Climate Panic: Trump’s Justice Kennedy Replacement Might Repeal the EPA’s Right to Regulate CO2

Official White House Photo of President Trump

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Imagine how different the USA would be if climate laws were decided by the elected representatives of the people, instead of sneaky deep state manoeuvres designed to extend the reach of existing laws.

A landmark climate change ruling could go up in smoke after Justice Kennedy retires

BY MARK KAUFMAN

After 30 years on the Supreme Court bench, Justice Anthony Kennedy will leave the nation’s highest courthouse at the end of July.

With Kennedy’s departure comes much uneasiness. One cause for concern is over the paramount climate decision Massachusetts v. EPA, in which Kennedy proved to be the deciding swing vote, as he often was. The worry is that with him gone, the ruling will be left imperiled.

The case occurred after the EPA decided, in 2003, that it could not regulate heat-trapping greenhouse gases. Twelve states, including Massachusetts, sued the agency. They argued that these gases were pollutants and a danger to the public. Eventually, the case found its way to the Supreme Court.

Settled by a five to four vote in 2007, Massachusetts v. EPA ruled for the first time that heat-trapping greenhouse gases are pollutants, and that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate them, just as the agency reins in pollution emitted by cars and trucks.

“I think Massachusetts v. EPA is the most important environmental decision the Supreme Court has ever decided,” Ann Carlson, the director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the UCLA School of Law, said in an interview.

President Donald Trump will select the next Supreme Court nominee, and it’s almost certain this individual will, at minimum, find Massachusetts v. EPA flawed or bad law. Trump is openly hostile to widely accepted climate science, and appears not to have even an elementary understanding of how climate works.

Read more: https://mashable.com/2018/06/30/kennedy-supreme-court-climate-massachusetts-epa/

Massachusetts v. EPA gives the EPA the right to regulate CO2 using existing Clean Air Laws.

What I still find shocking is the utter contempt greens like Kaufman seem to display for democracy.

If greens want to regulate CO2, they should try to convince voters to support politicians who plan to regulate CO2.

Sneaky back door efforts to extend the reach of existing laws are politically dangerous. In my opinion the 2003 EPA vs Massachusetts decision, and many other examples of green contempt for democracy over the years, demonstrates that greens are well aware they don’t have the support they need to pass the draconian laws they would like to pass, but they just don’t care.

Greens are determined to get their way regardless of what the people want.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
commieBob

It’s really important that Kennedy’s replacement is in place before the midterms. link If you’re represented by Republicans, make sure they’re on side. Congress critters pay attention to mail. They pay less attention to email.

Felix

Agree sooner is better, but there’s a good chance that the GOP will actually gain Senate seats in November.

https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/senate/2018_elections_senate_map.html

Just splitting the eight toss-ups gains them a seat, but IMO they’re liable to net more than that.

Unfortunately, my two Senators right now are McCain and Flake.

Can’t do much about those two votes; Trump could nominate the reincarnation of John Marshall and their derangement would cause them to vote against him.

Felix

Deranged, yes, but not so much as to override personal advancement. Flake would never be nominated by the GOP for dogcatcher if he voted against Trump’s nominee.

ATheoK

I’ll see your two jacks and raise you two jokers:
My senators are Kaine and Warner.

I’ve written them, multiple times.
Kaine does not respond, except with an occasional mimeograph of “Thanks for your letter, blah blah blah. Voters like you.

Warner has some devoted partisan write back semi-nasty letters about issues facing Americans and there was a broad range of voter opinions; etc. etc.
This was when I was writing about Warner rubber stamping anything Obummy wanted.

Two years ago, I wrote that I look forward to actively supporting their opponents when their terms are up.
Warner’s is up this year! Throw him out on his sneaky underhanded derriere kissing lips!

Felix

You mean Kaine. Good luck with beating him. He’s up 18 points in the latest poll.

Sadly, VA has been invaded and taken over by Leftwing Yankees, thanks to the cancerous spread of government employment from DC and climate refugees from the frigid North.

Good to luck to Arizona and Virginia in ousting your RINO’s/Lefties.

With any luck Florida will get rid of it’s only state wide elected Democrat, Ancient Bill Nelson.

Trevor

Writing Observer : YOU still have to be TRUE to yourself ! IF you believe that it is the RIGHT THING TO DO then WRITE TO THEM ANYWAY.
It may be that your letter is one of thousands that eventually sways their opinion !
It’s ALWAYS worth a try ! A vote is a VOTE after all !

Sam Pyeatte

It is doubtful that McCain will be able to vote, and Flake is a flake that should be in a circus… As for the EPA and CO2, they should not be able to control a gas that is required for all life, but fails the climate test claimed by the left.

Tom Halla

I had forgotten that Kennedy was the swing vote on Mass v. EPA. Good riddance!

Sam Pyeatte

Mass v. EPA was passed by idiots. There is no evidence that CO2 causes global climate change. Given the complexity of the global climate, there is no way to test the theory. Lab setups, being closed loop, can be manipulated to provide whatever outcome you desire – see Dr. Mann and the fellow con-artists that support him.

Sam Pyeatte wrote</a, "Mass v. EPA was passed by idiots."

Mass. v. EPA wasn’t “passed,” it was a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Junta.

And it wasn’t by “idiots,” either. There are no idiots on the SCOTUS. For eighty years, and sporadically even before that, the many “idiotic” decisions of the SCOTUS have mostly been cases of judicial activism: left-leaning Justices simply lying about the meaning of the original meaning and intent of the Constitution and laws. Not one of those “idiotic” Justices really believed that the Clean Air Act was intended to empower federal bureaucrats to regulate the breath you exhale, or that growing wheat for your own family’s consumption falls under the Constitutionally intended meaning of the term “interstate commerce,” or that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” was intended to forbid schoolteachers from praying with their students, or that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution and its 14th Amendment wrote a document, the emanations and penumbras of which require legalization of abortion and sodomy, both of which were universally outlawed, not just in America, but throughout civilized world, when those documents were written. They’re not that stupid. They just lied.
 

Sam continued, “There is no evidence that CO2 causes global climate change.”

The evidence that increases in CO2 level cause significant harm is extremely weak. But the evidence that CO2 causes climate change is “indisputable.”

“Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.
The study suggests huge increases in vegetation in areas including central Chad and western Sudan. …
’Before, there was not a single scorpion, not a single blade of grass,’ he said. ’Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back… The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is indisputable.”

comment image

http://sealevel.info/greening_earth_spatial_patterns_Myneni.html
comment image
 

Sam continued, “Lab setups, being closed loop, can be manipulated to provide whatever outcome you desire – see Dr. Mann and the fellow con-artists that support him.”

