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): https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060076249
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: https://thinkprogress.org/scott-pruitt-climate-science-performance-54c018bb09b5/
No doubt they will embrace the new, more open process.
I want to vote communist but I can’t fine the communist Party, can anyone help?
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.
This is a positive move.
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
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/the-days-of-trust-me-science-are-over/
““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
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/rules-for-climate-radicals-accuse-the-other-side-of-that-which-you-are-guilty/
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.
cheers
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.