Final Brief Submitted In CHECC v. EPA

From the MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton

The briefing is now complete in Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council v. EPA. That is the case, currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where a small and brave band of electricity consumers, CHECC, challenges the “science” behind EPA’s 2009 finding that CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” constitute a danger to human health and welfare. I am one of the attorneys for CHECC.

Our final Reply Brief was filed originally on Tuesday February 7, and then re-filed in corrected form the next day. (The reason for “correction” is too trivial to go into here. The clerks in the D.C. Circuit take great pleasure in devising trivial reasons to require lawyers to file “corrected” briefs.). Here is a link to the brief. It probably requires a subscription to access. Over the next few days we will probably come up with a way to provide a public access link to the full set of briefs in the case.

In the case, we ask the court to compel EPA to go back and re-assess the “science” of greenhouse gas “endangerment.” The briefing process gave EPA the chance to put its best foot forward as to the scientific basis underlying the finding of endangerment. What is truly remarkable is the extent to which EPA, not to mention the entire government-backed scientific establishment, completely lack any real scientific basis for the claim of great “danger.” The briefing has made that embarrassingly clear.

Equally remarkable is that the job of challenging EPA’s pseudoscientific smokescreen is left to a small handful of individuals working completely pro bono. The fear of being labeled a “science denier” by leftist groupthinkers is apparently strong enough to force almost everyone who should know better off the field of battle. However, we are grateful to the CO2 Coalition for its support in the form of an excellent amicus brief. The CO2 Coalition is the principal group of real scientists willing to continue to speak out about the fake science behind the climate change scare. The CO2 Coalition’s amicus brief was mainly the work of Professors William Happer of Princeton and Richard Lindzen of MIT.

I won’t try to go into great detail about the arguments in the brief, but here are two of the main ones:

The Made-up Surface Temperature Record

EPA relies on so-called “surface temperature” data, dating back to the late 1800s, which show substantial atmospheric warming over that period. The data derive from a network of ground-based thermometers. There are many, many problems with these data, mostly relating to the undeniable fact that the people who are responsible for compiling and maintaining the data massage, manipulate and in-fill information for various purposes, leading to an overall record that is thoroughly corrupted and unfit for any policy purpose. My thirty-part series “The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time” addresses the processes by which the massaging and manipulating leads to reductions in earlier-reported temperatures to enhance the apparent warming trend in the record.

But for purposes of this case, we focused on an aspect of the surface temperature record that is even clearer and less ambiguous: there is virtually no reported data as to surface temperature from the Southern Hemisphere oceans from before the year 2000. The Southern Hemisphere oceans are approximately 40% of the earth’s surface, and the period before 2000 is more than 80% of the surface temperature record. All the data for that vast proportion of the record has been fabricated by the people who are promoting the climate change scare. That fact leaves a gaping hole in EPA’s rationale for the Endangerment Finding. In its Brief, EPA simply tried to avoid the subject. From the Reply Brief, page 14:

EPA says the argument presents nothing new, and that it previously rejected similar arguments, and that the D.C. Circuit affirmed in Coal. for Responsible Regul., Inc. v. E.P.A, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012). But EPA has not shown where in the Endangerment Finding documents the lack of data from the Southern hemisphere oceans was addressed.

The Failure Of Real World Data To Validate The Models On Which EPA Relies

You might think that using real world data to validate hypotheses is the essence of science. But in the field of climate science, and particularly of government-backed climate science, when the data don’t support the model the response is a barrage of excuses and evasions.

Besides the failure of temperatures to rise at nearly the rate models have predicted, there is an even more definitive and embarrassing model failure, which is the absence of the predicted “tropical hot spot.” The “hot spot” was fundamental to EPA’s claimed understanding of the mechanisms of world climate that formed one of the bases of the Endangerment Finding. At pages 15-19 of the Reply Brief we beat EPA over the head with the fact that the “hot spot” can’t be found.

In EPA’s Brief, it responded as to the “hot spot” not by showing that it existed, but rather by claiming that they never said it was important. From the Reply Brief, page 18:

EPA’s contention at p. 48 of its brief, and p. 21 of the Denial that the model- observation mismatch on the Tropical Hot Spot is not important is inconsistent with its previous position on this topic. The Technical Support Document for the 2009 Endangerment Finding at p. 50 says that if the Hot Spot were missing it would be “an important inconsistency.” Now that it is proven to be missing, even by the IPCC, EPA says it is an unimportant inconsistency. EPA’s double-talk does not meet the requirement of rational decision making.

There is plenty more in the Reply Brief for your reading pleasure, should you have the time.

For the full article read here.

4.9 29 votes
Article Rating
56 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Case
February 12, 2023 10:46 pm

“…EPA’s 2009 finding that CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” constitute a danger to human health and welfare.”
_________________________________________________________________

It’s well known, that global temperature is up about a degree Celsius since 1850. Surely the brief doesn’t claim that’s not so. Yes, data has been manipulated, and it can be shown that changes over the last two decades has caused the record to jump from a trend of 0.75° per century to 1.0° per century. And maybe the brief refers to other irregularities in the temperature record such as the missing “Hot Spot”.

Claiming that there are intended or unintended errors in the temperature records doesn’t address the false notion that a warmer world is a danger to human health and welfare.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Steve Case
February 13, 2023 1:31 am

I dunno why you got downvoted for that, since everything you say appears to be correct.

  • Broadly speaking post the end of the little ice age, the world got slightly warmer.
  • It may well have slightly accelerated, but in fact the data shows a slow down in warming, mostly.Most of the rise was 1980-2000
  • 1.0°C per century is insignificant and well within natural variation.
  • A 1.0°C rise is positively beneficial, as are increased atmospheric CO2 levels.

The only point of dispute I would have is that warming is accelerating. I think since 2000 it has decelerated or stopped altogether.

I also agree that challenging the EPA on the harm slight warming would do is more useful than challenging the data, as the data is controversial and disputed anyway.

Steve Case
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 13, 2023 4:28 am

The only point of dispute I would have is that warming is accelerating. I think since 2000 it has decelerated or stopped altogether.
__________________________________________________________

That post doesn’t say anything about acceleration.

It does say that data has been manipulated causing the change in the trend from 0.75° to 1.0° per century. It looks like this:

GISTEMP CHANGES 1997-2018.jpg
Richard Greene
Reply to  Steve Case
February 13, 2023 5:14 am

No warming for 101 months in UAH global data.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 13, 2023 5:13 am

CAGW is “climate change’
CAGW is not AGW (well its sort of AGW x2 to AGW x4)

Historical temperature data, no matter how accurate, can not be used to predict CAGW, because CAGW has never happened before.

CAGW is an imaginary climate change trend.

There are no CAGW facts
There are no CAGW data
There is no CAGW logic

CAGW is a leftist fantasy prediction of climate doom, that can be believed no matter how accurate past temperature data are, as long as there was some global warming reported after 1975. And there was.

usurbrain
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 13, 2023 12:29 pm
  • I have a thermostat for my Heat pump. that cost well over $200. It has a microprocessor suitable for a cell phone. Yet it can noy maintain my home, insulated to Electric Heat Pump insulation requirements within 1.0°C per per hour.
Tom in Florida
Reply to  Steve Case
February 13, 2023 4:21 am

It seems to me that arguing the scientific conclusion would be outside the scope of the expertise of the court. So it makes sense that you show the court that the underlying data the conclusion is based on is wrong. The court can then (hopefully) direct that the conclusion be revisited with correct data without having to make a scientific decision on whether the conclusion is correct. A start over if you will.

ralfellis
Reply to  Steve Case
February 13, 2023 5:00 am

(Temperature has increase by a degree)

Perhaps, but the IPCC has never proven that this was due to CO2, rather than any other factor. What is their evidence that this recent temperature rise was NOT due to: oceanic cycles, solar magnetic cycles, increased clouds, ice sheet albedo (by Chinese industrial dust), or data manipulation??

Where are the paragraphs in AR7 that prove that Chinese industrial dust on norther ice sheets have not had an influence on climate??

The Dark Snow Project was looking at the effects of Chinese soot, but their funding was axed because they did not invoke CO2. Look at the albedo of the ice sheets. How can anyone say this soot will not have an effect on albedo, insolation absorption, warming and melting?

https://web.archive.org/web/20150108131218/http://darksnow.org/

Ralph

Sent from my iPad

Steve Case
Reply to  ralfellis
February 13, 2023 5:58 am

“…. or data manipulation??”
____________________________________

That can be demonstrated, see my post above.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  ralfellis
February 13, 2023 7:30 am

“…has never proven that this was due to CO2…”
Aaargh, that argument actually weakens the rational approach. The amount of warming that additional CO2 in the atmosphere might be responsible for can be relatively easily calculated. You should be arguing that “it’s so little” instead of “it’s not proven”.
One can argue that the law of gravity has “never been proven” at debate club. If it is obvious you believe it, it just means nobody at debate club will trust you with anything.

Steve Case
Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 13, 2023 10:05 am

…has never proven that this was due to CO2…
Aaargh, that argument actually weakens the rational approach. The amount of warming that additional CO2 in the atmosphere might be responsible for can be relatively easily calculated.
_________________________________________________

Jesus said render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s. Yes, the calculations not including feedbacks say doubling CO2 produces about 1.2° of warming. Accept that as fact. But when when the Climate Mob wants to cherry pick, exaggerate, use fuzzy logic etc., God’s truth needs to be defended.

cilo
Reply to  Steve Case
February 13, 2023 10:25 am

calculations not including feedbacks

So, you agree the calculations are mostly mathturbatory, as it includes but one single parameter?
…and I only “got” the CO2 saturation thing 2 days ago, thus I snort derisively at your

doubling CO2 produces about 1.2° of warming

Steve Case
Reply to  cilo
February 13, 2023 12:54 pm

That’s right, one single known parameter. Another quote is in order:

  There are known knowns. 
  These are things we know that we know. 
  There are known unknowns. 
  That is to say, there are things that we know
  we don’t know. 
  But there are also unknown unknowns. 
  There are things we don’t know we don’t know
                                            Donald Rumsfeld

The exception to all that seems to be Climate Science.
It looks like they think they know enough to make 100 year predictions.

Leo Smith
February 13, 2023 1:24 am

I bet they invoke teh Precautionary Principle and say it doesnt matter if the whole shebang is wrong, because it could in fact be right, anyway.

Richard M
Reply to  Leo Smith
February 13, 2023 9:42 am

In order to stop that they must also show the cost of adaption is lower than the cost of mitigation. Maybe look at the total cost applied to mitigation so far and demonstrate it has had no effect on either the climate or the rise in CO2.

Ron Long
February 13, 2023 1:42 am

Good luck with the EPA case. It is amazing how the various government agencies have become politicized, even weaponized. There is now a House of Representatives “Select Subcommittee on Weaponization of Federal Government” underway, under the capable direction of Jim Jordan. From personal experience getting permits to explore projects on federal lands in Nevada, I know that the application, usually of the same laws, lurches from one side to the other when another Party comes into power, with the tendency to lurch way left rapidly under Democrats and to recover slowly under Republicans.

strativarius
February 13, 2023 3:13 am

I hope you can trust your judiciary more than we can in England. For example:

“Insulate Britain protesters were praised by a judge for their commitment to greener living as 12 were fined over a demonstration which disrupted the journeys of an estimated 18,000 drivers on the M25.

Bates, Matthews and Whipster were told by District Judge Stephen Leake they had “inspired” him after making impassioned speeches about their concerns over the climate while representing themselves in court. They have inspired me and personally I intend to do what I can to reduce my own impact on the planet, so to that extent your voices are certainly heard”
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/judge-sentencing-insulate-britain-protesters-225715114.html

Last edited 1 month ago by strativarius
ralfellis
February 13, 2023 4:42 am

How can CO2 be a ‘danger’ while simultaneously being the most important gas in the atmosphere? Without CO2 all life on Earth will die, excepting fungi.

During the last glacial maximum CO2 got so low that the Gobi plateau became a large CO2 DESERT – a vast region with too little CO2 for life to continue.

See this talk on interglacial warming being caused by LOW CO2 – yes – it is LOW CO2 that causes interglacial warming. The bit about the Gobi CO2 DESERT starts around 25 mins in.

Ice Ages controlled by Gobi Dust.


Ralph

Richard Greene
Reply to  ralfellis
February 13, 2023 5:16 am

High CO2 does not CAUSE COOLING.

ralfellis
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 13, 2023 6:57 am

The data says CO2 does ‘cause’ cooling, during an interglacial warm period.

When CO2 concentrations are at a maximum during an interglacial, the world always cools. Since CO2 is a very powerful feedback agent (the IPCC says so), it must be CO2 causing that cooling.

If glacial cooling is all due to orbital cycles, and CO2 is unable to intervene and prevent it, then CO2 must be a VERY weak feedback agent. So why bother about it at all?

Two choices here – either CO2 is the weakest of all feedback agents, or it causes cooling during interglacials. The data says so, and the data cannot be wrong.

Ralph

Last edited 1 month ago by ralfellis
Richard Greene
Reply to  ralfellis
February 13, 2023 9:22 am

Wrong again

Ocean / atmosphere CO2 ratio changes due to Henry’s Law are NOT a direct cause of climate change.

They are the RESULT — a feedback — of changes in ocean temperatures from actual causes of climate change.

Warmer oceans hold less CO2
Colder oceans hold more CO2

Whatever caused the ocean temperature to change, also caused the atmospheric CO2 level to change as a feedback effect..

Ocean temperatures fluctuate, and then atmospheric CO2 levels fluctuates. There is a delay because oceans have great thermal inertia.

Temperature peaks cause CO2 peaks with a long lag, averaging 800 years in the Vostok, Antarctica ice core climate reconstructions.

This natural process has nothing to do with manmade CO2 emissions directly added to the troposphere.

They are two different process that happen at the same time.

CO2 does not cause cooling, with the one exception of a large part of Antarctica, that has a temperature inversion.

Low CO2 does not cause interglacial warming.

What causes glacial–interglacial cycles? 

Variations in Earth’s orbit through time have changed the amount of solar radiation Earth receives in each season.

Interglacial periods tend to happen during times of more intense summer solar radiation in the Northern Hemisphere.

rom the ocean

ralfellis
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 13, 2023 11:43 am

Richard – you did not read the paper, did you? So you have no idea what the process is.

.

>>ocean temperature to change caused
>>CO2 level to change as a feedback effect.

CO2 changed are consequential, not causal. CO2 has little or no effect on temperature.

>>Temperature peaks cause CO2 peaks with
>>a long lag, averaging 800 years,

Agreed. But if orbital cycles can change temperature on their own, then why invoke any feedback agent?

>>CO2 does not cause cooling.

Agreed, that is done by orbital cycles (entering a Great Winter). But this confirms that Co2 is a very weak feedback agent that has never once prevented Great Winter cooling.

>>Low CO2 does not cause interglacial warming.

CO2 does indeed cause warming…
. by CO2 getting too low for plants to survive,
. which creates CO2 deserts,
. which cause dust,
. which falls on Arctic ice sheets,
. which lowers their albedo,
. which increases insolation absorption,
. which causes warming and melting.

>>glacial–interglacial cycles caused by orbital cycles.

Only pertly correct. More than half of Great Summers (Milankovitch Maxima) produce no warming effect whatsoever. This is prima face evidence that a terrestrial feedback is required to enhance that increased insolation. The method by which this is achieved is given above – a lack of CO2 generates CO2 deserts.

Ralph

Last edited 1 month ago by ralfellis
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  ralfellis
February 13, 2023 9:34 am

Well, to put it more accurately, the data show that CO2 DRIVES NOTHING, in terms of temperatures.

Plant growth, yes.

Scissor
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 13, 2023 7:14 am

Yes, that’s an incomplete synopsis but read further.

The Ellis and Palmer paper explains glacial/interglacial observations better than standard orbital theory. Ralph’s last sentence alludes to the dust feedback, which is an effect of CO2 modulation.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Scissor
February 13, 2023 9:28 am

CO2 level changes do not cause changes in dust. Colder drier climates cause the dust level to increase. The cold is from planetary geometry changes, not from CO2. CO2 is a feedback.

“For several decades, scientists have known that Earth’s Ice Ages, or glacial periods, were very dusty times.

In fact, on a global scale, dust deposition increased by about 2½ times during glacial periods.

The increase in dust was even more pronounced in the polar regions, where it reached 25-35 times the level seen during warmer interglacial climates (the periods between the Ice Ages).

These changes in dust supply have been credited with adding more iron to the ocean, leading to increased growth of phytoplankton, and in turn driving about 25% of the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations between glacial and interglacial periods.

So why was Ice Age Earth so dusty?

It is likely that several factors were at play.

First, colder climates are drier.

Less precipitation allows dust to linger longer in the atmosphere, giving it more chance to get transported and deposited.

Second, the Ice Age spawned changes in vegetation cover, glacier activity, and other factors that led to more dust being generated.

And finally, changes in the strength, location, and gustiness of winds helped to mobilize more dust.”

Getting Dusty in the Name of Science | NSF Ice Core Facility (icecores.org)

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Scissor
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 13, 2023 9:52 am

You should read the paper and/or watch the video. You likely would agree with their arguments.

ralfellis
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 13, 2023 11:49 am

Richard – the glacial maximum tropical climate was NOT drier. That was a miscalculation by climate scientists, who used soil temperature as a basis for glacial maximum treeline limitations, not levels of CO2.

In reality, extra dust just before each interglacial was caused by CO2 deserts.

So CO2 does indeed cause interglacial warming…
. by CO2 getting too low for plants to survive,
. which creates CO2 deserts,
. which causes dust,
. which falls on Arctic ice sheets,
. which lowers their albedo,
. which increases insolation absorption,
. which causes warming and melting.