1. Disdaining lab work with the declaration that it “can be manipulated to provide whatever outcome you desire” is as anti-scientific as leftists yammering about feminist post-dialectical assemblage criticism of science as a racist, colonialist, social construct.

2. Mann’s chicanery was not based on laboratory experiments or laboratory analysis.

3. I don’t think “closed loop” means what you think it means.

Sorry about the botched </a> tag in my comment (currently in moderation).

{Sigh.} I wish comment editing weren’t disabled for moderated comments.

MarkW

Leftists know that the people don’t want what they are selling, which is why they are so reluctant to let the people have a say.

Latitude

The left doesn’t even know what they are saying……border patrol separates families….Ice doesn’t do it at all…and they are demonstrating against Ice….morons
They will get a whiplash when they finally figure out..their little trick had the opposite effect too..backfired bigly….now families stay together….which means children can be incarcerated for years..and not just 20 days

B. Polhemus

They know, they just assume their useful idiots don’t know.

And they’re likely correct. I never ascribe idiocy to the Left. They’re evil, not stupid.

Kristi Silber

I am a liberal, and that makes me evil? How do you know what is in my heart and mind? What is it about me that makes you think I’m evil? I want America to be a truly united nation, and that means listening to what all people say. It means compromise, rather than catering all the time to either the right or the left. It means doing what is best in the long run, for the country as a whole. I may disagree with you as to how to achieve this, but does that mean I am evil?

Do you think all power should go to the people you agree with, and others should have no voice? Do you think that would be good for the nation in the long run? Think about what happens in countries where this is the case before you answer. Do you want tyranny? Civil war?

My hope is that one day more people will be open to trying to understand each other, rather than make assumptions and generalizations about what drives those we disagree with. One extremely common error made around here is that the left doesn’t care about people, or that greens don’t. I don’t really know what qualifies one as a green, and I bet skeptics define it differently themselves. It’s a label representing a group that most here revile as misanthropes, some even blaming them for 100s of thousands of deaths. I have always disdained environmentalists, by which I mean groups like Greenpeace that exaggerate dangers and play on emotions to communicate a message (they propagandize), but this is partly because when I say I’m an ecologist they think environmentalist. I am an advocate of reason and truth and honesty and good science, not of general policy. I don’t know nearly enough about policy, economics, energy, etc. to make any very positive statements except that I think solar has its place, and I am convinced economical storage will be commercially available within ten years. The prototypes exist, and one group has a full-scale liquid metal battery, the size of a shipping container. This would revolutionize renewable energy, providing 24-hour electricity (=refrigeration!) to many impoverished communities. (Just imagine: you could have vast power grids in unoccupied deserts, and ship the energy with a train powered by one of the batteries.)

I care very much about people. I chose to study ecology because I wanted to give something to the world! I love humanity, with all our foibles. You are all a part of humanity, and that makes you all my brethren, in a peculiar sort of way. It’s similar to the Christian notion of loving my neighbor, but I’m an atheist. I didn’t need to have it commanded of me, it’s something I naturally felt. Weird, huh?

You all have just heard something very personal about me. Maybe one day you will begin to see me for who I am, and not just as the enemy.

What makes me evil, B. Polhemus? You said it, now you provide the answer. (And please note that I am not alone among liberals in caring about people.)

sycomputing

What is it about me that makes you think I’m evil?

Often the “tender mercies” of modern Progressive thought is cruel. Especially to the poorest among us.

But I have a different question:

What is it about you that makes you believe you’re a Leftist?

Elsewhere you’ve admitted your a capitalist (that pretty much isolates you from the majority of the modern Progressive Statist ilk), and now here you’ve admitted you: 1) “don’t know nearly enough about policy, economics, energy, etc. to make any very positive statements…;” 2) you are “an advocate of reason and truth and honesty and good science, not of general policy…;” 3) you “have always disdained environmentalists, by which I mean groups like Greenpeace that exaggerate dangers and play on emotions to communicate a message…”

If all of this is true, you don’t belong in the set of all irrational modern Progressive Statists. You belong in the set of all reasonable people.

So, at least from my point of view, I wonder for what are you waiting??? Come on over, we’d love to have you!

Kristi Silber

“”If all of this is true, you don’t belong in the set of all irrational modern Progressive Statists. You belong in the set of all reasonable people.”

People do not come in such sets; political stance is no assurance of rationality, and no one is reasonable all the time. All of what I said is true, but that doesn’t make me part of any set. It certainly doesn’t make me a “skeptic” or a conservative. I’m just a person. I am not prepared to abandon part of myself to “come on over” to anyone’s side.

Red94ViperRT10

You may actually be a liberal in the mode of our founding Liberals, the likes of Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, etc. In today’s world you’re nothing like today’s liberals. You’re still willing to debate and explain your reasoning!

Michael Moon

Those pikers at General Electric worked on these batteries for ten years and then abandoned the project. You are not evil, just not sophisticated about the physics of atmospheric radiation. We have not seen any evidence whatsoever that fossil fuels damage the Earth.

Here is the thing: the effect of increased CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be calculated from first principles. More CO2 at the TOA slightly raises the altitude at which the atmosphere can radiate freely to space, thus slightly lowering the temperature at which the atmosphere can radiate to space, thus slightly increasing the energy which the atmosphere retains.

But, no one can calculate the magnitude of this effect. If someone could, we would know the answer, but we DON’T.

Learn some physics, realize your error, apologize, and silence yourself until you have something to contribute………….

Walter Sobchak

“I think solar has its place, and I am convinced economical storage will be commercially available within ten years.”

Solar has a place at isolated cabins in the Sonoran desert. I will bet you $100 that there will be no economically viable (no subsidies) grid based storage in 10 years.

there already is economically viable grid based storage

– the rotating mass of all the steam turbines
– the energy in the boiler steam
– a few pumped storage hydro power stations
– reservoirs full of water
– fuel rods in reactors
– piles of coal
– gas fields full of gas
– Tankers full of LNG.

all this is plenty enough to cope with demand fluctuations….

…as long as you consign every windmill and solar panel to a museum, where they belong.

holly elizabeth Birtwistle

Kristi, no one here thinks YOU are evil. You are obviously a good, reasonable person and not on the far-left, whose ideologues can be described as ‘evil’ due to them knowing the dire consequences, especially to the poor, and developing nations, of promoting far-left (Marxist) policies. Fossil fuels are one of the best things ever discovered by humanity. CO2 does not change the climate. Climate Change/Global Warming caused by burning fossil fuels is a deliberately planned deception to cripple humanity, especially developing nations, prevent industrial progress, distribute wealth, destroy Capitalism, and install the Tyranny of Post-Modern Marxism – called Globalism (one World government with control over humanity). There is not one person on this planet who can explain how Earth’s climate systems work and how they change or interact – no one even remotely knows. It will be a couple of centuries before we even understand the basics of what changes earth’s climate, past, present, or future. Trump is standing up to the Tyranny of the Left/Dems; he is Frodo on his journey to Mordor.

dan no longer in CA

“If you’re not a socialist at age 20, you have no heart. If you’re still a socialist at age 40, you have no head.” widely attributed to Winston Churchill

Duncan Smith

Kristi, I think you may misunderstand may of us. Most of us have socialist leanings, meaning, we are happy to part with some of our money to help the underprivileged, be it through natural disaster, mental illness,or circumstance, etc. as long as it is done efficiently.
But most of us are financial conservatives and see the CO2 non-problem as a waste of money, time and effort. It is kills people, money being sent to the Green Fund could be used to provide basic medical care to pregnant mothers or woman shelters as two examples. To repeat what ‘Sy’ said, come on over, we’d love to have you.

MarkW

Duncan, the big difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives give their own money to help the poor.
Liberals vote have government take someone else’s money, waste most of it, then give what’s left to the poor.

Duncan Smith

Mark, I half agree, especially on the waste part. Volunteering your time, donating money through Church or organization (Red cross) are all important. There are others, such as a woman’s shelters that need consistent funding year over year, oversight, regulation, standards, etc. that I believe need be socialized (for the greater good). Imagine if the police force relied on donations at persons discretion? Or a pay as you go system? Ultimately some services need/should to be socialized (waste aside). There is no way around it in a modern society.

dan no longer in CA

“Socialism is the perfect example of a little bit being good and a lot being fatal.” That’s a quote from me, but just ask anyone in Venesuela.

Kristi Silber

If it were used to care for pregnant mothers, it wouldn’t be the Green Fund. People are dependent on the earth, forests, pollinators, predators, rain in the right amounts at the right times… and the rural impoverished are especially dependent on the environment. There is nothing wasteful about improving agricultural resilience, access to markets or forest management. Nor is it in my opinion wasteful to encourage investment in solar or aid in installation in the appropriate circumstances. The programs of the Green Fund are nearly all cooperative efforts by the Fund, governments and NGOs/private sector, nor is is the funding all grants. The programs are about helping communities, not individuals, and they are looking at the long-term. While health care is very important, it will take more than that to get communities out of poverty. Here are a few excerpts of program descriptions:

“This initiative targets four agricultural value chains in Kampong Cham, Tbong Khmum, Kampot and Takeo provinces. It will enhance the resilience and productivity of crops, and increase agricultural competitiveness and household incomes in the targeted provinces. ”
………………………

“The scaling up of energy efficiency investments in the country’s industrial sector will provide substantial mitigation impacts. This will be done through a GCF guarantee instrument and technical assistance and capacity building activities, combined with a dedicated credit line. It will build on ongoing efforts by the Vietnamese Government to promote the efficient use of electricity and reduce consumption and emissions.”
……………………….

This one I found particularly interesting. I guess it would fall under the Skeptic Categories “natural variation’ and “alarmism.” It’s one of those things where disaster hasn’t happened yet, so it’s a waste of money to prevent it.

“Rising temperatures have melted glaciers, creating glacial lakes in Northern Pakistan. These carry the risk of outburst flooding events, threatening over 7 million people. Early warning systems, engineering structures and disaster management policies will reduce risk, protecting local communities and providing early warning of devastating flood events.

“The melting of the Hindu Kush, Karakoram, and Himalayan glaciers in Northern Pakistan due to rising temperatures have created 3,044 glacial lakes in the federally-administered territory of Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) and the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP). It is estimated that 33 of these glacial lakes are hazardous and likely to result in glacial lake outburst floods. Such flooding releases millions of cubic metres of water and debris in just a few hours, resulting in the loss of lives, destruction of property and infrastructure, and severe damage to livelihoods in some of the most remote areas of Pakistan.

“The project will build 250 engineering structures including damns [sic!], ponds, spill ways, tree plantation and drainage to reduce risk. At the same time, the development of disaster management policies and the introduction of weather monitoring stations, flood gauges, hydrological modelling and early warning systems will increase the ability to respond rapidly to flood scenarios.”

Felix

Yeah, Vietnam is so into reducing emissions that they’re looking for allies to fight China over South China Sea oil.

Sam C Cogar

Kristi Silber – June 30, 2018 8:11 pm

You all have just heard something very personal about me. Maybe one day you will begin to see me for who I am, and not just as the enemy.

Kristi, I have been reading your posted commentary here on WUWT for quite some time and your above testimony asking for forgiveness for your supporting of “lefty liberal” opinions and beliefs …. did nothing to change my opinion of what your “mission” has been and/or still is.

And I agree with another poster, …. I do not think YOU are “evil”, but rather an adolescent “thinking” miseducated, gullible person that was convinced to believe and support most all of the “junk-Politically Correct science” associated with CAGW or CACC.

Kristi Silber

I asked no one’s forgiveness.

Think what you want.

MarkW

If you push for policies that even you know will hurt people, then you are evil.
If you don’t know that they will hurt people than you are too stupid to read history.

PS: I love the way Kristie wrote a long post and her entire argument is that she’s a good person because she supports policies that will help people.

Kristi Silber

I never said I was a good person.

I think you’re a good person… Just wrong a lot… 😉

kramer

Kristi Silber: :I am a liberal, and that makes me evil?”

Your side supports partial birth abortion.

kramer, your side supports state sanctioned executions.

I’m not a fan of either…

But capital punishment usually occurs after someone is charged with a capital offense, is found guilty by a jury, sentenced to death and afforded a lengthy appeals process. Babies, not quite ready to exit the womb, aren’t afforded much of anything prior to being murdered.

God gives us life, only He has the right to take it away. The State does not give us life, the State does not have the right to take it away.

Humans are not infallible: Todd Cameron Willingham
..
God is

I agree with the notion that humans are not infallible. Human nature is to be fallible. Our justice system is a human system. It is an adversarial system. It is far from infallible.
This is why I am not a supporter of capital punishment.

That said, the State does have the lawful power to take life away. The Fifth and Eighth Amendments to our Constitution clearly presuppose that capital punishment is within the government’s lawful powers and places restrictions on its application. And God can do whatever the Hell He (or She) chooses to do… it’s God after all.

Felix

Except for innocent babies of course. They we can slaughter at will, then sell their body parts. Give them birth, then suck their brains out.

Mad dog mass murderers, of course, are sacrosanct.

Liberal logic.

PS: murder is unlawful homicide. Since abortion is lawful, it is not “murder”

It may not be “murder” under current law… Certainly when the life of the mother is imperiled, it is justifiable homicide. I’m hard-pressed to come up with a better word for willfully and intentionally killing a totally defenseless person, whose only offense was to be inconvenient.

Here is your problem David…..calling a lifeless mass of non-viable tissue stuck inside a uterus a “person” it the cause of your consternation. If we accept your definition(s) then God is a murderer due to what some of us women experience as a “miscarriage.”

Betty,

There’s only a brief period of time after conception when it’s a lifeless mass. That said, yes… If the fetus is dead and actually is a lifeless mass stuck inside a uterus, it’s an essential medical procedure. I don’t disagree with you on that.

Sam C Cogar

David Middleton – July 1, 2018 2:13 pm

There’s only a brief period of time after conception when it’s a lifeless mass.

Tumors growing inside of a person are not “lifeless” masses yet everyone wants desperately to murder them via a quick and hasty partial-growth surgical abortion.

I take great offense at all persons whose sole mission and/or intent is to ensure that all developing fetuses are permitted to be birthed ……. but then don’t give a damn what happens to those tens-of-millions of US citizen’s children after they have been birthed.

The only birthed children some of them temporarily care about are the “illegal immigrant” children that are transported across the US border for the purpose of being used as “political pawns” to appease their lefty-liberal insanity.

It is a truly sad time in the history of America when “abortion rights” voting take precedence over all other socio-economic issues, be they good or bad.

Felix

Betty,

Late term abortions are murder, whether sanctioned by law or not. Abortion clinics and big city hospitals inured to late abortions naturally have slid into infanticide.

I was born a month prematurely, so was obviously not a mass of non-viable tissue at that point.

Laws change to legalize abortion, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s murder, ie homicide, the killing of a human being.

There are all kinds of legalized murder. I killed more men than I wish to remember, legally, in Vietnam.

kramer

Huge, HUGE difference between ending the life of a say a mass child murderer vs sticking a tube in the head of a partially unborn baby who was there not because of his or her choice and then sucking its brains out (all without medicating the baby!). This is so effing evil, I can’t understand why leftists defend it.

I get it to save the life of the mother but the baby should be put to sleep or medicated some way first in the womb so it doesn’t feel any pain or suffering.

And by the way, communist China, the beacon of the left had the most state sanctioned executions in the world in 2016:

Most executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Pakistan – in that order.

China remained the world’s top executioner – but the true extent of the use of the death penalty in China is unknown as this data is considered a state secret; the global figure of at least 1,032 excludes the thousands of executions believed to have been carried out in China.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/04/death-penalty-2016-facts-and-figures/

HotScot

Kristi Silber

You and I have had a couple of protracted discussions on WUWT.

I’m an old man now (well, oldish, I’m 61) and I recognise the saying ‘If you’re not a socialist when you’re young, you have no heart; if your a socialist when you’re old, you have no head.’

Socialism (or liberalism as you prefer to call it) is a wonderfully ideological state of perpetual peace and harmony, imposed by government managed wealth distribution.

Socialism is an elective condition i.e. it is the democratic means of collective wealth distribution. The problem is, the state governs that wealth distribution, and democratically managed or otherwise, the countries wealth gradually migrates to the elected officials pockets.

Nor is this fantasy, or right wing ideology (there is no such thing as right wing ideology, but I’ll address that shortly) this is a proven condition common to Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim Jong Un, Castro etc. etc. etc………

Left wing politics simply do not work. They are a state of ideological fantasy, a political construct dreamed up by a Champagne swilling, privileged, ideologist known as Marx. It is an unachievable, political Nirvana.

The fact is, humankind has been trading from almost day one of it’s emergence from the primordial soup. Try reading Matt Ridley’s book, The Rational Optimist, you might then understand that whilst liberalism is utopia, Capitalism is reality. Humankind has fought for the right of free trade, and it has tumbled many empires.

The very reason you exist is, I suspect, because of Capitalism. Your parents and grandparents enjoyed the luxuries afforded them by Capitalism, whilst Russian and Chinese parents and grandparents were tilling the soil by hand, because the concept of centrally controlled, collective endeavour, failed miserably.

Ironically, whilst the west prayed for Russia and China’s release from communism, when it came, we vilify them for corrupting capitalism. Utterly astonishing.

Are you evil? If you support, or vote for socialism, in any of it’s guises, I would say, yes you are. Unless you are young, idealogical, and as politically blind as I was when I was young. Then you’re acceptably daft, and as with most youth, deserve to be seen, and not heard.

61! You’re ancient! I’m only 59.5… LOL!

HotScot

David Middleton

‘Wisdom isn’t measured in years, it is measured by contribution. In that respect, you are far older than me.’

Confucius might have said it, but I doubt it. I think I made it up.

🙂

My knowledge of the emminent Chinese philosopher is limted to, ‘He who go to bed with itchy butt…”

HotScot

David Middleton

Eewwww.

I fear you mistake a Chinese philosopher with a Stinky philosopher.

(Please God, forgive me for my stereotypical racist connotations, it’s only a joke. Besides, I’m Chinese by birth so am surely allowed a laugh at my own expense).

F. Leghorn

So being 58 makes me young? Wow, I feel better already. Guess I’ll ignore the aches.

Felix

You are all but mere pups!

dan no longer in CA

Another quote from Winston Churchill fits nicely here too: “The The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

Tom Abbott

A poll was cited this morning on tv that had something like 68 percent of conservatives supporting ICE and 59 percent of Democrats also supporting ICE.

I think the radical Leftists are barking up the wrong tree by attacking the good people of ICE.

HotScot

Tom Abbott

No idea what ICE is (other than Internal Combustion Engine) but I agree with you completely.

The left are are barking.

John Endicott

ICE in this context stands for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. IE the government folks who round up and deport illegals.

milocrabtree

Let’s hope that Massachusetts vs. EPA is reversed by the SCOTUS.

Steven Fraser

I think much better for congress to write an exclusion to the Clean Air Act.

Le7gh

Speaking of taxpayer funded propoganda. Supporting the “fight” against “catostrophic anthropological global armagedon”. America is not alone in being duped into paying for it.
SBS is one of two taxpayer entitys that push the socialist global warming mantra in Australia. Their latest efforts again highlight the idiocy that alarmism.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/global-warming-wont-kill-you-but-sbs-propaganda-might/news-story/b2d527ebf1710389aaba10019a3ab317

J Mac

When candidate Donald Trump published his list of potential nominees for Supreme Court justices, I researched the available information on each at the time. Based on those results, I became a Donald Trump advocate for president. It’s that important to me!

His first choice, SCOTUS Justice Niel Gorsuch, has already proven his value.
May President Trumps next choice be equally inspired!

Red94ViperRT10

So based on your research, whom from the list do you believe would make the best SCJ?

Felix

Some of the best are too old. Such as this super hot brown sugar babe who would cause max head explosion among Libtards:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Rogers_Brown

Among the younger:

Babes:

Larson
Barrett and Sykes, both from the 7th Circuit (Heartland)
Eid (Not a Muslim, despite name)
Ryan

Dudes:

Kavanaugh
Lee
Various Latinos, Asians and blacks

Enough said that the hottest Commie babe on the USSC bench is a dyke.

HotScot

Felix

I know nothing of Us politics, but I followed your link to Janice Rogers Brown :

“Brown has said that when she was young, she was so liberal in her politics that she was almost Maoist, although she is now conservative.”

Reminding me that, if you’re not a socialist when you’re young, you have no heart; if you’re a socialist when you’re old, you have no head.

J Mac

Red,
Of the 5 remaining on President Trump’s short list today (Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Thomas Hardiman, Raymond Kethledge and Amul Thapar), I would consider Kavanaugh and Kethledge to be my front runners for reliable constitutionalist conservatives.

Hardiman is bit of a centrist. Tharpar is a little more conservative. Barrett will face heavy opposition from Roe vs Wade abortion proponents. She is a solid conservative and would be a good SCOTUS justice, but the confirmation fight might be a problem with Republican Sen. Collins and Murkowski possibly voting against confirmation.

It’s always a bit of a crap shoot, but the operative theme of those assisting President Trump with the final vetting is “No More David Souters!”
Make it so, President Trump! Make it so!

MarkG

“What I still find shocking is the utter contempt greens like Kaufman seem to display for democracy. ”

Communists don’t have much use for democracy.

NW Sage

It is the nature of the permanent ruling class to simply ‘know’ better than us what is best for us. And they are infallible also – they cannot be wrong just like the media cannot ever be wrong. [And I am NOT being sarcastic – they really think that way, both groups]

Kristi Silber

Who is the “permanent ruling class”? Those who control the White House, Senate, House and Supreme Court? That’s a little presumptuous to say it will be permanent.

Juan

Do you not know world history? Hardly those people are ruling. They are merely puppets.

Barry

Kristi,
It is in fact Strzok, Page, Rosenstein, etc, etc, etc, etc, … who have not read the memo that the president, senate, house and Supreme Court have been elected/appointed by the people according to the rules set down is the Constitution. It may change in the future if the people decide not to abide by the Constitution but by then I won’t be here and good by USA.

John Endicott

It’s not the elected officials, but the elites who pull their strings that is being referred to by the previous poster. The current occupant of the White House is an anomaly in that all of those elites where backing his opponent and yet he still managed to get voted in.

Ragnaar

Permanent because of what reasons?

michael hart

Every compound, even high melting point solids, will have a vapor pressure, even if it is too low to measure. And almost all of those compounds will also absorb in the infra-red region of the electromagnetic spectrum. So almost everything both exists in the gas phase and has ‘heat-trapping’ ability.

It is a question of degree. It is purely a matter of personal opinion and preference as to which molecules should be regarded as “pollutants” and which should not. Under the definitions used, there is no unique property requiring CO2 to be regulated and not almost every other chemical, both known and unknown.

hunter

The good news keeps on keeping on.

Worrall says ” Massachusetts v. EPA gives the EPA the right to regulate CO2 using existing Clean Air Laws.”
This demonstrates a profound ignorance by Mr Worrall of the underlying facts of this issue.

The court case did not give the EPA the right. The right was given to the EPA by Congress when it passed the CAA. The law itself gave the EPA the power. The court affirmed the EPA’s finding that CO2 is a pollutant.

Secondly a newly appointed SCOTUS judge will not be able by him/herself to repeal the EPA’s right as the title to this post implies.
..
Someone with “standing” has to be aggrieved by the prior decision (Mass v EPA) first, and then must file suit.

Felix

Everyone on Earth has been aggrieved by the antiscientific decision.

Louis Hooffstetter

I’ll chip in!

Felix

For the children!

My standing would be supported by all available science. Were CO2 to drop back below 350 ppm, my crop yield would be lower, harming my finances and those of my community, while leaving the largely Asian consumers of soft white winter wheat to suffer hunger.

Felix

Just among Americans, the list of aggrieved parties runs into the hundreds of millions, to include electricity rate payers, coal miners, “renewable” subsidy-supporting taxpayers, farmers, orchardists, horticulturalists, gardeners and all users of CO2.

NW Sage

Wasn’t it Kaufman that expressed worry and concern? It seems that is what Kaufman’s article is about – or did I miss something? Worrall reported on it

The decision in a lower court will be made on the demonstrable fact that the “finding” is fraudulent. The importance of the SCOTUS composition is whether or not they will uphold that decision.

MarkW

Previous courts ruled that the EPA didn’t have the authority.

Kristi Silber

If the CAA gives the EPA the power to control CO2 as a pollutant, doesn’t that mean that it is legally responsible for doing so? I have read that many of Pruitt’s regulation rollbacks won’t hold up in court because the EPA is by law required to enforce them.

sycomputing

If the CAA gives the EPA the power to control CO2 as a pollutant, doesn’t that mean that it is legally responsible for doing so?

If this were true of the Federal Government (or perhaps better said, “if being legally responsible meant anything”), there wouldn’t be, e.g., a border crossing problem in the United States.

As it stands, agencies pick and choose what and how they enforce their regulatory powers depending on the philosophical persuasion of the leadership.

Think of it in terms of “Legal Discretion.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/discretion

Kristi Silber

But Congress passed the CAA, not an immigration law.

Mike the Morlock

Hello Kristi,,
Sometimes the Courts screw up. Big time.
I leave you with this example from the Taney Court
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/dredscott.html

It may be unfair to use this example, but I use it to show that people of any given time will have vastly different stands on any subjects. No one today Sees this case as anything but a usurping of the Judicial process to favor a social economic preference. Not Constitutional Law . But in the antebellum period it was regarded as proper by many. Today we don’t subscribe to such self delusion.
The truth is in the last two weeks it has Snowed in Newfoundland, Montana, Poland, Ukrainian, Romania, and throughout The Southern Hemisphere.
France has lost over 20 % of its wine crop to early freezes and hail storms. The list goes on.
I don’t know what to tell you other then look at all sources of information

Michael

Kristi Silber

It snowed throughout the Southern Hemisphere? That’s AMAZING! Why didn’t I hear about that?

Alcheson

Don’t believe you have it right C. The court affirmed that IF the EPA determined that CO2 is a pollutant, then the law allows them to control. The court did NOT agree CO2 was a pollutant… just that if the EPA thought it was, then….

Gary Pearse

This seems a lot more hope than something to rejoice about yet.

It takes many, many years to get from a suit filed in a US District Court to a ruling by SCOTUS. You can bet that the Green Blob will be obstructing it all the way, too. Which makes the next several elections vital, and not only on this issue – that Constitutionalist majority needs to be firmly entrenched, not dislodgeable by future “Democratic Socialist” politicians that manage to weasel their way to power.

Latitude

Roberts wasn’t there then…he’s there now

Now that Bush has shown his true colors..it makes sense

Felix

Who knows how he’d rule on the EPA?

Breyer and Ginsburg may be ruing not having retired under Obama. They, like the rest of their bubble world, were sure that Clinton would win.

It’s unlikely that both could outlast a second Trump term. Breyer has a better shot than Ginsburg. And even Sotomayor isn’t in the pink of health.

If the two oldest justices aren’t rueful, then the Left in general is.

Walter Sobchak

Breyer could die, but somebody is going to have to throw a bucket of water on Ginsburg.

Yirgach

Meanwhile back at the ranch: Heat, Pollution Spread East This Weekend
Really , really good climate doom porn at Wunderground!
Total thriller, just like the all night drive-in horror shows!
Bring a date! Get lucky!
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Denver-Matches-All-Time-High-105F-Heat-Spreads-East-Weekend

Felix

Arctic sea ice was at the third highest for the past decade on yesterday’s date, and looks as if it will cross over 2013 and 2015 soon, to take Numero Uno.

Arctic sea ice extent has been growing since 2012, and flat since 2007.

R. Shearer

I live outside Denver, it’s early evening and I just had to change into warmer clothing. It likely will be in the 50’s within the hour.

R. Shearer

It did make it into the 50’s by the way.

jarthuroriginal

Yes, quite chilly now.

jarthuroriginal

It was quite warm here in Denver when we hit 105. I was compelled to soak my flowers and lawn. According to Bastardi we in for some weeks of cooling. Walking outside was walking into a blast furnace during the heat wave. Very comfortable now.

B. Polhemus

I guess you mean “remind them,” since (a) they have no power to do that anyway, and (b) courts can’t “repeal” anything. “Repeal” is for laws. Judges cannot make law. Or change it.

They can only rule on constitutionality.

They can rule on whether a regulation was properly created pursuant to a law. In this case, the “finding” was not only improperly made – it was fraudulently made.

jjs

Ann Carlson

She said this about Trump : Trump is openly hostile to widely accepted climate science, and appears not to have even an elementary understanding of how climate works.

She’s is not a scientist either she is a lawyer. My guess is Trump gets it and she doesn’t. She is a tenured leftist hired gun. Could care less about facts, just control.

Ann E. Carlson – Bio she got a BA.

Shirley Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law
Faculty Co-Director, Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment

B.A. UC Santa Barbara, 1982
J.D. Harvard, 1989

UCLA Faculty Since 1994

u.k.(us)

It is not necessarily the individuals, but the “culture” that needs a reminder that everyone is watching, and the internet never forgets.
Rant/

Kristi Silber

My guess, considering the credentials you kindly provided, is that she knows a heckuva lot more than Trump about the climate.

John Dilks

Kristi Silber, No.She knows environmental law. That’s not even close to knowing climate.

Kristi Silber

She is the Faculty Co-Director, Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. In order to practice environmental law, presumably one would have to know something about the environment. Trump is a business man (and POTUS) who doesn’t believe in climate change, thought it was a Chinese hoax, and has shown no interest in climate whatsoever apart from defunding climate science programs and abolishing environmental protections. Why would Trump know more than she?

I’d say that it’s Mark Kauffman, journalist and ex- park ranger, who’s the one that “appears not to have even an elementary understanding of how climate works.”

https://mobile.twitter.com/ncdave4life/status/1013232743432499200

Poor confused @SkepticalRanger Mark Kaufman, journalist & ex- park ranger, is the guy who “appears not to have even an elementary understanding of how climate works.” If he wanted to learn about it, here’s a list of trustworthy resources he could use:
http://sealevel.info/learnmore.html
comment image
comment image

Shanghai Dan

Don’t need a new SC Judge for this. Just because an agency CAN regulate something doesn’t mean it HAS to regulate something. President Trump can simply use a stroke of a pen to declare the EPA will not regulate CO2. Done.

Felix

But better yet is the USSC says the EPA can’t regulate CO2. There might be another Democrat president some day.

B. Polhemus

I have no idea why people don’t get this. They act like Trump is President for Life and will be there from now on to right all wrongs.

This is for CONGRESS to do. The idea that a given President’s “stroke of the pen” will fix anything fir good is ludicrous and shows a dangerous lack of knowledge about how our Federal system works.

Of course in the last half-century or so Congress went from being very jealous of its power to being fat, dumb and happy with perpetual reelection, leaving the real governance to the courts and the Federal bureaucrats – the opposite of what the founders intended. The less Congresss-critters do, the less a potential challenger can accuse them of in the next campaign.

They don’t like to work too hard. Or at all.

Felix

Democrat presidential nominee in 2028:

comment image

EW3

For which country, Venezuela ?? 😉

Felix

Sadly, no, but the US.

Her running mate however would be from the then “moderate” wing of the Dumpocrap Party, an older, wiser, more mature and mainstream elected official:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Carson

If CO2 is a pollutant, then why don’t those complaining about it shut the F up, since all that extra talk is just injecting MORE of it into the atmosphere. The very talk of CO2 as a pollutant causes more pollution.
The real pollution, however, is pollution of the mind.

Doug In Calgary

“Trump is openly hostile to widely accepted climate science, and appears not to have even an elementary understanding of how climate works.”

The same could be said for Al Gore, David Suzuki, Bill Nye, Justin Trudeau and his very own Climate Barbie.

David L. Hagen

The Clean Air Act actually only authorizes:

“The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

CO2 was not addressed in the legislation.
In Massachusets v EPA, the Court actually ruled:

If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment, it must say so. The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists for it to make an endangerment finding. . . .On remand, EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute. Pp. 30–32.

The critical issue is whether CO2 will actually “endanger public health or welfare”. That then hinges on whether the EPA will find evidence for Endangerment Finding. EPA analyst Alan Carlin documented how that Endangerment Finding was NOT prepared by objective EPA standards.

EPA: The Administration’s High Risk but Pivotal Climate Gamble, paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change sponsored by the Heartland Institute, Chicago, Illinois, May 17, 2010. Designed to be printed double-sided. PDF file size is 119KB. The briefing slides used in the presentation can be found here.
Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act, prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency as my contribution to the then draft Technical Support Document, final version dated March 16, 2009. Designed to be printed double-sided. PDF file size is 4MB. Summary published as Appendix C in Russell Plante, Solar Energy: Photovoltaics and Domestic Hot Water – A Technical and Economic Guide for Project Planners, Builders, and Property Owners, Academic Press, 2014. Reproduced as Appendix A of Environmentalism Gone Mad.

David Hoopman

Just to make clear what continues to be almost universally misunderstood:

Mass. v. EPA neither “required” nor “gave EPA the right” to regulate CO2, nor declared it a “pollutant.”

CO2 is not even mentioned in the Clean Air Act’s list of pollutants to be regulated. The SCOTUS decision in Mass. v. EPA (2007) said the Clean Air Act would require the agency to regulate CO2 IF the agency concluded that CO2 posed a threat to human health and public safety. A little more than two years later (December 7–yeah, Pearl Harbor Day) in 2009, the Obama EPA issued its “endangerment finding,” deliberately obligating itself to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.

Here is where discarding the endangerment finding — which the SCOTUS cannot simply do on its own volition — gets complicated: The EPA regulating CO2 under the Clean Air Act is what prevents parasitic plaintiff attorneys from suing absolutely anyone who provides or uses fossil fuels and whose pockets are deep enough to make an inviting target, because federal regulation preempts (“displaces”) common-law nuisance suits, as we saw in Connecticut v. AEP [2011]. This was underlined by the wacky reasoning San Francisco and allied plaintiffs were forced to adopt in the suit against Chevron et. al. dismissed last week in California.

Noxious as it is, getting rid of the endangerment finding could open the door to countless — literally countless — nuisance lawsuits. Depending on the venue, some of those lawsuits might succeed in hamstringing lawful commerce and ruining people’s lives.

Overturning the status quo may look tempting but could prove too clever by half. It may be desirable but is not something to be undertaken without thinking through the huge potential for unintended consequences.

Lewis P Buckingham

But then if CO2 is found and declared to be fundamentally either benign or beneficial to our way of life, case law would cite that.
The ‘endangerment finding’ would be abrogated.
CO2 regulation would then default to making sure CO is not produced in dangerous quantities as a by product of burning carbon sources.
As well CO2 would remain a gas monitored and regulated in closed spaces such as mines, submarines, tunnels and so forth.
So the EPA still regulates CO2.
The regulatory power and findings of the EPA would then be normalised and seen as a benchmark against
which litigation would be tested.

ossqss

So just like CO2, Kennedy’s replacement is going to do just about anything to anyone. All bases covered and no stones unturned! Things just become more absured on the left everyday. There has been, and will continue to be, a large cost for such behavior. A vast majority of Americans on all sides of the political spectrum can smell BS when they are exposed to it. Most Americans have become immune to the small population of radicals who push these type of agendas in the MSN. The radicals are failing and flailing! America is Winning!

“Team America” theme song redacted 😉

u.k.(us)

I’m sure I don’t circulate in any of the smartest company, but I’ve never met anyone where I thought “that person should be a Supreme Court Justice”.

I was impressed though by a lady judge, when I got picked as a juror for a murder trial in Chicago.
Smart as a whip, and on a mission to get the defendant to trial. He ended up driving a car into the side of a building, so was unable to attend his ….fate.

It was like his third time of avoiding “justice”, lucky for him justice is blind.

ossqss

SCOTUS participation/approval comes from a lengthy track record of performance that caters to the likings of the nominating entity u.k.

Hence, why liberal heads are exploding on said subject knowing Trump is the nominating entity. Liberals just don’t get socialist ways have always failed historically. Every single time.

Reminds me of a video from many moons ago….

Bob

One can only hope he can find someone to repeal it.

Mat

That’s because they’re not “Greens” at all. Being that more CO2 equals more Green. They’re black hearted socialist…

joelobryan

Unlikely.

Stare decisis

Google it.

Phillip Bratby

“heat-trapping greenhouse gases are pollutants”. Putting aside the fact that you can’t trap heat, both water vapour and carbon dioxide are pollutants according to the green idiots.

You couldn’t make up the idiocy.

Steven Fraser

And, water vapor is a result of Internal combustion!

Don’t know if this tune relates to the topic on hand, but one of my very liberal friends posted this on Facebook. I tend to remember these words from the song but they are hard to discern in this version ” we are stardust, (we are)…billion year old carbon…”
I didn’t realize Joni Mitchell wrote this song, and evidently she was unable to attend Woodstock, so she wrote this song…:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRjQCvfcXn0

JPP

Here’s the version that I remember from the Howard Stern show when he was on live regular radio:

holly elizabeth Birtwistle

Greens are an emerging Tyranny Eric. They decide what is best for the world, not the citizenry.

Julian

‘Trump is openly hostile to widely accepted climate science, and appears not to have even an elementary understanding of how climate works.’

Thats why he has advisers.

democracy is what a majority of government employees say it is…

Marcus

If President Trump started (S)hitting bars of Pure Gold, the left wing nuts would complain that he was stealing the wealth of the unknown universe !!

Bob Denby

It’s time for incumbent Repubs to develop a collective ‘backbone’ — the Greens are gonna howl on this!

Steve Oregon

Amy Coney Barrett will be the appointee and the left will try and fail to smear her.
She will be confirmed well ahead of the midterms and be a stellar justice making the SCOTUS so fabulous that Ginsburg will feel futile and resign.

Tom Abbott

I was kind of leaning towards Amy, too. Any nominee Trump picks is going to be attacked savagely.

Gene H

Mark Kaufman is yet another writer that only thinks he has some idea of how climate works. I doubt he’s done an hour’s research into CO2 and climate… yet he parrots the far left, as if they had better facts than science does. Hey Kaufman, on a micron bandwidth scale of 1 to 100, CO2 is only able to absorb infrared radiation (black body radiation) between 13 – 18 microns, has a diminishing ability to affect temperature the higher CO2 gets… an ALWAYS FOLLOWS temperature rise, as the oceans must warm before CO2 is released from that huge reservoir (raising atmospheric CO2 levels).

Ms. Kristi: You are not evil, just misinformed.

Solar power is only in the energy mix because of government subsidies. Without subsidies, solar is non-starter and will remain non-starter for decades.

Caltech’s Nate Lewis, Argyros Professor of Chemistry, whose work is at the leading edge of research on solar power, has said publicly that “I need to dissuade you up front from one important notion, that some low-cost process is magically going to take us away from fossil energy within the next 20 or 30 years. That’s simply false.” Lewis estimates that population and GDP growth could triple energy demand by 2050. He has concluded that “solar is … far and away the most expensive way we have of making electricity today, with costs ranging from 25 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour for photo-voltaic systems, that is to say solar panels. Solar thermal systems, … run 10 to 15 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is still too expensive. Nobody is going to pay that much for a substitution product, when they can get the original one for four cents a kilowatt-hour.”

The European Organization for Nuclear Research known (CERN) recently predicted a century of non-warming in which CO2 does not play a significant role. CERN says that climate models used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to estimate future temperatures are too high and that the models should be redone. There is no urgency for converting prematurely to renewable energy sources. Labeling CO2 a pollutant is a huge mistake and causes research on climate change to go in the wrong direction.

Expectations of long-term climate studies should be defined before embarking on lifetime projects running down rabbit holes and producing nothing of value. A practical goal is to successfully predict global mean temperatures within a range of values narrow enough to realistically guide public policy decisions. Until then, “What if” studies can be deferred for a few decades until the boundary conditions are known, that is, probability weighted estimates, not hot button “high” or “low” estimates that are, by themselves, useless.

Ms. Kristi:

The technology to economically produce solar power has yet to be developed on a commercial scale and will likely not be ready for prime time for many decades. Wind, rain, tides, waves, and geothermal power sources will never be significant sources of power because of the limited locations where they can be developed.

The premature shut-down of hydrocarbon energy sources will deprive the poor in energy limited countries a chance to lift themselves out of a certain life of poverty. LNG is available now to increase the quality of life of the poor in underdeveloped countries all over the world in the shortest possible time-frame, if developed countries decide to do so. Paradoxically, labeling CO2 a pollutant is the worst action the EPA could take. That action will significantly delay development of the already available technology that could significantly increase the quality of life of people all over the world.

Think about it and tell your friends.

Kristi Silber

Lewis is assuming a transition from fossil fuels to solar. I’m not talking about “premature shut-down of hydrocarbon energy sources,” I’m talking about giving some of the impoverished in the developing world access to electricity as quickly as possible in a way that is economically viable. The situation in countries in sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, is much different from the one in the developed world. In many areas there aren’t power plants and grids and reserves of fossil fuels or the infrastructure to get them where they need to be. That takes time and enormous investment. Many countries would have to import fuel, and access and costs are not predictable. Some countries are war-torn; many have corrupt governments. Helping those villages least likely to get connected to a grid anytime soon through installation of solar panels would at least allow them to run a pump and a few computers and charge cell phones. Information and education are a big part of getting out of poverty and improving health and productivity. Keep in mind, too, that they are closer to the equator, and have more even year-round sun than those in the U.S. or Europe.

There is no best answer for everyone, it all depends on the situation.

“The European Organization for Nuclear Research known (CERN) recently predicted a century of non-warming in which CO2 does not play a significant role.”

Based on what??? A whole century? It is not unlikely that we could go through a few decades of low/no increase due to changes in solar radiation, but a century? Dubious. Regardless, CO2 plays a significant role, even if it is to limit the cooling effect.

“A practical goal is to successfully predict global mean temperatures within a range of values narrow enough to realistically guide public policy decisions.” It depends on what you mean by a narrow enough range. I don’t think that is practical to expect it to narrow much when you’re talking about “predicting” 100 years in the future – not any time soon, anyway. The models might be able to cut a degree or two off the expected range, but I think it’s more likely that they will be better able to predict regional differences, not only in temperature but in rainfall patterns and possibly storms. Prediction of global temps is too dependent on chaotic factors, how the oceans and biotic world respond to increased CO2 and changes in climate and land use to ever get very precise. I think the whole way of looking at it is wrong. Average global temperature will rise with increased CO2. The RATE and not just the amount will going to determine how humans and other organisms can adapt. Indirect effects of temperature change (e.g. precipitation patterns, sea level rise, biotic responses) may be as important as temperature itself. The regional variation in effects will play a big role politically, economically and in human welfare.

There are ways to decrease the rate without converting to renewables, such as energy conservation, high efficiency products and processes, land use changes, and CO2 uptake through technological/biological processes.

“Until then, ‘What if’ studies can be deferred for a few decades until the boundary conditions are known, that is, probability weighted estimates, not hot button “high” or “low” estimates that are, by themselves, useless.”

Energy conservation is in general a good thing. Reserves are limited, especially if they remain the primary energy source as the rest of the world develops. Cheap energy means more waste. There are things we can do now to both extend global energy reserves and limit CO2 emissions. Delaying action for a few decades is just going to increase the risks of detrimental climate change and running out of (cheap, accessible) oil and natural gas within the lifetimes of today’s children.

Don

“Greens are determined to get their way regardless of what the people want.”

Call them what they really are – watermelons: green on the outside, (commie) red on the inside.

How the heck did we ever allow the MSM to assign _red_ for Republican? It’s the Dems who are overwhelmingly red these days.

Marcus

If President Trump started (S)hitting whole bars of Pure Gold, the left wing nuts would complain that he was stealing the wealth of the unknown universe !!

simple-touriste

Could the EPA force the US to go to war with a major polluting country?

What if the President says, as he should, go to hell courts?

What if there is a show down of forces?

What if most people think that the US Constitution is an experiment that failed, if though it took an considerable amount of time to fail, unlike similar attempts that failed in a trivial amount of time?

James M

If CO2 was indeed a heat trapping gas in miniscule quantities, we would be pumping a few gallons into our houses in winter to help heat our homes.
The reason we do not, is because it is not true that miniscule amounts of CO2 miraculously produce and store heat.

If it did store heat like Al Gore or James Hanson says, we would be selling CO2 at $20 a gallon all winter long instead of banning it in automobile exhaust.

AndyHce

The EPA has no “right” to regulate anything. They have legal powers, ultimately enforced by armed might. Whether or not these powers are legitimate is a legal question. Whether or not they should exist is a moral question.

davidbennettlaing

Carbon dioxide does not, indeed, can not, cause global warming. According to MODTRAN6, it absorbs/emits significantly only within the waveband from 13 to 17 microns, with a maximum at 14.95 microns, and like all gases, it emits EMR as a line spectrum. It’s unclear that line spectra can actually cause warming, but they probably can if the spectral lines are sufficiently pressure-broadened in the lower atmosphere. Assuming this is the case, the maximum of the CO2 emission spectrum of 14.95 microns can be taken as an approximation to a blackbody (or Wien) temperature of atmospheric CO2, but that temperature happens to be -79 C, which is well below normal Earth surface temperatures, except for occasional cold snaps at the South Pole. As is well-known, cooler objects (here, atmospheric CO2) don’t/can’t transfer heat to warmer ones (here, Earth’s surface) so any back-radiation from CO2 will simply be reflected by Earth’s surface rather than absorbed