Eric Simpson

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:

Mario Lento

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.

Janice Moore

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!

Paul Penrose

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.

tom s

Unfortunately he is the LAST person anyone should visit to discuss climate.

Janice Moore

David Schnare — EXCELLENT choice. (the others no doubt are, too — I only briefly researched that guy)

… ATI {(American Traditions Institute) is } … going after climate researchers in Texas and Arizona and at Nasa {sic}. Why are they so interested in getting their hands on the private correspondence of these academics?
ATI’s counsel, David Schnare explained in an email:

These emails represent a period of time when the science upon which major national and international policies have been based was being done. In light of the extremely important public policy issues that these emails informed, the public has a right to know what these government employees were doing and how they were doing it.

(Source: Hostile witness dismayed at Schnare, “The Guardian,” opinion piece by R. Schiffman, Jan. 9, 2014)
Heh, heh, heh.

Paul Westhaver

sinister snicker… 🙂

Janice Moore

And add to that a hearty….
#(:V) Bwah, ha, ha, ha, HAAAAAAAAA!


David Schnare sounds like just the kind of person we need.

Ann Banisher

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.


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. 🙂

Janice Moore

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.

James McCulley

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.

NW sage

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.

Willis Eschenbach

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.

Paul Westhaver

“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.

John Harmsworth

Hey! Urine is generally free of any harmful bacteria and safe to drink in a pinch. The EPA should not have any jurisdiction!

While I dislike the current version of the EPA, I don’t want to remove all regulation.

The symbiotic relationship between EPA and environmentalist has to end.

Dianne Stewart

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

Tom in Florida

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.


While I dislike the current version of the EPA, I don’t want to remove all regulation.

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.


MarkW December 6, 2016 at 10:57 am
Let the states regulate it.

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.

old construction worker

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.

Brian H

How about their anointing every puddle with the holy status of “protected water body”?

Leonard Lane

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.

Janice Moore

It’s over.
Only empty threats and hysterical shrieks: “You better do what we say, Mister Trump! Or else!!!!”

… Hundreds of scientists are also telling Mr. Trump in a new letter that climate change is real and needs to be addressed:
“We urge you to decide if you want your presidency to be defined by … disaster …”

Trump: (silent stare….. smile slightly……shake head, turn and walk out of the room)
**Source: .


SS Climate Change.


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.

old engineer

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!

Paul Penrose

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.

Janice Moore

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:

… He was awarded a PhD in Environmental Management from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, a Master of Science in Public Health-Environmental Science from the University of North Carolina’s School of Public Health, and a Baccalaureate Degree from Cornell College in Mt. Vernon, Iowa, where he majored in chemistry and mathematics.

(Source: )
3. Further info. (just FYI)

David W. Schnare, Esq. Ph.D. is an attorney and scientist with 33 years of federal and private sector experience consulting on and litigating local, state, federal and international environmental legislative, regulatory, risk management and free-market environmentalism issues. [PhD -University of North Carolina 1979, Juris Doctor Cum Laude-George Mason University School of Law 1999)
Formerly the nation’s Chief Regulatory Analyst for Small Business (Office of Small Business Advocacy), Dr. Schnare has experience on Congressional Staff, as a trial lawyer with the Department of Justice and the Office of the Virginia Attorney General, as senior enforcement counsel at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and as an appellate attorney for private clients. He is a member of the Bars of the United States Supreme Court, U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Second and Fourth Circuits, and the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Dr. Schnare is an administrative law specialist and currently serves on the ABA’s Administrative Law Council and as Deputy Chairman of the Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Section’s Continuing Education Committee. His practice has included a federal, state and local caseload. He maintains an active program of academic research supporting local and state legislative initiatives and has federal regulatory experience with EPA, OSHA, IRS, NMFS, NOAA, FDA, HRSA, ATSDR, CDC, FAA, Bu. Rec., BLM, MMS, FWS, and the Corps of Engineers. In addition to his position as a Senior Attorney in EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Dr. Schnare is a Senior Fellow of the Thomas Jefferson Institute of Public Policy. He has served as a Director of the George Mason University School of Law Alumni Association Board, and serves as Director of the Occoquan Watershed Coalition and as Chairman of the Coalition’s Environment and Land Use Committee.
In addition to legal responsibilities, Dr. Schnare has managed EPA’s Office of Ground-Water and Drinking Water Economic, Legislative and Policy Analysis Branch and has made contributions on a variety of environmental policy issues, as reflected in his published works. He is the author and editor of 55 books, chapters and major articles on environmental management, policy and law, which include:
“Market-Based Solutions to Chesapeake Bay Clean-Up”, a two-part analysis of funding needs and options, prepared at the request of the Virginia Legislature, Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy. (2005)
“Inevitable Growth”, American Chamber of Commerce Executives 2001 Management Symposium, March 15, 2001.
“Environmental Rationality and Judicial Review: When Benefits Justify Costs Under the Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1996”, 5 Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy (1) 65. (1998)

(Source: )


Great reply and info, Janice!

Paul Westhaver

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?
Dr. Al Armendariz.comment image

“In the 2010 video, posted on YouTube, Dr. Armendariz discussed his approach to enforcement of environmental laws.
“It is kind of like how the Romans used to conquer villages in the Mediterranean – they’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere and they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them,” he says on the tape. “Then that little town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”
He goes on: “And so, you make examples out of people who are, in this case, not complying with the law. You find people who are not complying with the law and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them. There’s a deterrent effect there. And companies that are smart see that. They don’t want to play that game, and they decide at that point that it’s time to clean up. And that won’t happen unless you have somebody out there making examples of people.”

He went back to his Mother Ship (the Sierra Club) here:

Paul Westhaver

Oh Yeah! Joel you nailed it!!!
Exactly what is this P.O.S. saying now that Trump is about to go Visigoth on his 5th century Roam azz.

Paul Westhaver


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.


back to his Mother Ship (the Sierra Club)


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….


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.

Stephen Richards

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.”
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.”

Mario Lento


Stephen Richards

No ¨Plays into the hands of the money men.

Ron Abate

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.



Pop Piasa

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.

Paul Westhaver

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.

Ron Abate

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?”
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.


What I’d like to see is a grown-up discussion of how to bring the EPA under control

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;
Hopefully meeting Gore was strategic to neutralize leftist attacks by pretending he might deal.

Taylor Ponlman

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?”

Bryan A

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.


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)

Kate Somerville

Griff, I applaud your continued efforts.

Paul Penrose

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.

Rob Dawg

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?:

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy of humans (100% O₂ at 2.5 atm), for instance, induces significant oxidative DNA damage to peripheral blood cells on the first day of therapy but fails to cause damage on subsequent days

— 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.

Tom in Florida

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.

old construction worker

Better known as the “Cal’s frat tax’

F. Ross

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…


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 😉
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.

Paul Penrose

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.


Al Gore looked shaken but not stirred in the Trump Building picture .
The party is over and the Arctic will still have lots of ice unfortunately .
Here is a guy who goes out of his way to sink a Trump Presidency
then comes in looking for $$ Billions to prop up the hot air industry and to bank roll foreign governments
stealing American jobs .
Well let the activism and threats begin, but remember there are over 60 million people who aren’t buying the scam .


Well, the arctic doesn’t have lots of ice right now, even though its the middle of winter:
“November 2016 sea ice volume was 7,800 km3 , about 2500 km3 below the 2015 value and the lowest for any November on record exceeding the prior record set in 2012 by about 400 km3 . This record is in part the result of anomalously high temperatures throughout the Arctic for November discussed here. 2016 November volume was 61% below the maximum November ice volume in 1979, 48% below the 1979-2015 mean, and about 1.1 standard deviations below the long term trend line.
Average ice thickness in September 2016 over the PIOMAS domain was also one of the lowest on record but just a small amount above the 2012 record”
what makes you think it will be any better during the next melting season?
It hasn’t recovered to pre-2007 levels in a decade…


Winter hasn’t started yet, it’s over a fortnight away. So clueless…


winter hasn’t started? Well its pitch black in the arctic right now and it is the freezing season…
so semantics aside, would you explain how we have such a low extent and volume at whatever season you think it is?


December 6, 2016 at 4:53 am
Well, the arctic doesn’t have lots of ice right now, even though its the middle of winter…. [Say what?]
Regardless, since the Antarctic Ice has been increasing steadily since before the TAR, the Arctic Ice is irrelevant. CO2’s “Polar Amplification” is hypothesized to affect both Poles. That makes CO2’s “Polar Amplification” another Empirically Falsified CO2-Climate Change Prediction.
Who/what is the ~”secretive entity” which is funding your disinformation? What does it have to gain in doing so?
Save yourself, Griff, before it’s too late!

Tis the season to be Jolly Griff. Fa-la-la-la-laaa La-la-la-laaa.

Paul Penrose

For god’s sake Griff, Winter just started. It takes some time for water to freeze even after the temps drop below freezing. And stop with the “such a low extent” nonsense. We do not have nearly enough quality data to know what the natural variations in Arctic ice extent are, let alone what constitutes a low or very low extent. Maybe in another 20 or 30 years we’ll have a better idea, but right now it’s pure speculation.

David Smith

So there’s less ice?
Good. More room for shipping routes and more access to drill for oil and gas. What’s not to like Griff?


It’s not the middle of winter, that’s almost two months off.
A few months ago, the arctic had a lot of ice for that time of year, but you said nothing?
Are you a hypocrite or merely being paid to look stupid?


I don’t suppose anyone here is concerned that all these people work for privately funded right wing think tanks – most of which have opposition to climate science as a key objective and the first 3 listed having verifiably received large amounts from the Koch brothers and Exxon?
you do realise that mush of the ‘evidence’ against climate change is manufactured by these groups, with fossil fuel funding?
(just google it, for heaven’s sake)

Griff, no one cares if they are lizardoid aliens from the constellation Draco funded by Ming the Merciless. If they understand that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant then they got that bit right at least.


December 6, 2016 at 1:03 am
I don’t suppose anyone here is concerned that all these people work for privately funded right wing think tanks
No, only that very sadly for you, you missed your chance to escape James Hansen’s Prediction of CO2’s “Destruction of Creation” when the Hale Bopp Comet towed your Mother Ship out of range! So now you’ll just have to face the infernal advent of Global Warming’s Palm Trees, Mariachi Boys, and Girls Gone Wild along with the rest of us!…snif

Griff says
you do realise that mush of the ‘evidence’ against climate change is manufactured by these groups, with fossil fuel funding?
Griff, have you learned absolutely nothing from your time on this site? Evidently so. Most of the evidence is just the data itself, and an actual read of what the actual science says. If the evidence is “manufactured” then the guilty parties are NASA (data collection), their counterparts in other countries who do the same (JAXA for example) and the analysis of this data done by the IPCC, a body of the United Nations which comprises the IPCC reports from the top scientists all over the earth. Have you even read them?
You just accused YOUR side of the debate of “manufacturing” the evidence presented by MY side of the debate.


Griff isn’t here to learn. He’s here to preach.

Bruce Cobb

Wrong, they are opposed to climate pseudoscience. And they don’t need to have “evidence” against climate change. They know, just as all of us do, that climate change is real, it’s natural, and nothing to fear unless we get a significant cooling period, which is very possible.

David Smith

“Right wing”
What, like Trump and the Republican Party? How odd.
“Privately funded”
You mean they don’t work for free? How odd.
“Received large amounts from the Koch brothers and Exxon”
You mean they weren’t funded by Soros? How odd.
“Evidence against climate change is manufactured”
Ha ha ha ha! You’re odd Grff.


Poor little Griffie is spinning so fast that he’s threatening to fly apart.
First, just because a lot of your fellow conspiracionists tell the same lie, does not make it true.
Second, whether they are right or left doesn’t matter. What matters is are they reporting facts that can be verified. (Which explains why Griffie has to keep repeating these tired lies, because he can’t deal with the facts so he’s desperately trying to kill the messenger.)


“you do realise that mush of the ‘evidence’ against climate change is manufactured by these groups, with fossil fuel funding?”
Griff, it’s the way you tell ’em!
And, in point of fact, we know absolutely nothing of the sort, BECAUSE IT ISN’T TRUE!


Another “Griff Fact” because he just googled it and someone said it on some obscure radical green website. Any relationship to a real fact is purely accidental.
Just because you believe some junk Griff doesn’t make it a fact 🙂


Trump needs to:
Get the word out that anyone guilty of destroying/misplacing any government records will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
While it’s hard to get rid of GS employees, they can be assigned to the “rubber room”, where they will sit at a desk without a computer or internet connections and a cell phone jamming device will block that avenue.
They will have nothing but coloring books and crayons to work with.
Further, employees will be required to follow the line as to work hours, days off etc….


Without any evidence of wrongdoing?
If you are going to act like that, it must be after investigation and proof.
you can’t just condemn govt employees and scientists based on your politics

David Chappell

You mean like what has happened to Roger Pielke Jr and Willie Soon for example?


Willie? who got caught taking money for publishing research without declaring it?
Roger who got sacked because he was cherry picking and misrepresenting?
both were caught fair and square.

Paul Penrose

I know it’s difficult, but we need to stop feeding the troll.

No, I think Griff makes for good target practice, and lets everyone who cares keep their basic skills up. So when a truly challenging target comes along. . .

Janice Moore

If anyone who has the inclination figures out what your real name is and where he or she can serve a Summons and Complaint on you, you are on legally thin ice.
Your slander, or, rather, libel (since it is in print) of Dr. Soon and Dr. Pielke are actionable.
Your defense, in the U.S. is the truth. You do not have that on your side. Thus, you would lose. And lose big. Check out the damages awarded to plaintiffs in successful libel cases (also, check out the cost of attorney fees to the defendant (that would be –> you, here)).
If I were Anthony, I would ban you permanently from this site for such disgusting false accusations.
Your enemy,


The charges against Soon were quickly disproven.
But of course being the troll that you are, you will keep bringing them up because in reality, you have nothing better, and you know it.


PS: Ditto for the charges against Pielke.


“Willie? who got caught taking money for publishing research without declaring it?”
How many times has it been proved to you that is not so?
Have you no conscience whatsoever?
With your sneering dismissal of the tens of thousands in the UK who die every year from fuel poverty, with your dismissal of the millions of deaths of bats and birds by the wind turbines – not to mention the dire effect the foul things have on the infrastructure, and your defence of the troughers such as “Sir” Reg Sheffield, “Lord” Gummer, Chris Huhne and Ed Davey, you expect to be regarded as one of the ‘Good Guys’?
You really are a piece of work, Sunshine.
You truly are a piece of work.


I am with Janice enough of “Griff Facts” ™ , he feels it’s fine to defame people based on his own extreme bias with no evidence except his radical green extremist websites that he reads. Anthony has already called him out for the troll he is, but he is actually gone beyond that now into just outright defamation. Even those in the middle ground like Dr. Pielke haven’t drunk enough green cool-aide for our little green crazy Griff.

Jerry Henson

Recalcitrant EPA Employees should be transferred to Wake Isl to study agriculture.

David S

Hopefully , the first thing they do is decriminalise CO2. The terms clean energy and dirty energy need to disappear from the vernacular and the term carbon pollution should be banned when describing carbon dioxide emissions.


Which one is picking up the phone to call in the FBI to investigate the staff?


Part of the EPA headquarters will need to be reconfigured to house a large facility for lie detector testing of current staff.


Start the investigations of NRDC and the Sierra Club also.


Hire a special prosecutor to review the conduct of NASA’s climate wing. We know the conduct is criminal as it is disinformation meant to keep the AGW gravy train running.


yes – do it – and when it finds no fraud, real science and it actually is warming…?


Griffie actually is as delusional as he’s trying to make us believe.


They were too busy with science and policy fraud to verify any MPG ratings with track tests and many foreign car companies got away with false advertising for at least a decade to sell millions of vehicles, not just VW.


Exactly who found VW out in the end?
The Volkswagen emissions scandal (also known as “emissionsgate” or “dieselgate”) erupted on 18 September 2015, when the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a notice of violation of the Clean Air Act to German automaker Volkswagen Group after it was found that Volkswagen had intentionally programmed turbocharged direct injection (TDI) diesel engines to activate certain emissions controls only during laboratory emissions testing


A tiny engineering shop in WV, that’s who.

Russell R.

The destruction of diesel engines for passenger cars, was another EPA over-reach. They reduced the allowable levels of NOx from 1.25 gm/mile, to 0.07gm/mile. There is no solid scientific evidence that this is beneficial to the public. It was done to make diesel engines non-economical in comparison to other engines available in passenger cars. VW did violate the regulations, because they had invested billions of dollars optimizing the current engines, and didn’t want to flush their investment. There plan was to fool the test, until they could find a way to meet the requirement, without charging so much for the engine, that its benefits would not outweigh the added expense. This has proven very difficult, and currently cost approx. $3K, plus additional maintenance costs. I am not opposed to these types of regulations, when they are required. In this case, I have no idea whether they are required or not, because it was done by bureaucratic fiat.
I do know that the average lightning strike produces 7.5 kg of NOx, and there are several billion lightning strikes per year on Earth. So we are consistently exposed to these molecules now, and throughout our past existence on this planet. This was done to hang a scalp on the wall. No one will benefit in the destruction of half a million cars, and plenty of resources used to produce them, will have been wasted.


Haha another “Griff Fact” ™ now EPA discovered the VW scandal.
Try reading a REAL NEWS REPORT Griff not the radical green website you do. Here lets give you a hand.
So who discovered the VW scandal Griff?

More laws, less justice.
-Marcus Tullius Ciceroca (42 B.C.)
The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates.
Bureaucracy is a giant mechanism operated by pygmies.
-Honore De Balzac
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.
-P.J. O’Rourke
If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law.
-Winston Churchill
Useless laws weaken the necessary laws.
Government never furthered any enterprise but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way.
-Henry David Thoreau
One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation.
-Thomas B. Reed (1886)
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
-William Pitt (1783)
I heartily accept the motto’ “That government is best which governs least”.
-Henry David Thoreau
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
-Herbert Spencer (1891)
The best government is the one that charges you the least blackmail for leaving you alone.
-Thomas Rudman-Brown
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
-Louis Brandeis (1928)
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
-Daniel Webster
A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.
-Thomas Jefferson
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-C. S. Lewis


@ferdberple Nice work, many thanks!

Janice Moore

Thanks for that EXCELLENT list, Ferdberple.

Nigel in Santa Barbara

The new EPA: Let’s reneg.
The Trump team: A chill up my leg.
They are folks of reknown
and their cause is well known.
All honest, not one is a yegg.


Suggestion to a new EPA Director. Hire an independent firm to do a forensic search of all agency computers for evidence of file deletions/directory wipes.


Let’s reopen the case of John C. Beale and see just what he did for EPA before going off to jail.


Navajo Nation Seeks More Than $160 Million From EPA in Colorado Mine Disaster
Nation seeking to recover costs from spill, ongoing environmental monitoring

Owen in GA

The one I want to see is the EPA Inspector General appointment and whether the job is given to a proven investigator/prosecutor!

An early task should be correction of misleading EPA claims of global warming potential (GWP) for various ghgs. CO2 which can absorb terrestrial radiation at only 15 microns (pressure etc. broadening spreads this to about 14-16 microns with peak at 15) is considered by the EPA to have greater GWP than water vapor which can absorb terrestrial radiation at hundreds of different wavelengths?
The EPA erroneously asserts GWP is a measure of “effects on the Earth’s warming” with “Two key ways in which these [ghg] gases differ from each other are their ability to absorb energy (their “radiative efficiency”), and how long they stay in the atmosphere (also known as their “lifetime”).”
The EPA calculation of the global warming potential (GWP) of a ghg erroneously overlooks the fact that any effect the ghg might have on temperature is also integrated over the “lifetime” of the gas in the atmosphere so the duration in the atmosphere cancels out. Therefore GWP, as calculated by the EPA, is not a measure of the relative influence on average global temperature of a ghg. The influence (forcing) of a ghg cannot be more than determined by its concentration.
Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Terrestrial EMR absorbed by CO2 is effectively rerouted to space via water vapor.


An early task should be correction of misleading EPA claims of global warming potential (GWP) for various ghgs. CO2 which can absorb terrestrial radiation at only 15 microns (pressure etc. broadening spreads this to about 14-16 microns with peak at 15)

Dan, can you explain something to me that I find confusing and can never get anyone to explain fully. It’s this: CO2 in the infrared is said to have total absorption at 15 microns. 15 microns is approximately 193K, or -80C, or -112F.
Does that mean CO2 absorbs terrestrial EMR best at those temperatures?
In other words, what is the significance of that temperature at 15 microns? Or isn’t there any?
I apologize if this is a dumb question.

MRW – There are no dumb questions!
I don’t know about any connection between 15 microns and 193K. CO2 only absorbs terrestrial radiation at 15 microns (wave number 667 cm^-1) which is broadened by pressure etc. at sea level to about 14-16 microns. The absorbed radiation is immediately thermalized. The absorption is one photon per molecule so there needs to be enough molecules to catch all the 14-16 micron photons for ‘total’ absorption although water vapor is also a player at 14-16 microns.


Dan, I just saw your reply. It’s late. I need sleep. Give me time to reply. So bookmark this. I will reply to you with the micron/temp connection. I want to understand this, Thanks!


News flash:
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump plans to appoint Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, a Trump transition team source said on Wednesday.
Pruitt was elected Oklahoma’s attorney general in November 2010 and has focused on restoring more regulatory oversight to states and limiting federal regulations.
As his state’s top legal official, he sued the agency is he poised to lead multiple times, including a pending lawsuit to topple the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of Democratic President Barack Obama’s climate change strategy.
Pruitt on Wednesday held his second meeting with Trump, who takes office on Jan. 20.
(Reporting by David Shepardson and Valerie Volcovici; Writing by Susan Heavey; Editing by Chris Reese and Jonathan Oatis)