Outgoing EPA Chief: Trump has "Limited Room to Manoeuvre"

Gina McCarthy and Donald Trump
Gina McCarthy by USEPA Environmental-Protection-AgencyDay in the Life – April 4, 2014, Public Domain, Link. Donald Trump by Michael Vadon [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Outgoing Obama EPA Chief Gina McCarthy thinks President-elect Donald Trump will not be able to change EPA policy towards CO2, because it will be too difficult to undo her policy initiatives.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

EPA chief says Trump has limited room to scrap climate rules

McCarthy says any attempt must be scientifically justified under Clean Air Act.

The chief architect of President Barack Obama’s climate change policies has warned the incoming Trump administration that US law and the scientific evidence of global warming will constrain any attempt to overturn her work.

With the outlook for global climate action uncertain after the US election, Gina McCarthy, the top US environmental regulator, told the Financial Times that climate change sceptics led by Donald Trump would have limited room for manoeuvre.

“It’s going to be a very high burden of proof for them,” said Ms McCarthy, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, outlining why US law would ensure that Mr Trump could not easily abolish climate change regulations.

To replace Ms McCarthy, Mr Trump has nominated Scott Pruitt, a politician who has repeatedly excoriated the EPA and made it his mission to try to scupper her signature achievements.

Read more: https://www.ft.com/content/e4759fea-c491-11e6-8f29-9445cac8966f

I can’t help thinking Obama appointees like Gina McCarthy are in total denial about the magnitude of their loss of support. President-elect Donald Trump has an enormous mandate to liberate America from the shackles of bureaucrats like McCarthy. In a few short years, nobody will remember who she was.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
428 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ziiex Zeburz
December 19, 2016 4:45 am

Gina McCarthy is one of those people that have not a mirror in her house, with her male hair, clothes, shoes, who does she think she is ?
A White Obearma ?

Latitude
Reply to  Ziiex Zeburz
December 19, 2016 5:34 am

a socialist/marxist
This has been the democrats plan from day one…..ram as much through as you can…implement it as fast as you can
…so when it comes time to deconstruct it, it’s too involved and can’t be deconstructed
Obama care, illegals, EPA, solar, wind, etc etc and on and on
In a sane world not one of these things would have happened this fast, become this involved already.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Latitude
December 19, 2016 7:07 am

The obvious solution for Trump is to employ the same stratagem that Alexander did with the Gordian Knot. Sometimes elegant and clever just don’t get the job done like brute force does.

higley7
Reply to  Latitude
December 19, 2016 7:20 am

There is nothing that cannot be undone or simply not funded and allowed to die.
They want to pretend and to convince everybody that it would do too much damage to undo their hugely damaging policies that harm everybody and everything. If they keep saying it over and over, they start to believe it’s true. Typical Hitlerian strategy.

Alba
Reply to  Latitude
December 19, 2016 7:58 am

The Obama Administration have used a similar strategy regarding the agendas of the abortion lobby and the LGBT lobby’. On abortion the Department of Health and Human Services released final regulations “to increase access to affordable family planning and preventive services” under Title X grants Dec. 14. The new rule takes effect Jan. 18, two days before the inauguration of Donald Trump. Title X is a federal program that promotes “family planning” through grants to various providers of health care through the states. In its new rule, the HHS says that states can’t withhold these grants to certain health providers if they provide the “family planning” services that Title X is based on: “no grant recipient making subawards for the provision of services as part of its Title X project may prohibit an entity from participating for reasons other than its ability to provide Title X services.”
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/obamas-parting-gift-to-big-abortion
As Donald Trump begins to staff his administration, his appointees should understand how deeply the ideologically-driven LGBTs have burrowed into permanent jobs in the permanent bureaucracy and how dangerous they are.
The new political appointees should also understand how this group and their allies have driven those who may disagree with their agenda either underground or from the federal bureaucracy altogether, and some even to jail.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2016/donald-trump-canary-lgbt-coal-mine

Bryan A
Reply to  Latitude
December 19, 2016 10:15 am

To deconstruct the EPA rulings
1) Hire, appoint new Scientists to key roles within the EPA department.
2) Redefine the job roles and responsibilities of the existing EPS Scientists.
3) Fund research into proving CO2’s critical role in Greening the Biosphere.
4) Have CO2 declared a true noble gas and removed from the atmospheric pollutant list.
5) Begin overturning and removing every EPA induced law regarding the CO2 = pollutant and thereby must be regulated rules and regulations
6) Pass legislation through Congress affirming that CO2 is not a pollutant and cannot be labeled as such.

Michael of Oz
Reply to  Latitude
December 19, 2016 1:24 pm

Australia had a female Prime Minister that said much the same, “buried in legislature” was one of the terms used, She’s gone now and so are her policies.

commieBob
Reply to  Latitude
December 19, 2016 2:50 pm

D. J. Hawkins December 19, 2016 at 7:07 am
… Gordian Knot. …

I’ll see your Alexander and raise you a Farragut.

Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! link

TRM
Reply to  Latitude
December 19, 2016 6:06 pm

” commieBob & D. J. Hawkins ” – I’ll see your quotes and raise you a geek quote!
When in doubt, use brute force! – Ken Thompson

bobl
Reply to  Latitude
December 19, 2016 7:15 pm

Bryan A would it not be simpler just to shut down the EPA then reconstruct it under a new mandate?
There is another simple path to this,
1. Make the appropriate appointments to the supreme court.
2. Take a case to the Supremes that the EPA failed to properly account for the dangers of LOW CO2 and send the endangerment finding back to the EPA.
4. Prevent a new CO2 endangerment finding by making a congressional rule that no atmospheric component that is life critical (Generally CO2, O2 and H2O) can be regulated as a pollutant.
Effectively this plan can have the EPA do all the undoing for him.

oeman50
Reply to  Latitude
December 20, 2016 9:58 am

The Endangerment Finding could be overturned, it is the linchpin for all of the ensuing regulations under the CAA. Back in 2009, Alan Carlin of NCEE/OPEI produced a cogent, scientifically rigorous critique of the basis for the Endangerment Finding. There just has to be the political will to credit those comments. Unpack it, dust it off and you are 90% there.

Winnipeg boy
Reply to  Latitude
December 20, 2016 11:12 am

Peel the onion a layer at a time.
Or just use a knife.

Reply to  Latitude
January 1, 2017 8:48 am

Bring Gina McCarthy up on charges of malfeasance/misfeasance in office for not basing the endangerment finding on scientific evidence as the law required that she do. Then, not only will she be gone, but she also will lose her pension, etc benefits.

oneeyecarpenter
Reply to  Ziiex Zeburz
December 19, 2016 6:16 am

ROFLMAO!!! I Honestly thought to myself
“Who is that man with the white hair” in the picture? I’ve seen a picture before, but never made the connection. That’s hilarious!

Tom in Florida
Reply to  oneeyecarpenter
December 19, 2016 8:15 am

At fist glance I thought it was Glenn Beck.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  oneeyecarpenter
December 19, 2016 8:16 am

not fist but first (perhaps a freudian slip?)

Reply to  oneeyecarpenter
December 19, 2016 10:34 am

Stop. Just stop. There’s plenty of fodder for criticism, even ridicule. Lowering the bar to comments about appearance provides a weapon – a justifiable and effective weapon – against our disagreement with the outgoing bureaucrats. It devolves into an accusation of how deplorable you are instead of any substantive discussion about disagreements.

Reply to  oneeyecarpenter
December 19, 2016 4:46 pm

I agree with TomB. These sorts of comments are really childish. And no, they aren’t funny so it’s not about “getting a sense of humor.”

Tom Judd
Reply to  oneeyecarpenter
December 19, 2016 7:26 pm

TomB
But she does look like Glen Beck.

Dan Sage
Reply to  oneeyecarpenter
December 19, 2016 8:12 pm

Maybe instead of looks, we should be concerned with education. What is: Bachelor of Arts in Social Anthropology and a further degree of Master of Science in Environmental Health Engineering and Planning and Policy? We are always being told that “scientists” have determined that CO2 is bad, and that if you are not a “Climate Change Scientist” you are not allowed to have an opinion. Are any Science courses involved in Environmental Health Engineering and Planning and Policy, or is it all courses in Geography like most environmentalist degrees?

Reply to  oneeyecarpenter
December 19, 2016 11:03 pm

“Lowering the bar to comments about appearance…” blah-blah…
Nonsense.
Appearance is everything. It is written on the face of a man or a woman, who he or she really is. Everyone knows this, wether they admit it or not, Those who insist that there should be no “comments about appearance” are hiding a lot of sceletons in their attic.
Style of hair is also important. The more people care about what’s on the outside of their heads, the less they usually care about what’s inside. That gives me a hope that there is something substantial under Mr. Trump’s somewhat ridiculous hairdo.

JJB MKI
Reply to  Ziiex Zeburz
December 19, 2016 7:05 am

Such a weird ad-hom comment I wonder if it’s a plant? Who cares what she looks like? Sinking to petty insults doesn’t win people round or convince them to question their beliefs, and it lowers the generally civilised tone of this blog.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  JJB MKI
December 19, 2016 7:07 am

Concerned, are you?

Leo Norekens
Reply to  JJB MKI
December 19, 2016 7:22 am

Shouldn’t that be “ad mulierem“? Or is “ad hominem” meant as some sort of petty insult?
😉

higley7
Reply to  JJB MKI
December 19, 2016 7:22 am

HItlert surrounded himself with top level people who was social outcasts or deviants, disaffected people who did not give a hoot about normal people of their country. That is why she is perfectly fine with imposing policies on which she has only done half the benefit/risk analysis and certainly skips the cost analysis.

Reply to  JJB MKI
December 19, 2016 7:26 am

JJB–I know it’s a tu quoque, but have you ever seen any of the running commentary about Donald Trump’s “orange” makeup and hair? Gina McCarthy looks like a bad parody of a woman’s studies professor.

2hotel9
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 19, 2016 7:38 am

“bad parody of a woman’s studies professor” That will most likely be her next gig!

Michael
Reply to  JJB MKI
December 19, 2016 7:34 am

I agree with you, Ad Hominem is the last resort of a ignorant.

2hotel9
Reply to  JJB MKI
December 19, 2016 7:39 am

Sprout a sense of humor, Frances.

Patrick B.
Reply to  JJB MKI
December 19, 2016 7:51 am

Either a plant or someone who has not regularly visited WUWT. Sounds like something you would read on Reddit. In any event, such comments are not in keeping with the general quality of analysis here.

Reply to  JJB MKI
December 19, 2016 11:49 am

I agree. Let’s stick to the science and not stoop to their level with hom comments.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  JJB MKI
December 19, 2016 11:51 am

I agree with JJB MKI- It’s in poor taste to attack people based on appearance and beneath the important focus of this site. There’s plenty in her policies and ideological biases to attack. Go for it!

Reply to  JJB MKI
December 19, 2016 12:12 pm

Agree with JJB MKI and others. Leave the ad hom attacks to the alarmists. It did them no good at all. We do this with good science or we fail.

DonM
Reply to  JJB MKI
December 19, 2016 5:07 pm

JJB,
“its PAT” was a popular running skit on Saturday Night Live. It was accepted as humorous … and not that I listened back then, but did not hear anyone complaining about the “contextual insult” to people like “Pat” (or Gina).
McCarthy puts a lot of effort (maybe not time, but consistent effort…) into cultivating that look. Although it is a PC approved look, It is not a normal look. She is trying to create a specific, outside the box, image for some reason.
If she had a different abnormal look, say for example purple spiky hair, an orange adolph mustache, 32 face piercings, shaved eyebrows, and an anus tattoo on her chin would you think it is O.K. to take note of her appearance. If not where would you draw the line?
And JJB, Happy Holidays.

DonM
Reply to  JJB MKI
December 19, 2016 6:30 pm

JBB,
From the Financial Times:
“Ms McCarthy, a battle-hardened regulator with a shock of short white hair and a thick Boston accent, thinks not. She predicted that if confirmed by the Senate Mr Pruitt would find the reality of office to be sobering.”
Obviously other media outlets thinks its O.K. to use her appearance (including accent) to describe her … they just think it is a positive spin.
How ’bout ” Ms McCarthy, the ‘Boston wife’ regulator, complete with the short white hair & mannish attire, thinks not. She predicted….”
Your right, petty insults don’t win (a lot of) people, it’s primarily propaganda and PC protections that convince most people. Second to that it’s knowledge of direct impacts & practical experience that change peoples thoughts. After that you can pick up the dregs with insults. Finally, some people will die thinking they are right when they are not.

JJB MKI
Reply to  JJB MKI
December 19, 2016 8:30 pm

Hi Don,
“If she had a different abnormal look, say for example purple spiky hair, an orange adolph mustache, 32 face piercings, shaved eyebrows, and an anus tattoo on her chin would you think it is O.K. to take note of her appearance. If not where would you draw the line?”
While we’re geeking out on logical fallacy, your example might be dipping its toe into ‘argumentum ad absurdum’ ;-). I can honestly say though that I’d probably like her better for that, especially the anus tattoo on the chin – I believe it would show moral courage and an admirable independence of thought. But maybe I’m weird – I respect people who don’t care what anyone thinks. I don’t think anyone should be beyond criticism of their speech and behaviour though, particularly if they’re in positions of power.
Happy holidays to you too!
J Burns

JJB MKI
Reply to  JJB MKI
December 19, 2016 8:35 pm

@Leo Norekens, good one!

Reply to  JJB MKI
December 19, 2016 11:40 pm

Being a public official, she intentionally makes herself look like a man on the basis of her perverse ideology — and, therefore, her appearance, as well as her ideology, is a legitimate target for ridicule.

Perry
Reply to  JJB MKI
December 20, 2016 12:38 am

Ze looks like a watermelon. Green on the outside. Marxist red on the inside. Appearances do matter.

John Morrison
Reply to  Ziiex Zeburz
December 19, 2016 7:45 am

The key is to destroy the infrastructure. Recall how Obama destroyed NASA’s manned space program – by privatizing it. The money was then moved to other projects such as climate b.s.
So eliminate departments dealing with CO2 pollution and claim it is better handled by the private sector. The money can be used on real projects, like cleaning up that mine disaster caused by the EPA.

kevinmackay
Reply to  John Morrison
December 19, 2016 8:04 am

NASA’s manned space program was a terrible cost/benefit sink hole.

rocketscientist
Reply to  John Morrison
December 19, 2016 9:06 am

A bit of enlightenment for you. NASA has never built a rocket or space ship. They are a contracting agency. Every rocket or payload that has been sent up into space was built and launched by private contractors hired by NASA. NASA “buys” rockets and capsules. BTW JPL is a Cal Tech Laboratory that is funded by NASA. NASA does maintain a huge standing army of test laboratories and facilities that are used to ENABLE others to design spacecraft, and they lease and maintain launch facilities.
That being said the method that Obama used to back burner the space program is the same one being advocated by several commenters: Cut off the funding stream.

Rhoda R
Reply to  John Morrison
December 19, 2016 11:44 am

But first, demand to see the scientific proof that CO2 IS a pollutant. Publicly demand that the proof be printed in a public forum – something like whitehouse.gov and allow comments on it to be posted as well.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  John Morrison
December 19, 2016 1:27 pm

Dear Rocketscientist,
“Built” or “engineered, integrated, and tested”? I’m not a NASA supporter insofar as its “goals” and purpose are concerned, but without doubt NASA engineered, integrated, and tested the Saturn V stack that went to the Moon, the Space Shuttle, and the International Space Station (ISS). The Apollo mission stack was successful, largely because Wernher von Braun was in charge of the Saturn V. But he and his Peenemunde crew were fired in 1972 and (in my opinion) it has been all downhill ever since.
Recognizing a simple truth is no praise for NASA. The Shuttle was a terrible mission compromise for the sake of getting a sustainable public works program. After 20 years of operation and failed development programs (X-30, X-33), NASA arrived at the retirement of the Shuttle with no replacement. If this is stewardship, you might as well give them a forest and a box of matches. The ISS was a cute little tautology: “We need the Shuttle to build a Space Station. Now that we have a Shuttle, we must build a Space Station. The Space Station is built, so now we don’t need a Shuttle.” Can anyone name a single important scientific discovery resulting from the ISS operations?
JPL is an anomaly, an organization that is driven by mission objectives. In that respect, it demonstrates a bit of the ethos that prevailed during the Apollo program. NASA need a housecleaning and a mission reset, and we should be willing to cultivate a free-market space transportation architecture.
In the middle 1980s, I conducted a market analysis of the commercial, military, and NASA space transportation markets. Very high commonality between the commercial and military markets: reliability, availability, economy. Essentially no commonality between NASA and either of the other two: unique, low-production, extreme performance. The obvious conclusion is that selling anything to NASA was a matter of masochism, penury, or playing with the bleeding edge of things. Better markets were to be found elsewhere–as Space X is demonstrating.
NASA: Space Travel by Post Office.

george e. smith
Reply to  John Morrison
December 19, 2016 4:42 pm

So Kevin, perhaps you can enlighten us. You said ” manned ” space program. That would at least have started with Apollo, which of course was actually Mercury / Gemini / Apollo.
So what was the cost / benefit relationship for MGA.
As to follow ons such as Space Shuttle. What was the cost benefit for say the part of the shuttle program that MANUALLY repaired (Twice) the Hubble Space Telescope.
Is there a benefit to us (Humans) of the Hubble space Telescope; well it does make pretty pictures; but what good are they to us.
As for the first Apollo moon landing. What a fiasco that would have been as a non man landed episode.
The computer programmers; those imported silicon valley software brainiacs, had the thing set up to land on a pile of rocks and tip over. Well so what, some scrap metal left on the moon.
” At this point, what difference does it make ” ??
So what particular aspect of the manned space program most sticks in your gut.
Apollo came in well ahead of schedule and way under budget, but was a freebie in the end; and ONLY because it was designed as a manned project; not a google self driving car or better yet a Tesla model S that doesn’t recognize 18 wheelers as a hazard or limit to forward travel.
G

MarkG
Reply to  John Morrison
December 19, 2016 6:55 pm

“Recall how Obama destroyed NASA’s manned space program – by privatizing it.”
The shuttle was effectively killed by the Columbia investigation that required major changes if it was to continue flying more than a few years. Ultimately, those changes were not cost-effective, and the next shuttle lost would have killed the program anyway.
NASA then spent about as much to put a fake upper stage on top of a shuttle SRB and launch it into the ocean as SpaceX spent to build a new rocket engine and two new rockets and launch them into space.
Telling NASA to launch as much as possible on private launchers is one of the best things Obama ever did. Unfortunately the Republicans keep pushing for NASA to build the world’s most expensive rocket that just happens to keep many of the old shuttle contractors in business. Assuming SpaceX get their act together after their recent failure, they should be able to launch payloads for a tenth as much as the Senate Launch System will, if it ever flies.

Reply to  John Morrison
December 20, 2016 2:22 am

Michael J. Dunn is exactly right. I may steal his comment and use it in my blog, because it’s a gem.

Patrick B.
Reply to  Ziiex Zeburz
December 19, 2016 7:48 am

Ziiex Zeburz, these types of comments are unacceptable and unwelcome on WUWT. Go troll somewhere else.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Patrick B.
December 19, 2016 8:54 am

Patrick,
Contrary to your opinion, in the political realm, which completely engulfs the climate change debate, Ziiex Zeburz’ comment is completely relevant.
Those who have been paying attention to the words and actions of Ms. McCarthy know full well that she was not chosen to head the EPA because of any displayed competence in either science, or managerial skill. She was chosen as a symbolic prostration to gender identity politics. However righteous might be the claims of mistreatment under the law from anyone in that sphere, identity politics is primarily a weapon in an arsenal, deployed by those who have no one’s interest in mind, but their own. Those invaders make every effort to divide and confuse the populace at every turn; to drive a wedge between neighbors, to divide and conquer.
It’s much more than mere symbolism over substance which has taken the ship of state into perilous waters and a course correction is long overdue.
It’s beyond foolish to chastise a lookout for spotting the reef.

Patrick B.
Reply to  Patrick B.
December 19, 2016 9:06 am

@Alan Robertson
I disagree. His comment was strictly directed at her appearance. That’s hardly in keeping with the normal quality of analysis here.
Now, if he wanted to claim that she is incompetent, lacks any hard science training (anthropology degree), and she was hired based on some ridiculous basis and not abilities and experience – fine.
But he didn’t – he tossed out a remark you would expect from an 8 year old or a liberal.
By the way, you do know she’s married with three kids, right?
http://www.allgov.com/news/appointments-and-resignations/administrator-of-the-environmental-protection-agency-who-is-gina-mccarthy-130330?news=849586

Reply to  Patrick B.
December 19, 2016 12:31 pm

Nope, I think Patricks right. This type of ad hom attack turned many sceptics like me off the alarmist mob because we couldn’t stomach the personal attacks. Personally, I was convinced to the sceptical side because no one here condemned me for asking stupid questions. I’m not clever, I’m not a scientist, I would just like to try to understand what’s going on. If I might be so bold to suggest, you guys need to keep that up and not make people feel threatened when they first visit WUWT, it’s a difficult enough site to come to terms with if you don’t know what your talking about never mind being faced with a hostile crowd.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Patrick B.
December 19, 2016 2:53 pm

Patrick and HotScot,
Generally, I agree that it is bad form to use someone’s appearance as any sort of argument against their point of view. I’ve even come to the defense of Naomi Oreskes, in these pages, when her visage was made an issue. (I’ve never even laughed at pictures of W. Eschenbach. That I remember.)
Is it the personal features of an individual which define the boundaries of genteel speech, beyond which no comment should be made, or does the range of acceptable commentary encompass the personal accoutrements with which people identify themselves? Does it become unacceptable to pillory John Cook of SkS, for his published appearance in a quasi- Nazi uniform? Is any sort of backlash acceptable against the politics of division which have recently manifested in such odious forms as edicts aimed at removing the societal and legal barricades between men’s and women’s bathrooms? Where does one draw the line?
I may be completely wrong about Gina McCarthy, as being chosen and advanced throughout her career, not for personal competence, but as a representative of gender/orientation based politics. All versions of identity politics have been used not just to guarantee Constitutional rights to all citizens, but to foment the kind of hidden agenda which undermines personal liberty for all. Her appearance suggests that she fits the profile and her actions effectively indict her. She has spent her entire tenure at EPA making decisions far outside the limits of Federal authority, as delineated in the Constitution. Her most recent statements make clear that she is actively working to thwart the will of the people, as manifested through their elected representatives.
I stand by what I said about the agendas of purposeful destruction of the Republic, which are woven throughout the various gambits of identity politics. My earlier statement may have unfortunately served to detract from the necessity of exposure of those agendas and of those who would implement them. Maybe not. There comes a time when niceties and political correctness deserve a sharp whack upside the head.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Patrick B.
December 19, 2016 3:04 pm

Patridk B., HotScot, et al,
I just posted a reply, but WordPress suppressed it. It may appear at some point in future, should you be interested.
It goes like this… you’re wrong, I’m right, so take that! Or maybe not… you’ll just have to come back and find out.

JJB MKI
Reply to  Patrick B.
December 19, 2016 10:29 pm

@Alan Robertson
Interesting comments. I don’t know if by saying ‘she was chosen as a symbolic prostration to gender identity politics’, you are referring to her public pronouncements on certain issues, or claiming that she was chosen for her position simply because of the way she looks. If the former, your argument is logical and the diametric opposite of Ziiex’s statement. You’re playing the ball, not the man (or woman), but this is not what Ziiex did.
“Is it the personal features of an individual which define the boundaries of genteel speech, beyond which no comment should be made, or does the range of acceptable commentary encompass the personal accoutrements with which people identify themselves?”
It depends what you mean by ‘should’ and ‘acceptable’. In the context of what is morally right, that is something that is endlessly debatable, and I suppose depends on your feelings about the right to offend. In the context of forming a compelling argument on wider issues, perhaps personal features shouldn’t come into play at all? If the way person A looks has any bearing on the position to which they are appointed (or the respect they are afforded), it is an indictment of the feeble mindedness, impressionability and prejudice of a group who appointed them to that position in allowing appearance to take control of their judgement, not on person A for looking or choosing to look the way they do. If you allow your own opinions to be swayed negatively by personal appearance, you’re no less impressionable than a group who are swayed positively, regardless of the cultural associations of any particular ‘look’.
Your John Cook example seems a bit far out – it’s unlikely he would dress in a Nazi uniform day in, day out. He deliberately wore the symbol of a despotic regime when posing for a photo to make a specific and provocative statement, and it is that statement that can be legitimately attacked. As there are plenty of people who look and might choose to dress like Gina McCarthy who wouldn’t share her views, I don’t think it would be reasonable to accuse her of being provocative in her attire in this way.
“There comes a time when niceties and political correctness deserve a sharp whack upside the head.”
In equating niceties to political correctness, are you throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Political correctness is a superficial display of acceptably righteous belief – virtue signalling with the sole purpose of gaining acceptance or advancing an agenda. For this reason it is a cynical quality which rightly engenders suspicion. Niceties can encompass a display of respect in putting forward a case which can ultimately beat an opponent by removing the emotional defence of offence.
In the context of opinions expressed on this blog, I guess the validity of your argument boils down to where you’re coming from. If you’re angry at being labelled a ‘denier’ by people who have no understanding of their own position beyond the bleating of a fallacious ‘97%’ mantra, then maybe it’s a good forum to vent with like-minded people and let off some steam. If you think there is a possibility of ending the CAGW scam and its associated cults however, the only way is to change people’s minds – to bring them on side to the point where they will ignore the ‘danger, you are entering the land of unacceptable views’ signs and take a look at the abundant evidence of corruption, self-serving agendas, bad science, statistical mangling and cherry-picking in the whole mess for themselves. This will never happen if people (left, right, unusual haircuts, masculine clothing and all) feel aliened in a similar way to which the majority of the US public recently did. The Democrats inhabited a bubble, and ultimately lost because of this, regardless of the validity of their position. Abandoning niceties and engaging in the same sort of divisive polemic as the CAGW cheerleaders (who do so mostly just to keep their own from straying) feeds a tribalism peripheral to important issues on which people could potentially agree, and waters down the impact of sceptical argument, even if you might have some valid points.

Reply to  Patrick B.
December 19, 2016 11:43 pm

Patrick B., your unjustified lecturing of others is unacceptable and unwelcome on WUWT. Go troll somewhere else.

george e. smith
Reply to  Ziiex Zeburz
December 19, 2016 8:02 am

She’s the very first Test Run from the ” B**** ” mold.
Her and Nayomi Orestes would easily pass themselves off as twins.
G
Come to think of it Elektra truly was a B**** .

George Hebbard
Reply to  george e. smith
December 19, 2016 8:37 am

Please stop taking advantage of Anthony’s absence to trash the civilized nature of his (our) blog.

Reply to  george e. smith
December 19, 2016 12:32 pm

Here here George Hebbard

Reply to  george e. smith
December 19, 2016 4:51 pm

Holy cripes people, grow up!!

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
December 19, 2016 4:57 pm

When a public servant living off MY tax dollars has the temerity to tell the incoming President elect of the USA, to effectively screw off, and just try to untangle her mischief; that is not the comment of an administrator showing her science acumen in the furtherance of her job responsibilities.
At that point she becomes disconnected from her functional responsibilities, and immunity to ad hominem comment.
Reacting negatively to her ” just try to put my toothpaste back in the tube” tantrum becomes open season.
So keep your moral indignation. My comment was unrelated to her job performance; just her catty demeanor in reference to the incoming administration.
G

ferd berple
Reply to  Ziiex Zeburz
December 19, 2016 8:37 am

A White Obearma ?
=========
pls check racist comments at the door.

Greg
Reply to  ferd berple
December 19, 2016 8:57 am

So saying Obama was the first ‘black’ pres. is presumably also “racist”? We are supposed to say “oh, is he? I hadn’t noticed”.
In case you didn’t get the memo , screw the PC bullshit.

Reply to  ferd berple
December 19, 2016 12:34 pm

Greg,
when it serves a purpose, fine, make a distinction between black and white, just don’t score cheap points.

comradewhoopie
Reply to  Ziiex Zeburz
December 19, 2016 9:20 am

Seriously, that chick’s a dude.

Bryan A
Reply to  comradewhoopie
December 19, 2016 10:19 am

Just balances out Obama

Reply to  Ziiex Zeburz
December 19, 2016 9:50 am

Ziiex
She is someone who may have made it a very difficult task to alter the current AGW path, at a minimum it may delay Trumps ambitions.

rogerthesurf
Reply to  Ziiex Zeburz
December 19, 2016 12:41 pm

“McCarthy says any attempt must be scientifically justified under Clean Air Act.”
Shouldnt be too hard. Especially as her own policies would not meet that criteria.:)
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

Catcracking
Reply to  rogerthesurf
December 19, 2016 12:47 pm

Roger..
I agree. What Science did she use? NONE.

Joel Snider
Reply to  rogerthesurf
December 19, 2016 1:02 pm

She was apparently unaware of the Pause.

oeman50
Reply to  rogerthesurf
December 20, 2016 10:12 am

See my previous post to Latitude December 19, 2016 at 5:34 am about Alan Carlin’s takedown of the Endangerment Finding. That’s all the justification needed.

ironargonaut
Reply to  rogerthesurf
December 21, 2016 10:22 am

No it must be legally justified. Science is PART of the legal requirements. There are other legal requirements that if not met make any rules null and void. I believe there is a reason lawyer will be placed in charge.

rogerthesurf
Reply to  rogerthesurf
December 21, 2016 1:16 pm

Iron Argonaut,
You should be aware by now that the “Änthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis has never been scientifically acceptable and in fact is is soundly and continuously disproven by 1. Previous warmings before Anthropogenic CO2 could possibly be a factor. 2. Disproven because empirical data does not match up with temperature predictions.
Take a little look at Richard Feynman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw&t=18s
In real science, there is no need to proceed further than this. McCarthy must surely understand this but is fighting a last stand, (and possibly the end of her rewards for so avidly propagating such fiction). She may face some cost for her avidness soon, but time will tell.

jayhd
Reply to  Ziiex Zeburz
December 19, 2016 1:11 pm

She forgets that the easiest things President Trump can do to eliminate, or at least neuter, any of these rules and regulations is to instruct the Attorney General not to defend them in court, and instruct the EPA Chief not to enforce them.

brians356
Reply to  jayhd
December 19, 2016 2:13 pm

She may crazy, but not necessarily stupid. Consider one fat target of Pruitt, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. This mandates an increasing percentage of renewable fuel (ethanol) in gasoline, impossibly high (according to the GSA) targets in fact by 2022. It’s why EPA are ramming E15 and E85 down our throats. But RFS will be almost impossible to repeal since it was actually created by Congress as the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and expanded under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. That’s right, under George W. Bush! (Here, let me help you stand back up again.) And then consider how many Republican senators from Big Corn states would have to vote against their constituencies in order to kill it. And Trump promised not to scuttle RFS when he campaigned in the midwest, but you weren’t paying attention.

UK Sceptic
Reply to  Ziiex Zeburz
December 19, 2016 3:16 pm

I think McCarthy is going to be shocked at how fast scientific justification to reverse EPA BS will occur.

TA
December 19, 2016 4:45 am

“The chief architect of President Barack Obama’s climate change policies has warned the incoming Trump administration that US law and the scientific evidence of global warming will constrain any attempt to overturn her work.”
Well, we know the President of the United States has enormous discretionary power, especially over an Agency under the Executive Branch, which includes EPA.
As for “the scientific evidence of (human-caused) global warming” it is nonexistent and will not constrain President Trump. What she really means by “scientific evidence” is the Left has a consensus of agreement that it is real, but that is not science.
Those on the Left are engaging in wishful thinking. They do that a lot.

Ann Banisher
Reply to  TA
December 19, 2016 6:49 am

I would not be surprised for her predecessor to find that all the original data has disappeared on NOAA servers and that all that is left is the adjusted data.

2hotel9
Reply to  Ann Banisher
December 19, 2016 6:55 am

Destruction of evidence. Let the prosecutions commence.

Alba
Reply to  Ann Banisher
December 19, 2016 7:52 am

Did you mean successor?

george e. smith
Reply to  Ann Banisher
December 19, 2016 8:05 am

Well they can’t establish CMMGWCCC without any evidence can they. So disappearing the data, would a bitch of a ploy.
G

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Ann Banisher
December 19, 2016 8:59 am

This might be good. Think of what data would show the day after she left office and after that. The sudden drop in temperatures going forward would look really awkward on a chart that starts in the 1890s. Remember Gavin has a really large hockey stick of a temperature chart now.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Ann Banisher
December 19, 2016 11:47 am

I think that if that is the case, the FBI should investigate that as abuse of office, at the very least. There is a concept in government contracting that could apply: An error so egregious as to constitute deliberate malfeasance.

Bryan A
Reply to  Ann Banisher
December 19, 2016 12:55 pm

Regardless of any potential disappearances of collected unadjusted data, original measurement data should still be logged at the site where the measurements originated.

DCS
Reply to  TA
December 19, 2016 8:25 am

@Ann Banisher,
That’s all right cause it will be available on University of Toronto servers where the paranoid employees saved it from destruction by Trump? Oh the irony.

ferdberple
Reply to  TA
December 19, 2016 8:55 am

evidence of global warming will constrain any attempt to overturn her work
============
clearly the EPA does not understand science. No matter how many positive examples of global warming are found, that is not scientific proof of ANYTHING.
What matters in science is negative examples. For AGW to be true, there must not be a single example of similar warming in the past, before industrialization.
However, there are plenty of examples of similar warming in the past. For example, 6000 years ago, for about 1000 years, the tree line in the Arctic was a couple of hundred miles further north than it is now.
This is but one event that completely disproves AGW, because AGW rests on the requirement that:
1. the present warming can only be explained by human activity.
2. current temperatures are warmer than any time in the past.
But the past shows us that the climate changes all by itself. That it has been warmer in the recent past (in climate terms) without any human activity being involved.

Bryan A
Reply to  ferdberple
December 19, 2016 10:22 am

Seems to me that the only real way to Porve (AGW) Climate Change would be to show the past Climate Stagnation

Oldseadog
Reply to  ferdberple
December 19, 2016 12:35 pm

Ferd,
Precisely.
But the Trump Office must use irrefutable science to overturn current regulations, and MUST explain that science to the public all over the world in words that the public can understand.
Then they have to persuade MSM to publish it. That may be difficult since MSM have painted themselves into a corner by agreeing with the concept of CAGW and now don’t know how to get out of the corner without looking gullable.

Reply to  ferdberple
December 19, 2016 2:03 pm

OSD, MSM may be less of a US process factor than you might think. Take SCC and endangerment finding. Former used too low discount rates. Latter relied on IPCC. The revision process is marshall unassailable facts (like OMB minimum discount rate, observational ECS) publish proposed revision for comment for typically 6 monypths), reply to comments, post proposed final rule in federal register, finalize rule, then litigate the inevitable lawsuits which object. With sufficient marshalled solid facts, responsive replies, and a pristine process, it is possible to eventually prevail in court. No MSM involvement. The problem is that this can take many years. We don’t have many years. We have at most four to permanently and irreversibly change things.
Hence the order of my own process thoughts in comment below.

Stephen Greene
Reply to  TA
December 19, 2016 9:08 am

Remember this is the same document that claims the tropical upper/middle troposphere shows the fingerprint of CO2 induced global warming. This was a given in the scientific argument of the clean air act and much is based upon this. Since this is completely false the rest will fall like dominoes and easily IMHO. This was actually detailed here at WUWT a few months ago.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  TA
December 19, 2016 1:29 pm

Exactly. This from the side that predicted that Trump would never be the nominee…

oppti
December 19, 2016 4:46 am

Well he could stop importing from countries with worse environmental problems. China is an example.
In accordance with clean air act.

ferdberple
Reply to  oppti
December 19, 2016 9:02 am

In accordance with clean air act.
=============
much of the loss of jobs in the US heartland, with factory closings all across the rust belt, is due to the exporting of air pollution from the US to China.
However, when China exports the resulting goods and service back in the US, they are actually importing the CO2 as well, because CO2 is well mixed.
So, in point of fact the US is paying twice for Chinese pollution. First through the loss of jobs and secondly through the Chinese pollution that gets exported back to the US.
The US would have been way ahead to keep the jobs at home using relatively clean US cola plants to produce power, than to export the jobs to China as a way of cleaning of US air, because in the end the dirty Chinese air gets carried back to the US, but the jobs do not.

Martin A
December 19, 2016 4:47 am

…Speaking in her wood-panelled office at the EPA — which is now abutted by Washington’s new Trump International Hotel — Ms McCarthy warned of the dangers of clinging to climate change denial like “a religion or a belief system”.
(from the FT report)
The priesthood of the Climate Change Religion do not see it for what it is:

firetoice2014
Reply to  Martin A
December 19, 2016 5:30 am

I suspect that an honest list of those who deny that climate changes would be vanishingly short.

ferdberple
Reply to  Martin A
December 19, 2016 8:47 am

clinging to climate change denial like “a religion or a belief system”.
=================
belief and denial are religious terms. skepticism is a scientific term.
climate change is a political term with contradictory definitions. global warming is the scientific term.
Why does the head of the EPA use a religious and political terms to describe a scientific debate?
notice the change that results from correct terminology:
clinging to global warming skepticism like “a religion or a belief system”.
no scientists would regard skepticism as “a religion or a belief system”. suddenly the sentence is revealed for what it is. An absurd statement made to look acceptable through the replacement of scientific terms with political and religious terms.

rocketscientist
Reply to  ferdberple
December 19, 2016 9:26 am

Ms. McCarthy’s limited knowledge and understanding of science, as evidenced by her positions and actions, seems to have been derived similarly as “learned” religious doctrine. All rote dogma and no critical thinking that questions inconsistencies. The anathema against “heresy” is a hall mark. As such she is also prone to be swayed by charismatic speakers who appeal to her limbic brain, and seems confused or annoyed by deductive reasoning. Much better suited for the seminary than the science lab.

Pat Frank
Reply to  ferdberple
December 19, 2016 10:15 am

rocket, “Much better suited for the seminary than the science lab.” Also suited for a university department employing critical theory (so-called).

Joel Snider
Reply to  ferdberple
December 19, 2016 1:03 pm

‘Why does the head of the EPA use a religious and political terms to describe a scientific debate?’
Exactly.

Michael of Oz
Reply to  ferdberple
December 19, 2016 5:20 pm

placebo, that’s one scientific term for faith.

Ian Magness
December 19, 2016 4:48 am

Firstly, it is ludicrous to demand that Trump’s team must now disprove something that isn’t proven to be happening in the first place and, even if it was, there is no proof that the incredibly expensive measures we are undertaking will have any beneficial effect at all..
Secondly, Brits over a certain age will be reminded of when Thatcher took power and was told “no, don’t take on such-and-such (eg the miners’ union), you can’t win”. The rest is history, although sadly so much of it has since been diluted or reversed by pathetic governments on both sides of parliament.

wws
Reply to  Ian Magness
December 19, 2016 6:49 am

Kind of like everyone telling Trump “haha, you’re an idiot to be running for President, no one like you can possibly win!”

Reply to  Ian Magness
December 19, 2016 12:49 pm

Ian,
what people also forget is that were it not for Thatcher, we would be limping along, burdened with nationalised industries controlled by the unions.
She was a woman with bigger balls than all the male cabinet members put together. She forced us, kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, it was everyone else following her that screwed up her good work, notably Labour’s Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Labour’s Liam Byrne even had the cheek to write a note to his successor saying “The money’s all gone” as though it was a joke; but it wasn’t, Brown even sold the effing gold.
I hope to God Trump cares as little for his personal popularity as she did and gets the job done. And I sincerely hope he persuades May to go along with him otherwise I’m voting for Farage next time, even if he’s not part of UKIP!

Joel Snider
Reply to  HotScot
December 19, 2016 1:04 pm

I thought it extremely telling that Obama snubbed her funeral.

Reply to  HotScot
December 19, 2016 2:12 pm

+1 on HotScot’s comment.

TA
Reply to  Ian Magness
December 19, 2016 6:29 pm

“Firstly, it is ludicrous to demand that Trump’s team must now disprove something that isn’t proven to be happening in the first place”
Such a good point!

Oatley
December 19, 2016 4:48 am

Doesn’t have room to maneuver? Methinks Gina is whistling past the graveyard on that one.
In a Q&A session I once asked Ms. McCarthy to explain the source of scientific inquiry upon which her agency relied to make carbon regulation. Her answer, “…why the IPCC of course, the most preeminent body on the topic.”
As they say in these parts, “…Nuff said”.

firetoice2014
Reply to  Oatley
December 19, 2016 5:32 am

The CAA requires EPA to rely on its own research. She admits it didn’t. “Nuff said”.

Greg
Reply to  firetoice2014
December 19, 2016 9:02 am

That is probably why the CAA and endangerment finding will fall in the Supreme Court.

brians356
Reply to  firetoice2014
December 19, 2016 1:50 pm

Depends of what the definition of “research” is. Here’s one:
n. The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.
So it could just mean digging into the IPCC’s materials and “discovering” all the tidbits that support your policy goals. After all, how does one really “research” the effects of CO2 concentration on global climate 100 years from now?

Reply to  firetoice2014
December 20, 2016 7:12 am

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK

Hard to consider anything from the IPCC as research or citation worthy as their very charter forces them into a conclusion.

Reply to  Oatley
December 19, 2016 9:05 am

This is why Trump should just cancel all USA involvement with the UN climate organizations. Gone- nada-fin! I would like to see him redirect climate research monies solely to “natural causes” of climate change for the next 4/8 years as a counter-balance to the last 28 years of IPCC looking only for “anthropocentric causes” of climate change. Government scientists will do what they are told just like they have under Obama. Anything he does, however, should be legally cleared – the green blob has lots of money and lawyers, and could tie things up forever if this isn’t done carefully.

Rita in Texas
Reply to  Oatley
December 19, 2016 11:05 am

Perhaps the efforts of this group, http://climatechangereconsidered.org/, will prove helpful to the incoming administration. The climate changes; the only debate is whether or not humanity’s collective actions are a driving force in that change. I remain unconvinced that we are.

Reply to  Rita in Texas
December 19, 2016 2:24 pm

Too bad you have to buy the book to see all the detailed evidence. Will the MSM read the book and report on it? – no. Will the Obama EPA people read the book? – no. will Al Gore, Mann, etc. read the book? – no. Will the 50% who believe in “Climate Change”, “Global Warming” read the book? – no. Will the CAGW “scientists” read the book? – no. Just us/we will read the book…

December 19, 2016 4:49 am

Gina was part of the shadow private email special interest collusion cabal.

Nickola Temple
December 19, 2016 4:54 am

The administration just needs to come up with a valid scientific reason for dumping the regulations. Just declare any finding that doesn’t have data and methods archived “non-science” poof all of the justifications for the regulations are gone and the regulations can be sent to the dustbin of history.

kim
December 19, 2016 4:55 am

Heh, what’s the social cost of alarmism? If you have to ask, you can’t afford it.
===============

December 19, 2016 4:55 am

“McCarthy says any attempt must be scientifically justified”

Carbon BIgfoot
Reply to  chaamjamal
December 19, 2016 5:26 am

You left off the sarc tag.

stevekeohane
Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
December 19, 2016 5:44 am

It’s a quote, it stands on its own ignorance/delusion.

observa
Reply to  chaamjamal
December 19, 2016 5:57 am

Well I guess if Trump doesn’t attemp but actually achieves then bang goes her scientifically justified theory.

Bryan A
Reply to  chaamjamal
December 19, 2016 10:24 am

The new McCarthy ERA
Neo Facist McCarthyism

Hivemind
Reply to  Bryan A
December 19, 2016 5:50 pm

I have always wondered if she is related to THAT McCarthy.

Reply to  Bryan A
December 20, 2016 5:28 pm

Senator Joe McCarthy was pilloried by the same people who he was calling out; the facts, as revealed over the decades, were that our government was riddled with communists. “McCarthyism” is another gem of “fake news” invented by those who control our press, our banks, our politicians.

Robert from oz
Reply to  chaamjamal
December 19, 2016 12:25 pm

So we have to prove that CAGW doesn’t exist when they can’t prove that it does , with scant factual evidence if any CAGW would not stand up in a court where evidence is required and claims or computer games would not be seen as evidence at all .
Let’s hope the green blob do start some court action it may once and for all rid us of these parasites.

brians356
Reply to  chaamjamal
December 19, 2016 1:53 pm

I.e. “You cannot possibly refute The 98%”. And she may be right, I’m afraid, especially with Ivanka whispering in The Donald’s ear.

Gamecock
December 19, 2016 4:59 am

‘McCarthy thinks President-elect Donald Trump will not be able to change EPA policy towards CO2’
If he doesn’t, there are going to be millions of pissed off voters.

December 19, 2016 5:01 am

Isn’t it pretty much equal on those scientists who don’t believe in Climate Change or Global Warming due to their research and those who do 🎅

Phil R
Reply to  hocuspocus13
December 19, 2016 8:00 am

hocuspocus13,
No disrespect intended, but is English a second language for you? your comment makes no sense.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Phil R
December 19, 2016 11:14 am

It can be parsed, but the use of “equal on” is non-standard. And no, we don’t know that Believers and Unbelievers are about equal in number. Unbelievers have been threatened sufficiently to shut up, and Believers have been paid to create Lysenkoist rubbish. There’s no way to know what the relative numbers are.

Pat Frank
Reply to  hocuspocus13
December 19, 2016 10:21 am

The question of AGW centers around demonstration, hocuspocus, not around equal numbers of authorities.
In any debate, the scientists who dispute the evidence of a human effect on climate will carry the argument, even if the team membership is 1 disputer to 10 insisters, because there is no good science whatever showing an impact of CO2 emissions on global climate.

December 19, 2016 5:02 am

The arrogance of the outgoing cabinet is astonishing. Is it really possible she is so deluded that she thinks she, a presidential appointee, can tie the hands of the president himself? I am watching the British House of Cards right now and I can’t help picturing Prime Minister Urquhart grimly laughing in anticipation of the punishments he will inflict on this woman arrogant enough to think that SHE controls HIM.

Reply to  tim maguire
December 19, 2016 12:22 pm

They believe their own propaganda. She really thinks 97% of scientists believe in CAGW caused by CO2, despite all the evidence against it. This is what happens when you live in a cultural bubble and talk to no one outside your circle: a closed mind.

arthur4563
December 19, 2016 5:03 am

If it takes “a massive amount of evidence” to undo the regs, how did they get installed in the first place? From viewing Al Gore’s fictitious film?

Mark from the Midwest
December 19, 2016 5:03 am

The Clean Power Plan is already dead, all Trump need do is refuse to defend it against the suits from 24 states. As for McCarthy, she’s been clueless about most everything from the start, Gold King, Flint, budget appropriations, an on and on.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
December 19, 2016 6:28 am

I like it!
BAU
Sue the EPA, let the EPA admit their error and settle the case.
Good idea.

Paul
Reply to  mikerestin
December 19, 2016 10:38 am

“Sue the EPA, let the EPA admit their error and settle the case.”
Who wins? Certainly not US taxpayers. All that action does is feed the lawyers.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
December 19, 2016 12:45 pm

Yup, by stipulating to certain of the Plaintiff’s claims, this could be very interesting.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
December 20, 2016 7:24 am

Flint is still waiting for EPA approval to use the new water pipeline from lake Huron, it was finished in August and approval is estimeated fro next August.

2hotel9
Reply to  Paul Jackson
December 20, 2016 7:34 am

Ya don’t say! Democrats standing in the way of clean water, again, and still blaming Republicans for the mess they created. I am shocked, SHOCKED, I say!

michael hart
December 19, 2016 5:11 am

There is something wrong with a system that allows an unelected bureaucrat to publicly take pride in thwarting the will of a future elected-government.

Reply to  michael hart
December 20, 2016 3:19 am

I’ve noticed that sentiment echoed throughout the comments above, and I sympathize, but I think it’s also important to remember just how low on the list of public priorities cAGW is; dead last as I recall?
It’s easy to think that means there’s public support for dismantling the EPA and the Clean Power Act, but an old associate of mine once reminded me that “No news is just no news” when I used the old saw. The fact the subject polls low doesn’t mean the public supports actively repealing all the nonsense that’s been done by the EPA and DOE over the past eight years. It just means they aren’t all that concerned about it.

December 19, 2016 5:11 am

I think what McCartthy was saying was that her allies in the green blob would tie everything up in court. However, given a bit of judicous venue shopping. . .

Felflames
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 19, 2016 6:57 am

No need.
Trump can simply de-fund the EPA, or simply disband the entire organization.
There might also be the possibility of prosecutions over a certain mine cleanup and EPA officials who think they are off the hook for their mismanagement.

Reply to  Felflames
December 19, 2016 7:37 am

Only Congress can de-fund an agency.

2hotel9
Reply to  Bob Rogers
December 19, 2016 7:43 am

Right after the President asks them to. Separation of powers is a beautiful thing. Glad we appear to be returning to it.

Greg
Reply to  Felflames
December 19, 2016 9:09 am

Well over due for some prosecutions for EPA telling everyone all cement dust and asbestos covering Lower Manhattan in 2001 was not dangerous.
How many first responders died from that?

Bryan A
Reply to  Felflames
December 19, 2016 10:25 am

And both houses will have a Republican Majority

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Felflames
December 19, 2016 11:22 am

Better to pare the EPA down to a maintenance level to oversee necessary regulations and permitting. I’m thinking about 10% of what they are now.

bobl
Reply to  Felflames
December 19, 2016 7:31 pm

Shut it down, and redirect their minimal permitting etc to another department. Bury the head of the New Environmental Protection Unit at least three levels deep under it’s new department head (DOE maybe).

December 19, 2016 5:12 am

“McCarthy says any attempt must be scientifically justified under Clean Air Act.”
Gina clearly doesn’t understand what a null hypothesis is and what it takes to refute one. In terms of scientific justification for regulatory change, she also apparently doesn’t understand that the entire edifice is built on unvalidated modeling incorporating base assumptions with no empirical evidential support. The whole modeling ‘effort’ is like the One Ring and once it is destroyed, all the evil that was wrought with its power will crumble into ruin and blow away in the wind.

mountainape5
December 19, 2016 5:14 am

The losers here are the common folks who blindly bankrupt themselves for these charlatans.
Like McCarthy will care if anyone remembers her lol she will be home richer.

Samuel C Cogar
December 19, 2016 5:21 am

“It’s going to be a very high burden of proof for them (climate change sceptics) ,” said Ms McCarthy, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency,

“YUP”, it sure would be “a very high burden of proof?, ….. that is iffen any learned scientists or “climate change sceptics” really cared about or gave a Tinker’s damn about un-radicalizing the highly partisan believers and supporters of the Religious cult of CAGW Climate Changers.
Of course, iffen you cut off their “free” money supply …… they will most likely become “un-radicalizing” in a heartbeat and without being told to.
HA, it would be a lot easier to convince all the Bible believing Creationists ….. to forget their beliefs.

hunter
December 19, 2016 5:24 am

Today is a huge hurdle for President elect Trump. And a huge challenge to our nation. McCarthy and her ilk seem to really believe that they are the rightful owners of the American agenda. They only succeed if they are permitted to
If they can abort the election results today it is likely that her vision will be made reality
Those of us who want a free America based on rational political policies should not underestimate how hard those like McCarthy will fight.

Reply to  hunter
December 19, 2016 6:32 am

The US system requires that in no candidate has a majority (270 EC votes) it goes to the congress.
The states get to choose the new POTUS.
Each state gets one vote.
I believe the state count was like 29 to 21 in favor of Trump.

wws
Reply to  mikerestin
December 19, 2016 6:53 am

I think we’re about to discover that this entire campaign to hijack the vote, via electoral college shenanigans, has been nothing but a big media hype job that will be shown to have been a complete fraud by about 5 pm today.
The media (and the democrats, but I repeat myself) just can’t figure out why the Big Hype jobs they’ve been pulling off for so many years just don’t work anymore. So they keep trying to do them.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  mikerestin
December 19, 2016 11:41 am

Some say the shenanigans are intended to distract us all from noticing the level of Hillary-fraud discovered in recent investigations.

brians356
Reply to  mikerestin
December 19, 2016 2:29 pm

So far all the faithless electors have been Democrats! AH-HAHAHAHAHA! Oh, that’s rich!
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/faithless-electors-so-far-are-democrats-not-republicans-2016-12-19

Ex-expat Colin
December 19, 2016 5:24 am

Won’t pay for that FT paywalled sh*te Eric. Get the drift though. Think the following might disable the current EPA and throw its entrails in the bin?
President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday nominated Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of the oil and gas-intensive state of Oklahoma

Martin A
Reply to  Ex-expat Colin
December 19, 2016 6:12 am

Ex-expat C
Try googling “EPA chief says Trump has limited room to scrap climate rules”
That gives me access to the page without a paywall.

Chris Schoneveld
Reply to  Martin A
December 19, 2016 6:28 am

Indeed that circumvented the paywall. Thanks

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Martin A
December 19, 2016 7:23 am

Interestingly they’ve shut down comments in less than a day. Rough count suggests they were running 2-1 against the warmunist narrative.

Reply to  Martin A
December 19, 2016 7:39 am

The comments to the Financial Times article on this are just hilarious. When are the media going to understand that everyone – with the exception of a few fanatics – is now laughing at every lying word they print.

Reply to  Ex-expat Colin
December 19, 2016 6:21 am

Increasingly, the discredited ‘media’ is hiding behind ‘paywalls’, and banning comments.
That is truly Desperate.

mark - Helsinki
December 19, 2016 5:25 am

How did that Jaded boston cop get the job of EPA chief anyways? She’s a complete idiot, lackey line towing bureaucrat who doesn’t even know where the most of earth’s ice is.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  mark - Helsinki
December 19, 2016 11:45 am

…lickey line-toeing bureaucrat…

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
December 19, 2016 11:46 am

lackey

mark - Helsinki
December 19, 2016 5:30 am

To undo regs, the evidence used to put them in place is all the evidence you need to remove them, now that fuqface is gone that dodgy work that was shielded is now unprotected. Real analysis can now take place

Reply to  mark - Helsinki
December 20, 2016 8:06 am

May not be that hard to do, I remember, Gowdy grilling a NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan about failing to comply with a subpoena for records;

The Environment Subcommittee today held a hearing to examine the administration’s Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) budget request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan provided testimony and fielded questions about a number of issues, including the agency’s failure to comply with a lawfully issued subpoena for information surrounding a controversial climate change study published last summer. Republicans Press NOAA Chief on Weather Forecasting, Climate Alarmism

never a good strategy to piss off a Congressman, they may not sign her paycheck, but they write in how much it is for. Close down GISS’s redundant Earth climate department and transfer them and their duties to NOAA, don’t increase NOAA funding for Climate studies, then when some one testifies “No significant Warming for 18 years on satellite data, mission accomplished, we’ll call you if it starts warming up again”, there be no hysterical rebuttals.
Another thing I’m waiting for is for the Feds to rein in these Departmental Email servers and place them under centralized administration, tighten laws on electronic communications and to centralize data retention similar to what the SEC does to inhibit insider trading.

December 19, 2016 5:32 am

Trump needs to hold a livestream public debate on the facts and figures, lets thrash it out and then make the alarmists look like fools in the public’s eyes

2hotel9
Reply to  Owen Martin
December 19, 2016 6:08 am

I really wish DJT would dump the whole news media model and go to a live, direct to the people through internet “news conference” system. It is the Information Age, time to use it properly.

PiperPaul
Reply to  2hotel9
December 19, 2016 7:03 am

There may be a fifth column in the fourth estate.

Dave in Canmore
Reply to  2hotel9
December 19, 2016 8:15 am

A fantastic idea!

ferdberple
Reply to  2hotel9
December 19, 2016 9:06 am

internet “news conference” system
===============
heads in the MSM would explode. their position of power would evaporate overnight.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  2hotel9
December 19, 2016 11:43 am

PiperPaul
December 19, 2016 at 7:03 am
“There may be a fifth column in the fourth estate.”
————————
The fourth estate has become a fifth column, without question.

Non Nomen
Reply to  Owen Martin
December 19, 2016 7:18 am

Wouldn’t it be nice to bring Lord Monckton and Al the Gore together? Can Gore withstand a presidential invitation? What about his reputation amongst the Larmist A’s? then?

Reply to  Non Nomen
December 19, 2016 9:18 am

Please invite David Suzuki to the debate – Canada has a lot to learn as well.

kevinmackay
Reply to  Owen Martin
December 19, 2016 8:10 am

He isn’t a good debater. He’s good at firing.

2hotel9
December 19, 2016 5:32 am

Really? And yet her a$$ is in the street and facing investigation for malfeasance. Wonder how much evidence she ordered destroyed in the last few weeks?

firetoice2014
Reply to  2hotel9
December 19, 2016 5:44 am

Perhaps the landing team will ask about the status of the NAAQS for CO2 required under the CAA subsequent to the issuance of the Endangerment Finding. I realize that the concept of a NAAQS for a “globally well-mixed trace gas” is irredeemably silly, but the law is the law and 7 years is a long time.

2hotel9
Reply to  firetoice2014
December 19, 2016 6:01 am

Oh, there is all manner of legal ugliness coming down the pike, and the Obama Admin is throwing folks like her in front of it.

firetoice2014
Reply to  2hotel9
December 19, 2016 6:06 am

Obama prefers to lead from behind anyway. 😉

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  firetoice2014
December 19, 2016 8:17 am

Obama is the behind.

observa
December 19, 2016 5:40 am

Nice pic of her laid back laughing at all the deplorables no doubt, as she starts work jumping out of the 5.3 litre V8 Chevy Tahoe with her bottled water ready to harangue them all for their profligate, polluting ways-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/usepagov/14199084507/in/photostream/

Pat Frank
Reply to  observa
December 19, 2016 3:51 pm

Nice irony, observa. 🙂

Nic
Reply to  observa
December 19, 2016 3:59 pm

If the head of the EPA had done her job correctly then clean drinking water would be available throughout the country – She carries a bottle of water.

Hans-Georg
December 19, 2016 5:48 am

If I look at the reactions to the Trump election and the reactions to today’s electoral decision, some reactions resemble a whistle in the very dark forest. For protection from the very bad wolf. Instead of going to Trump positive, he is “warned”. This will certainly make him (in an ironic reading), as I know the Donald. These people overlook these facts: Trump has won the election, the Republicans are in both houses in the majority and can turn the EPA into one One-man authority. Laws or regulations. The president has the power to do it. In addition, he is supported by a majority of deputies in the houses. In Germany there is also a decline in the intellectual capacity of left and AGW-friendly personalities. Thus, it is hoped, at least in the headings of many press articles, to enter the case that the electors will still prevent the election of Trump. Sick, undemocratic thoughts. But the mask has fallen, the enemies of democracy are suddenly clearly recognizable.

firetoice2014
Reply to  Hans-Georg
December 19, 2016 5:50 am

…and, laughably, they are Democrats.

2hotel9
Reply to  Hans-Georg
December 19, 2016 5:57 am

Don’t forget the massive Democrat Party losses in State Legislatures. The times, they have-a changed.

Reply to  2hotel9
December 19, 2016 6:15 am

Fully Half of this Country have badly mis-read the current zeitgeist in America. The Earth has moved.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  2hotel9
December 19, 2016 11:53 am

Meanwhile, Califombia marches bravely into the future to the beat of a different kazoo-player, in a cloud of reefer smoke.

Bob Lyman
December 19, 2016 5:56 am

Okay, I am not an American, so I will simply pose a few questions that I think would apply in any country like the U.S. that operates under the rule of law and a legislative system. Does the U.S. Constitution not give the Executive broad discretionary powers to set policy and to implement or not implement programs that accord with that policy? Is the approval of the U.S. Congress not needed for authority to spend on programs, and the staffing of public institutions like those that implement programs and enforce regulations? If such spending authority is withdrawn, how can those programs and regulatory structures continue to operate? Is the approval of the U.S. Senate not needed to ensure ratification of international treaties and other agreements that provide authority for programs like those intended to reduce GHG emissions? Is the “endangerment finding” of the EPA with respect to GHG emissions, subsequently validated by the Supreme Court, not subject to revision if a different group of experts and a different group of Justices find otherwise? What makes an appointed official, no matter how senior, think that the policies she favours cannot be overturned by the decisions of the legally elected people?

firetoice2014
Reply to  Bob Lyman
December 19, 2016 5:57 am

Funny you should ask. 😉

Quinn the Eskimo
Reply to  Bob Lyman
December 19, 2016 6:47 am

Gina McCarthy displays overweening hubris on the “science,” as does most of the environmental left. This is evident in their constant scoffing and mocking of those who notice the gaping holes in the “consensus” view of climate science.
The Endangerment Finding rests on very shaky premises. The attribution of warming to human emissions is based on (1) physical understanding of climate (2) temperature records and (3) models.
All three are extremely dubious at best. In combination they are nonsense.
A new administrator could rightfully conclude (1) that the physical understanding is inadequate for attribution purposes, (2) that temperature records are too short, too incomplete, are of very low quality, and have been corrupted beyond recognition, and that we are clearly within the scope of natural variability, and (3) that models are worthless for attribution, prediction of climate, and for policy judgments. There is copious support in the scientific literature for each of these conclusions.
That finding would be entitled to a very high level of deference in court. The enviros would have a hard time overthrowing under the applicable standard of review it unless the Courts changed the legal standard in order to get the result dictated by the judges’ personal political preferences, which could certainly happen.
It’s not that hard to put these arguments together. What’s required is the courage to do so.

Ted
Reply to  Quinn the Eskimo
December 20, 2016 11:48 am

I read this as maintaining the lie.
Some people, maybe she even knows how many, will believe it. They will then scream “Foul” when Trump does move.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Bob Lyman
December 19, 2016 6:51 am

The Constitution does not give the President broad power to do anything. The authorizing legislation needs to come from Congress. The problem is that many Presidents, and Obama has been the most egregious example, use that authorizing legislation as a power grab.
A couple small items.
1) Any money spent on anything must be part of a budget that comes from the House of Representatives. Unfortunately the House has a tendency to write sloppy budgets, which allow lots of slush money to move around in the Executive Branch, and used for moronic stuff.
2) “Endangerment findings” are not validated by the Supreme Court, the Federal Courts have, historically, tried not to judge the scientific content of anything, but merely judge the regulatory process as codified in law. It’s up to the Agency to pass judgement on the scientific findings, and they are easily un-done by simply reviewing the evidence.
3) Finally, your question “What makes an appointed …. ???” many of Obama’s appointees are not very smart people, they are merely political activists, Gina McCarty, in particular, is clueless about most everything, I’m sure she believes what she says because she is not intellectually up to the task of objectively evaluating the work of her own agency, and she just listens to the echo chamber that exists in D.C.

DMA
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
December 19, 2016 9:51 am

If I remember correctly, when the endangerment finding was being litigated, one of the points i thought would in the day was that EPA had ignored there own mandates for requirements for the science supporting a ruling. But the Supreme court didn’t look at that. They just said that the EPA had authority to make the finding if they followed all the rules. EPA’s reply was “oops we’ll do more next time but this one is done for now.” I believe any revisiting of the endangerment finding that enforced the rules for the science would fail. The new Wallace paper finds error in every aspect of the “proof” that was used improperly without independent validation to support the finding.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
December 19, 2016 11:50 am

DMA,
Would this be the Wallace paper which you mentioned?
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/wwww-ths-rr-091716.pdf

Udar
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
December 19, 2016 2:36 pm

All that SCOTUS did was to find that EPA had authority to regulate CO2 if they so wish.
Under Bush they did not wish to do so. Under Obama they did.
Under Trump they could just as easily reverse their course.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
December 19, 2016 2:51 pm

Mark, I was disturbed that during his second term he continually used executive powers to circumvent congressional resistance. He was apparently hoping that HRC would be able to make all of it permanent. There is much undoing to do.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
December 19, 2016 2:54 pm

Could times be ripe for the birth of a ‘constitutional’ party?

Bob Lyman
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
December 21, 2016 12:24 am

Mark from the Midwest, Thank you for the clarifications.

old engineer
Reply to  Bob Lyman
December 19, 2016 10:57 am

Bob
As I understand it, in the supreme court “endangerment finding,” the court said it would not (or could not) rule on the science. Thus, to the court, the science is whatever the EPA says it is. If the EPA changes it mind on the science, then the new view of the science is what the court will accept. The CAGW crowd can’t argue the science in court. At least that’s the way I understand it.

Reply to  old engineer
December 19, 2016 2:15 pm

That is directionally correct. Judicial deference to regulatory authority What the court rule on is whether the process to ‘redo’ the science was itself legal. And, in the case of CPP, whether the CAA eber gave regulatory authority to the EPA in the first place. (The SCOTUS CPP stay is because the majority found it likely NOT.)

Rita Miller
Reply to  Bob Lyman
December 19, 2016 11:20 am

For a non-citizen, you pose very valid questions that, unfortunately, most of our citizenry would not be able, or willing, to ask, given the current state of (mis)education here. The President can do what he likes with agencies within his branch of government, including dissolving those he feels are not relevant or useful. Actually, according to the Constitution, most of those executive agencies under fire now are misappropriating responsibilities that properly belong to the States, or to the People.

Neo
Reply to  Bob Lyman
December 19, 2016 11:22 am

Is the approval of the U.S. Senate not needed to ensure ratification of international treaties and other agreements that provide authority for programs like those intended to reduce GHG emissions?
Ordinarily, Yes, but the latest agreement from Paris was claimed to be a modification of a ratified treaty from 1994, so it was claimed that no new Senate approval was necessary.
I expect Trump to send that agreement to the Senate and let them vote NO.

Rita
Reply to  Bob Lyman
December 19, 2016 11:28 am

For a non-citizen, you pose very valid questions that, unfortunately, most of our citizenry would not be able, or willing, to ask, given the current state of (mis)education here. The President can do what he likes with agencies within his branch of government, including dissolving those he feels are not relevant or useful. Actually, according to the Constitution, most of those executive agencies under fire now are misappropriating responsibilities that properly belong to the States, or to the People.

Mark T
Reply to  Rita
December 19, 2016 7:15 pm

The President has no such power to dissolve agencies created by law passed by Congress and signed by any President, current or previous.

markl
Reply to  Mark T
December 19, 2016 7:22 pm

“The President has no such power to dissolve agencies created by law passed by Congress”,,,, The EPA was created by Executive Order and although the Senate and House approved it there was no “law” passed creating the EPA. Am I wrong?

2hotel9
Reply to  Mark T
December 20, 2016 3:36 am

Ah, yea, he does. Perhaps you should take an elementary school level civics course and learn how it all works.

Hivemind
Reply to  Bob Lyman
December 19, 2016 6:25 pm

I Australia, it is common practice for legislation to give the responsible minister (the secretary in US practice) the ability to enact regulations that cover the actual operation of the act. These are usually (but not always) subject to veto by the Senate.

Allah_speaking
December 19, 2016 5:59 am

I hope these idiots have been updating their resumes. Trump could just do away with the EPA all together and start over from scratch.

Neo
Reply to  Allah_speaking
December 19, 2016 11:25 am

I expect part of Trump’s infrastructure investments will be new federal buildings in Montana, North Dakota and Alaska. When all the transfers go out, some of them will relocate.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Neo
December 19, 2016 11:57 am

He’ll probably need only one building . . .

Mark T
Reply to  Allah_speaking
December 19, 2016 7:20 pm

No, he cannot.

2hotel9
Reply to  Mark T
December 20, 2016 3:37 am

Yes, he can.

pameladragon
December 19, 2016 6:04 am

I have to think that among all the many hundreds of people working at EPA and other organizations there have to be a few honest ones who need their jobs so stay below the radar. We may see them revealed after the inauguration. Hopefully, they are busy keeping copies of incriminating emails, memos, and un-adjusted data to hand over to their new bosses.
PMK

firetoice2014
Reply to  pameladragon
December 19, 2016 6:29 am

Bring back Alan Carlin.

Tom O
Reply to  pameladragon
December 19, 2016 7:02 am

There is no need to keep copies of emails as the systems are multiply backed up. You can not delete an email from the records. That is why Clinton went to her own server. That is why so many of Obama’s department heads went to outside email accounts. In those ways, and in those ways only, are their emails to those outside of government “delete-able.” I am sure McCarthy, like her predecessor, emailed Obama and Clinton through outside email accounts to THEIR outside email accounts. This whole administration had been very good at avoiding the government controlled and backed up email systems. There is nothing that anyone needs to save since they are already saved.

Reply to  pameladragon
December 19, 2016 7:57 am

I too am looking forward to the twin ‘defenses’ of “it wasn’t me” and “I was only following orders”. I’m quite sure it will rapidly come to resemble the trial of senior Schutzstaffel officers at Nuremberg during the second half of the 1940’s. Much like then the vast majority of guilty perps will escape punishment but the EPA in its current embodiment, like the Schutzstaffel before it, will be no more.

Mark T
Reply to  pameladragon
December 19, 2016 7:22 pm

Not hundreds, thousands, over 15,000, in fact. This pales in comparison to the DOE, however.

2hotel9
Reply to  Mark T
December 20, 2016 3:39 am

15,000 useless eaters. Yep, huge up tick in minimum wage job applicants in the coming months. Hope that college education included how to operate a cash register and deep fryer, snowflake.

Thomas Homer
December 19, 2016 6:05 am

[It’s going to be a very high burden of proof for them,” said Ms McCarthy]
– We know that carbon is necessary for carbon based life forms (i.e. all life on Earth).
– We know that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is the unique, single point of failure in the Carbon Cycle of Life.
– We know that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is the base of the food chain for all life.
– We know that without the chemical transaction of extracting carbon from atmospheric CO2 via photosynthesis and phytoplanton, the carbon cycle of life ends.
Your turn Ms McCarthy, would you please provide your science? You can start with your working definition of “Carbon Pollution”.

2hotel9
Reply to  Thomas Homer
December 19, 2016 6:13 am

Oop, there it is. Evedr’body cabbage patch!

Reply to  Thomas Homer
December 19, 2016 8:03 am

Gina M: Um, well, ah, you see someone wrote a model and, er, gulp, can I take the 5th? …

Gary Pearse
December 19, 2016 6:05 am

How about Trump give grants to investigate the science to see what is wrong with it. Even Mike the hockey stick maker would reverse his field for cash if his university starts running short. The newly created NCEI would change it’s name to No Climate Emergency Indicated.

firetoice2014
Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 19, 2016 6:28 am

lol. +1

stan stendera
Reply to  firetoice2014
December 20, 2016 1:32 pm

I’m getting there! Try +1776

Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 19, 2016 6:45 am

I want to see a bit given to make highschool and undergraduate level experimental demonstrations teaching the most basic physics of heat transfer , particularly radiative transfer for colored bodies . That should end the nonscience that somehow an optical phenomenon “traps” the greater heat at the bottoms of atmospheres than their tops which still is the analytically and experimentally baseless claim for this entire GHG paradigm .
Anybody who disputes that please point me to the crucial equation .

polski
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
December 19, 2016 10:27 am

Once scientists are allowed to publish their results without being tortured by the present guardians of climate change dogma I would think there would be all kinds of papers published that refute the stupid AGW nonsense. Might find some young shining stars that have been held back by threats of losing their positions. Also, would hope they have some stories to tell.

Reply to  polski
December 20, 2016 7:35 am

The problem I see is the near universal acceptance by all sides of the GHG cause for the temperature gradients in atmospheres without any analytical or experimental foundation . There is constant “studies” even here on just what the “sensitivity” to additional , eg : CO2 , is as if that is a virtually open ended effect beyond and separate from the small effect it may have on our spectrum as seen from the outside — that somehow it can change the gradient from the planets computed radiative equilibrium temperature and the surface . I have never seen an analytical derivation as I would expect at the undergraduate level in any other branch of applied physics .
I claim it’s not possible because any such phenomenon would violate the distinctly undergraduate Divergence Theorem . This is the mathematical expression of what many point out as the obvious violation of basic thermodynamics .
And at the same time , the obvious massive ( pun intended ) force , with its concomitant energy , gravity , is , almost with prejudice , omitted from consideration or equation . There is discussion of “lapse rate” , etc , but not direct acknowledgment and computation in terms of the force which maintains it . It can’t be left out of the energy balance equations .
It’s beyond just good guys vs bad . It’s a Kuhnian Paradigm where both sides play in their obviously incomplete and never analytically nor experimentally justified box .

December 19, 2016 6:12 am

Your ‘legacy’, “Gina”, will be Lies and Failure. Perhaps you’d do better as the dog breeder you resemble.

December 19, 2016 6:19 am

It is one thing to have an agenda. it is another to be sucked in by your own propaganda! The evidence is against her. She had to suppress most of it in order to justify her actions! All her replacement needs to do is bring out the “rest” of the evidence.

usurbrain
December 19, 2016 6:28 am

Simple, declare that the flimsy document that the EPA wrote justifying CO2 is a pollutant does not come to the level required by their own regulation. Then cancel all affected rules. Then let the Greenies sue and provide the PROOF.

usurbrain
December 19, 2016 6:31 am

There is also the matter of the Federal rule changes requiring an Economic Justification Study. Even a back of the envelope study would prove that these rules cause an adverse economic impact.

Gary
December 19, 2016 6:31 am

The political climate has changed. So who is in denial?

firetoice2014
Reply to  Gary
December 19, 2016 7:42 am

+1

stan stendera
Reply to  firetoice2014
December 20, 2016 1:47 pm

Try +1776.

December 19, 2016 6:43 am

Oh, I can provide a lead to the requested evidence.
The EU chemicals law protecting human health and the environment lists harmless chemicals exempted from red tape also known as ‘registration’. See annex IV to REACH Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. Carbon dioxide is among them.
Even better directly from the source
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02006R1907-20161011&rid=1

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
December 19, 2016 12:15 pm

Well done, jaakko!

kb
December 19, 2016 6:49 am

It appears McCarthy is not familiar with the Clean Air Act, which is what gave her the authority to designate CO2 a pollutant in the first place. From SKS’s “advanced” analysis of CO2 as a pollutant:
“””[Clean Air act] Title 42, Section 7408 states that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator must publish a list of certain air pollutants:
“emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare”
“””
“In his judgment” can clearly change when a the administrator changes his mind, or the administrator changes.
The designation of CO2 was a judgment call, balancing the proven benefits of CO2 listed by the EPA (increased forest/marsh growth) with potential costs (risk of increased temperatures and thus risk of damage to society). That judgment was questionable, the scale tipping the other way is not unreasonable.

Reply to  kb
December 19, 2016 7:30 am

Yes, they can start by having the EPA declaring/designating CO2, Carbon Dioxide, as a non pollutant. They can have “selected scientists” debate the fact that CO2 is or is not a pollutant. That would be interesting…

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
December 19, 2016 1:41 pm

On 2nd thought, why have a debate? They didn’t.

December 19, 2016 6:50 am

Ill be glad to see her go…

MarkW
Reply to  scottmc37
December 19, 2016 8:16 am

I’d rather see her leave, I’m not into that kind of thing.

Jan Christoffersen
Reply to  MarkW
December 19, 2016 8:47 am

Mark,
Very precise and too funny.

December 19, 2016 7:01 am

Collecting evidence is an art form, as both sides of the CO2-climate-change debate have well demonstrated.
If your “evidence” collectors change, then your research base changes, hence your foundation for proof that leads to laws changes .
… new people, new evidence, new amendments to laws. If, as a new leader, you know where the limits are, then you can change them to make the necessary “room” to maneuver. When limits can be changed, they are NOT absolute limitations, therefore.

RACookPE1978
Editor
December 19, 2016 7:03 am

From today’s Washington Times, as posted in http://www.FreeRepublic.com
:
Obama rushes out 11th-hour regulations targeting coal mining
Washington Times ^ | December 19, 2016 | Ben Wolfgang

At virtually the last possible moment, the Obama administration on Monday rolled out new regulations making it even more difficult and more costly to mine coal in the U.S., a final shot against the already beleaguered coal industry as the president leaves office.
The Interior Department’s Stream Protection Rule will go into effect 30 after its official release and publication in the federal register, meaning it likely will be implemented Jan. 19 — one day before President-elect Donald Trump takes office. Mr. Trump has vowed to undo much of his predecessor’s environmental regulations, including rules that target coal mining.
The regulations will add significant new costs to coal-mining companies, many of which are already struggling to stay afloat. Critics, including leaders in the energy sector and Republicans on Capitol Hill, have said the proposal surely will lead to even more layoffs in the sector.

(Rest of story at site.)
So, the EPA continues its dictatorial extremism and attacks on the US economy, industry, and energy.

Non Nomen
Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 19, 2016 7:07 am

Custer’s Obamas Last Stand.

firetoice2014
Reply to  Non Nomen
December 19, 2016 7:46 am

2hotel9
Reply to  firetoice2014
December 19, 2016 7:52 am

And they thought regulating dust would stop the natives from surrounding them!

Non Nomen
Reply to  Non Nomen
December 19, 2016 10:06 am

Just forgot to mention that Obama will be dead the next day (politically speaking).

RWturner
Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 19, 2016 9:17 am

It’s amazing that they think the best thing to do is scramble to pass all these regulations in the final hour, despite the fact that it’s this exact type of behavior that the citizens are pushing back against at the ballot box. That hole they’re continuing to dig is so deep they might just start mining coal themselves.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 19, 2016 12:27 pm

I’ve suspected for some time that an objective was for the coal mines to end up in the hands of China. We have huge coal reserves for future use…unless they are sold out from under us.

Non Nomen
December 19, 2016 7:03 am

As these matters are not, as declared, “settled” and the evidence of the IPCC reports is weak to non-existent, it is not going to be the “high burden” Gina longs to see. If Pruitt is worth his salt, matters will be settled in a way McCarthy doesn’t like at all.

December 19, 2016 7:09 am

FT <>
Most of the rest of the world pledged to accept financial assistance. China pledged to increase pollution for 15 years. As a US taxpayer I would have felt very lonely indeed.

Reply to  Douglas Kubler
December 19, 2016 7:10 am

MIssing FT text – Noting that most of the rest of the world had pledged to keep cutting fossil fuel pollution despite Mr Trump’s vow to quit the Paris deal, Ms McCarthy said: “We’re going to be in the back. And we’re going to be in a very lonely place. I think it’s only us and Nicaragua that would be there. It’s sort of not the company you want to keep.”

Arild
Reply to  Douglas Kubler
December 19, 2016 8:22 am

Obama stands with the likes of Mugabe in Paris. It is not the company I want to keep.

David L. Hagen
December 19, 2016 7:12 am

Just require Validated Models and use the Scientific Method with the highest integrity
NASA’s Apollo program required using ONLY VALIDATED models.
Validated Models
Ex Apollo engineers and scientists formed The Right Climate Stuff
Since the IPCC models are NOT validated, The Right Climate Stuff formed and validated TRCS climate models.
BOUNDING GHG CLIMATE SENSITIVITY FOR USE IN REGULATORY DECISIONS
A Report of The Right Climate Stuff Research Team
http://www.therightclimatestuff.com
Lead Author: Harold H. Doiron, PhD, February 2014, Houston, Texas
Presentation at:
An Objective Look At The Global Warming Controversy (University of Louisiana-Lafayette) Sept. 21, 2015
Scientific Integrity
Fully apply Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman’s high standard of scientific integrity so eloquently explained in:
Feynman, Richard P. (1974) Cargo Cult Science. Engineering and Science, 37 (7). pp. 10-13. ISSN 0013-7812 http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechES:37.7.CargoCult

It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.
. . .But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves–of having utter scientific integrity–is, I’m sorry to say, something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. . . .
I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

Dobes
December 19, 2016 7:15 am

She displays the same type of elitist arrogance that caused Hillary and the Democrats the election. I imagine there will be plenty of wiggle room and creative engineering that goes into dismatling her programs. Shes not as smart as she would like us to believe.

phaedo
December 19, 2016 7:21 am

The solution would be to get ride of the EPA in it’s entirety then start again with a clean sheet. Drain the swamp completely.

Non Nomen
Reply to  phaedo
December 19, 2016 7:26 am

Drain the swamp completely.

And don’t forget to kill the alligators and leeches.

Resourceguy
Reply to  Non Nomen
December 19, 2016 7:44 am

+10

Henry chance
December 19, 2016 7:27 am

Look at all her rules.
The Clean Power Plan etc.
She lost a court case where she refused to study and furnish a report on economic impact and job loss.
This new regime can freeze a lot of rules by declaring they are not backed by science studies, just IPCC rhetoric and have not posted the costs/reports of thousands losing their jobs.
She also is not an economist and able to justify the nasty impact of much higher energy costs on poor, retired and small business. She has no problem with granny’s water pipes freezing because she did give granny clean water and the Republicans don’t like clean air and water.

RWturner
Reply to  Henry chance
December 19, 2016 9:04 am

Hmm, now that I think about it, she may not even be smart enough to realize that the junk they’ve been jamming through has no scientific backing. They are, afterall, still pushing for higher ethanol mandates even now that the only ones left in that corner are the corn farmers and ethanol industry themselves.

Sean Peake
December 19, 2016 7:30 am

The mission of the EPA is to protect human life and the environment. And how does it go about achieving that noble mission, you may ask? Well, “When Congress writes an environmental law, we implement it by writing regulations.” Too bad for Gina et al because most of the regulations the EPA has written/enforced over the past 8 years have no Congressional laws behind them. So, her point is moot. No law, no regulation. Buh-bye, Gina

Curious George
December 19, 2016 7:39 am

“She says” is correct. “She thinks” is probably incorrect.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Curious George
December 19, 2016 11:54 am

Go George Go.

Resourceguy
December 19, 2016 7:40 am

Go do some extended community service work for the Navajos Gina. You harmed them with EPA stupidity, and ineptitude.

Berényi Péter
December 19, 2016 7:43 am

All he has to do is to have EPA withdraw the endangerment finding.
It may be difficult, because EPA’s Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act is a 52 pages long document, while the Technical Support Document is 210 pages long.
However, it is not impossible, because both documents are bogus. Therefore the first thing to do is to request EPA to produce an executive summary of the Technical Support Document, not longer than a single page (currently it is 7 pages), with all external references to scientific sources attached.
Summary reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and U.S. Global Change Research Program and National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences are not legitimate scientific sources, they are political documents.
It is also ridiculous to include 6 different gases in their analysis, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
So they are requested to restrict themselves for now to a single gas, carbon dioxide.
Also, any danger to public health and welfare they may envision, has to be quantified.
The document itself has to be subjected to extensive peer review, before any regulation based on it could be issued.
I’m confident, that following this procedure carbon dioxide in ambient concentrations will be taken off of the list of pollutants.

Brook HURD
December 19, 2016 7:45 am

Reading McCarthy’s comments make my irony alarm sound off with a deafening screech. Her “scientific evidence ” is based on computer models which have been shown to have no predictive skill, hypotheses concerning CO2 which have never been proven and supported by a “consensus” which has no place in a scientific discussion.

December 19, 2016 8:00 am

This exactly the fetid mindset that has turned the EPA into the “Vatican” of the Church of Global Warming & why Ms McCarthy seems to have endowed her regulations with 10-Commandments status

Dennis Gaskill
December 19, 2016 8:01 am

Very simple solution ……… just cut 89% of the EPA’s budget !

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Dennis Gaskill
December 19, 2016 8:38 am

or 97%

CD in Wisconsin
December 19, 2016 8:05 am

……..“It’s going to be a very high burden of proof for them,” said Ms McCarthy, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, outlining why US law would ensure that Mr Trump could not easily abolish climate change regulations……
Ummmm, excuse me, but doesn’t see have that bass ackwards? I though that, in science, the burden of proof was on those who are pushing and supporting a scientific theory.
It should not be hard to shoot down the CO2 regulation if Trump just brings together a panel of scientists that can show everyone the problems with the CO2-climate-change theory. Give Ms. McCarthy a series of questions on the CO2-climate change issue that she probably cannot answer–something like what they did with the Dept. of Energy.

Michael
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
December 19, 2016 8:14 am

Agreed CD. Exactly what science did Ms. McCarthy employ to establish the climate change regulations over at the EPA?

Marnof
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
December 19, 2016 9:29 am

My thoughts exactly. They’ve been putting the cart before the horse for so long — they now believe it belongs there! As a matter of fact, it was never even a horse, just a stubborn ass.

Dave in Canmore
December 19, 2016 8:07 am

Not sure what is more breathtaking, her ignorance of climate science or her ignorance of how her own government works?
Gina really must be up all night burning the stupid from both ends!

jsuther2013
December 19, 2016 8:14 am

A dispassionate cost/benefit study of the EPA and the effectiveness of its regulations, showed even thirty years ago, that the EPA policies, cost hundreds of thousands of more lives than they have ever been able to save through their draconian regulations. That alone should justify its abolishment as it exists today. A gentleman called Ralph Keeney did such a cost/benefit for society. Another by name of ‘Tengs’ and his co-authors, did it even more effectively.

Leo Morgan
Reply to  jsuther2013
December 19, 2016 6:42 pm

Can you link to those studies please?

JEM
December 19, 2016 8:14 am

I’m fairly confident enough documentation can be turned up that the CO2 endangerment finding was based on studies and data that violated EPA and legal constraints on quality, sourcing, and review, and that if this is the case it’s possible the finding can just be voided on that basis.
The correct end-game of course is Congressional action to amend the Clean Air Act to remove CO2 and climate change from the EPA’s remit absent further specific Congressional action on that front.

bobl
Reply to  JEM
December 19, 2016 8:16 pm

The finding can be voided on the basis that it does not account for the incontrovertible dangers of LOW CO2 and the failure of the EPA to establish what an optimal range of CO2 partial pressure is. That alone is enough to bounce the finding back to the EPA where it can be killed by Trump himself. It is easy to show that the optimal CO2 is far above today’s low levels, the disagreement among scientist over what an optimal CO2 is will be enough to stagnate any finding forever.

jsuther2013
December 19, 2016 8:23 am

Rational Societies usually rank their societal risks, showing what is most likely to directly kill, injure, or cause the premature deaths of people in their society. Rationally, they then spend money toward the top of that list to relieve the most serious problems which are usually to do with education, energy, jobs and the habits of ignorance and poverty. The EPA has consistently spent its billions, toward the bottom of such a ranking. That, is money flat-out wasted to no good purpose.
The two biggest and interconnected problems that humanity and the environment have faced for the last few hundred years and still today, are IGNORANCE and POVERTY, both of which stand a chance of being beaten by EDUCATION and affordable, assured ENERGY.
Rant over.

Lee L
December 19, 2016 8:23 am

So very interesting and so very similar to one of our local politician’s quotations. This local pol was quoted when asked what would happen if her party would lose the (municipal) election.
She replied that it wouldn’t matter because the things her party had executed, (Local Agenda 21, that is) were constructed so as to have deep roots and would be very difficult to remove.
I remember thinking how antidemocratic that is. Your populace votes you out for the things you have been doing, but you purposely (and stealthily) design so as to counteract an unfavorable democratic outcome.
I guess our pol was talkin’ bike lanes and other ‘Greenest City’ crap, but on a whole other political level it’s the same deep left, deep green refrain and strategy.

Gandhi
Reply to  Lee L
December 19, 2016 8:37 am

For the greenies, Democracy is just a code word for “absolute rule.” They think they know it all – just ask them.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Gandhi
December 19, 2016 1:10 pm

When leftists say “power to the people,” they mean dissipate the power of states (Gaue) and most mid-level institutions among so many people that it becomes diffuse, disorganized, and ineffective. At the same time, the State (Reich) acts like a sponge, absorbing all meaningful power. As an example, the Third Reich represented the elimination of political parties as “unification,” when it was the opposite. Carried to its extreme, and it soon was, there was nothing to stand between the individual and the State, no protection, no rights, nothing at all.

Gandhi
December 19, 2016 8:33 am

I don’t think anyone knows who she is now, either. She’s an archetype of a highly educated person who has zero common sense. Goodbye and good riddance.

December 19, 2016 8:35 am

The main problem I see with the scientific backing for McCarthy’s position is that institutional science itself is now thoroughly corrupted – as exposed by Hal Lewis. She – or at least someone on her team who understands such things – can simply pick from the virtual infinity of ‘peer reviewed’ papers to support any conclusion whatsoever.
Virtually all of these papers will have been generated using some form of GCM or other models and the conclusions reached on the basis of them is presented as some sort of irrefutable concrete evidence. It doesn’t seem to matter that none of these models has passed any sort of even rudimentary validation and are shown to be wildly in error over and over by the data. The climate industry, including the once prestigious institutions and journals, all accept the models as being more real than reality itself. Everyone with even the most basic of science educations knows that this is pure pseudoscience but nevertheless that is how things have tragically gone.
So when the EPA present screeds of this voodoo science as defense, even though the landing team will know and say that it’s pseudoscience, how would a court find since this is how badly the whole of science has been corrupted?
And on that note – how is it ever going to be possible to drain the academic swamp?

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  cephus0
December 19, 2016 1:13 pm

Not to mention the MSM swamp.

Pat Frank
Reply to  cephus0
December 19, 2016 3:59 pm

cephus0, “So when the EPA present screeds of this voodoo science as defense, even though the landing team will know and say that it’s pseudoscience, how would a court find since this is how badly the whole of science has been corrupted?
Here is one way, and here’s a second version.
If I manage to publish the paper, the EPA CO2 endangerment finding is out the window.

Gerald Machnee
December 19, 2016 8:40 am

It should not be difficult as the whole CO2 thing was not based on science. Consensus is not science. Just ask someone to measure the heating by CO2.

December 19, 2016 8:42 am

“President-elect Donald Trump has an enormous mandate to liberate America from the shackles of bureaucrats like McCarthy”
Mandate? You must be kidding; Trump doesn’t have a mandate for anything, except to leave – gracefully before he’s impeached; all he has is a sharply divided country. In fact HRC won the popular vote by 2,833,220 votes and still counting and we’ll see just how successful he is in 6 months, let alone 4 years.
And on the topic of “Swamp Draining”, he’s filling it up with the worst swamp dwellers imaginable: Mnuchin for Treasury, Tillerson for State, Perry for Energy, Stallone(!!!) for Chair of the NEA, Linda McMahon (!!!) for SMBA!! It’s a veritable circus and a who’s who of idiots and imbeciles just like him. The only respectable member of his cabinet-to-be is Nikki Haley as our Ambassador to the UN (until 1/21/2017, he’s still a private citizen and should remember that before he embarrasses himself and the nation even further with anymore tweets to or about China, drones or anything else). He is a babbling idiot of the worst kind.
Climate change notwithstanding, the whole thing is joke and an international embarrassment!

mrmethane
Reply to  T. Madigan
December 19, 2016 8:54 am

1. He is inheriting a sharp(ton)ly divided country.
2. The electoral vote system was crafted to prevent domination by the big states/cities. Thankfully.
3. You may rest easier if you accept that the other team has the ball for a while. Oh, acceptance isn’t in your lexicon? pity….

RWturner
Reply to  mrmethane
December 19, 2016 8:57 am

4. Thus far the only election fraud discovered has shown precincts with more votes for Hillary than the precincts have voters, and this is after minimal investigation.

Pat Frank
Reply to  mrmethane
December 19, 2016 4:10 pm

The Democratic Party offered the choice between a totalitarian fan-boy and an unashamed liar and unindicted felon. And in the course of the election, revealed itself to be corrupt through-and-through.
Your team is a bad joke, T. Madigan, and an embarrassment to American society, to the Constitution, and to US politics.

Reply to  T. Madigan
December 19, 2016 8:54 am

You are entitled to youtnown opinion but not your own facts. Sore loser.