Ralph

Scissor
Reply to  ralfellis
February 13, 2023 1:49 pm

Good work, Ralph. Your theory explains the observations very nicely.

ralfellis
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 13, 2023 11:54 am

Richard,

The slightly click-bait headline was devised to make people think, and you are not thinking.

Read the paper.

Ralph

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 13, 2023 9:31 am

Suppose you then can explain the fact that in the ice core reconstructions, temperatures consistently begin FALLING when CO2 is RISING, and near its high point, AND temperatures consistently begin RISING when CO2 is FALLING, and near its LOW point.

This may not mean “high CO2 causes cooling,” but it certainly tells any objective person capable of logic and reason that INCREASING CO2 DOES NOT DRIVE THE EARTH’S TEMPERATURE.

Quite the reverse, if anything (rising CO2 is an EFFECT of rising temperatures, NOT the cause).

ralfellis
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
February 13, 2023 11:53 am

Richard – you are arguing from a position of ignorance, because you did not watch the video.

I agree that CO2 is NOT acting as a direct feedback agent. But its effects on plants and dust production DOES act as a feedback.

The slightly click-bait headline was devised to make people think, and you are not thinking.

Ralph

Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 13, 2023 9:49 am

Increases in CO2 lead to increases in the water cycle as shown by Dr. William Gray. This is a cooling mechanism all by itself. Low CO2 would decrease the water cycle and dry out the land leading to more dust as a feedback.

You need to open your mind to other viewpoints.

DonM
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 13, 2023 10:20 am

You are speaking in absolutes here.

When one says ‘CO2 does not cause warming’, you jump all over them … forgetting (or ignoring) significance and the speakers’ intent.

CO2 and cooling relationship exists. Discuss significance (or insignificance), or continue with your hypocrisy.

ralfellis
February 13, 2023 4:48 am

Hmmmm.

The exhaled breath of the EPS lawyers is about 40,000 ppm (look it up). If CO2 is a danger to humans (like a poison) I would suggest that all their lawyers hold their breath – for about ten minutes would suffice…..

Ralph

Scissor
Reply to  ralfellis
February 13, 2023 6:41 am

Safe and effective.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  ralfellis
February 13, 2023 9:37 am

Nah that wouldn’t work. After the pass out, they would just start breathing again.

If they’re serious about curtailing their “emissions,” they should volunteer to have their lungs filled with sand.

ralfellis
February 13, 2023 5:03 am

.
Why do they confidently blame CO2 for warming, while ignoring the potential effects of ice-sheet albedo caused by Chinese industrial soot.?

The Dark Snow Project was looking at the effects of this Chinese soot, but their funding was axed because they did not invoke CO2. Look at the hugely reduced albedo of these ice sheets. How can anyone say this soot will not have an effect on albedo, insolation absorption, warming, and melting?

https://web.archive.org/web/20150108131218/http://darksnow.org

P.S. The Dark Snow website has expired, so can only be found on the Wayback Machine.

Ralph

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  ralfellis
February 13, 2023 9:39 am

Because the albedo of ice sheets at the poles matter little since they get lite Sun and what they get is at such a low angle that it is mostly reflected anyway.

It’s almost as much a non-factor as atmospheric CO2.

cilo
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
February 13, 2023 10:33 am

what they get is at such a low angle

Dude! Be kind, most people really do not understand how come there are seasons… most think we go further from the sun.
It is, of course, the first question I ask anybody that wants to talk climastrology to me. Would you believe, I have not had one correct answer from any of the warmunists yet? I mean, if you’re so scared of something, should you not at least find out what it looks like?

ralfellis
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
February 13, 2023 12:06 pm

Little Sun in the Arctic? Really?

May I remind you that during the summer the Arctic gets sunlight 24/7. That is why there is so much life up there, with gazillions of insects and millions of mammals and birds making the region their summer home.

The point is, that sooty ice can absorb insolation at any angle, during the spring, and does NOT reflect it back to space. And that can have a huge warming effect on the climate. Read the ‘Soot on Snow’ experiments and papers.

Note: data from Rutgers Snowlab shows that Fall and Winter Snows have been INCREASING for 50 years. But Spring snow extent has been DECREASING. Why? Because of Chinese industrial soot on northern snow.

But academia did not think this was worth investigating, because they get too much money from China. Biden’s university (Penn State?) got $54 million. So they axed the Dark Snow project.

Ralph

Richard Greene
February 13, 2023 5:08 am

Assuming this brief is similar to the last version of the full brief, that I read, it will fail for many reasons, to influence a judge. I could not access the current brief, which is a shame:

(1) Friend of the Court is not supported by Shell,

(2) This challenges the official science authorities in government with an “Our science is better than your science” argument, that has repeatedly failed to influence people since the 1970s. because the appeal to government authority logical fallacy is much too strong, and

(3) The brief does not differentiate between AGW, which is real and harmless, and CAGW, which is a fantasy prediction made by government bureaucrats who have made100% wrong climate predictions for the past 50 years.

There needs to be at least 50 past predictions, with their authors stated (from scientists and activists, not fro politicians) and the actual results, showing that HUMANS CAN NOT PREDICT THE FUTURE CLIMATE.

CAGW is just a prediction.

All climate predictions have been wrong,
including CAGW predictions since 1979

Attacking the climate authorities and their always wrong predictions should be the strategy, but that was not the strategy in the prior version of the brief, and I assume it is still not the strategy with the current version of the brief.

My climate science and energy blog:
Honest Climate Science and Energy

Scissor
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 13, 2023 6:46 am

I believe that one can register for a PACER account for free and there will be no charges below some threshold.

Duane
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 13, 2023 8:47 am

Convincing the government is not the issue – convincing SCOTUS is the issue, and SCOTUS has already overruled and invalidated EPA’s carbon dioxide rule on the basis that it exceeded EPA’s authority on a “major matter” that Congress is required to address if such a rule were to be permissible. This will likewise be overruled by SCOTUS for the same reason … not the quality of the science, but simply EPA’s authority to issue an endangerment assessment on an unregulated substance.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Duane
February 13, 2023 9:47 am

SCOTUS is irrelevant to Democrats.
The Supreme Court fenced the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon in the power sector. Biden will accomplish the same goals by regulating methane and particulate matter.

Please explain what has actually changed.

Nut Zero is still full speed ahead.

The EPA 49mpg CAFE requirement for 2026 models is still in effect.

The Supreme Court curbed EPA’s power to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. In late June, the Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that the Environmental Protection Agency cannot put state-level caps on carbon emissions under the 1970 Clean Air Act.

What Are 111(b) and 111(d) Rules? Here’s Why They Are Vital for Cutting Carbon Pollution | Evergreen Action

HISTORY:
In December 2021, Biden signed an executive order directing the US government to cut its own emission by 65% by 2030 with different measures including energy efficiency, electric vehicles and renewable energy.

Biden helped launch the Global Methane Pledge at the 2021 UN climate summit (COP26). As of January 2023, 150 countries have signed onto the pledge and committed to cut their total methane emissions by at least 30% by 2030.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Duane
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 13, 2023 12:27 pm

SCOTUS is the ultimate authority on the law, and all of the powers of the Federal and State governments. Every time the admin violates their authority, they will be sued, and there will be injunctions issued and the matters will ultimately be adjudicated by the courts with major litigation going all the way to SCOTUS.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 13, 2023 1:29 pm

No evidence that CO2 drives temperature, so no evidence that “AGW is real.”

Plenty of empirical evidence says CO2 does nothing to temperature on the other hand.

AGW does not rise beyond the hypothetical, without any empirical evidence in support.

William Howard
February 13, 2023 7:33 am

perhaps they should also point out that CO2 is necessary for life since we cannot survive without oxygen made from plants with CO2

Scissor
Reply to  William Howard
February 13, 2023 10:08 am

Thank God CO2 is not being released into the air in East Palestine. /s

Lee Riffee
February 13, 2023 7:37 am

It’s about time someone is challenging this nonsense ruling. Too bad it hasn’t been done before now. When that ruling came out, for a minute I thought it was April Fool’s day….declaring that a natural and essential component of the earth’s atmosphere is pollution. IMO that would be like saying that iron is a contaminate in human blood! Or that salt is pollution in ocean water….
Pollution and contaminates are things that do not naturally belong! A river that’s downstream from a factory should not have lead, arsenic, PCBs, and other industrial contaminates in it. But the atmosphere of this planet should have CO2 in it. And for most of the earth’s history the level has been far higher. One would think that this logic, in and of itself, would prevent anyone with a functioning brain from concluding that a naturally occurring substance located where it does naturally occur is “pollution”….

Richard Greene
Reply to  Lee Riffee
February 13, 2023 9:50 am

Nothing happened when Trump was president for four years.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Duane
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 13, 2023 12:30 pm

Presidents don’t get to decide any matter of how to interpret the law … that is solely the purview and authority of the Federal courts. Presidents can attempt to do various things as matters of policy, and their opponents very often sue in the courts to overturn the policy. Which is why we have courts – not to decide on the content of the policy, unless the content itself clearly violates the law or the Constitution … but rather, the Courts get to decide who gets to decide, and what was decided in any matter in dispute.

Norman Page
February 13, 2023 8:26 am

Francis Here are some quotes from my blog http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/
Feel free to add the whole post or any part of it to your Brief or separately as a friend of the court under my name.Best Regards and good luck Dr Norman page

“The Net Zero meme is a delusional non answer to a non existent problem .The effect of increasing CO2 on temperature is too small to calculate and may even be negative since increasing CO2 has led to a greening world.
“The IPCC and UNFCCC post modern science establishment’s “consensus” is that a modelled future increase in CO2 levels is the main threat to human civilization. This is an egregious error of scientific judgement.  A Millennial Solar ” Activity” Peak in 1991  correlates with the Millennial Temperature Peak at 2003/4 with a 12/13 year delay because of the thermal inertia of the oceans. Earth has now entered a general cooling trend which will last for the next 700+/- years.
Because of the areal distribution and variability in the energy density of energy resources and the varying per capita use of energy in different countries, international power relationships have been transformed. The global free trade system and global supply chains have been disrupted.
Additionally, the worlds richest and most easily accessible key mineral deposits were mined first and the lower quality resources which remain in the 21st century are distributed without regard to national boundaries and demand. As population grows,inflation inevitably skyrockets. War between states and violent conflicts between tribes and religious groups within states are multiplying.
2 The Millennial Temperature Cycle Peak.
Latest Data (1) https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Global   Temp Data 2003/12 Anomaly +0.26 : 2023/01 Anomaly -0.04 Net cooling for 19 years
NH     Temp Data 2004/01 Anomaly +0.37 :  2023/01 Anomaly +0.05 Net cooling for 19 years
SH      Temp Data 2003/11 Anomaly +0.21:  2023/01 Anomaly  -0.14 Net cooling for 19 years  
Tropics  Temp Data 2004/01 Anomaly +0.22 : 2023/01 Anomaly  – 0.38 Net cooling for 19 years.
USA 48  Temp Data 2004/03 Anomaly +1.32 : 2023/01 Anomaly  + 0.12 Net cooling for 19 years.
Arctic    Temp Data 2003/10 Anomaly +0.93 :  2023/01 Anomaly  – 0.72 Net cooling for 19 years
Australia  Temp Data 2004/02 Anomaly +0.80 : 2023/01 Anomaly  – 0.50 Net cooling for 19 years 
Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between the phases of natural cyclic processes of varying wavelengths and amplitudes. At all scales, including the scale of the solar planetary system, sub-sets of oscillating systems develop synchronous behaviors which then produce changing patterns of periodicities in time and space in the emergent temperature data. The periodicities pertinent to current estimates of future global temperature change fall into two main categories:
a) The orbital long wave Milankovitch eccentricity, obliquity and precession cycles. These control the glacial and interglacial periodicities and the amplitudes of the corresponding global temperature cycles. 
b)  Solar activity cycles with multi-millennial, millennial, centennial and decadal time scales. 
The most prominent solar activity and temperature cycles  are : Schwab-11+/-years ; Hale-22 +/-years ; 3 x the Jupiter/Saturn lap cycle 60 years +/- :; Gleissberg 88+/- ; de Vries – 210 years+/-; Millennial- 960-1020 +/-. (2)
 The Oulu Galactic Ray Count is used in this paper as the “solar activity ” proxy which integrates changes in Solar Magnetic field strength, Total Solar Insolation , Extreme Ultra Violet radiation, Interplanetary Magnetic Field strength, Solar Wind density and velocity, Coronal Mass Ejections, proton events, ozone levels and the geomagnetic Bz sign. Changes in the GCR neutron count proxy source causes concomitant modulations in cloud cover and thus albedo. (Iris effect)
Eschenbach 2010 (3) introduced “The Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis – how Clouds and Thunderstorms Control the Earth’s Temperature”. 
Eschenbach 2020(4) in https://whatsupwiththat.com/2020/01/07/drying-the-sky  uses empirical data from the inter- tropical buoy system to provide a description of this system of self-organized criticality. Energy flow from the sun into and then out of the ocean- water interface in the Intertropical Convergence Zone  results in a convective water vapor buoyancy effect and a large increase in OLR This begins when ocean temperatures surpass the locally critical sea surface temperature to produce Rayleigh – Bernard convective heat transfer.
 Short term deviations from the solar activity and temperature cycles are driven by ENSO events and volcanic activity.
comment image
Fig 1 Correlation of the last 5 Oulu neutron cycles and trends with the Hadsst3 temperature     trends and the 300 mb Specific Humidity. ( 5,6 )     
The Oulu Cosmic Ray count in Fig.1C shows the decrease in solar activity since the 1991/92 Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and peak There is a significant secular drop to a lower solar activity base level post 2007+/- and a new solar activity minimum late in 2009. In Figure 1 short term temperature spikes are colored orange and are closely correlated to El Ninos. The hadsst3gl temperature anomaly at 2037 is forecast to be + 0.05…………………………….
See also Figs 2 and 3
……………………………..
6. CO2 -Temperature and Climate.
The whole COP Net Zero meme is founded on the flawed assumptions and algorithms which produced the IPCC- UNFCCC model forecasts of coming dangerous temperature increases.
The “consensus” IPCC models make the fundamental error of ignoring the long- term decline in solar activity and temperature following the Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and activity peak which was reached in 1990/91 as shown in Figure 1
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is .058% by weight.  That is one 1,720th of the whole. It is inconceivable thermodynamically that such a tiny tail could wag so big a dog. (13)
 Stallinga 2020 (14) concludes: ” The atmosphere is close to thermodynamic equilibrium and based on that we……… find that the alleged greenhouse effect cannot explain the empirical data—orders of magnitude are missing. ……Henry’s Law—outgassing of oceans—easily can explain all observed phenomena.” CO2 levels follow temperature changes. CO2 is the dependent variable and there is no calculable consistent relationship between the two. The uncertainties and wide range of out-comes of model calculations of climate radiative forcing (RF) arise from the improbable basic assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the major controller of global temperatures.
 Miskolczi 2014 (15) in “The greenhouse effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth’s Atmosphere “says “The stability and natural fluctuations of the global average surface temperature of the heterogeneous system are ultimately determined by the phase changes of water.”
 Also See  AleksandrZhitomirskiy2022 Absorption of heat and the greenhouse gas effect. https://independent.academia.edu/AleksandrZhitomirskiy  (16)  which says:
“The molar heat capacities of the main greenhouse and non-greenhouse gases are of the same order of magnitude. Given the low concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, their contribution to temperature change is below the measurement error. It seems that the role of various gases in the absorption of heat by the atmosphere is determined not by the ability of the gas to absorb infrared radiation, but by its heat capacity and concentration. ”  
Zaichun Zhul et al 2016 (17) in Greening of the Earth and its drivers report “a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated Leaf Area Index (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area from 1982 – 2009. ………. C02 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend.”
 Policies which limit CO2 emissions or even worse sequester CO2 in quixotic CCS green-washing schemes would decrease agricultural food production and are antithetical to the goals of feeding the increasing population and bringing people out of poverty.
 
The tropical rain forests and tropical oceans are the main source of the atmosphere’s water vapor and the rainfall essential to life and agriculture on land. Potable and agricultural water supplies are now stretched to their limits in many areas because of the demographics of global population increase. Temperature limits and targets as set in the Paris Accords to ameliorate future temperatures are completely useless when formulating policies relative to adaptation to the actual real world problems. These require more local inputs for particular regional ecosystems delineated by coastlines, major river basins and mountain range limited intra-continental divides.” …………………

Giving_Cat
February 13, 2023 8:51 am

I find great satisfaction seeing the EPA go to such great lengths to avoid doing science.

Peta of Newark
February 13, 2023 8:59 am

We’re talking: Charge of the Light Brigade here
you are going to be destroyed. utterly mashed.

Now, if the Light Brigade had a nuke or two up their sleeves or in their saddlebags, things may have come out a bit different.

Headline:The energy transition delusion: inescapable mineral realities

here’s your nuke

Last edited 1 month ago by Peta of Newark
usurbrain
February 13, 2023 12:24 pm

The only “Science” those working for or contracted by the EPA is “Political Science.” PERIOD.

aaron
February 13, 2023 2:59 pm

Note, this graph is for temperature change relative to now, not pre-industrial that most policy & news articles focus on. It takes a long chain of bad assumptions for it to ever possibly be harmful.

They neglect to tell you that 1.5C, and even 3C, above preindustrial temperatures is well within the range where climate change is still beneficial.

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.23.2.29

C66C18CE-C645-4281-8D9F-0F82B831814C.jpeg
%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights