New EPA Plan to Review the Obama Climate Endangerment Finding

Scott Pruitt
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. By Eric Vance, Photographer, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Public Domain, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

E&E News claims that EPA administrator Scott Pruitt and White House aides have devised a new plan to review the Obama Era Climate Endangerment finding.

Pruitt’s climate clash was declared dead. There’s a Plan B

Robin Bravender, E&E News reporter

Climatewire: Wednesday, March 14, 2018

In December, top aides to the president huddled in the White House with some of Scott Pruitt’s closest staffers.

The message conveyed by the White House: The EPA administrator’s idea to hold a public debate on mainstream climate science wasn’t going to happen, according to a person who attended the meeting.

So did the White House kill Pruitt’s red team idea for good? Not exactly, according to sources familiar with the meeting.

While White House aides put the brakes on Pruitt’s plan, they also suggested an alternative, according to the person in the meeting.

Option B: Take public comments on petitions asking EPA to revisit the Obama administration’s endangerment finding, the agency’s underlying authority to regulate greenhouse gases in cars, power plants and other sources. That would allow EPA to determine “where the arguments are supporting and rejecting the science,” said the person at the meeting.

“We would be happy if the EPA took our petition and the other petitions for reopening or reconsidering the endangerment finding and if they decided to consider those petitions in a public way,” said Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Ebell led Trump’s EPA transition team.

“Essentially, a red team could be a part of that process, a red team analysis of current climate science could be part of that process, and that would then allow them to make a better-informed decision about whether reopening the endangerment finding is a good idea or not,” Ebell added.

Read more (paywalled):

The climate alarmist community were bitterly opposed to the red team / blue team idea – Michael Mann labelled the idea as un-American.

“They’re looking to use taxpayer funds to run a pro-fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign aimed at confusing the public and policymakers over what is potentially the greatest threat we face as a civilization,” Mann said. “It is frankly unAmerican.”

Read more:

No doubt they will embrace the new, more open process.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 20, 2018 1:31 am

Obama’s climate legacy is a victim of his own success as world leader, unfortunately.
In defiance of the science, he turned back the rising of the oceans—a phenomenon called Ocean Obamification, which scientists are only beginning to explain—and began the very healing process the scientists predicted/projected wouldn’t happen.
All the comments below ignore this reality in their partisan bias, and are invalid.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 20, 2018 4:56 am

comment image

Pat Frank
Reply to  David Middleton
March 20, 2018 9:31 am

It’s a merkel!
I love that picture! 🙂

Reply to  David Middleton
March 20, 2018 10:16 am

That picture of O’Bummer,
within the “Obama Slows the
Rise of the Oceans” chart,
is better than the official portrait
with all those leaves.

Bryan A
Reply to  David Middleton
March 20, 2018 11:41 am

Actually the slope line back to 2008 could be extended back to 2005, well before Obama and still maintain the same “slowdown”

Reply to  Bryan A
March 20, 2018 12:16 pm

Not according to Obama… 😉

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 20, 2018 5:32 am


Michael Kelly
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 20, 2018 12:35 pm

“All the comments below ignore this reality in their partisan bias, and are invalid.”
Preemptive Obamas interruptus.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 20, 2018 12:50 pm

Well, yeah, Brad, he did turn back the rising oceans but he didn’t stop the climate from changing or ice melting somewhere or Polar Bears doing something someplace or… well, the list is too long to post here.

Reply to  JohnWho
March 20, 2018 4:35 pm

Not so sure about that, the sicial climate of the planet has undergone negative changes. Just as he promised hopeless change.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 20, 2018 1:35 pm

Obama’s climate legacy is a victim of his own success as world leader, unfortunately.

Sure, Brad. Bowing to a Saudi king and bending the rest of us over for everyone else makes him about as successful a world leader as Britain’s Neville Chamberlain. “Peace in our time!”

Reply to  Gunga Din
March 20, 2018 11:44 pm

Neville Chamberlain has been maligned over this. In 1938 we could not possibly have fought Germany and won. He gave us a year’s grace to re-arm and get our defence strategy in order. I believe the coastal chain of radar stations were basically made operational during this period.
Even so it was a very close thing. Read one of the “What ifs” speculating what would have happened had Hitler not given orders that the British army should not be annihilated at Dunkirk. We lost a lot of equipment, but most of the army survived – to fight another day.
He and his party can be properly blamed for ignoring what was going on between 1933 and 1937, and should be, but not for 1938 on. Remember even in 1940 there was still a strong push for peace with Germany at any cost, especially after the fall of France.

Reply to  Gunga Din
March 21, 2018 2:39 pm

Thanks, I totally agree.
That the UK was in a pickle in 1938 was due to previous leadership and Governments.
Chamberlain, as you write, bought a year, which – just, thanks to The Few, and many many others – proved enough.
Will we in the UK later look back on 2000 to date as 1933-1937, which we squeaked through, or as a much darker period, when we ran up unsustainable debt (Thanks, Gordon) then slashed defences ‘because’ of the debt (Thanks, Mr. Cameron), then failed to get any deal at all from the EUSSR (Ok, Cameron didn’t try, but he would not have got much change from the Commissars (spelling?), anyway) – and now appear to have Russians ranging across England, killing across the home counties and beyond.
I hope the outcome is better than I fear.
Auto – feeling pessimistic (look at the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition – yes, that is Mr Corbyn’s official Title, which may be a surprise to some!)

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 21, 2018 1:47 am

all that hot air got hidden in the deep oceans

March 20, 2018 1:48 am

Better start on a Plan C. Then D. Then….
Until finally sanity prevails and nothing changes, because the EPA can ignore all the pseudo-science and the real science can continue to inform government policies.
Shame about all the delaying tactics but self-styled skeptics do love to obfuscate and to feel as if someone (even if only their own limited audience) is listening to them.

Reply to  JMurphy
March 20, 2018 5:02 am

“Real science” has never informed the EPA.

Reply to  David Middleton
March 20, 2018 9:16 am

This seams like a good opportunity to re-visit the Carlin Report (assuming it was visited the first time). Carlin worked for EPA and would be a good example of real scientific thinking on the subject.

Reply to  David Middleton
March 20, 2018 10:47 am

This is psychological projection at its finest. It’s the self-important, smug, head-up-their-arse radical leftists that pretend any pragmatic human on this planet is concerned about anthropogenic climate change. Ironically, it’s actually government corruption that people are most concerned about right now in this nation and the left is hammering that concern home. Useful idiots continue to believe that ideological boisterous government bureaucrats dictate the difference between science and pseudoscience, but that only worked so long for the Soviets, and it will have an even shorter lifespan in this more enlightened nation.

Reply to  David Middleton
March 20, 2018 11:39 am

Hear hear!

Bryan A
Reply to  David Middleton
March 20, 2018 11:50 am

Talk about obfuscation,

“They’re looking to use taxpayer funds to run a pro-fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign aimed at confusing the public and policymakers over what is potentially the greatest threat we face as a civilization,” Mann said. “It is frankly unAmerican.”

It is amazing how the Mann can turn a potential positive action into something it isn’t then manage to blame the world’s primary energy source.
The only thing he missed was the obvious tie in to the Koch Brothers funded Heartland.
Dr. Mann…news flash…it isn’t pro fossil fuels it’s pro affordable and reliable energy…something that “renewables” currently aren’t

Reply to  JMurphy
March 20, 2018 5:21 am

The EPA has been ignoring “real science” since the formation of the agency…

It was, of course, then-Environmental Protection Agency administrator William Ruckelshaus who actually banned DDT after ignoring an EPA administrative law judge’s ruling that there was no evidence indicating that DDT posed any sort of threat to human health or the environment. Ruckleshaus never attended any of the agency’s hearings on DDT. He didn’t read the hearing transcripts and refused to explain his decision.
None of this is surprising given that, in a May 22, 1971, speech before the Wisconsin Audubon Society, Ruckleshaus said that EPA procedures had been streamlined so that DDT could be banned. Ruckleshaus was also a member of — and wrote fundraising letters for — the EDF.

Reply to  David Middleton
March 20, 2018 5:24 am

First thing out of the box, newly minted EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus — a respected attorney and excellent manager — faced a world-changing decision: whether to ban DDT, the miracle insect killer that wiped out malaria in America.
Ruckelshaus inherited authority over pesticides from the Agriculture Department, so the fledgling EPA’s first order of business was the DDT issue.
EPA Administrative Law Judge Edmund Sweeney held testimony hearings for seven months, concluding that DDT “does not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife,” “is not a carcinogenic hazard to man” and that “there is a present need for the essential uses of DDT.”
Ruckelshaus did not attend a single hearing or read Sweeney’s report, but he clearly heard from readers of Rachel Carson’s anti-pesticide mind-killer Silent Spring, from the old-line bird-protecting National Audubon Society and the new (1967) Environmental Defense Fund.
Ruckelshaus was a member of Audubon and later of the Environmental Defense Fund. He overruled Sweeney’s decision and issued the ban, asserting that DDT was a “potential human carcinogen,” thus beginning EPA’s rogue disregard of court decisions — empire-building on the march.
A few years later, I had the opportunity to ask Ruckelshaus face-to-face about his decision: Was it political? He told me, “Yes, it was completely political. It was the right thing to do.”
Millions of Third World victims of malaria would disagree if the Republican DDT ban hadn’t killed them.

Reply to  David Middleton
March 20, 2018 8:34 am

This story is one of the greatest tragedies of our time! I wish more people understood the implications of letting unelected bureaucrats decide their fates. Truly, few things rouse my ire more than the despicable actions of these petty, power-grubbing wretches.

Reply to  David Middleton
March 20, 2018 11:45 am

In the period for public comment on the Endangerment Finding, I submitted a comment pointing out that the CAGW conjecture was non-falsifiable thus unscientific. After finding for the conjecture the EPA published a document in which it claimed to have addressed every public comment. As this document had not addressed my comment, I wrote to the EPA administrator to inform her of the EPA’s error. She did failed to respond to my letter.

Reply to  David Middleton
March 20, 2018 1:15 pm

Enough of us in the UK eventually sat up and took notice of the Brussels unelected bureaucrats making decisions determining our fate and said enough is enough. Thereby Brexit began, thankfully, however mishandled it has been so far by Mrs. May.

Gunga Din
Reply to  David Middleton
March 20, 2018 1:45 pm

Ignoring real science and common sense.
I live in the midwest. They used to require us to test the water for an herbicide that was only used on pineapples in Hawaii!
(I might be wrong, but I think it was Reagan’s or Bush Sr’s EPA that ended that requirement.)

Reply to  JMurphy
March 20, 2018 6:45 am

What real science are you talking about?
Is it science to assume that if temperatures go up while CO2 is rising, that CO2 must be the cause of all of it? What about when CO2 goes up and temperatures don’t go up, or even fall?
Is it science to assume that the output of models trumps real world data?

Reply to  JMurphy
March 20, 2018 8:44 am

“JMurphy March 20, 2018 at 1:48 am
Better start on a Plan C. Then D. Then….
Until finally sanity prevails and nothing changes, because the EPA can ignore all the pseudo-science and the real science can continue to inform government policies.
Shame about all the delaying tactics but self-styled skeptics do love to obfuscate and to feel as if someone (even if only their own limited audience) is listening to them.”

All emoting, abjuring all evidence and rational thought.

feel as if someone (even if only their own limited audience) is listening to them

Glad you left yourself a spot as audience, also known as peanut gallery. i.e. all noise, no substance.

Reply to  JMurphy
March 20, 2018 10:37 am

Now they can weigh the speculative social cost of carbon against the de facto social benefit of carbon.

March 20, 2018 1:59 am

See also “EXCLUSIVE: Scott Pruitt Will End EPA’s Use Of ‘Secret Science’ To Justify Regulations”.
H/t the GWPF.

john karajas
March 20, 2018 2:22 am

I hope that this reevaluation will include studying the work of the late Bob Carter who brilliantly skewered all the misrepresentations of IPCC-aligned workers.

March 20, 2018 2:36 am

Seems to me that Jay Lehr, Christopher Monckton, et al, are already running a first-class Red Team exercise for the tech-savvy Texas Judge in the Exxon-Mobil case.

March 20, 2018 2:43 am

“Delusion” is knowing things that aren’t really true.

Reply to  thomasjk
March 20, 2018 10:56 am

This quote sums up the useful idiots:
“I like to say that I practice militant mysticism. I’m really absolutely sure of some things that I don’t quite know.” — Rob Bell

Scottish Sceptic
March 20, 2018 2:54 am

Even if you got the most ardent pro and anti academics you could find – they will both still agree that academia are the right people to be given the money to research & forecast the climate. And for example, they will argue endless about how to adjust the temperature sensors and whether the temperature is accurate – but only if you gave the job to an engineer – will you get temperatures that don’t need adjusting.

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
March 20, 2018 3:21 am

The EPA chose to justify their regulations using their own climate model runs. This model was fed emissions (concentrations) which led to forcings a bit higher than the IPCC RCP8.5 pathway. I believe there’s sufficient information in the literature to show the forcing is incredibly difficult to achieve because we lack the fossil fuels to drive the needed concentrations. The EPA justifies their actions by using this super high forcing case to create a nightmarish future. This is what the endangerment finding is built upon.
For those who want to argue we have eternal fossil fuel reserves, can mine methane clathrates, that oil comes from the center of the earth, or other such funny ideas, my point will fall on deaf ears. But I’m hoping somewhere there’s a person who understands the EPA has very good reasons to repeat the exercise, and merely using a more reasonable emissions profile will yield very different results. Coupling this with a variable climate sensitivity set of parameters (say ECS ranging from 1.5 to 3 degrees C) yields a much more reasonable and solid set of conclusions.

Reply to  fernandoleanme
March 20, 2018 4:50 am

It was indeed just a few days ago that WUWT published a post that showed that the RCP8.5 scenario was untenable:
To quote from the conclusions:
-“By comparing the contribution of oil, coal, and natural gas (the greenhouse gas sources) between RCP8.5 and what is likely to happen, we can estimate the total downwelling radiation change: it drops from 8.5 watts to roughly 5.1. (Recognizing there is a lot of fine print—this is certainly a ball-park number.)
It is the nature of climate models to scale global warming with percentage changes in emissions; i.e. a quadrupling of emissions has almost exactly the effect of doubling prospective warming over that forecast from an initial doubling of the concentration. Reducing emissions by 40%, which is the difference between Rihai’s RCP8.5 and Ritchie’s modification, similarly reduces total warming.
There’s the further problem of model overprediction of warming that we recently documented in our public comments on the upcoming Fourth National Assessment of Climate Change. Generally speaking, we find the data-based sensitivity of temperature to be about 56% of the average of the 105 climate models in the UN’s most (2013) science summary.”-

Reply to  fernandoleanme
March 20, 2018 5:07 am

We have ample fossil fuel resources to achieve RCP8.5… we just can’t produce and burn those resources fast enough to catch up to RCP8.5.
Fossil fuel consumption is tracking closer to RCP6.0 and the “climate” is warming a bit slower than RCP4.5 (a strong mitigation scenario).

Reply to  fernandoleanme
March 20, 2018 9:59 am

The models were verified
by a peer review,
done by other models.
No human is bright enough
to peer review computer models !
Since all the models
have similar results,
there is a 97% consensus.
The only exception
is the Russian Model,
that is obviously colluding
with Trump on climate change,
so ignore it.
The other models (the 97%)
say the same thing,
so must be right.
You just don’t understand
how modern climate science works!
A 97% model consensus is all you need !
Seriously now,
there is no evidence to support
a wild guess of the
“Transient Climate Sensitivity”
over +1.0 degrees C.
(and that would be the worst case with
all warming during weather satellite era
blamed on CO2 … with no proof of that)
… so the IPCCs 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C.
unchanged since 1979,
is just a wild guess,
used to scare people,
… and justify government
spending on climate change
(government bureaucrats
with science degrees
job security!).
Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity
is a concept that makes
no sense to me,
because our planet has never been
in thermodynamic equilibrium,
and I see no reason to expect that
it ever would be.
Maybe I have interpreted it wrong?
My climate blog
Common sense
— not wild guess climate predictions

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
March 20, 2018 6:07 am

Maybe you don’t realize how top heavy the advocacy plan was to misuse asthma public health as a driving excuse for planetary regulation and taxation.

March 20, 2018 3:39 am

Note how the report starts out with sinister overtones and hints of conspiracy, about staffers “huddling in the White House” (they seem to have left out the phrase “behind closed doors”) and the hint that they were all smoking big cigars.
The “conspiracy” over climate had already occurred years ago in another administration which ramrodded through a court ruling that the stuff we breath out of our mouths and which is essential for life on Earth is now considered a poisonous gas, so that they could make whatever regulations about it they want and continue their war on fossil fuels.
All the current EPA needs is an excuse to review that court finding and layout what a sham it was.

March 20, 2018 4:35 am

More CO2 in the atmosphere increases crop yields, reduces water requirements, and probably reduces the fuel required per ton of crop.
We need a study to determine if enhanced CO2 provides environmental and economic benefits that outweigh any potential problems due to global warming. That new data would justify re-opening the endangerment ruling.

Reply to  commieBob
March 20, 2018 10:06 am

you #@$&^$ commie, Bob:
There is no evidence that the mild
global warming since 1880, mainly
at night in the northern latitudes,
has caused ANY HARM TO ANYONE.
We don’t need no stinkin’ studies:
— adding CO2 to the air
is beneficial in many ways,
and harmful in no ways.
There are no potential problems
from global warming, except those
that were invented out of thin air by the
global warmunists — your comrades!
The 137 years
since 1880, have been
the most productive,
most prosperous, and
most healthy (lifespan),
137-year period,
since humans
have existed
on this planet.

Johnny Cuyana
March 20, 2018 4:53 am

I am one of those who, as an American, identify our foundational national qualities from our foundational national documents: [1] our Declaration of Independence … which is the statement of “why” we are a nation; and, [b] our Constitution … which is the statement of “how” we are to be a nation.
Within the Constitution, it is implicit in the extreme that “checks and balances” — competition, free, open and fair — is one of the key qualities of foundational Americanism.
For someone like Mann to state otherwise tells one much more about who he is as a person — a globalist, command-and-control, Alinskyite, IMO — than it does anything about the POTUS Trump administration and our national qualities.

Reply to  Johnny Cuyana
March 20, 2018 6:02 am

Global warming alarmism is the new “false front” for pro-Russian leftists, who were discredited after the fall of the Soviet Union circa 1990.
Read Dr. Patrick Moore’s essay, “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement”, written in 1994, especially “The Rise of Eco-Extremism”. Moore describes the takeover of the green movement after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
The objective of these pro-Russian groups is to weaken the energy-security of the West, and they have been particularly successful in Europe including the UK, now dependent on imported Russian natural gas.
The greens’ Russian-funded efforts to delay and ban fracking of petroleum-rich shales have caused great harm in Britain and continental Europe , and have hampered growth in Canada and the USA. They have also hamstrung energy development in Canada through their deceitful anti-pipeline campaigns.
By driving up the cost of energy and causing instability in electrical grids they have increased winter mortality and cost lives.
Many of their “green” programs such as clear-cutting of tropical rainforests to grow biofuels, draining the Ogallala aquifer to grow corn for fuel ethanol, clear-cutting eastern US forests to provide wood pellets for British power plants, erecting huge wind power towers to slice up birds and bats, etc. are ALL anti-environmental.
These so-called “greens” are actually pro-Russian traitors – criminals who belong in jail.
Regards, Allan

March 20, 2018 7:32 am

ergo: “The Greens are the new Reds”

March 20, 2018 1:23 pm

It’s why they are called watermelons.
Gums sends…

Reply to  Johnny Cuyana
March 20, 2018 7:11 am

Dr Mann continues to issue quotes without any logical basis.

“They’re looking to use taxpayer funds to run a pro-fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign….

could just as rationally be expressed against the present “Consensus” alarmist activities:
“They’re looking to use taxpayer funds to run a renewable energy industry disinformation campaign…..”

paul courtney
Reply to  George Daddis
March 20, 2018 9:08 am

George: You have captured Mann’s projected ideation quite nicely. IMO we don’t need a red team of scientists to report on the science, we need an IT guy who can root through emails and texts, because (much like Peter Strozk and his paramour) it would likely expose that when these folks communicate inside the bubble of fellow cultists, there’s plenty of evidence of the fraud they perpetrated to arrange the endangerment finding. I’m sure the folks at the EPA who spent the first few weeks of Jan. ’17 (supposedly) backing up the climate data (but in fact were deleting and bleach biting a lot of emails) could not have destroyed all of it. It’s even harder than you think, because Obama EPA officials can’t remember all the different email accounts they created. Shoulda put it all on one server, huh?

March 20, 2018 5:02 am

I guess empirical science really does matter. BTW what happened to the prediction from the esteem AGW scientist to the US congress in 1988 about rising levels of our oceans? Hint, 30 years later, Zero evidence indicating ANY change from the previous trend. i.e. NO HUMAN Forcing?
Can we go after those “scientists” for lying to congress?

Dr. Strangelove
March 20, 2018 5:35 am

Mr. Pruitt, organize the Red Team
Richard Lindzen
John Christy
Roy Spencer
Carl Wunsch
Judith Curry
Roger Pielke Sr.
Patrick Michaels
Sherwood Idso
Patrick Moore
Ian Clark
Don Easterbrook
Christopher Scotese
Sallie Baliunas
Hendrik Svensmark
Nir Shaviv

Lance Wallace
Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
March 20, 2018 8:02 am

Add Theory (or computer modeling):
Nic Lewis
Steve McIntyre
the people in Russia responsible for the Russian CMIP5 model, the only one tracking actual temperatures

Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
March 20, 2018 10:12 am

Won’t work Strangeglove:
The blue team will say
CO2 will end all life on earth
The red team will say that’s nonsense.
The blue team will say we must act
now — assume we are right — or
it will be too late to act.
Result: The usual stalemate.
Better advice for Pruit:.
Build new EPA facility in northern Alaska.
Send blue team and their bench players there
to study global warming “up close”,
until they retire.
Ignore eMails and phone calls from them!

Bruce Cobb
March 20, 2018 5:42 am

They don’t come any more un-American than Mikey Mann and his lying Warmunist brethren. Hilarious how quick they are to fall back on the logical fallacies (and lies) of “Peer-Reviewed Science” and the “97% Consensus”. Anything to keep their CAGW gravy train trundling along for just a little longer.

Arno Arrak
March 20, 2018 5:49 am

The endangerment finding should be declared null and void on the grounds that carbon dioxide does not and never has influenced global air temperature. To convince yourself of this fact all you need to do is to look at a global air temperature record such as HadCrut3 with comprehension. In HadCRUTt3, which is reproduced as figure 23 in “What Warming” we see both a century’s worth of atmospheric carbon dioxide values and parallel global temperature values. Carbon dioxide graph there is smooth and has a sight upward curvature due to constant addition of CO2 from anthropogenic sources. If it is true that global air temperature is controlled by atmospheric carbon dioxide through its greenhouse effect then global air temperature must follow any changes in global carbon dioxide values. Again, it simply does not. What we observe is an up and down wiggle that changes the atmospheric warming or cooling in approximately thirty year intervals while carbon dioxide at the same time is entirely unmoved by it. As an example, lets take the thirty year atmospheric warming That took place from 1910 to 1940, Prior to 1910 global temperature was cooling but in 1910 that downtrend became an uptrend. If this was caused by the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide there should have been an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide at that point but there was none. The carbon dioxide curve before and after 1910 is entirely smooth. Likewise, cessation of warming in 1940 was followed by cooling that did not bottom out until 1950, If that was caused by carbon dioxide the carbon dioxide curve must show a reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide after 1940 but it does not. Similar observations apply to the rest of the twentieth century and before. The only conclusion we can come to is that whatever caused the temperature variations of the past century and before could not possibly be the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. Hence, to establish the endangerment finding upon the existence of the greenhouse effect is false science. I do not deny warming but I strenuously object to the false explanation of it by the propaganda machine paid for with public mpnies.

Reply to  Arno Arrak
March 20, 2018 8:12 am

That is the “attribution monster” that no climate scientist has explained away.

Reply to  Arno Arrak
March 20, 2018 10:22 am

Overturning the endangerment finding is the Holy Grail of EPA reform. Overturning the Co2 finding liberates the SCOTUS from making business-crushing, basic human quality of living crushing decisions.

Reply to  Arno Arrak
March 20, 2018 11:33 pm

On the other hand, you can surmise that the temperature graph since whenever is composed of two sources, a steady increase due to the steady increase of carbon dioxide, plus a sine wave of approximately 70 year period, with amplitude greater than the average increase due to carbon dioxide in any 30 year period.
This I think meets the essential criteria of what is actually measured. This is a plausible hypothesis, which may be falsified if the appropriate texts can be devised.
It does indicate that while the period 1980 to 2010 is used to estimate the sensitivity of temperature to changes in carbon dioxide, there is a strong likelihood that this sensitivity is too great because it adds the natural sine wave increase to the CO2 increase. Since in the ‘off’ periods temperature fell, ie, the sine wave drop in temperature outweighed the CO2 increase, there is a strong assumption that the sensitivity of CO2 is considerably less than half of the current estimates.
My suggestion for what it is worth – which may be nothing, or may be important. Why is there a sine wave variation? I have no idea – perhaps astronomical? Or just perhaps a natural swing after a major increase a few thousand years ago. I leave this to the experts.

March 20, 2018 6:02 am

It’s about time. EPA is but one of many agencies deeply corrupted and misdirected by Obama. I realize it’s going to take years to disinfect them all but EPA can set the tone with uncovering some of the more obvious rocks and misdeeds.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 20, 2018 7:36 am

And, because it is junk science (Fake, to quote DJT) it will not stand the deliberate exposure to sunlight and reason.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 20, 2018 10:23 am

Yep … our energy costs needed to … “necessarily rise”. Thanks Obama! [pruned]!

michael hart
March 20, 2018 6:37 am

As others point out, the original ruling was political and not based on validated science, so it seems reasonable to me that it may only be reversed in a political manner.
Read that as you will. I recall the end-game of the movie Mississippi Burning.

Reply to  michael hart
March 20, 2018 7:07 am

Those willing to see how the “political” EPA did its bidness that first year of the regime should see this:
The climate change section of the press release is interesting. And then see the denial of petitions to not issue an “endangerment” ruling.
I am always amazed that one of the Obama supporters on the Court stated that she was uncomfortable with the Court ruling on a matter of science. I am wiling to bet she was thinking of the infamous Scopes trial, ya think?
The previous administration put up a weak defense of the warminista petition and the warmists won the day. No one thot the Supremes would even consider the case, and then rule in favor of the warmists. SO two years later we have the warmists in charge of EPA and voila!!
Gums sends…

Snarling Dolphin
March 20, 2018 6:43 am

Change “pro” to “anti” in Mann’s quote and it provides a concise summary of exactly what’s happened to date in establishing this cornerstone of statism.

March 20, 2018 6:59 am

Dr. Stangelove
On your Geology team, I would include Ian Plimer. Presents the story clearly and with wit.

March 20, 2018 7:06 am

I would have thought that the phrase “UnAmerican” would likely apply to those who actively work to deny citizens access to life-supporting, affordable, reliable, sustainable energy.

Reply to  Tim
March 20, 2018 7:10 am

Let’s change that accusation to “unMannican”, ya think?
Gums sends..

March 20, 2018 7:42 am

Will these policies apply do the CDC and its promotion of prevention drugs?

March 20, 2018 8:17 am

Nuccitelli says that if the Red Team “makes their case”, they should be ignored. And the 97% consensus is right.
John Kelly shut down Pruitt’s climate deuial ‘red team,’ but they have a Plan B
Let fossil fuel-funded think tanks make their case, then ignore it

Bill Powers
March 20, 2018 9:02 am

“They’re looking to use taxpayer funds to run a pro-fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign aimed at confusing the public and policymakers over what is potentially the greatest threat we face as a civilization,” Mann said. “It is frankly unAmerican.”
Don’t you love diversionary tactics and how propagandists project their wrongs onto others. Here in lies the misdirection in the magic trick and the key code. Change the Topic to climate alarmism and simple alter Mann’s statement by changing fossil fuel industry to Centralize Totalitarian Government (extrapolated as massive funding to support junk science indoctrination of the “dumbed down” public school masses). Voila. Trick exposed.

March 20, 2018 9:13 am

I have to agree with Mikee Mann, he is un-American.
A full review of EVERYTHING EPA has done during its entire existence is needed, and all “regulations” created by EPA need to be run through Congress, as laws are supposed to be, and any that don’t meet the legal criteria for a law need to be permanently removed. Every individual involved in EPA’s usurpation of authority must be prosecuted and punished, all the way back to its founding.

Gunga Din
Reply to  2hotel9
March 20, 2018 2:15 pm

A bureaucracy that is part of the Executive Branch should not have the authority to make a regulation that, in effect, is a law. Congress may have abdicated its responsibility by passing a law that gives bureaucracies such authority to the Executive Branch but the Constitution does not.
Giving a bureaucracy such authority leads to a totalitarian rule no matter the label the form of Government wears.

Reply to  Gunga Din
March 20, 2018 6:00 pm

And yet they do. People have lost everything they own and are in prison over EPA “laws”, not major, life saving types of things, over pickeninniny b*llsh*t. It is long past time for this crap to end and those responsible to be punished.

March 20, 2018 10:14 am

While he’s at it he should make the EPA define “species” and “sub-species” that they use only as vague words today for political means to an end

Joel O'Bryan
March 20, 2018 10:43 am

“December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.”
“December 7, 2009—a date which will live in ignominy—the People of the United States of America were suddenly and deliberately lied to by the administration of Barack Obama on behalf of the Russian-supported GreenBlob.”

Jim Heath
March 20, 2018 11:35 am

I want to vote communist but I can’t fine the communist Party, can anyone help?

Reply to  Jim Heath
March 20, 2018 5:49 pm

It calls itself the Democrat Party now days. Don’t thank me! You never would have figured it out and I just like to help.

Joel Snider
March 20, 2018 12:17 pm

This is a positive move.

March 20, 2018 1:01 pm

I also read no longer would “secret data”be allowed to back research. This is a death sentence for AGW which relies on Nature Tricks and Hiding Declines because they are researcher specific and not reproducible. I’ve always argued for an Open Source Climate Data Wiki to ensure transparency to the “adjustments.”
The Days of “Trust Me” Science Are Over
Last week was a complete disaster for the climate alarmists, and recent events only promise that things are going to get much worse. Toto finally peaked behind the curtain. On Wednesday the House passed a bill that would require the EPA to release its data to the public. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said “the days … Continue reading

March 20, 2018 1:05 pm

““They’re looking to use taxpayer funds to run a pro-fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign aimed at confusing the public and policymakers over what is potentially the greatest threat we face as a civilization,” Mann said. “It is frankly unAmerican.””
Accuse others of what you are guilty:
Rules for Climate Radicals; “Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty”
Watching the recent US Congressional House Committee on Science and Technology Hearing titled “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific MethodClimate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method, it became abundantly clear that the topic of climate change is a war being fought on two fronts. The science front was represented Dr. Judith Curry, … Continue reading

March 20, 2018 1:24 pm

There is this thing of a plan A or a Plan B…from where I stand, and according to my understanding, both these plans do really greatly suck.
According to my understanding the plan C is the best.
To all these ppl that can consider such as, and or could end up understanding it as per this point….please do forgive the spoiling…
Plan C literally consist as…the EPA’s CO2 endangerment finding position is and happens to be a great “gift” at this point in time and it should be kept that way….no any challenge to it what so ever coming from those that support fairness and justice.
Meaning that under this clause, as far as my understanding permits, no any entity in the USA territory can actually bring a case to a USA court in the matter of CO2 environmental subject and pretend to have a pass unless it first has tried to address it engage it and clear it with the EPA first.
Meaning that the court tomorrow in the 21fst of March can not really process further unless the basic requirement under this clause is met.
Meaning that the court tomorrow can not process in its hearing if an EPA representative is not present there present,,,,, under any circumstances that is a basic non defaulted requirement to be met, as otherwise it will consist as an infringement of the USA legislation and USA constitution… regardless of merit of the case either as per plaintiff or the defendant ….
If I happen to be correct in this, the acknowledged CO2 position of the EPA taken in this matter subjects any other player or entity, in the USA territory, to the condition of engagement with EPA, the federal Agency in matters of environment and the environmental protections matters, before it has to consider further avenues to explore.
So, according to this, the tomorrow court process can not process further unless the requirement, the basic one is met, that EPA is represented in that court hearing……according to the main point of fairness and justice of the USA legislation and the USA Constitution.
In any way possibly imagined a court in the USA land allowing a case to pass the hearing and allowing it, will trigger by default a response from/by EPA, as that decision, according the EPA position in the accounting of the CO2 danger and CO2 damages will infringe the status and the authority of the federal EPA, leading to a subject where the EPA may end up to be in the regard of it’s status and authority, a contradiction of to the POTUS position, also to the USA federal government position and also to the Congress position at once, if EPA fails to act and respond on this issue.
So if I am not that wrong with my understanding, the plan C is the best,,,, do not moan or go against the actual position of the EPA towards CO2, as that blocks any other silly players or parties engaging with, in any way possible, if not first addressing it, or engaging it or clarifying it with the Federal authority of EPA.
So from this angle, as per tomorrow 21 first, the court hearing can not actually process if no any EPA representative is not there present.
And if this correct, if the plaintiff has not any convincing or rationale enough explanation about why an EPA representative happens not to be there present, than the case for best or worst has to be clearly dismissed, with no any other regard, as otherwise the risk of infringing and contradicting the USA Law and USA Constitution is very very high….and very very possible
Really really wish a good luck to the brave Judge tomorrow.
Any way still, free will and free choice do or does apply, even when in the case of a country like the USA may decide or be tempted to decide for/to a jump to go for or be a banana Republic…
All the best :), to all.

Philip Lloyd
March 21, 2018 12:30 pm

Of relevance is a little referenced research report “On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding” by Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo, and Dr. Craig D. Idso, June 2017. It concludes “the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published global average surface temperature [GAST] data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.
Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.”
It should be required reading for anyone seeking to challenge the endangerment finding.

%d bloggers like this: