Not Tired Of Winning Yet

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I’ve been discussing cost-benefit analyses lately. The AP has the story of a Federal judge who has just made a most excellent and far-reaching ruling regarding EPA cost-benefit analyses. He said that the EPA has to include the cost of lost jobs in the economic part of the cost-benefit analysis of their proposed coal regulations.


Now, I was shocked, but not surprised, to find out that the EPA did not include such an obvious cost in their analysis. It highlights the problem I’ve pointed out with these speculative looks at the future—the choice of what to include is quite broad, and subject to political winds.

But not including lost jobs? Man, that’s just heartless. Makes me wonder if lost jobs are included in the so-called “Social Cost of Carbon” … but I digress.

So the backstory is, the Federal judge had said that the EPA had to include the cost of lost jobs in their analysis. True to the general lawlessness of the Obama Administration, the EPA simply hadn’t obeyed the judge’s order. So the judge asked why.

Here was the part that set my hair on fire. I thought this was just about the coal regulations. But the head of the EPA, Gina McCarthy, obviously a current spokesmodel for the Peter Principle, said the following:

McCarthy asserted it would take the agency up to two years to devise a methodology to use to try to comply with the earlier ruling

Two years? World War II lasted four years for the US, and these wankers can’t put together a method to value lost jobs in two years? Glad they weren’t in charge back then …  that’s just plain obstructionism.

The judge, understandably hit the roof. Among other things he said:

The judge said the EPA is required by law to analyze the economic impact on a continuing basis when enforcing the Clean Air Act and McCarthy’s response “evidences the continued hostility on the part of the EPA to acceptance of the mission established by Congress.”

Bailey ordered the EPA to identify facilities harmed by the regulations during the Obama presidency by July 1. That includes identifying facilities at risk of closure or reductions in employment.

… and …

The judge also set a Dec. 31 deadline for the EPA to provide documentation on how it is continuously evaluating the loss and shifts in employment that may result from administration and enforcement of the Clean Air Act.

The winningest part of this whole thing is that the judge said it doesn’t just apply to the coal rules. It applies to the whole Clean Air Act and by inference all of the EPA’s regulations.

Not only that, but his order specifically applies to any and every facility harmed during the Obama Administration by EPA regulations. Zowie! So there can be no doubt that it extends at least that far and farther.

And this in turn opens the door to overturning a whole host of existing regulations. All that needs to be done is to show that the cost of lost jobs was NOT considered in the EPA finding, and it would have to be reviewed … by the new Administration.

Finally, the judge spoke directly to the heart of the matter, saying:

“EPA does not get to decide whether compliance with (the law) is good policy, or would lead to too many difficulties for the agency,” Bailey wrote. “It is time for the EPA to recognize that Congress makes the law, and EPA must not only enforce the law, it must obey it.”

Good days, my friends, good days. Perhaps the EPA can get back to the actual environmental issues that all of us care about, liberal and conservative alike, the real issues of clean air and clean water.

The AP article is here


As Always: If you comment, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE REFERRING TO, so that everyone can understand your precise subject.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 13, 2017 6:29 pm

“… and these wankers can’t put together a method … ” Good to see it’s not just me who has trouble being politically correct.

Steve Case
Reply to  Tony
January 14, 2017 5:29 am

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Headline smaller print but at the top above the fold says:
State PSC also cut climate topics from website

Reply to  Tony
January 14, 2017 8:44 am

I have read the cost-benefit analyses published in the technical support documents for the more recent rules, like the clean power plan (CPP) and the mercury rule (MATS). They use doubtful assumptions, studies extrapolated beyond their boundaries, double count benefits and ignore inconvenient facts, like the loss of jobs cited here. Just as long as the new regulation is justified at the end, anything goes. I have concluded EPA is just checking the box because few people actually read and understand what they are doing.

bit chilly
Reply to  oeman50
January 15, 2017 4:54 pm

no need to worry anymore, by the looks of things this is the beginning of the end for the scam. we are going to need one seriously big bag of popcorn over the next few years 🙂

Bryan A
Reply to  Tony
January 14, 2017 2:00 pm

Perhaps they could model it

Reply to  Bryan A
January 15, 2017 10:55 am

Got an app for that?

Reply to  Bryan A
January 16, 2017 2:41 am

I know of a chap who could make a hockey stick for it.

January 13, 2017 6:32 pm

Yes the times they are a changing for the better. The days of “ignore the opposing views” have gone on way too long. People are demanding answers to legitimate questions that have been ignored.

Reply to  markl
January 13, 2017 9:07 pm

It’s similar to the way “climate scientists” completely ignore all the benefits of a warmer world with a CO2-enriched atmosphere. It’s as if they’d rather live in igloos and eat nothing but ice.

Reply to  RockyRoad
January 14, 2017 3:33 am

It is the same way ALL greens do the cost-benefit or any kind of analysis for that matter. Let be solar power, Antarctic ice, urban heat effect, subsidence, glaciations, nuclear power… anything that disproves their theories is left out. It is not science, it is pure propaganda.
And after the propaganda carpet bombing in the media they ask you if you are in favour or against of, for instance, solar power, And if you say against you will be harassed. They do not want to know why you are against, They do not aknowledge anything that contradicts their preconceived point of view. All they want to know is the efficiency of their brainwash and to indentify and remove the brainwash resistant individuals.

Reply to  RockyRoad
January 14, 2017 5:43 am

They would rather the peasants live in igloos and eat nothing but ice. Got that peasant?

Reply to  RockyRoad
January 14, 2017 10:54 am

Tip: Don’t eat the yellow snow.

Reply to  RockyRoad
January 14, 2017 3:08 pm

Or brownish snow . . . . .

Reply to  RockyRoad
January 14, 2017 3:57 pm

It’s not just that, not all Greens are so malicious, most mainstream greens just think oh, solar panels on roofs make energy for nothing and don’t make CO2 so “That couldn’t be bad” . That is they take a simple application of renewable energy – grid backed, part time, unreliable generation then extrapolate that to say that you could do full-time reliable generation that way. In some respects that’s an understandable if not naive extrapolation. It’s what Al Gore is currently exploiting in his meme that Solar is now cheaper Watt for Watt than Coal – That’s true but we don’t use Watts we use Watt Hours and the time for/at which that power is available is important.
In Al Gore’s case though the omission is malicious and deceptive, no-one can say that the ex Vice-President of the United States of America doesn’t know how electricity supply works and how reliable it has to be. So Al Gore’s push to legitimize solar is a deception.

Reply to  RockyRoad
January 14, 2017 9:21 pm

Cue “In Soviet Russia…” joke about yellow snow, Trump, and Russian prostitutes in 3… 2… 1…

Reply to  markl
January 14, 2017 3:12 pm

Take a look at the response in Ontario recently to the human cost of energy policies, lauded as efforts to ‘save the planet’ by Premier Wynne’s government. People are finally speaking out!

Reply to  Sommer
January 15, 2017 9:57 am

Alas do-gooders often are no more than busy-bodies and trouble makers.
“Kindly let me help you because you will drown.”, said the the monkey, putting the fish safely up the tree.

Sweet Old Bob
January 13, 2017 6:33 pm

Hope this is an omen…grin !

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
January 14, 2017 9:37 am

Just be thankful the progressives won’t be appointing SCOTUS Judges for at least 4 years. That might be omen-ish.

January 13, 2017 6:34 pm

I want another VW Golf TDI! That was the greatest car. Well, it earned the U.S. $4.9B in fines. Damned EPA…

Reply to  PD
January 13, 2017 8:35 pm

Can I buy and register a used VW TDI which has not been recalled and corrected? And will it pass a smog test if not corrected? I want one of the outlaw cars!

Tim Hammond
Reply to  PD
January 14, 2017 2:43 am

Yeah, because “VW” will pay the fine, No fancy holidays or nice watches for VW this year…
Customers will pay it in higher prices and/or lower quality, because the only people who can pay for things are people. Employees may pay it in lower pay rises and bonuses.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Tim Hammond
January 14, 2017 4:14 am

Shareholders will lose out too in loss of capital with a reduced share price and reduced dividends. It is a myth that shareholders are just the rich. I am not but do have a good investment portfolio. If anyone has an invested pension then you are exposed to things like this. A German state is a large shareholder of VAG so they will lose out too.

Reply to  Tim Hammond
January 14, 2017 8:59 am

Because of watches and holidays for employees. VW does not pay a bonus to its employees for a long time, in contrast to Mercedes and BMW. Numbers for the madness of wild environmentalists must, as always, the small people. And I also find that the GOLF in general and in particular the TDI is a, if not the best, car in the world.

Reply to  PD
January 14, 2017 5:49 am

PD, my VW 2004 Jetta TDI was the best car I ever owned with mpg of 42/city 50/hwy. And it had the power to go up mountain passes in 5th gear. I sold it when it had 248,000 trouble free miles on the odometer. This car was banned for sale in California by their EPA in 2005. The US EPA tried hard to pressure VW to build a hybrid for the US market. People have no idea the damage the EPA has done to our quality of life.

Reply to  mairon62
January 14, 2017 7:52 am

“People have no idea the damage the EPA has done to our quality of life.”
And more importantly to the planet, the EPA would rather listen to politically motivated ‘green activists’ than to real environmentalists.
You are not alone, we have the same problem in Europe.

Dr. Dave
Reply to  PD
January 14, 2017 11:08 am

The problem with the Volkswagon diesels has nothing to do with CO2… it has to do with the cars NOx emissions, which is a particular NOxious (pun intended) substance.

Reply to  Dr. Dave
January 14, 2017 1:11 pm

The problem is with CO2 emissions. The more the exhaust gas behavior was pushed in the direction of CO2 reduction, the more NOx came from the exhausts. By the way, not only from VW and the diesel golf, but also from many other cars. Also petrolers have this problem. Only was stopped first VW. In Germany, an exhaust gas test was carried out by an automobile club in normal operation. As VW cut off with the old engine in the fourth place. With the new revised engine even in the best place with de, m 1.9 times the test bench exhaust. There are very many cars that have far poorer NOx values, some more than ten times the test bench results. Obviously, the standard of affordable technology is not enough to meet the environmental requirements of the Wolkuckuckheim community. What does this remind? I recommend reading the link, which models have far worse than VW cut off, I do not want to open a hunt for car manufacturers. This would not do justice to the car and the internal combustion engine as the basis of our prosperity and civilization, and we would only be able to work with spinning environmentalists and civilization destroyers.

Keith J
Reply to  Dr. Dave
January 14, 2017 1:27 pm

The NOx issue was from unrealistic clamping on allowed emissions.
How about all the illegally modified diesel vehicles on the road? DPF delete? EGR block off? Tuners ramping fuel rates past soot point? Boost pressures in the 30 psi range?
All too common in the light truck after market.

January 13, 2017 6:40 pm

Does the US have any limiting legislation available to those that might want to sue for economic loss?

Reply to  lee
January 13, 2017 6:42 pm

Strike out “available to”, insert “to prevent”.

January 13, 2017 6:41 pm
John Harmsworth
Reply to  observa
January 14, 2017 1:29 am

That would be hilarious if it wasn’t tragic. The real number for federal misspending is probably more like $100B.

Tom O
Reply to  John Harmsworth
January 15, 2017 4:04 pm

When you consider the Defense Department manages to lose track of several trillion dollars through the yearrs, no, the misspending of the government is far more than even a “few” $100 billions.

Reply to  observa
January 14, 2017 8:49 am

federal misspending is probably more like $100B.
If history is a guide, US government misspending is likely in the trillions of dollars annually. The Wollman Rink example is a case in point. The New York government spent $12 million over 6 years and failed at a project that the Donald completed for 2.25 million in 4 months.
The US at one time had a “can do” attitude. This has been replaced across the country by the “cannot do” attitude of government bureaucracy. This is not Freedom.
The function of government should be to ENABLE the people to succeed. Instead government has become a GATEKEEPER, preventing any and all action that is not approved by government. This has enabled the government bureaucracy to seize power from The People without their consent.

January 13, 2017 6:42 pm

Your articles are so good that some newspaper should pay you for their distribution.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 13, 2017 10:16 pm

Your writing is great. I have previously thought to compliment you on it, and am happy to join another in doing so now.

Mario Lento
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 13, 2017 10:21 pm

Yes great job as usual. And would it be right to weigh the benefits of increased CO2 in the atmosphere… ? Pushes it well over the edge I’d say.

Ross King
Reply to  ECB
January 13, 2017 9:37 pm

Ten ‘thumbs-up’ for this suggestion!

Reply to  Ross King
January 13, 2017 11:24 pm

Ross, not sure you are right, thankfully I have only two thumbs, because as the saying goes: “this guy is all thumbs” 🙂

Alan Robertson
Reply to  ECB
January 14, 2017 2:40 am


Alan Robertson
Reply to  Alan Robertson
January 14, 2017 2:48 am

thanks for yet another insightful achievement; getting the word out.
Your articles are so good that you should keep writing for WUWT, with far greater circulation than any mere newspaper.
In case some don’t yet know, Willis has his own blog now, also.

Joel O’Bryan
January 13, 2017 6:44 pm

Way, way, way past time to defund about 60% of what today’s staff EPA thinks is its core mission.
OK AG Scott Pruitt will do it. He will bring the EPA down to size. He will put it back on it original purpose (real pollution, not CO2). I posted it on another WUWT thread topic, but same applies here with the EPA, many many of those folks who migrated over from environ-eco NGOs like NRDC and WWF will soon find them themselves unemployed. And the sooner, the better, for this country, for our future.
And everyone should send a Thank-You note to former Senator Harry Reid for destroying the senate filibuster rule in 2013. A rule that would have given the current Democrats relevance in voting against Scott Pruitt’s becoming the next EPA Administrator. Senate Democrats destroyed the one thing that will now destroy their innate malfeasance that puts hard working American workers out of a job. I love the sound of that.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 13, 2017 10:23 pm

In 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that CO2 was a pollutant. Can that ruling be reversed assuming that the new ninth member would recognize it as a non-pollutant?

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
January 13, 2017 10:59 pm

The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA was able to list CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The EPA still had to show there was a condition of harm. Big difference.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
January 13, 2017 11:18 pm

No, the Supreme Court did not rule CO2 was a pollutant.
The Supreme Court only affirmed that the EPA had the authoruty under the CAA to make an “endangerment finding.” In that case it was on CO2 emissions.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
January 14, 2017 3:10 am

It would be relatively easy for the new EPA to determine that CO2 isn’t a pollutant under the definition of the Clean Air Act. No change to legislation would be needed.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
January 14, 2017 6:48 am

The supreme court did not rule that CO2 is a pollutant. They ruled that if the EPA determined that CO2 was a danger to the health and welfare of the public then the EPA was required to regulate it under the clean air act. The EPA’s endangerment finding is fraudulent. EPA relied on IPCC assessment reports rather than performing their own in-house scientific assessment as required by law.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 13, 2017 11:38 pm

I am worried about Tillerson. He has supposedly said that he might support keeping the Paris Agreement.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  goldminor
January 14, 2017 1:44 am

Read his words carefully. ” at the table” was part of what he said. If you go to a veggie café with a friend, you dont have to eat the food. 😉

Reply to  goldminor
January 14, 2017 3:54 am

Tillerson isn’t the only one.

Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees, in their first round of confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill, have one after another contradicted the president-elect on key issues, promising to trim back or disregard some of the signature promises on which he campaigned. link

Maybe I haven’t been paying proper attention but I can’t remember another case where even one nominee has seriously disagreed with the PE who nominated him or her.

Janice The American Elder
Reply to  goldminor
January 14, 2017 5:04 am

commieBob, you have quoted from an article published on MSNBC, which in turn quotes from the Washington Post. I would suggest that anything these Fake News Sites say about President Trump’s nominees, is very possibly wrong, and deliberately misleading. Consider the source.

Reply to  goldminor
January 14, 2017 6:11 am

re: trump’s employees “contradicting” him.
Political people are used to micromanagers at the top, Obama being the case in point. Those types take great pains to make sure everyone is absolutely in line with Leadership, but in organizations run this way, there is generally no innovation or creative problem solving, and the best people know to stay far, far away.
It is obvious to say that the most recent administration was run this way, but the truth is that most political organizations (as well as most failing businesses) are run this way. When your top goal is ideological control, you cannot allow any freedom of action underneath you.
Trump is a completely different type of manager, and he always has been. His leadership style, which he has followed throughout his professional life, is the quintessential CEO style – he hires the best people he can find, and then he leaves them alone to run their portion of the business as they see fit. And then he judges their performance by results only. This is the model that attracts the best people; the model that gives them the freedom to innovate and create. And yes, this may mean that in the public dog and pony show that makes up the congressional spectacle, different people will say a lot of different, divergent, opinions. So what?
All that matters will be their results, measured by whether the country (and the part of that business that they manage) gets better or gets worse. If they do well, they will be rewarded, and if they stink up the place, they will be fired quickly. Nothing else matters, and all of this yak yak yak in front of the cameras matters least of all.

Reply to  goldminor
January 14, 2017 6:53 am

“Agreement in science is bad” but “Trump’s guys better all agree OR ELSE”. That’s the “logic” I’m reading here. Skeptics expect science to actually have discussions and then freak out when it happens in politics. Bulldozing the “enemy” may work, but it requires a war to accomplish it. Having people who have differing opinions allows you to negotiate the best positions. That is apparently completely lost on the very people who think there should be differing opinions on global warming.
WWS provided a very clear explanation of why Trump doesn’t demand agreement.

Reply to  Sheri
January 15, 2017 4:30 pm

I also liked the comment made by wws. The enemy has already bulldozed the truth for the last decade at least. So I am of the mind that a stake through the heart is the right treatment.

Reply to  goldminor
January 14, 2017 9:10 am

His leadership style, …
All good business managers work the same way: Good managers tell you what he/she wants done, but not how to do it. It is up to you how you do it, and thus success and failure becomes your responsibility.
Bad mangers tell you what he/she wants done, and how to do it. In this fashion if you succeed they take the credit, but if you fail you get the blame, even though success or failure is outside of your control.
Politicians typically are micro-managers, telling people what they want done, and how to do it, because they want to get credit for the success, but to saddle others with the failure. As they say, success has many parents, while failure is an orphan.
Thus in politics it is an advantage to be a bad manager. Business however needs real success, because there is no guaranteed tax revenue, so it is important to correctly identify success from failure, which is done via good management.

Reply to  goldminor
January 14, 2017 9:21 am

“That is apparently completely lost on the very people who think there should be differing opinions on global warming.”
I’d drop the collectivist lingo there, if I were you, Sheri . . not quite consistent with the general observation/spirit of the point, it seems to me, anyway ; )

Reply to  goldminor
January 14, 2017 1:09 pm

Calgary Herald, Canada, Nov.5, 2014
Opinion piece advocating for carbon taxes.
“Mintz and Williams: Smart fiscal policy can help our environment’
Mintz is on the Board of Imperial Oil Canada which is majority owned by ExxonMobile.
More information on this topic online.

Reply to  goldminor
January 14, 2017 1:31 pm

Imperial Oil Canada Board including ExxonMobile members.

Reply to  goldminor
January 14, 2017 4:16 pm

I too have some issues with Tillerson, and Mattis for that matter. Hoping they are just saying the needed words to grease the approval process.

Reply to  jvcstone
January 15, 2017 4:32 pm

@ jvcstone…likewise.

Reply to  goldminor
January 14, 2017 9:57 pm

Listen to Janice, commiebob. The sources you are getting your information from are fake news.
These guys are looking for any little discrepancy in what Trump says to pounce on. If they can’t find any, then they make them up. Mostly, they make them up. That’s what you are getting.
Currently, they are portraying Trump and his nominees as differing on policy, but if you actually listen to what Trump says, you will find they are wrong, and the policies the nominees are expressing are Trump’s policies.
It’s all an effort by the Left/MSM to undermine Trump. The one saving grace in all this is Trump fights back (any other Repubican would be quivering jelly, right now). If he continues to do this, he will prevail over all these opposing forces, of which there are many.
It takes a special person to be able to defy the elites of the world and do it effectively. Trump may be the guy to do it. Hang on to your hats! The Trump movement and the Elites of the world are on a collison course.
We are living in most interesting times. Less than a week and the fireworks begin. The radical change fireworks of the Trump administration, and the mentally ill/violent fireworks of the radical Left who have lost their minds over this election.

January 13, 2017 6:45 pm

The Obama administration often ignores laws they find burdensome, confining and contrary to their goals, but if a lowly citizen tries it, better watch out. This ruling makes Trump’s election even more important because of the vacancy on the supreme court. Now, for the time being, I suspect that the EPA will not pursue an appeal. Had Mrs. Clinton won, the EPA would have appealed and her nominee would have certainly rule against Murray’s suit, no matter the law.

January 13, 2017 6:55 pm

Willis, I seriously doubt the EPA gives a rat’s ass about those lost jobs. That’s why it was not included in their cost analysis. My hope is that situation is rectifiled as of Friday, Jan. 20.

Ross King
Reply to  Kamikazedave
January 13, 2017 9:40 pm

Here’s hoping the Augean Stables are about to be cleansed … along with The Swamp drained.

Frank K.
January 13, 2017 6:56 pm


“EPA says it can’t pay damages from mine spill” Web Staff and The Associated Press
January 13, 2017 05:56 PM
DENVER (AP) – The Environmental Protection Agency won’t repay claims totaling over $1.2 billion for economic damages from a mine waste spill the agency accidentally triggered in Colorado, saying the law prohibits it.
An official announcement is planned later Friday. The Associated Press was provided outlines of the decision in advance.
The 2015 spill released 3 million gallons of wastewater into Colorado, New Mexico and Utah rivers.
Those filing claims included farmers, rafting companies and their employees who lost income and wages while the rivers were unusable for irrigation, livestock and recreation.
So, while the EPA destroys jobs with senseless regulations, they get away with recklessly polluting our waters and then telling the affected citizens – screw you!!!
January 20th can’t come soon enough…

Reply to  Frank K.
January 14, 2017 11:12 am

Claiming not to be liable under Sovereign Immunity is just an opinion by the EPA’s lawyers. I’m sure others have other opinions that the EPA can be sued and held accountable under the Federal Tort Claims Act

Reply to  Taphonomic
January 14, 2017 2:32 pm

Agreed Taphonomic.
Normally the consideration for sovereign immunity is “doing your sworn duty”.
I seriously doubt any court would accept that polluting waters is an EPA sworn duty. Make the execs, the person’s responsible!

January 13, 2017 6:59 pm

My concern is it matters little who we have as EPA head if we have a climate change pusher that continues our involvment with the Paris Accord (or its ilk) as Sec of State.
Rex Tillerson Oct 2016: “At ExxonMobil, we share the view that the risks of climate change are serious… [and favor] the Paris agreeement.”
Further, at his hearing Tillerson reconfirmed those views are his own (not Exxon’s) and that he hopes to influence Trump on climate change. Tillerson said “international cooperation” is needed to cut CO2 emissions. 80%+ of Republicans don’t agree with that. Why settle for that? We don’t have to.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 13, 2017 7:07 pm

He will have plenty of “State” problems to deal with. If you need a list I think I can find or make one.
Here are 3: China, North Korea, Middle East (7 issues or so, right there).
Besides, he won’t decide the administration’s “climate” policies.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 13, 2017 7:22 pm

Well, Tillerson said two days ago that he wants to influence Trump on climate change, just like Tillerson managed to drag Exxon left on that issue.
To me that’s ominous but to others on blog devoted to AGW: “all is good!” And it concerns me that a few days before Tillerson was nominated Trump all of a sudden went soft on the Paris Accord saying he’s not sure anymore whether he’d get us out of it.
Two days ago: Rex Tillerson said international cooperation is needed “to address the threats of climate change, which do require a global response. ”
Climate change REQUIRES a global response?? That’s a Democrat not a Republican talking.

Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 13, 2017 7:43 pm

It’s already been said…..Tillerson will not be in charge of Climate Change so I don’t see a problem with having him stick to his job. He’ll be told to stay away from making alliances based on CAGW. And as far as Trump waffling, you….and others… have sure put a lot of emphasis on a simple statement that says “we’ll see”. To me he made the statement to get out of discussing it because he’s already made up his mind. There’s no way he will kick start the economy without taking advantage of our natural resources and stopping the transfer of US wealth to other countries in the name of “redistribution”.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 13, 2017 10:49 pm

David L. Hagen I get that Tillerson said that the evidence for droughts and hurricanes being caused by AGW is “inconclusive.” That’s consistent with what Republican warmists like Kasich and Christie say. But, they still are still warmists.
This is a critical issue where 80% of the GOP voters agree, and similar dissent in the Democratic on key issues like gay rights would not be tolerated at all. And we should have the same policy with regard to warmism in the GOP. Tillerson should not be an exception. Look, he’ll almost certainly be confirmed anyway, but we should make it clear that we are not happy with the warmist part of his resume, so that is discouraged in the future, and so there is less chance that Tillerson’s leftism on climate change will come into play as far as policy.
markl “Tillerson will not be in charge of Climate Change so I don’t see a problem with having him stick to his job. He’ll be told to stay away from making alliances based on CAGW.”
I hope that ends up being the case. My concern is that it actually falls into the purview of the Secretary of State to deal with climate climate policy internationally (Paris Accord etc). And two days ago Tillerson said he wants/i> international deals to be done on climate change.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 14, 2017 1:46 am

Tillerson knows he wont get a worldwide response. He knows its dead IMHO.

David L. Hagen
Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 13, 2017 8:15 pm

Tillerson was also more pragmatic in his confirmation hearings.

SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY: “But, we are also viewing often climate change as a national security issue. And, since you believe– So, I wanted to ask, do you see it as a national security issue?”
REX TILLERSON: “I don’t see it as the imminent national security threat as perhaps others do.”
MERKELY: “One of the things that’s noted is how the changing climate in the Middle East concentrated Syrian villages into the towns and sparked the civil war that has now produced something like four million and counting refugees having profound impacts on European security, and that would be an example. Is that something you’ve looked at or considered to be real or perhaps misleading? Any thoughts in that regard?”
TILLERSON: “The facts on the ground are indisputable in terms of what’s happening with drought, disease, insect populations, all the things you cite, but the science behind the clear connection is not conclusive. And, there are many reports out there that we are unable yet to connect specific events to climate change alone.”
MERKELY: “What we’re seeing are a lot of scientific reports that will say we can tell you the odds increased, we can’t tell you any specific event was the direct consequence. For example, hurricane Sandy might have occurred in a hundred year period but the odds of it happening are higher with the higher sea level, the higher energy in the storms. So, do you agree with that view point that the– essentially that the odds of dramatic events occurring whether it’s more forest fires or more hurricanes with more power is a rational observation from the scientific literature?”
TILLERSON: “I think as you indicated, there’s some literature out there that suggests that. There’s other literature that says it’s inconclusive.

Mario Lento
Reply to  David L. Hagen
January 13, 2017 10:26 pm

Yes Tillerson is just being non argumentive at this stage. Trump will do the right thing, I trust.

Reply to  David L. Hagen
January 13, 2017 11:04 pm

Republican unity on the issue is our biggest strength in fighting the leftists on climate change.
Tillerson insidiously breaks that unity.
Every bit of Republican disunity on AGW opens the door to the Democrats using that against us, and dividing us such that more GOP politicians feel welcome to become warmists. We should fight warmism in the GOP at every point. Tillerson is a case where we seem to not care.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  David L. Hagen
January 14, 2017 5:03 am

Eric Simpson – January 13, 2017 at 11:04 pm

Republican unity on the issue is our biggest strength in fighting the leftists on climate change.
Tillerson insidiously breaks that unity.

Eric S, …… have you, …. absolutely, positively, …. cross your heart and swear an oath on your bible …… that you have always been 100% honest and truthful in details ….. with all of your verbal and written responses when filling out “employment applications” and/or when you were being “interviewed” for a position of employment?
“Those without sin should cast the first stone”.

David L. Hagen
Reply to  David L. Hagen
January 14, 2017 7:13 am

Better to focus on upholding the Scientific Method and the Rule of Law. See Richard P. Feynman’s standard for scientific integrity in Cargo Cult Science. Caltech 1974.

Reply to  David L. Hagen
January 14, 2017 12:01 pm

I had three large Joint Ventures with Exxon in Canada. They do not hire dummies, especially as CEO.
Global warming mania has become politicized to the point that many energy CEO’s cannot say what they really think, because their companies will be targeted by green activists. This happened to Exxon in Europe, where Greenpeace, reportedly encouraged by Shell and BP, launched a costly boycott of Exxon products.
Hello Rex,
In the 1980’s and 1990’s, I probably made more money for your Esso Canada subsidiary than most if not all your Canadian employees – please see my website.
So I’m sending you my take on the global warming issue – enjoy the read.
Hope you get the job – you’ll do fine.
Regards, Allan MacRae., P. Eng.
Observations and Conclusions:
1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record
2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.
3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.
7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.
8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.
9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Allan MacRae, Calgary, June 12, 2015

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  David L. Hagen
January 15, 2017 6:06 am

@ Allan M.R. MacRae – January 14, 2017 at 12:01 pm

The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record

Allan M, ….. now I am a fan of, and quite pleased with like 98% of the content/context of your posted commentary, ….. BUT, …… your above statement makes no logical or scientific sense to me simply because I do not know of, ……. nor have I ever heard of, …… “a modern data record that portrays or defines atmospheric CO2 LAGGING temperature by nine (9) months”.
But now, iffen per chance that you do manage to provide me with legitimate proof and/or evidence of said ….. “temperature record” that directly correlates to a “nine (9) months cycling of atmospheric CO2 quantities” …….. then I will be utterly amazed, flabbergasted and speechless.
And I say that because, ……. evidence of a 9-month cycling of atmospheric CO2 quantities …… would completely negate and discredit the data in the Mauna Loa CO2 Record ……. as well as the 6-month (bi-yearly) cycling of atmospheric CO2 quantities as defined on the Keeling Curve Graph.
Allan , there is NOTHING in the natural world that adheres to a “steady & consistent” 9-month cycle time (except female gestation period) ……. and there is only one (1) thing in the natural world that adheres to a “steady & consistent” 6-month cycle time ……. and that is the “changing of the equinoxes” which defines the seasonal temperatures in the respective hemisphere.
And it is NOT the temperature of the near-surface air (atmosphere) that determines the aforesaid …. 6-month (bi-yearly) cycling of atmospheric CO2 quantities, ….. but on the contrary, …… it is the temperature of the ocean waters of the Southern Hemisphere.
And this “34-year composite graph” of plotted near-surface air temperatures and atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities ….. is pretty much literal proof of the above “statement of fact” by yours truly, … me, myself and/or I, ….. to wit:

Reply to  David L. Hagen
January 15, 2017 12:52 pm

For Mr. Cogar:
In my shorthand, “~”means approximately.
Please read this.
DMA wrote:
“Until a signal of ACO2 can be found in the temperature record there can be no calculation of cost.”
Don’t hold your breath DMA – you will not find “a signal of ACO2 in the temperature record”, because if it exists it is drowned out by “the signal of temperature in the CO2 record”, which is clearly larger and is dominant.
Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record and also by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.
Happy Holidays, Allan
To falsify the false global warming alarmist hypothesis, one only has to show that CO2 lags and does not lead temperature, and why, which I have done.

My hypothesis was discussed extensively in 2008-2009, because it contradicted the popular notion that increasing atmospheric CO2 primarily caused rising temperature, which was false. Both sides of the fractious global warming debate (the warmists AND the skeptics) bitterly contested my hypothesis.
The close dCO2/dt relationship and resulting ~9-month lag of CO2 after temperature is now generally accepted, even among many warmists. The best counter-argument the warmists have suggested is that the ~9-month lag “must be a feedback effect”, which is a cargo-cult argument:
“We KNOW CO2 drives warming (our paychecks depend on it), therefore it MUST BE a feedback effect.”
… Here is one depiction of the subject dCO2/dt vs T relationship, although I think it is slightly different mathematically from my own, which I suggest is technically more correct.
If you want to check my math, the 2008 spreadsheet is here – see Figures 1 to 4.
I used UAH LT and Hadcrut3 for temperatures, and global CO2 concentrations back to 1979. The dCO2/dt vs T correlation holds.
In a separate unpublished spreadsheet I used Hadcrut3 and Mauna Loa CO2 back to 1958 and the correlation still held.
I no longer use the surface temperature data, Hadcrut or other, because I have lost confidence in its accuracy, especially due to all the recent “adjustments”.
In conclusion, I remain reasonably confident that the future cannot cause the past (in our current space-time continuum). 🙂
Regards, Allan
Post Script:
Statistician Bill Briggs also examined my hypo in 2008 using a completely different approach, and supported my conclusion (even though I did not like his methodology much. because it only examined a 12-month lag).
See also Humlum et al, January 2013, written five years after my paper:
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
– Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
– Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  David L. Hagen
January 16, 2017 9:14 am

In my shorthand, “~”means approximately.

For Mr. MacRae:
Was your above verbiage some sort of twitter “twitting” that you are passionately fond of “twitting” to those persons you consider are little more than a “twit” ……. or what?
Allan M.R. MacRae, ……. I deal only in actual, factual science that is based in/on repetitive observation, literal proofs and/or physical evidence ……. and am not the least bit impressed with “consensus science” claims that agree or disagree with yours or any other claims of “remarkable discoveries” ……. or the use of associations, correlations, estimations, averageations, insinuations, percentageations, guesstimations, fuzzymathcalculations, etc., ….. to obtain what amounts to be an extremely questionable “result” ….. that is then inferred, implied, suggested, touted and/or claimed to be …. actual, factual scientific evidence, ……. when it isn’t worth the paper it is printed on.
Allan M.R. MacRae, ……. I appreciate your response ….. but you did not address the subject of my post, which was, the existence of ….. “a modern data record that portrays or defines atmospheric CO2 LAGGING temperature by nine (9) months”.
Now Alan, you “danced” all around it, and posted a lot of quoted “weazelworded” rhetoric and claims that your “fuzzy math” calculations via use of one or more pre-calculated and post-adjusted Global Average Temperature Records resulted in, …… while apparently assuming your posted verbiage was some sort of actual “proof” that I would surely believe.
Allan M.R. MacRae, ……. the Keeling Curve Graph represents the plotted data that is contained in the Mauna Loa CO2 Record ……. and that “data” plot specifically denotes two (2) observed and/or measured scientific “facts” associated with increasing/decreasing atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities.
One depicted “fact” is the equinox seasonal or bi-yearly (6 months) cycling of atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities that have occurred “steady & consistently” ….. just like “clockwork” ….. each and every year for the past 58 years with the yearly “minimum” CO2 occurring within 10 days after the September equinox and the yearly “maximum” CO2 occurring after the Spring equinox and within 10 days of mid-May. And here is a portion of said factual data that I extracted from the Mauna Loa data base, to wit:
Maximum to Minimum yearly CO2 ppm data – 1979 thru 2016
Source: NOAA’s Mauna Loa Monthly Mean CO2 data base
CO2 “Max” ppm Fiscal Year – mid-May to mid-May
year mth “Max” _ yearly increase ____ mth “Min” ppm ___ Bi-yearly ppm quantity cycle
1979 _ 6 _ 339.20 …. + …… __________ 9 … 333.93 _____ 79/80 = -5.27 — +7.54
1980 _ 5 _ 341.47 …. +2.27 _________ 10 … 336.05 _____ 80/81 = -5.42 — +6.96
1981 _ 5 _ 343.01 …. +1.54 __________ 9 … 336.92 _____ 81/82 = -6.09 — +7.75
1982 _ 5 _ 344.67 …. +1.66 __________ 9 … 338.32
1983 _ 5 _ 345.96 …. +1.29 __________ 9 … 340.17
1984 _ 5 _ 347.55 …. +1.59 __________ 9 … 341.35
1985 _ 5 _ 348.92 …. +1.37 _________ 10 … 343.08
1986 _ 5 _ 350.53 …. +1.61 _________ 10 … 344.47
1987 _ 5 _ 352.14 …. +1.61 __________ 9 … 346.52
1988 _ 5 _ 354.18 …. +2.04 __________ 9 … 349.03
1989 _ 5 _ 355.89 …. +1.71 __________ 9 … 350.02
1990 _ 5 _ 357.29 …. +1.40 __________ 9 … 351.28
1991 _ 5 _ 359.09 …. +1.80 __________ 9 … 352.30
1992 _ 5 _ 359.55 …. +0.46 Pinatubo _ 9 … 352.93
1993 _ 5 _ 360.19 …. +0.64 __________ 9 … 354.10
1994 _ 5 _ 361.68 …. +1.49 __________ 9 … 355.63
1995 _ 5 _ 363.77 …. +2.09 _________ 10 … 357.97
1996 _ 5 _ 365.16 …. +1.39 _________ 10 … 359.54
1997 _ 5 _ 366.69 …. +1.53 __________ 9 … 360.31
1998 _ 5 _ 369.49 …. +2.80 El Niño __ 9 … 364.01
1999 _ 4 _ 370.96 …. +1.47 __________ 9 … 364.94
2000 _ 4 _ 371.82 …. +0.86 __________ 9 … 366.91
2001 _ 5 _ 373.82 …. +2.00 __________ 9 … 368.16
2002 _ 5 _ 375.65 …. +1.83 _________ 10 … 370.51
2003 _ 5 _ 378.50 …. +2.85 _________ 10 … 373.10
2004 _ 5 _ 380.63 …. +2.13 __________ 9 … 374.11
2005 _ 5 _ 382.47 …. +1.84 __________ 9 … 376.66
2006 _ 5 _ 384.98 …. +2.51 __________ 9 … 378.92
2007 _ 5 _ 386.58 …. +1.60 __________ 9 … 380.90
2008 _ 5 _ 388.50 …. +1.92 _________ 10 … 382.99
2009 _ 5 _ 390.19 …. +1.65 _________ 10 … 384.39
2010 _ 5 _ 393.04 …. +2.85 __________ 9 … 386.83
2011 _ 5 _ 394.21 …. +1.17 _________ 10 … 388.96
2012 _ 5 _ 396.78 …. +2.58 _________ 10 … 391.01
2013 _ 5 _ 399.76 …. +2.98 __________ 9 … 393.51
2014 _ 5 _ 401.88 …. +2.12 __________ 9 … 395.35
2015 _ 5 _ 403.94 …. +2.06 __________ 9 … 397.63
2016 _ 5 _ 407.70 …. +3.76 El Niño __ 9 …
The above data is proof-positive of an average 5 to 6 ppm decrease in CO2 that occurs between mid-May and the end of January of each calendar year …… and that there is an average 7 to 8 ppm increase in CO2 that occurs between the end of January and mid-May of the next calendar year.
The “Max” CO2 occurred at mid-May (5) of each year … with the exception of three (3) outliers, one (1) being in June 79’ and the other two (2) being in April 99’ and 2000.
The “Min” CO2 occurred at the very end of September (9) of each year … with the exception of eleven (11) outliers, all of which occurred within the first 7 days of October.
Thus said, Mr. MasRae, the Keeling Curve Graph depicts …… a 6-month or bi-yearly cycle time of temperature driven increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities.
And a copy of the Keeling Curve Graph, ….. for you to discredit if you so choose, to wit:
Cheers, Sam C

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  David L. Hagen
January 16, 2017 9:26 am

OOPS, …… my bad.
This phrase, following the Mauna Loa data…..
between mid-May and the end of January of each calendar year
Should have stated this …….
between mid-May and the end of September of each calendar year

Reply to  David L. Hagen
January 16, 2017 1:53 pm

Last Post for Mr. Cogar :
Since you cannot or will not read my response or do the math, I can no longer help you.
Over and out, Allan

Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 13, 2017 9:40 pm

Well… I see Trump meet with Princeton Physicist Dr. Happer today… that has to be a really good sign. Perhaps Trump will be finding some kind of position for him in his administration.

Reply to  Alcheson
January 13, 2017 11:48 pm

That is good news.

David L. Hagen
Reply to  Alcheson
January 14, 2017 7:38 am

Trump meets with Princeton physicist who says global warming is good for us
In Happer’s 2015 Testimony: Data or Dogma

“All trees, and many other plants, wheat, rice, soybeans, cotton, etc., are handicapped because, by historical standards, there currently is too little, not too much, CO2 in the atmosphere,” read a slide contained in Happer’s testimony.
“A dispassionate analysis of the science indicates that more CO2 will bring benefits, not harm to the world,”

Trump Meets With Physicist Who Says ‘Benefits’ Of Climate Change ‘Outweigh Any Harm’ “William Happer also compared the “demonization of carbon dioxide” to the Holocaust.”

Reply to  Alcheson
January 14, 2017 9:21 am

If Trump really wants to get this done right he’ll use Happer to outline the “benefit” side of the EPA’s CO2 endangerment findings. So, finally there we actually be a real cost/BENEFIT analysis, including such trivial effects as food fertilization!

Reply to  Alcheson
January 14, 2017 5:01 pm

Chris Mooney seems confused by the word ‘consensus’.

Happer is an eminent physicist who held prominent positions at the Department of Energy, as well as at his university, and has 200 scientific publications to his name. But in 2009 testimony, he went even further in countering the scientific consensus on climate change, asserting that “the current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide.”Most scientists have been plain and very clear that carbon dioxide is indeed the cause of most of the current warming.

Reply to  Alcheson
January 15, 2017 10:26 pm

Thank you for your post Mr. Hagen.
I have been writing about “CO2 starvation” since 2009 or earlier.
While not an imminent threat, it demonstrates that CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
Best, Allan
(Plant) Food for Thought (apologies – written too late at night)
When life on Earth comes to an end, will it be because CO2 permanently falls below ~150ppm as it is permanently sequestered in carbonate rocks, hydrocarbons, coals, etc.?
Since life on Earth is likely to end due to a lack of CO2, should we be paying energy companies to burn fossil fuels to increase atmospheric CO2, instead of fining them due to the false belief that CO2 causes dangerous global warming?
Could T.S. Eliot have been thinking about CO2 starvation when he wrote:
“This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.”
Allan wrote:
“10. In one of the next global Ice Ages, atmospheric CO2 will approach about 150ppm, a concentration at which terrestrial photosynthesis will slow and cease – and that will be the extinction event for terrestrial carbon-based life on this planet.”
Leif wrote:
“There have been thousands of glaciations over the history of the Earth. It is not likely that one of the next ones will be an extinction event when none of the previous ones were. Don’t be so alarmist.”
Allan again:
I wish it was alarmist Leif. Atmospheric CO2 is inexorably declining as it is being sequestered in carbonate rocks. In the last Continental Last Ice Age, atmospheric CO2 declined to about 180 ppm – next time it could drop lower, even closer to the extinction point of C3 plants at about 150-160 ppm.
It is a bit more complicated – a few plants (less than 1%) are use the C4 photosynthesis pathway, including corn and sugar cane – but I doubt terrestrial life could survive on Sugar Frosted Flakes – notwithstanding the persistent rumour that “They’re Great!”
CO2 is life – for all carbon-based life on Earth..
Burn lots of wood, peat, coal, oil and natural gas Leif – all the plants and animals will be grateful to you.
Regards, Allan 🙂

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Alcheson
January 17, 2017 3:47 am

In the last Continental Last Ice Age, atmospheric CO2 declined to about 180 ppm –
One gets smart way too late when they base their beliefs on ice core proxies.

Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 14, 2017 7:15 am

The one thing I know with certainty is, Trump is and will be the BOSS. And, as the BOSS he knows how to decide and have them GO DO!

Reply to  Flyoverbob
January 14, 2017 7:34 am

I’m amazed no one has compared him to Truman yet. I bet it is coming!

Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 14, 2017 9:07 am

The Democrats are asking all Trumps picks about progressives agenda. The ‘confirmation hearings’ are a dog and pony for the POLS, we should ask them to stop it. There is nothing that stops anyone from doing a 180° of what they say in these hearings or as they say a complete waste of time and money, surprised?
Remember ‘You’re Fired’ is Trump’s favorite two words

John F. Hultquist
January 13, 2017 6:59 pm

I assume Gina McCarthy will be shown the door this coming week.
I haven’t seen what her new role will be.
Any news?

Ross King
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 13, 2017 9:44 pm


Reply to  Ross King
January 13, 2017 11:17 pm

Ross… Janitor?
The Cleaning and Maintenance Staff would be one of the few teams in the EPA that actually do their designated job professionally.
McCarthy ain’t good enough to get that gig.

Reply to  Ross King
January 13, 2017 11:22 pm

Not competent, compared to janitors I’ve met.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 14, 2017 9:10 am

Someone needs to sue her and the green groups that set this up, there has to have been billions lost in 8 years. Since the EPA broke the law I would expect a civil suit could be brought.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  smalliot
January 15, 2017 12:32 pm

Won’t happen. Move on.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 14, 2017 10:07 am

Personal shopper (working her towards fashon designer).

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 14, 2017 11:24 am

Political appointees do not usually have roles in new administrations, especially when the political party in charge changes. She’s gone. Probably find a job in some university, state EPA, or lobbying.

J Mac
January 13, 2017 7:07 pm

The shot heard round the EPA world!
Saw this news earlier today and physically shouted out “HooRah!!!”

Steve Case
January 13, 2017 7:08 pm

…and it would have to be reviewed … by the new Administration.
Chortle chortle hack hack Guffaw.
and double that for:
“It is time for the EPA to recognize that Congress makes the law, and EPA must not only enforce the law, it must obey it.”

January 13, 2017 7:10 pm

Likely intentional institutional blindness, granted. But consider the skill set required to continually manufacture policy-based evidence. Perhaps they are telling the truth. Perhaps they are literally unable ‘to devise a methodology to use to try to comply with the earlier ruling’ . Clearly, institutional preoccupation with a virtual world can be quite incapacitating in the real world.

Reply to  Manfred
January 14, 2017 12:50 pm

More likely, they are unable ‘to devise a methodology to use to try to comply with the earlier ruling’ that gives the same results. When they do a genuine cost benefit analysis, their regulation fails the test.

Stephen Singer
January 13, 2017 7:15 pm

Some body give that judge a train load of attaboys. Suppose there are any other government agency’s needing a refresher course like that?

General P. Malaise
January 13, 2017 7:23 pm

a huge smile spread across my face as I read this

Joel O’Bryan
January 13, 2017 7:29 pm

BREAKING: As a note here:
Dr. Will Happer has been sighted going to the Trump Tower!!
Maybe for WH OSTP to replace the maleficent John Holdren?

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 13, 2017 8:08 pm

Just hoping some bit of scientific integrity returns to US science funding (NSF funding) and the funding black-listing like what drove Judy Curry out of academics will soon end.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 13, 2017 7:29 pm

Unfortunately, John Preston Bailey is a district judge (Northern district of West Virginia), so the ruling has very limited scope unless the EPA appeals and the appellate court affirms the ruling.
But: the EPA response will be determined by the incoming Trump administration (only 7 more days!), so incoming director Pruitt could simply order the agency to conform to the ruling.
But: the outgoing administration has adequate time to file an appeal, so this is something to watch.
IMWAR (In My Wacky Alternate Reality), Obama’s plan is to put so many last-minute SNAFUs in place that Trump gets carpal tunnel syndrome signing executive orders nullifying previous executive orders. At which point Democrats will claim that under the 25th Amendment Trump is “unable to discharge the powers of the presidency” and must be replaced. Might as well; nothing else has worked.
Maybe the Trump EPA transition team should ask for names of all EPA personnel who have stayed in Russian hotels and cross-check those dates against mattress deliveries? I’m just sayin’.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 14, 2017 5:08 am

I assume it’s true with the EPA as well, but the IRS for years has been selectively ignoring unfavorable court decisions outside the jurisdictional reach of that particular court. They refer to it as “nonacquiescence”. See here for an example.
IANAL either and you’d have to read Bailey’s decision to find out why the dispute ended up in the Northern West Virginia district and exactly which functions of which EPA offices are in scope. But I suspect the major effect of this decision will be to provide ammunition for Scott Pruitt, so I share your delight that such a clear ruling is now on the books.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 14, 2017 6:07 am

Willis: a reminder that EPA’s social cost of carbon estimate is based on an emissions projection which simply can’t be achieved. The EPA is very cagey, the references to the BAU asumptions are masked, lead to obsolete lagers, and this topic just keeps getting buried.

Charlie Currie
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 14, 2017 7:13 am

True, this may be limited to this judge’s jurisdiction, but it gives every other potential plaintiff in other jurisdictions a nail to hang their hat on. The EPA could end up fighting this battle all across the U.S. And, seeing how ID Pruitt could have been one of those potential plaintiffs, I don’t think he’ll fight it.

J Mac
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 13, 2017 10:33 pm

Not to worry about ‘carpal tunnel’… There’s this thing called an ‘autopen’ that politicians use a lot, Obama in particular. I’m sure Trump could use it to nullify each of Obama’s presidential edicts in similar fashion.
You didn’t really think a ‘choom gang’ slacker like Barack Hussein Obama would really bother hand signing all of his petty efforts at obstruction, did you?

Joe Shaw
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 14, 2017 7:25 am

“But: the outgoing administration has adequate time to file an appeal, so this is something to watch.”
Absolutely. This seems like a perfect opportunity for a bit of “sue and settle” ju jitsu.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 14, 2017 8:43 am

That is legally not correct. The ruling does not apply only to the district court territory. It applies to the EPA per the CCA, US wide. I don’t think Pruitt will appeal the judge’s finding, because a close reading of the CCA and related statues on the cost/benefit of regulation strongly suggests the judge is correct. So does the EPA stonewall response.
A finding that regulations were improperly analyzed can be used to request the court to set them aside (via injunctive stay) until such time as a proper analysis is done.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 14, 2017 12:58 pm

They could possibly file an appeal but it would not be heard before the new administration comes into office. Once in office the new administration could drop the case or not support it. Remember how well Obama and Holder went after these Black Panthers that were blocking a polling place?

January 13, 2017 7:30 pm

NEWS FLASH: …. EPA demands “Safe Space” from Federal Court. It may hurt their feelings. Obama steps in and hugs EPA administrators and pats them on the butt. Tears and crying ….

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  eyesonu
January 13, 2017 7:39 pm

HARK!!! What’s that!! A faint sound!
I think I can hear their wailing and crying all the way here in Arizona.
The Left just hasn’t even begun find the limits of their need to curl up and find the fetal position.
Popcorn time!

January 13, 2017 7:41 pm

The same lack of cost/benefit hangs over the Clean Power Plan. Although, the EPA tried to use “indirect health benefits” to justify the CPP.
My advice to Gina McCarthy, seeing that none of the EPA’s environmental agenda has been deemed constitutional, they need to stop trying to force any of there political agenda down the American people’s throat. The EPA has entered the extra-legal world of anti-democracy!
They need to accept the collective wisdom of the last election and stop any more environmental tyranny, pretty please!

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Stephen Heins
January 13, 2017 8:14 pm

Almost a year ago, SCOTUS put the CPP on ice.
It is now DOA with PEOTUS Trump, EPA (to be) Admin Pruitt, and a new honest SCOTUS justice coming on-board.
For all of history, CPP will be one of those failed policies of a failed President Obama.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
January 14, 2017 8:46 am

The current state suit against CPP argues it is unconstitutional. SCOTUS stayed CPP because a majority thought the states would likely prevail. With a sound Trump appointed replacement for Scalia, this is an important ruling for the future. Tribe’s brief on why needs to become Scotus precedent.

January 13, 2017 7:42 pm

The reestablishment of a civil society cannot happen soon enough. Thanks for the update.

Michael Cox
Reply to  hunter
January 13, 2017 8:55 pm

I’m afraid civil society is long gone, and I weep for its demise. Today we have no room for civics, decorum or manners. We only have safe spaces, participation trophies, and wealth redistribution. Oh, and “fake news”. No time or money for critical thinking, science, or ethics. Argh.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Michael Cox
January 13, 2017 9:31 pm

The PC culture of the O years is what you lament.
PC-ness is that most corrosive of ideas that engenders Thought Police and GroupThink that George Orwell wrote of.
As a country in 2009, PC-ness was sown. Today, we reap its rewards in sorrow.

Reply to  Michael Cox
January 13, 2017 10:30 pm

hunter & Michael Cox, I’m afraid you’re profoundly mistaken. ‘Civil society’ is worryingly very much in existence –
Never, never conflate this term with ‘civilized society’. In doing so you may inadvertently aid and abet the intentional conflation made by the UN, indeed much as they have done with ‘climate change’.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Michael Cox
January 14, 2017 2:35 am

Michael, well said and please add to your list, the daily promotion of the idea that censorship is necessary, that there is only the official answer for everything, with plenty of examples of recent censorship on college campuses, both private and state sponsored.

January 13, 2017 8:03 pm

“McCarthy asserted it would take the agency up to two years to devise a methodology to use to try to comply with the earlier ruling”
Willis: “Two years? World War II lasted four years for the US, and these wankers can’t put together a method to value lost jobs in two years? Glad they weren’t in charge back then … that’s just plain obstructionism.”
I love the prose. “Wankers” is right on the money!

H. T. Carmichael
Reply to  eyesonu
January 14, 2017 7:56 am

So what has she been doing since July 18, 2013? That’s over two years.

Roger Knights
January 13, 2017 8:37 pm

I hope the next good news is that the January temperature anomalies continue to decline, and, later, that a La Niña develops and continues the decline for the next two years.

Reply to  Roger Knights
January 13, 2017 11:27 pm

I’d just as soon have some genuine global warming, thankew. Put on some heat for the Canadians, please.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
January 14, 2017 4:19 am

We’re having our second mild winter in a row here in southern Ontario. Keep it coming!

Reply to  Roger Knights
January 14, 2017 6:05 am

To quote Newt in Aliens – “It won’t make any difference”. I don’t think you’ve been keeping up Roger because the blob moved on from global warming some time ago. They knew that the global warming hypothesis was dangerously exposed since it makes clear and falsifiable predictions, In their rebranded totally and forever unfalsifiable paradigm there are no predictions and everything which happens climatically is post hoc attributed to a carbon dioxide primary cause – because they and their ‘models’ say so.
The only way forward is to force cowardly mountebanks like Schmidt to public debate with real scientists so that everyone can see what the game has been. There would undoubtedly be some rather cross people when they discover just what these people have been doing with their hard-earned tax dollars.

Reply to  Roger Knights
January 14, 2017 2:47 pm

I hope the next good news is that the January temperature anomalies continue to decline, and, later, that a La Niña develops and continues the decline for the next two years.

We do not know what will happen for the rest of January, but according to:
Up to January 12, it is 0.066 colder than December and the coldest month since August 2015.

Michael Cox
January 13, 2017 8:50 pm

Jobs are for little people. We will tell you what’s good for you. Now, give me half your money…

January 13, 2017 9:17 pm

If I were the judge I’d find her in contempt of court and put her in jail until the EPA creates their methodology — and then I bet it would take a lot less that two years to do it. Two days at most.

Reply to  TDBraun
January 14, 2017 3:22 am

My idea is that you put her in jail for one day. next day, check if they have complied. If not, jail her for an additional two days and review in one. If still no compliance, double the jail time for each day of noncompliance. Fairly soon, you will get her attention.

January 13, 2017 10:38 pm


Peter Sable
January 13, 2017 10:40 pm

A problem is how you calculate jobs lost. They could claim 2 “green” jobs created for each coal job lost.
And they might be right, even if it is crazy insane to have >2x more workers producing a kilowatt hour…

Joe Public
Reply to  Peter Sable
January 14, 2017 2:14 am

From memory, about a year ago GreenPeace boasted that the US solar industry had as many workers as the US oil & gas industries.
There was a deafening silence from GP when it was pointed out the latter produced 725x as much energy.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Joe Public
January 14, 2017 9:35 am

GreenPeace would have to have been counting solar installers in those figures. I seriously doubt they included filling station attendants for the other side.

January 13, 2017 11:11 pm

Cost-benefit analysis can be a very useful tool for assessing the merits of alternative policies, so long as it is carried out by people who will undertake the task with rigour and without bias. Unfortunately, too often that is not the case, and political direction to favour a particular policy is accepted by those undertaking the analysis. My refusal to compromise led to the premature end of my career. Given that those who go to the EPA – as to the Dept of the Environment when I was in Canberra – are likely to be Green activists at heart, any EPA analysis should be undertaken by an independent body sufficiently established as not to bow to pressure to massage the outcomes.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
January 14, 2017 9:56 am

You are of course correct. It would be laughable to assume an even balance of opinions within the EPA. I would expect the rank and file as well as the executive corp to consists mostly of ‘true believers’ with a few pseudo-scientists thrown in for show.

Reply to  Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
January 14, 2017 10:40 am

An analysis of the maintenance upkeep of a 200 unit condo association won’t alter the economy so my applied rate(s) are my problem (and are applied at my discrestion).
An analysis of a propposed regional dam project may alter the local economy, so I may go overboard and put a little more thought into the applied analysis rates.
But it seems to me that the acceptance of an analysis, that in the end would significantly change the national and global economy, would need a whole lot of wild ass guesses in the rate(s) application.
Have you ever addressed a cost benefit analysis of a system (eg. global co2 cost/benefit), for which the applied rate of return will be altered by the outcome of the analysis (when accepted and implemented)?

January 14, 2017 1:34 am

I had thought that deindustrialisation and the destruction of western economies was the whole point of the communist inspired environmental and sustainable development movements?

old engineer
January 14, 2017 2:40 am

When I was doing contract work for the EPA in 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, it was their position that the Clean Air Act forbid them from considering the economic impact of their regulations. They only had to consider the health and welfare benefits of their regulations. Nice to see a Federal judge say otherwise. With the new administration, I doubt that the EPA will appeal the decision.

Reply to  old engineer
January 14, 2017 11:02 am

NMFS and the Dept of fish and bunnies tries to do the same thing with Endangered Species Act.
A few years back they (Fish & Bunnies) got a regulation enacted to clarify the “legality” of their rules/interpretation with respect to economic harms. They then went to court and sued (NMFS vs. FEMA) so as to be able to create new (more invasive) rules through the court, rather than through legislature. FEMA didn’t really care, didn’t fight, so NMFS won and put policy together that is eventually (Lousinana, you are next….) intended to protect millions of acres of (non) fish habitat & give NMFS regulatory power over a significant portion of the developed area in the country.
I hope ESA gets fixed (not eliminated) along with the Clean Air Act.

Robin Hewitt
January 14, 2017 2:40 am

I voted to leave the European Union 23rd June 2016. They may do something about it in March 2017 if they feel so inclined. Can I suggest you don’t hope for too much so you are not disappointed.

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  Robin Hewitt
January 14, 2017 3:07 am

And if they don’t leave by then what can we do? … Well we can do what the Americans did to get their independence, and that was for juries to refuse to convict.

4 Eyes
January 14, 2017 3:30 am

Hallelujiah. A judge with who can think real issues through properly. Thanks for digging this out Willis. I see light at the end of he tunnel. It seems every one in the EPA would have failed my 1st year engineering project evaluation exams where we had to allow for everything. What they had to do really was a simple exercise but they could not even do that. How do these goofballs get their jobs?

January 14, 2017 4:24 am

How far should this be taken?
Do you discount jobs not really lost but moved elsewhere where there is need?
Do you count the cost of health care for people affected by emissions from coal-fired systems? In an insurance-based system, is that a benefit or a drag on the cost?
Do you count the jobs created for health professionals who are needed to care for people affected by emissions, and the jobs created for people who create medicines etc. needed for people affected by emissions?

Jaakko Kateenkorva
Reply to  David Bennett
January 14, 2017 7:26 am

Health professionals are needed also for those who cannot afford increasing energy prices.

Reply to  David Bennett
January 14, 2017 1:44 pm

That is not required by the Clean Air Act. The EPA was sued because the EPA was in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 7621, § 321(a) of the Clean Air Act, which requires the agency to “conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the administration or enforcement of the provision of [the Clean Air Act] and applicable implementation plans, including where appropriate, investigating threatened plant closures or reductions in employment allegedly resulting from such administration or enforcement.”
They lost.

January 14, 2017 4:28 am

The EPA is just a big part of the “De-Growth Movement”:

Thanks Willis for re-starting a dialog on this.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
January 14, 2017 11:06 am

Also NMFS….

Reply to  DonM
January 14, 2017 5:12 pm

OK, you got me – what is NMFS, an acronym I can’t seem to locate?
BTW, this 10 minute video is worth listening to for a number of factors. He brings up the fact that one of the first big cases brought by the EPA was the fact that DDT was not harmful if used properly. The judge concluded in his hearing that it wasn’t harmful, but this decision was overturned by the head of the EPA.
He mentions that this de-industrialization targets the poor and developing nations. He mentions how the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards are making cars less safe and increasing accident deaths and injuries because of less steel to make cars lighter.
He mentions about the anti air conditioner proposal is targeting the poor and developing nations.
Mark hits on a lot of other good points which we have discussed here at WUWT many times, and in simple lay terms… I recommend listening to this 10 min. professional video…JPP

Reply to  DonM
January 15, 2017 8:19 am

OK, it is the National Marine Fisheries Service…just saw your post above.

January 14, 2017 4:40 am

Willis: The winningest part of this whole thing is that the judge said it doesn’t just apply to the coal rules. It applies to the whole Clean Air Act and by inference all of the EPA’s regulations.
From the article: The judge said the EPA is required by law to analyze the economic impact on a continuing basis when enforcing the Clean Air Act and McCarthy’s response “evidences the continued hostility on the part of the EPA to acceptance of the mission established by Congress.” Does not state it applies to all. What is true is that any regulations that Congress stated had to have economic analysis, they do.
Old Engineer: When I was doing contract work for the EPA in 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, it was their position that the Clean Air Act forbid them from considering the economic impact of their regulations. They only had to consider the health and welfare benefits of their regulations. Nice to see a Federal judge say otherwise. With the new administration, I doubt that the EPA will appeal the decision.
The Clean Air Act specifies that EPA continuously evaluate the impact of the Clean Air Act. When enforcing regulations, the EPA is not to consider them per se. It was supposed to occur on going not as part of individual site evaluation. Contrast this with the Clean Water Act with its NPDES, which is the national pollution discharge ELIMINATION system. The use of 7Q10 which is the lowest week flow in 10 years to reduce discharges, is the process of elimination, due to the well known phenomena of natural variance. The stopping point is best treatment. If a site does not have the money or space, for best treatment, if that is required, will have have its permit eventually withdrawn making discharges illegal. Worse, it is everybody on the modelled reaches where a parameter exceeded EPA safe discharge criteria. The program usually is MOD2E. Sites can and have been closed for not meeting or being able to meet the criteria.
One of the irritating aspects of this, is that those regulated by the CAA and amendments have been paying for this. CAA and CAAA require industry to cover costs of the program. As industry and regulated entities have left the US, the fees have been growing much faster than inflation. Lots of unfunded mandates ended up in the air category so that they could be afforded by the fees rather than by states spending their money. One of the historical parts relevant to this discussion, is that industry was to pay for this in fees. Letting the government know how much all this was really costing was one of the selling points to industry and those who were supporting their efforts at staying in business. So it is not just breaking the law, it is contra to the spirit of how enough of Congress came to sign off on it.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  johnfpittman
January 14, 2017 10:07 am

“As industry and regulated entities have left the US, the fees have been growing much faster than inflation.”
Sort of sounds like an unintended sunset clause don’t it.

January 14, 2017 4:41 am

“It is time for the EPA to recognize that Congress makes the law, and EPA must not only enforce the law, it must obey it.” Pure gold. LOL.

John W. Garrett
January 14, 2017 4:51 am

Only Big Government and its festering bureaucrats could possibly conceive (or fail to conceive) of performing a cost/benefit analysis.
I am embarrassed to admit that I had absolutely no idea they weren’t taking employment losses into account in their totalitarian edicts. It never crossed my mind that anyone could possibly be that stupid.

Gerry, England
January 14, 2017 4:54 am

The powers that be failing to get their sums right? Surely not? There may be an ocean between us but the same thing happens here. The government and its agencies seem totally unable to include the full cost of its actions. Our dreadful ‘son of Brown’ chancellor George Osborne decided to make some changes to the tax on selling a house. It is a tax that a conservative government should consider removing but we have one of those in name only. It appeared that the tax was banded but many people didn’t realise that if your property fell in the 4% band it was taxed at that rate on the whole value. So in a sensible move Osborne introduced real banding so you paid different amounts on parts of the value. So far so good and saved me £3000. But in a foolish move designed to look like bashing rich people as Osborne used his budget statements to position himself to take over as Prime Minister from his mate Dave, he introduced new rates of 10% for houses of £925k-1.5m and 12% on over £1.5m. The inevitable and foreseen outcome was sales of houses over £925k fell off a cliff and still haven’t recovered. Net result – much less tax income. In and around London and the south-east, normal family houses fall into the 10% bracket and many are over £1.5m. They are not homes of the super rich – just ordinary people struggling to pay for an expensive house in the area they want to live. There have also been a lot of job loses in the house trade as people decided not to move as they couldn’t afford the tax hit.
Example 2: For decades the UK used a paper disc to show that the road tax for a vehicle had been paid. This has been the only system we have had and the only change was colours to clearly show if it was still valid or not. As a driver you could easily see when you would need to renew your tax. To save a claimed £14m the agency in charge decided to scrap this simple disc. Net result? You can probably guess that it is not a saving. In fact they have lost many times the supposed saving as failure to retax vehicles has soared. While some may be taking advantage of the change not to bother and hope not to be picked up by number plate recognition vehicles or the police, others are forgetting as the reminder system is no longer functioning as it was. But as usual there is no apology and suggestion of going back to the previous and obviously better and cheaper system amid claims that it is some how impossible. Oh for somebody like in the US to force them to.
There is only ONE case of common sense. The brewing industry managed to get the Treasury to consider that if they stopped constantly adding tax to beer the decline in consumption and reduction in tax could be turned around. Freezing or better still, reducing the tax, would result in growth in the industry and more tax, which is surely what they would want. And they actually included this in a model and AGREED that it would be a better policy. It all goes to show that Arthur Laffer was right.

January 14, 2017 4:57 am

There is a more general point, applying world-wide, based on this proper basis of assessing the net effects on jobs and costs when applying Green rules and assessing proposed Green projects.
The Green Brigade continually harp on about the jobs renewable power generation stations will provide but always fail to mention the jobs and even whole strategic industries that will be lost because of the massive directly and indirectly increased power unit costs. Clear evidence of these detrimental consequences is available in Europe and the USA.
They also always fail to mention the cost to others of the base load standby power generation costs and the additional and enhanced power transmission works needed – all of which has to be paid for by consumers, due to the varying and intermittent power outputs provided by, for instance, the totally uncontrollable changing tides, and capricious sun and winds and using such power from remote locations.
In addition, they also never include the significant benefits of increased CO2 in the atmosphere such as greening, which reduces water demand, increases fodder and the types of food available – clearly substantiated from satellite imaging, and increased crop yields, all of which are of global benefit.
This matter needs ramming down down the throats of the Green Brigade and our politicians and diplomats and civil servants from the UN downwards.
The whole Green Brigade CAGW/Climate Change religion is a fraud and grossly detrimental to the Earth and its people

Ian Macdonald
January 14, 2017 5:29 am

Here in the UK, the Greens promoted diesel cars as a way to reduce CO2 emissions, even to the extent of persuading the government to halve the tax on some diesel models. Now they have (supposedly) found that diesels emit more of some other kinds of pollutant, so they are campaigning to have diesels banned from cities. The same diesels they told people to buy instead of petrol/gasoline cars.
It couldn’t get crazier. Well, unless their real motive is to wreck the transport infrastructure. If that is the objective, then it makes perfect sense for them to do that.

Reply to  Ian Macdonald
January 14, 2017 7:42 am

Couldn’t agree more! Diesel’s emit particulate carbon, carbon monoxide, and a range of nasty nitrates – all of which, unlike CO2, are real pollutants and the major cause of air pollution and smogs are their related illnesses and health risks. The solution has always been to use Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) engines which have been available for trains, lorries, vans and cars for 40 years or more. The LNG exhausts are simply water and CO2, nothing more, and CO2 is not a pollutant or otherwise a health risk!

Reply to  Ian Macdonald
January 15, 2017 9:53 am

No I do not think it is intentional it’s more do-gooders doing no good.
“Kindly let me help you because you will drown.”, said the the monkey, putting the fish safely up the tree.

Steve Case
January 14, 2017 5:31 am

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel headline this morning in smaller print but at the top above the fold says:
State PSC also cut climate topics from website


Reasonable Skeptic
January 14, 2017 5:43 am

The social cost of carbon is obviously a new positive. If you are faced with a person that argues that it is a net negative, demand that they give you their car and tell them to go out and buy a bicycle. A net negative means it is bad and use of it should stop.

Reasonable Skeptic
Reply to  Reasonable Skeptic
January 14, 2017 5:43 am

Net positive 🙂

January 14, 2017 6:39 am

Not winning until all the criminals in EPA, OSHA, FDA, DeptEnergy, Senate, House etc etc are frogmarched out of their offices by US Marshals, prosecuted and jailed. THAT is when America will be winning.

Bruce Cobb
January 14, 2017 6:58 am

Well, at least he’s on the right track. But the whole point of the EPA’s anti-carbon coal regulations is to kill coal by putting it at an economic disadvantage. So the costs to the economy are far higher than lost jobs. Not to mention the elephant in the room: that cutting “carbon” has zero benefits either to the environment or to mankind.

January 14, 2017 7:05 am

Lost jobs? … Oops, we forgot. … Our dogs ate that analysis. … The person who was supposed to do that was sick that day. … The lead researcher was on vacation, and his instructions to his subordinates must have accidentally ended up in a spam folder and got deleted … “accidentally”.
ANYTHING but … It’s gonna take us up to two years to devise a methodology. That’s just verbose evasiveness, … passive aggressiveness, … or, my preferred technical term, lame.

January 14, 2017 7:06 am

Gina McCarthy, obstructionism: She has a track record of obstructionism. When Jeff Sessions asked her in a Senate hearing whether climate models had predicted correctly, she refused to answer, saying she didn’t know what models he was talking about. He was “stunned”. I’m no lawyer, but in a litigation under British law, and under oath, she would have been guilty of contempt of court.

Reply to  Keith
January 14, 2017 8:22 am

You mean THESE climate models:comment image

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
January 14, 2017 11:44 am

Very stylish. That’s what climate models are. They just have to look good. This was my point above. (^_^)

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
January 14, 2017 12:57 pm

Very tight-fitting analogy.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
January 14, 2017 2:55 pm

Models can be wrecks underneath all that glamour. I’ve known a couple.
Okay, I think I’m done with that analogy now.

Dave in the UP
January 14, 2017 7:09 am

Hmmm…. I hear that Judith Curry might be available for a position in the New Administration.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Dave in the UP
January 14, 2017 1:03 pm

What have ‘U Yoopers’ heard on that?
(We Hillfolk is all for it.)

January 14, 2017 7:15 am

Well, the good thing is the EPA is going to be gutted soon enough.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  beng135
January 14, 2017 3:46 pm

I like to think of these agencies as structures the country built in the past, which are in dire need of complete renovations. I hope and trust our new leader is up to that task.

January 14, 2017 7:28 am

They didn’t include lost jobs because they ASSUMED that the “green jobs” would be a net plus despite having zero evidence to back that assumption. Hubris man, just total hubris.

January 14, 2017 8:00 am

I do not understand this. First, I am certain that human produced CO2 is not affecting our climate, and low cost energy is absolutely needed. And I do think slightly higher CO2 would be beneficial. What I don’t understand is this argument of loss of jobs. We do know that solar and other crackpot methods are expensive because they require lots of labor, have shorter product life, which also requires more labor. So, I don’t see validity in the suggestion that there would be a loss of jobs.

Dave in Canmore
Reply to  Oldman
January 14, 2017 8:51 am

Exactly! Moving from efficient technology to inefficient in this case means a loss of wealth not a loss of jobs. If the government is incapable of doing a simple cost-benefit analysis, it hardly seems competent to calculate the loss of wealth associated with inefficient energy. Watching governments around the world flail through these policy decisions is like watching a dog trying to solve a partial differential equation.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  Oldman
January 16, 2017 8:57 am

Please take a look at the document entitled “Green Jobs – Rhetoric or Reality”, at the following link:
To summarize:
• For every “green” job created, between 2.2 to 6.9 jobs are lost in standard industries due to the cost associated with “green” jobs;
• A great deal of the “green” jobs are temporary – once the facilities are installed the jobs disappear;
• Corruption reign supreme in the renewable sector – the Italian Mafia are a prime example of fraudulently skimming millions of euros from both the Italian government and the EU;
o Ditto Mr. Al Gore and his carbon trading scheme (okay, I added that one – lol);
• And in Germany, the conclusion was that: “We should regard the country’s experience as a cautionary tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits.”

January 14, 2017 8:08 am

So many of the comments remind me incontinent Liberals. They are worried that Trumps nominees are not breathing fire and how they disagree with him. Who is working for whom? Now! Put clean pants on!

January 14, 2017 8:16 am

Willis E .
You are the type of bloke I would love to take on a remote camping/fishing trip here where I live in Far North Queensland Aus, on Cape York. Just so I can pick the hell out of your brains over a few days of eating, fishing, drinking and kicking back in nature in all it’s glory.
I have followed this fiasco of climate change mantra and the apparent downfall of modern science over the last decade or more with a sense of dread at times due to the seeming corruption of both the Science and the Politics which has somehow become an intertwined monster on a global scale.
There are very few people who are able to cut through all the crap and misinformation on this subject with such clarity, and are able to use such concise information in the way that you do in simple layman’s terms, and yet you distil the needed understanding of Science in an understandable, unconvoluted and plain use of English to any subject at hand so that even I can understand it.
Thankyou for just being there first off and sharing your opinion and knowledge, but also thankyou for taking a stand and doing what is right. Science itself needs people such as you to reinforce what Science really is, Questioning and posing alternatives, Questioning and THINKING, and I might add Questioning and INFORMING.
When the Facts or Truths of Science become distorted beyond all recognition and venture into the realm of science fiction, we all know there is a problem.
It would seem though that this fact has left the building so to speak, and no longer applies so long as the politics of science reign supreme and the science of politics reciprocates.
Ever caught a Barramundi on a hand line Willis, or tasted one cooked over an open fire of drift wood on a beach with no one else there except for you and your friends over a thousand miles from nowhere ? Fresh black lipped oysters and Crayfish straight off the reef and a few shots of 90% home brew vodka to wash them down with while waiting for the next bite on the set line and watching for Croc’s around a camp fire.
My bet is that you know what that feels like anyway, but that most don’t have clue about that feeling at all. And most not having known it are willing to give it all away to some Dot/Gov regulation as it doesn’t really apply to them at all at this point in time and even if it did….. It doesn’t really matter at all to that class of people at all.
Like who would ever want to go camping at all anyway…right ? There are bugs and snakes and that sort of shit out there in the wilds right ?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  southerncross
January 14, 2017 1:15 pm

If I said my name was Willis, would you take me? That sound great, mate!

Roderic Fabian
January 14, 2017 8:37 am

I wonder if this judge would have made this ruling if he didn’t know that Trump was going to be the President.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Roderic Fabian
January 14, 2017 1:21 pm

There does appear to be some adjustment of jurisprudence in this development. Oddly enough the talk around here is about how good it would be to rebuild the govt agencies and eliminate redundancies in the bureaucratic sector.

Reply to  Roderic Fabian
January 14, 2017 1:27 pm

The case was originally decided in October, before the results of the election. The EPA’s delaying tactic just came to light in their response to the Judge’s order from October. Looks like he would have ruled the same no matter what.

January 14, 2017 8:54 am

“McCarthy asserted it would take the agency up to two years to devise a methodology to use to try to comply with the earlier ruling”. Which means we are crap at doing our jobs.

January 14, 2017 9:01 am

Isn’t EPA cost/benefit analysis one of those “baselines of facts” that Obama just said we need to agree on so the left and right don’t talk past each other? Surely the left will agree that cost/benefit analysis cannot ignore certain facts if they don’t fit their leftist narrative, and instead cost/benefit analysis need to include all costs to be a thorough and complete baseline of facts.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Scott
January 14, 2017 1:25 pm

All indicative of the “transparency” of his administration.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Pop Piasa
January 14, 2017 4:04 pm

I had an professor friend who always said “Clear as mud”.

Reply to  Pop Piasa
January 14, 2017 9:16 pm

Like an interrogation room window, the transparency only goes one way.

January 14, 2017 9:11 am
Rich Lambert
January 14, 2017 10:14 am

I would like to see a cost benefit analysis of the EPA.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Rich Lambert
January 14, 2017 12:53 pm

Yes indeed! It would probably raise Leonard Nimoy’s right eyebrow.

Terry Burch
January 14, 2017 12:37 pm

I nominate a new logo for the Climate Change Alarmist Industry
Global Smarming
If the shoe fits, then eat it!

Pop Piasa
January 14, 2017 1:06 pm

Speaking of winning, Willis, Have you noticed how close Anthony is to 300,000,000 hits?

January 14, 2017 1:55 pm

The EPA works against the interest of the public and is an economic black hole . It’s days are numbered
and they know it . After next week …. Gina who ???? Who cares ?
While they are cleaning EPA house they need to take their guns away too . Armed PO’d EPA employees
not a great idea .
Does the USA really need on average 400 EPA people per State when individual States already have their own environmental protection agencies ? This absurd waste of tax payer money is bad enough but throw in the outright contempt of the law and the EPA needs to be fired .

January 14, 2017 2:27 pm

The EPA have made themselves into something what would normally be impossible – turkeys waiting for Christmas, in January.

January 14, 2017 3:07 pm

Sadly the BS at the EPA doesn’t surprise me on bit. Last job I had before retirement almost drove me nuts, I was doing acquisition support for a military agency, acquiring things that cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to build and procure. These people, our military civil service customers, were just plain lazy and incompetent. For example, there were program documents that had to be written, and allegedly followed. Engineering management plans that laid out the program, who was responsible for what, how many design reviews were needed, who did them, how to review and document the results, who was responsible for creating teams to handle problems, etc. These documents were required in order to get continuing funding after the items were procured to keep the programs alive for maintenance and such. Think they did them before the program was over, or if they happened to, that they followed them? Nah, that’s crazy talk, why would they want a document that meant there was a procedure they had to follow or, gasp, to actually have to do work on! They wanted to write the documents that told them how to do the program after it was over.
And they weren’t even ideological, just lazy and stupid, imagine how much worse if they had an ideological agenda like the EPA does. I’m glad to be rid of it all, I used to grit my teeth driving to work and during the day and all the way home. And I wonder why I had headaches all the time.

Ronald Abate
January 14, 2017 3:10 pm

I am not shocked at all that the EPA did not count lost jobs in their cost/benefit analysis. The Progress-Left loves humanity but hates humans. The Progressive-Left has all these great ideas that will save humanity and make the world a perfect place, but anybodies who get in their way gets rubbed out like vermin.

January 14, 2017 3:19 pm

I don’t understand how they claim to have analyzed costs and benefits without taking facility closures and job losses into account? That’s just taking benefits into account and not costs. That’s a bit absurd.

January 14, 2017 3:30 pm

So the backstory is, the Federal judge had said that the EPA had to include the cost of lost jobs in their analysis.

Lost jobs due to the EPA is only 1/2 the story. The other part is the jobs protected by the EPA. Most climate “science” jobs are either directly or indirectly due to the EPA and like-minded government agencies and politicians. For every coal job lost we should also require the firing of a climate scientist.
How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.

January 14, 2017 4:19 pm

The EPA blatantly igores the clear wording of the law. They should be shut down and any needed functions transferred to the States. The text of the judgment discussed here is available at .

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  geoff@large
January 14, 2017 4:44 pm

No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Most EPA functions are well outside the realm of climate garbage.
But it is sad to see that the #1 strategic goal of 2016 was climate change
Sadly there is an explicit or implicit bleed of climate change in some of the other goals.

January 14, 2017 6:47 pm

Note those dullards in Congress assumed that job loss was the most important criterium. I doubt they ever conceived the evil of a mainstream political party, actually bolstered overwhelmingly by the press and government employees, that have actual disdain and total disregard for private employment or job loss. Nor did they anticipate that national politicians, such as the current administration and Ms Clinton, enjoy the loss of employment by Americans who do not share the personal ambitions of Obama and Clinton. Revel in it. The current head of the EPA is one such sociopath.

January 14, 2017 7:42 pm

Michael J. – It’s all bathwather. To give another example, read how the EPA is conducting human experiments on inhalation of small particles, even though they clam there is no safe level of inhalation ( They are lawless and should be disbanded. Their climate path to increased lawless activism is only one of their terrible activities.

January 15, 2017 9:45 am

Holy smokes, this isn’t just a home run for getting EPA climate fanatical extremism under control. This judge is knocking the leather off the ball and sending it on a trip around the world.

Johann Wundersamer
January 19, 2017 6:11 pm

the real issues of clean air and clean water. yep.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights