The Obama EPA’s crooked prosecutors

The agency’s carbon dioxide climate “endangerment finding” was a kangaroo court process

Guest opinion by Paul Driessen

Suppose a crooked prosecutor framed someone and was determined to get a conviction. So he built an entire case on tainted, circumstantial evidence, and testimony from witnesses who had their reasons for wanting the guy in jail. Suppose the prosecutor ignored or hid exculpatory evidence and colluded with the judge to prevent the defendant from presenting a robust defense or cross-examining adverse witnesses.

You know what would happen – at least in a fair and just society. The victim would be exonerated and compensated. The prosecutor and judge would be disbarred, fined and jailed.

What you may not know is that the Obama EPA engaged in similar prosecutorial misconduct to convict fossil fuels of causing climate chaos and endangering the health and wellbeing of Americans.

EPA then used its carbon dioxide “Endangerment Finding” to justify anti-fossil fuel regulations, close down coal-fired power plants, block pipeline construction, and exempt wind and solar installations from endangered species rules. It put the agency in control of America’s energy, economy, job creation and living standards. It drove up energy prices, killed numerous jobs, and sent families into energy poverty.

EPA’s egregious misconduct inflicted significant harm on our nation. Having acted to repeal the Obama Clean Power Plan, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt must reverse carbon dioxide’s conviction and scuttle the Endangerment Finding that serves as the foundation and justification for the agency’s war on coal, oil and natural gas. Any harm from fossil fuels or carbon dioxide is minuscule, compared to the extensive damages inflicted by the decision and subsequent regulations.

President Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson took office determined to blame carbon dioxide for “dangerous” and “unprecedented” manmade global warming and climate change. They then used that preordained decision to justify closing coal-fired power plants and dramatically restricting fossil fuel use. Mr. Obama had promised to “bankrupt” coal companies. Ms. Browner wasted no time in decreeing that CO2 from oil, natural gas coal burning “endanger” human health and welfare. It was a kangaroo court.

Their Environmental Protection Agency did no research of its own. It simply cherry-picked UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and wrote a Technical Support Document to make its case. The TSD ignored studies that contradicted its predetermined Endangerment Finding – and relied on circumstantial evidence of climate and extreme weather disasters generated by computer models.

The models were programmed on the assumption that rising atmospheric CO2 levels are the primary or sole factor determining climate and weather. They assumed more carbon dioxide meant more planetary warming and worsening climate chaos. The role of the sun, cosmic rays, changing ocean currents and numerous other powerful, interconnected natural forces throughout Earth’s history was simply ignored.

The models predicted steadily increasing global temperatures and more frequent and intense storms. Instead, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continued to rise, except for a noticeable temperature spike during the 2015-2016 super El Niño, there has been no planetary warming since 1998. Harvey finally ended a record 12-year drought in Category 3-5 hurricanes making landfall in the USA.

Tornado deaths are far less frequent than in the 1950s. Floods and droughts differ little from historic trends and cycles. Antarctic land ice is at record highs, and Arctic sea ice is again within its “normal” levels for the past 50 years. Seas are rising at just seven inches per century, the same as 100 years ago.

The models also assumed more warming meant more clouds that trapped more heat. They ignored the fact that low-lying clouds trap heat but also reflect solar heat back into the atmosphere. Humans might be “contributing” to temperature, climate and weather events, at least locally. But there is no real-world evidence that “greenhouse gases” have replaced natural forces to cause climate chaos or extreme weather – and no evidence that humans can control Earth’s fickle climate by controlling emissions.

In fact, with every passing year, climate model temperature forecasts have been increasingly higher than those actually observed over most of the lower atmosphere.

The EPA approach amounted to saying, if reality conflicts with the models, reality must be wrong – or to deciding that real world evidence should be homogenized, adjusted and manipulated to fit model results.

Indeed, that’s exactly what EPA, the IPCC and other alarmist researchers have done. Older historic records were adjusted downward, modern records got bumped upward a bit, and government-paid scientists ignored satellite data and relied increasingly on measurements recorded near (and contaminated by) airport jet exhaust, blacktop parking lots, and urban areas warmed by cars, heating and AC vents.

The IPCC also claimed its referenced studies were all peer-reviewed by experts. In reality, at least 30% were not; many were prepared by graduate students or activist groups; and some of its most attention-getting claims (of rapidly melting Himalayan glaciers, for example) were nothing more than brief email messages noting that these were “possible” outcomes. Moreover, most IPCC peer reviewers were scientists who fervently promote catastrophic manmade climate change perspectives, receive government and other grants for writing reports confirming this thesis, and take turns reviewing one another’s papers.

Despite these inconvenient facts, a steady barrage of Obama EPA press releases and statements from alarmist regulators and “experts” insisted that fossil fuels were causing planetary cataclysms. Anyone who tried to present alternative, realistic data or views was ridiculed, vilified and silenced.

Even one of EPA’s most senior experts was summarily removed from the review team.  “Your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision,” Alan Carlin’s supervisor told him.

Two additional facts dramatically underscore the kangaroo court nature of EPA’s 2009 proceedings.

First, oil, natural gas and coal still provide over 80% of America’s and the world’s energy. The International Energy Agency says they will be at least this important 25 years from now. Indeed, fossil fuels are the foundation for modern industries, transportation, communication, jobs, health and living standards. Emerging economic powerhouses like China and India, developing countries the world over, and even industrialized nations like Germany and Poland are using more of these fuels every year.

The Obama EPA studiously ignored these facts – and the tremendous benefits that fossil fuels bring to every aspect of our lives. Those benefits outweigh any asserted dangers – by orders of magnitude.

Second, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, as defined by the Clean Air Act – and was never listed in any legislation as a pollutant. It was turned into an alleged pollutant by dishonest, ideological EPA prosecutors, who needed to justify their anti-fossil fuel regulatory agenda.

In reality, carbon dioxide is the miracle molecule without which most life on Earth would cease to exist. It enables plants of all kinds to convert soil nutrients and water into the fibers, fruits and seeds that are essential to humans and animals. The more CO2 in the air, the faster and better plants grow, and the more they are able to withstand droughts, disease, and damage from insects and viruses. In the process, crop, forest and grassland plants, and ocean and freshwater phytoplankton, exhale the oxygen we breathe.

In rendering its endangerment decision, EPA ignored these incalculable CO2 benefits. It ignored experts and studies that would have provided vital information about the tremendous value to our planet and people from fossil fuels and carbon dioxide.

Finally, having a slightly warmer planet with more atmospheric CO2 would be hugely beneficial for plants, wildlife and humanity. By contrast, having a colder planet, with less carbon dioxide, would be seriously harmful for arable land extent, growing seasons, crops, people and wildlife habitats.

The EPA Endangerment Finding is the foundation for the Obama era Clean Power Plan and other rules. Reversing it is essential to moving forward with science-based energy and climate policies.


Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and other books on public policy.

Advertisements

88 thoughts on “The Obama EPA’s crooked prosecutors

  1. I would like to point out that combustion of fossil fuels does create global warming. When you burn coal, or oil, or gas, heat is released. This warms the environment. Knowing the characteristics of the particular fuel, and the quantity burnt, together with the specific heat of air and the total mass of the atmosphere, it should be possible to calculate the actual warming due to the combustion of fossil fuels. Whether it is more or less than one millionth of a degree Celsius I cannot say, there are numerous subscribers to this site who are well qualified to do the calculation.

    If they do, and there can be some degree (pun not intended) of unanimity amongst them, I should be very pleased to hear it so that it can be used in evidence against alarmists.

    Regards

    Dudley Horscroft

    • Dudley,
      I assume you realize that capturing the sun energy or capturing the wind energy and turning it into electricity which when consumed heats the earth just the same way as fossil fuels. Same for Nuclear energy which when the electricity is consumed.
      What is your point?

      • Catcracking,
        If you have failed to grasp Dudley’s point, then for heaven’s sake, give the bloody game away. You are too thick to play this game – by a country mile.

      • Catcracking, The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system (which is what the Earth is). What Dudley says is a good point because coal and oil are sources of POTENTIAL energy. The energy used to create them is exactly equal to the energy they emit when burned. I am not an expert but i would think the same would apply to nuclear, the energy needed to produce a fissile element when a star exploded millenia ago is present and with the right technology, can be utilised. The same applies to forest fires. This fits in with the second law of thermodynamics that states that the entropy of an isolated system always increases, which is exactly what happens when anything is burned.

    • That’s the problem with mammals and birds – they create heat. Only cold-blooded creatures should be permitted.

      Seriously, Dudley is right. But compared with the energy received from the Sun, the burning of fossil fuels contributes so little. The sun constantly delivers about 120,000 terawatts (TW) of power to the earth, which is approximately 4000 times the entire global projected energy demand by 2050. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/herron2/

      • @Curious

        Somehow the impotence of our ability to control the earth’s climate is lost on these CAGW crackpots.

        It is the order of magnitude difference between the Sun, water, and CO2 that exposes this farce.

        The sun contains 99.998% of both the energy and mass in our solar system. The ocean has 1,000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. Yet somehow, we are able to increase molecular content by 1 part per 10000 (of which man’s activities are responsible for only 3% of the new molecules) of an atmosphere that holds virtually none of the earth’s heat content and change the global climate.

        The reality is that much of our badly needed CO2 is trapped and if we don’t find ways to release it, we could perish from low photosynthesis and stunted plant growth.

        Laughably stupid.

      • Curious George
        Thank you for clarifying that the earth is not a thermodynamically isolated system since we get huge amounts of energy from the outside source; i.e. the SUN. I agree with Dudley,s comment that burning fossil fuels will add heat to the earth a portion (or all) of which will be radiated out to space or any other intermediate means as the energy is released to space. My point is that even so called “clean” but unreliable energy which collects solar or wind energy to generate electricity also heat the earth in a similar manner when the electricity is consumed and the earth rejects this heat energy the same way it does from burning fossil fuels or nuclear energy to generate electricity. Regardless of which way the electricity is generated it use will produce the same amount of heat energy most of which ultimately gets sent to space.
        I take no exception to your comment that burning fossil fuels contributes so little compared to the energy from the sun.

    • The heat released by burning carbon based fuels is not measurable in the global temperature. It is hubris to think that it can be detected. The huge negative feedback engine in the form of the water cycle easily handles anything we do. Pretending that we tangibly affect Earth’s climate is a joke but has been pushed by those with an agenda that is antihuman and downright evil.

    • The sum total of all energy production methods by humans is equivalent to about an hour’s worth of sunlight falling on the surface of the earth.

      • “The sum total of all energy production methods by humans IN A YEAR is equivalent to about an hour’s worth of sunlight falling on the surface of the earth.”

        There, corrected.

      • Thanks Frederic for that information. As I thought, the effect of burning of fossil fuels is negligible in comparison to the heating from the sun. The ratio is 1:365.25 x 24 = 1 : 8766. Perhaps a bit more than a millionth of a degree (see my original post). This fits in well with Curious George’s – from Stanford – estimate of 1 : 4000 by 2050.

        And Philohippous, I make no BIG assumption that nothing else affects the temperature or is affected by the heat emitted. All I was doing was to consider the heating from fossil fuels. Note that solar power takes a small proportion of the sun’s energy falling on the receptors, turns it into electricity, which is later expended as heat when it does work (if used to lift objects, then this becomes potential energy and does not contribute to the heating, other than in the motor used to raise the object. The rest of the sun’s energy falling on the receptor shows up as heat immediately. Windmills – well, they take energy from the wind, but the wind is powered by the sun. If not for the windmill, the wind energy would be released as heat in friction with objects (Yes, I know, very small, and the effect is normally totally masked by evaporation from any damp surface. But remember that Concorde had to deal with this skin friction, very hot, I understand, so much so that at top speed the aircraft was sensibly longer!)

        Regards

        Dudley Horscroft

  2. …You know what would happen – at least in a fair and just society. The victim would be exonerated and compensated. The prosecutor and judge would be disbarred, fined and jailed….

    And then we would all ride into the sunset on unicorns.

    Do you know of ANY society in the world where that would happen? Humans just don’t work like that. It doesn’t matter if the society is Communist, Capitalist, Democratic or a Dictatorship – what will happen is that a person in power will do what he thinks he can get away with, and his colleagues will support him up to a point where it becomes impossible to do so any further. They will then turn on him – but typically only when he is no longer able to support them from his position of power. Often, this is only after he is dead.

    In science, you see this as Kuhn’s ‘normal paradigm’. In the media world, you see it when sex scandals occur with an old celebrity. Happens everywhere. Don’t think it isn’t going to happen in Climate Change…

      • Gary: Yeah, but a society that invents new definitions for fair and just in order to overturn established laws is even more dangerous. Cf, what the Supreme Court has done to a Constitution that established a federal government of “defined and limited powers.”

      • “So he built an entire case on tainted, circumstantial evidence, and testimony from witnesses who had their reasons for wanting the guy in jail”

        Doesn’t Paul Driessen’s supposition describe what happen to Galileo? Didn’t Consensus driven “settled” science pervert the precepts of law into guilty until proven innocent? Wasn’t he jailed for daring to speak truth to power? it is very easy to draw parallels between the religion of Catholicism of Galileo’s day and the secular religion of Climatism today.
        Isn’t complicity or silence what the Leftist controlled Church of Progressivism, with it’s ever growing band wagon of taxpayer funded “Yes” men and women are demanding of the scientific community, in order for the bureaucrats to lead the uninformed mice into a roiling river of economic doom with their pied piper tune of CAGW?

        My man on the street instinct tells me that the mice are not buying into the tune they are playing and have no intention of voluntarily walking into a river of economic calamity. Especially after hearing how “swimmingly” things are going in places like Australia.

    • Dodgy, yeah but we are seeing more and more of it. Political correctness has generated a plethora of laws to take away freedoms. Especially in Europe. A few preachers have been indicted in the UK for handing out religious literature at multi gender protests and in non Christian neighborhoods. A newsy was ordered to identify customers for a right wing newspaper – a small sample of every day generation of new types of felons. The push is against a group not welcome in the “diversity” club – we are the wrong gender of a wrong яасе.

    • DG, if you just shrug your sophisticated world weary shoulders there’s no hope. In fact, of course, there’s plenty of hope starting in a field at Runnymeade in 1215. It’s all we have to hope for a better future for our grandchildren. Say not the struggle nought availeth.

      https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/runnymede

      • ..DG, if you just shrug your sophisticated world weary shoulders there’s no hope…..

        Now, where did I ever say that there was no hope? Those are your words, not mine. There might be lots of hope – if we can first understand the problem. The problem is as I have stated above, and people need to be educated enough to understand this, before trying to address it. I am just starting the fight back by trying to educate people…

      • I agree and wish you luck, DG. One of the first things someone tries to do when attempting to taking over a culture is to control the education/reeducation of the masses. Once you dumb them down a bit they are more docile and easily controlled.

      • Joe Crawford

        October 15, 2017 at 10:26 am

        Yes.
        Certainly, in the UK, since the 1970s – the push – I nearly spelt that PUTSCH, and realise that that was fairly close! – for comprehensives, where all were mis-educated down to the same level through all-ability classes.
        The Rhodes Boyson approach – Comprehensives – and then stream like mad!
        Indeed, in the UK, it probably started earlier with the capture of [some] teacher training colleges by about 1970.

        Auto

      • DG ‘I am just starting the fight back by trying to educate people…’ 800 years of education and law ought to be enough by now. What’s lacking is courage.

    • I agree with you, Dodgy! That is the way it works, yet that is not a reason for hopelessness. I spent (wasted) nearly 10 years shedding my naivety around “truth, justice and the American Way”, to come to the same conclusions that you have. At the same time, I realized that my desire for truth and justice was a very good thing. It was not a mistake to believe in truth and justice. It was a mistake to believe it was happening.

      It is important to know that we do not live in a ‘fair and just society’. It is important to know that ‘fair and just societies’ do not happen naturally. They must be constantly strived for, knowing such a society will never completely exist. Why bother? Because the more successful we are, the better our lives become. That’s why.

      “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke The annoyance of that quote is only exceeded by its validity!

      • jclarke341,

        “It is important to know that we do not live in a ‘fair and just society’. It is important to know that ‘fair and just societies’ do not happen naturally.”

        I see no evidence that fair and just societies happen at all. What I do see evidence of are people who are fair or unfair in any given circumstance and are either just or unjust. There is no such thing as collective justice only individual justice.

        The tricky part is understanding what justice is. It is far easier to recognize injustice than it is too recognize justice. When a person’s rights are trampled upon that person can easily recognize the injustice and it is that absence of justice that gives us clarity on what justice is. Justice is the regard for the rights of others. In order to have a “just society” every person in that society would have to hold regard for the rights of others and even then some inadvertent injustices will occur.

    • DG,
      I have noticed that at least for myself, acute cynicism. i.e. that people are motivated purely by self-interest, tends to come with age and experience. And, you are right in that most forms of government developed by man soon fall victim to his innate self interest, especially to that of the self defined elite, the power hungry and the fortune seekers. However, I think the original founders of our republic tried to take that into account when they developed and wrote the U.S. Constitution. But, as even they stated, it would only work for people of moral character. The further society drifts from the Judeo-Christian ethics of the founders and/or ‘The Golden Rule’ or its equivalent that exists in most religions, the more easily it falls victim to the self-interested. Maybe I’m just the suspicious sort, but I do think that is one of the driving motivations behind current attempts by some to dumb down our society, push us toward pure democracy, restrict access to and/or rewrite history, denigrate capitalism, enforce political correctness and a dozen other changes slowly being introduce into our society. In a way though, it is interesting to watch what could be called the Second Fall of Rome. As has been said here before (by Severan): “… no civilization or culture seems capable of surviving prosperity.”

      • Joe: And recall “A Study of Civilizations” in which Toynbee notes that every great civilization is built around a religion, and as that religion fades so does the civilization.

      • TJB,
        It makes sense. Religion, and possibly fear of a king/despot, seem to be about the only way to contain the rather basic instincts of man. It only took about two weeks at MCRD Parris Island to prove how thin the veneer of civilization was on most humans. We even had a preacher in the platoon, but even he cracked up under the strain.

    • Geezer: “And then we would all ride into the sunset on unicorns.”

      Yeah, exactly. I stopped reading this article after that ridiculous claim.

    • I feel for Alan Carlin and many others. The force of fascist intimidation and career ruin was strong. I sat or helped organized various EPA Science Advisories Board Reviews…only to watch as the entire process became corrupted.

      The questions and issues were massaged, the reviewers selected for only a small subset of politically managed questions with expected answers….and input from outsiders extremely limited or rejected.

      We were told to be silent, shut up and sit in the back. Those of us who spoke up and raised issues…well, we are no longer there. The Pretender non-science non-policy sycophants were promoted and are still there.

      I turned to a senior manager one time about how my reports on air modeling and preparedness plans had been modified after I had them approved and submitted….supposedly hazmat stops at neighborhood lines and only affects social justice neighborhoods but does not travel into any other neighborhood…white neighborhoods
      He said he needed his retirement and was putting his daughter through college.

      We feel your pain.

  3. Unfortunately, the process by which the endangerment finding can be reversed is extremely arduous. So much so, in fact, that Scott Pruitt has said he won’t pursue it. He is a highly qualified attorney, and understands what a massive undertaking it would be, and that it’s probably a losing battle that will suck all the air out of the room on other matters in which the EPA overreach has to be addressed. If we get one or two more SCOTUS appointments and 100 or more decent placements on district and circuit courts it might make sense to try, but in the current environment it would take years and probably lose. The groundwork should be laid carefully and, assuming a Trump (or other climate rationalist) reelection, pursued when it has a realistic chance. Reversing Chevron is possibly more ‘doable’ and would be a great place to start weakening the endangerment finding, along with a host of other agency overreaches.

    • I can’t believe it is that hard to repeal the finding. If water vapor (the most important greenhouse gas by far) is not considered a pollutant then there is no basis to do the same for CO2.

    • Dudley- you make the BIG assumption that nothing else affects the temperature or is affected by the heat emitted. The earth has shown it is in a stable glaciation/glacial melting interval climate for some 2.6million years. No huge catastrophes such as volcano eruptions have disturbed it permanently. That indicates that overall the various factors that control the earth’s climate act to maintain an equilibrium. Mechanisms such as thunderstorms and hurricanes dump enormous amounts of heat energy at the top of the troposphere where more than half of it radiates out into space.

      Another point, made below, the sun delivers more energy to the earth in a day than mankind will ever produce from fossil fuels.

      The earth is not a closed system. It radiates the energy from the sun back into space. Otherwise we’d boil.

    • I think if the EPA took the right approach it wouldn’t be that hard to formulate a withdrawal of the finding,
      1) The data used does not meet federal regulations for scientific data. The government has standards for scientific data and the IPCC publication and any of the associated papers don’t meet the standards as “fit for purpose”, primarily because all of the publications assumed that there were human-caused changes in the climate, per the IPCC mandate that there were. The IPCC presents a correlation between human CO2 emissions but does not present any proof such as correct predictions or explanations of why CO2 is the only significant cause, or even consider that there might be other causes.

      2- Ethyl Corp. vs. EPA “In a series of published findings, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) concluded that automotive emissions from leaded gasoline presented a “significant risk of harm” to the public health.” The EPA showed that lead, a known toxin already on it’s list of toxic substances, was very likely to cause public health problems. The law specifically mentions “toxic substances” can be controlled. This is likely a very weak precedent to argue. CO2 has never appeared in the EPA’s list of toxins. Andy Pattullo’s comment is to the point- (Andy Pattullo October 15, 2017 at 8:53 am). Water is not considered a pollutant and is much more likely to cause harm than CO2.

      3- The predictions of future economic harm were based on various models to show possible harm but the models were never shown to be correct. Further abuse of the regulations on scientific data. The harms noted were all conjectures such as increased droughts or hurricanes that were never shown to have happened. The harms also included almost entirely harms that were mere speculation- such as increased tropical diseases- with no evidence of causality. The main harm was inflated economic predictions of potential costs of potential disasters and other changes using excessive discount rates.

      In other words the EPA did not follow its own rules, and government regulations, for due diligence.

      The logical court outcome would place a stay on implementing any regulations and require the EPA to re-do the endangerment finding using proper scientific and economic studies.

      After ten years or so of lawsuits ending at that point the EPA would face ~100 years of data gathering and trillions of dollars in costs to produce a finding.

  4. Paul, not “most life on earth”. All life on earth depends on, and is made of fundamental carbon based molecules.

    • That’s why we call it Organic Chemistry, a chemistry subdiscipline involving the scientific study of the structure, properties, and reactions of organic compounds and organic materials, i.e., matter in its various forms that contain carbon atoms, as Wikipedia put it…

    • Some carbon based compounds will kill you. Examples CO, CO2 without O2, or Carbon Tetracloride. Point: carbon compounds can support life OR destroy it. The reason for the concern about the amount of CO2 in the air we breath is that the molecule stores a great deal of heat energy. There are many compounds that store heat energy methane is another gas that does. The problem that we have is that these compounds prevent the heat stored from the sun for escaping from the earth. The earth has increased it warming in recent years! How is this known or you might ask are what data is there to support the increase in total earth heat?

      • CO2 doesn’t “store” energy. It traps photons of particular wavelengths and then transfers that energy to other molecules in the atmosphere.

      • Jerry, how can a rise in CO2 concentration of 0.005% of which only 1/3 is man-made cause a problem? Alleged scientists talk about a “tipping point” where the Earth cannot recover and all life becomes extinct. Why are we able to discuss this now when in the past there was 20x more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now (0.8%atmospheric concentration)? Why in the 1970’s was the globe cooling, when CO2 levels were rising? Why has there been no warming for 20 years apart from the predicted spike caused be El Nino?

      • Jerry, it’s true carbon compounds can destroy life. So can everything else. I think we can all agree that life forms require water: H2O. And, I think we can all agree that Oxygen, along with heat, and a fuel, is necessary to create fire which can destroy our homes and kill us. And, I think we can all agree that the reason the Hindenburg went ballooey was because it was filled with highly flammable hydrogen that lit up in the presence of oxygen (previously discussed). But, amazingly, when you put these two fire gods together in a molecule they somehow put fires out. I think it’s hard to disagree that water extinguishes most fires. So, what’s your point about carbon compounds and CO2?

      • Way off the mark. CO2 doesn’t act as a greenhouse gas by storing energy nor is it deadly “in the absence of oxygen”. An absence of oxygen is deadly in and of itself. People can tolerate levels of CO2 orders of magnitude higher than current atmospheric concentrations with no ill effects. We breath out air that is many orders of magnitude higher in CO2 than what be breath in. CO2 doesn’t trap heat in the atmosphere, It merely absorbs and re-releases infrared radiation in certain narrow bands which in theory can slow the release of heat to space (like a very weak insulating blanket). Whatever it’s effect on atmospheric temperature – it is doubtful anyone can prove they have detected the influence of the minor increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration that has occurred over the past century and which may or may not be primarily due to human activity.

    • In all due respect Gary Pearse there is indeed a form of life that is not carbon based. In fact there’s probably two forms: Vampires and Zombies. We see them every day (um, or night) in DC sucking or eating the life out of society.

  5. Driessen is a bit vehement, but does describe the situation with the CO2 endangerment finding accurately. Pruitt should get radical, in the original sense of “radical”, and refuse to accept the precedent of the finding.Starting out by agreeing to play by rules the opposition set up is a losing game.

  6. I dunno’ but for some inexplicable reason the first thought that comes to my mind right now is … Mueller.

  7. You missed an important aspect of the endangerment finding. EPA used Ethyl Corp v EPA as the legal basis. That is an old, early environmental law decision that gave EPA the power to make a regulation WITHOUT regard to the science. EPA admitted by using that legal basis for the Endangerment Finding that the science was irrelevant. Ethyl Corp v EPA granted EPA the power to make arbitrary & capricious regulations. And that means that not only must the CPP be withdrawn, not only must the Endangerment Finding be withdrawn, but the flawed legal basis must be overturned.

    • There is actually one very simple way to void the Endangerment finding, and that fact that everyone in the game knows about this, and that no one talks about it, tells you all you need to know about today’s political situation:

      The EPA basis for the Endangerment Finding is under the grant of authority given to them under the Clean Air Act by Congress, even though that act never mentioned CO2. The EPA has interpreted the act to mean that it included CO2, also, and Congress has said nothing.

      If Congress were to pass a bill to the effect that the Clean Air Act was never meant to cover CO2, and the President were to sign it, then the Endangerment Finding would collapse overnight.

      • Good luck getting Congress to do something about it. The Republicans really aren’t any different than the Democrats when it comes to legislation. It seems to me, all they really fight about is who gets credit for what.

  8. Tag: Education, Law, Insanity and Musical Arts.

    Bill and Chelsea were in Boston at Northeastern university last night. Chelsea fled reporters when asked about Weinstein.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/10/14/chelsea-

    Meanwhile, at the same time, Hillary was in Wales having a law school named…after her.
    Hillary Clinton has received an honorary doctorate from Swansea University during a visit to the city.
    The former US secretary of state and 2016 American presidential candidate was presented with the award during a ceremony at Swansea University’s Bay Campus.
    She said the honour “meant the world to her”.
    The university’s College of Law was also renamed the Hillary Rodham Clinton School of Law.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-41611316

    —-

    This gives higher education a really bad name.

    • john,

      Had I known . . . . . . . . . .
      I would have gone down to Swansea for the ex-Secretary of State, and failed presidential candidate, with a couple of hand-lettered signs.
      Something like –

      “The votes in the Electoral College count”
      and
      “Harvey – Who? Hillary, talk to us!”

      Doubtless there would be free-speech-denying Warmunists.
      Likely I would have got a fat lip or a black eye – hey ‘free speech is free as long as you parrot our memes’.

      Auto – kind of glad I didn’t know.
      Retaliation is possible, too, and I would not in any way wish little leftie parasites to be in the way of a 280 pound ex-bouncer.

      So, the Queen’s Peace undisturbed.

      This is a hash of what might have been – but certainly didn’t happen,

      And I would much rather Hillary – yeah, HRC herself! – came here than Al Gore, as it is well known that even a quarter of an inch [6 mm] of snow fouls up transportation in the UK for a thousand miles, or more, around.
      So – No Al Gore Effect here – thank you!

  9. if some entity where charged under carbon endangerment, why not name every other entity in America as co-defendants? including cows (while technically not CO2 emitters). If CO2 endangers the climate, sure coal emits more per ton or MW generated than oil or natural gas, but these other sources still emits CO2,

    • Because this has nothing to do with the actual effect of CO2 and has everything to do with the ability to leverage a fabricated fear to justify the redistribution of wealth under the guise of climate reparations. Coal is just a convenient scapegoat because its prior history of burning dirty and causing real pollution is easily conflated with with the imagined effects of CO2.

      • As most of the congress is Republican since long ago, all the money expended on this climate fraud, and all the money market to help Solar Panels, windmill generators and to help electric cars. Then, the conspiracy of climate catastrophe is bipartisan to say the least. If the fossil fuels get exhausted, common people would have to say good bye to electricity and to car travel; even to central heating and well, I am contemplating the collapse of this civilization. We would solve the problem of feeding with cannibalism.
        The oil made this wonderful civilization and the exhaustion of oil would crash it. You can see the theory
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_theory
        The Olduvai theory states that industrial civilization (as defined by per capita energy production) will have a lifetime of less than or equal to 100 years (1930–2030). The theory provides a quantitative basis of the transient-pulse-theory of modern civilization. The name is a reference to the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania.

      • “the conspiracy of climate catastrophe is bipartisan”

        Yes, mostly because the Republicans were mostly gutless as it was pushed down their throats for the last 8 years amid all the false demonization of carbon emissions.

        “exhaustion of oil would crash it”

        True, but long before then, market forces will drive us towards alternatives which will inevitable be nuclear of some sort. A lot can happen in the century or so before we eventually run out.

        I don’t doubt that the VERY long term future is all electric, but that electricity will not be from strictly renewable sources since reliability, availability and cost are also important.

        We don’t need to be concerned about a ‘renewable only’ future until we run out elements that can be fused to release energy and by then, we won’t be limited to terrestrial sources.

        As we move from a economy where the bulk of the cost between raw materials and finished products is labor to one where it’s the energy running machines, there will be massive pressure on reducing the cost of that energy. That pressure is also properly applied to the renewable industry to push them towards more cost effective solutions. This is far more effective than subsidies which remove the incentives to become more cost competitive.

      • 6 years is long ago leopoldo????
        Regardless, since the programs were in place and Obama was set to veto anything he didn’t like, just what was a Republican congress to do?

  10. Other than eliminating the EPA, perhaps WWS’s suggestion that congress could pass a bill to the effect that the Clean Air Act was never meant to include co2 would solve the problem — How can WUWT readers help make this happen?

  11. I will be SO glad when Mother Nature takes up the slack and we get hit by the snolwine reaching further south and not melting back.

    It can happen in our lifetime. All sorts of things are underway, you know. The people who get hit the hardest now sit in enclosed offices, staring at computer screens and never going outside unless they have to.

  12. Actually, this is analogous to something much more shocking — particularly for the prosecution.

    After they’ve gained a murder conviction, the victim shows up alive.

    • In this case the victim has shown up alive, but the murder conviction has been left to stand because it is “too hard” to reverse the court’s decision.

      After all, the evidence clearly shows the defendant did the crime, so finding the victim alive is irrelevant. Most likely the defendant will be found dead in their cell from suicide, saving a whole lot of people a whole lot of trouble.

  13. In relation to an IPPC logo when comparing prediction and reality they should change it to: “Oh Bugger”

  14. Tom Judd,
    “Hindenburg went ballooey was because it was filled with highly flammable hydrogen that lit up in the presence of oxygen”

    It wasn’t the Hydrogen, which burns rapidly and invisibly, but the Doping on the fabric which ,by accident of admixture, became a nearly explosive compound, that combusted near a H2 vent and obliterated the Airship.

  15. Paul,
    excellent post but I think you misspelled the Headline it should read “Crooked Persecutors”

  16. If the burning of fossil fuels is so bad then governments world wide should ban all goods and services that make use of fossil fuels but they have not done that yet. All forms of hydrocarbon based life are CO2 emitters and should be held responsible for their actions. I admit that I am one of those responsible. From conception my body has been taking up O2 which it uses to burn hydro carbons to produce mostly CO2, H2O and the energy that my body uses to survive. I freely admit that I am phycically adicted to this problem. I have been told by my doctor that If I stop taking up O2 by brething, I could die.

  17. Great article Mr Driessen. I always enjoy reading your no-nonsense put-downs of this, the biggest scientific fr@ud in history.

  18. Very much a fake news….considering no creditable evidence has been supplied to support the authors assertion. All the effort to discredit another person’s genuine work …such farce…wasted talent…why not write something that helps bring unity….

  19. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do something: vote for career politicians.

  20. Oh how I wish it was Obama but we have it here in the UK , across the channel in the EU the other side of the World in Australia to name a few.

  21. The famous statement of Burke on the consequence of good men doing nothing comes in a suspiciously large number of variants. See the Wikipedia entry on Edmund Burke.

  22. Regarding the EPA endangerment finding, Australia unlike the US has a National Pollutant Inventory listing some 93 toxic substances.
    Carbon and Carbon Dioxide are not listed pollutants.
    The NPI dates from 1995-1996.
    It appears that the issue of CO2 as a potential pollutant was put in the “ too hard basket” for later consideration as the greenhouse effect was then controversial.
    In November 2016 a review of the NPI was announced for 2017.It is ongoing.
    It is of obvious concern that CO2 may be added to the NPI on a cast of votes by activists.
    Importantly climate scientists not supportive of CAGW need to be recruited to contest any listing of CO2 as a pollutant in Australia for all the reasons outlined here.
    The international significance of such a fight are obvious.
    Details are available at npi.gov.au
    Help needed, Anthony and Eric!

  23. Kangaroo Courts are pretty much how everything has been being done on the Progressive side – which is one reason I, as an independent, turned my back on the movement.
    While researching the Climate Change fraud, I discovered the tail of the dragon, and saw what it was attached to.

Comments are closed.