Watch for the movie “blue” coming soon that will recolor green, painting that radical agenda in its true color - red.
See Former Governor John Sununu on the Politics of Global Warming...It Ain’t Pretty and read more here.
February 24, 2014 by Anthony Watts
WUWT has been granted exclusive first access to this new legal document challenging the EPA’s proposed use of calculations on SCC.
While this submission to OMB from Attorney Menton may look forbiddingly legalistic document to many WUWT readers, a number of you may well have signed one or more of the Amicus Briefs and other materials cited in it.It is important to read this because it provides a window into the future of a potential carbon tax in the USA.
I consider it a “must read” for those of you who are very concerned about the EPA’s current and proposed CO2 –related regulations. EPA uses its Social Cost of Carbon estimates to justify all such regulations. And, these estimates are also being used as recommended starting points for future carbon taxes. Enough said as to why it makes sense to read and think about the submission?
If not, you will note it begins by showing that using IPCC’s own words, its estimates of Climate Sensitivity must be treated using what the mathematics of decision theory would call under “Complete Ignorance Uncertainty.” Therefore, EPA’s reliance on IPCC is hardly justified.
Next, it argues that, in the court room, EPA’s own Endangerment Finding was predicated on three easy to understand “Lines of Evidence,” where each has now been shown to be invalid.
The three lines of evidence used by the EPA are A. B. and C.
The hot spot has not appeared, surface temperatures are stalled, and climate models aren’t modeling reality, yet, in the arcane world of the court system, EPA presses on as if these problems don’t exist.
Finally, it points out that the methodology now being used to calculate the SCC estimates is total nonsense for EPA’s purposed use, yet they are being considered “good to go” at this stage of the game.
Attorney Francis J. Menton, Jr. wrote a long letter in this issue to the OMB which can be sen in the long full post on WUWT here.
Will Supreme Court permit EPA deceit and tyranny?
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in what could be the most important energy, economic and environmental case to come before it in decades. Here at CFACT, we have been following this case (Utility Air Regulatory Group vs. EPA) for some time now.
In fact, CFACT submitted two amicus (friend of the court) briefs for it: the first arguing that the Supreme Court should hear the case; the second presenting a more detailed analysis of what is at stake and how the Court should decide the case.
Environmentalist groups and the Obama Administration say the issue is whether the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to require that power plants and other industrial facilities get EPA permits to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Questions by the justices during oral arguments suggest that some are very skeptical about EPA’s assertions of authority, while the Court’s liberal wing seems inclined to give the agency the broadest possible authority to interpret the law, decide the science and regulate as it wishes.
If the Court sides with EPA, there will be virtually no limitations on how far Executive Branch agencies can go, in twisting science, laws and our Constitution to advance their agendas – while ignoring facts, genuine science, and the impacts of regulations on our lives, livelihoods and liberties.
CFACT’s analyses, amicus briefs and articles demonstrate that the issues are far more fundamental and important. The real issues before the Court are these:
How far can the EPA and Obama Administration extend their regulatory overreach, by rewriting the Clean Air Act, ignoring the Constitution’s “separation of powers” doctrine, and disregarding federal laws that require them to consider both the costs and benefits of their regulatory actions?
May the EPA and Obama Administration ignore the fact that, between 1989 and 2010, Congress considered and rejected almost 700 bills addressing various aspects of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change and simply impose their radical anti-hydrocarbon agenda by executive fiat?
May the Executive Branch continue to ignore the enormous benefits of using hydrocarbon energy and emitting carbon dioxide including affordable heat and electricity, better crop growth and nutrition, more jobs, and improved living standards, health and welfare and focus solely on the alleged and exaggerated “costs” of carbon and carbon dioxide?
Should EPA be permitted to impose these job-killing greenhouse gas regulations even though full compliance with them would achieve zero benefits, because emissions from rapidly developing countries will continue increasing total atmospheric CO2 levels, and because climate change is driven not by carbon dioxide, but by natural forces over which we have no control?
In short, should the EPA and Obama Administration be permitted to continue regulating in a manner that can properly be described as deceitful, fraudulent, illegal and unconstitutional?
Let’s hope the Supreme Court agrees the answer is a firm “No.”
For nature and people too,
Executive Director CFACT
Perhaps given the chance to avert public eyes from his lackluster results with containing the deteriorating situation in Syria, nuclear talks with Iran, and the Middle East peace process, Secretary of State Kerry has chosen to flaunt his lack of scientific understanding as a needed diversion.
Kerry described those who do not accept that human activity causes global warming as “shoddy scientists” and “extreme ideologues,” and said big companies and special interests should not be allowed to “hijack” the climate debate. “Climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”
These sound-bite alarmism utterances from an ideologue lacking scientific training himself, shoddy or otherwise, are consistent with a special-interest politician always alert to the political climate. By unilaterally labeling a fundamental, natural feature of Earth itself a “weapon of mass destruction,” Kerry has now redefined “original sin” as being the result of excess man-made carbon dioxide. He has removed the path of redemption from the hands of traditional religion and proclaimed salvation in government-imposed “global warming pollution reduction.” The failed 2010 Kerry/Lieberman “American Power Act” apparently lives on in Kerry’s psyche.
Let Kerry produce the impartial evidence that would quantify how much human activity has caused how much global warming (or cooling). The inherently chaotic nature of climate has defied attempts of climate modelers to accurately predict the future climate. What is “normal climate” is heavily dependent on the time period and geographic place chosen. The scientific record shows no global warming for the past 16 years, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased about 9 percent. True “weapons of mass destruction” have reliable on-off switches, well-calculated destructive impacts, and specific targets.
“Climate change” has been coopted by the progressive/liberal movement as something akin to the “universal solvent.” It is the term used to explain any untoward event anywhere, and direct blame to all of mankind...but with the exception of the ruling class. It is the term that brings visions of guaranteed profits to the corporate cronyist, endless government research grants to compliant scientists, and elitist political control of the populace, whose function is reduced to paying for the scam.
Charles Battig, M.D., Piedmont Chapter president, VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE). His website is www.climateis.wordpress.com
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
The NYT continues its leftist lie campaign with a story on snow disappearing called ”The End of Snow” by Porter Fox, a reporter for Powder magazine.
It includes this claim:
In the last 47 years, a million square miles of spring snow cover has disappeared from the Northern Hemisphere.
Yes but skiers ski in winter. Lets check the facts.
Since 2000, claims have been made by warmists that snow would become a rare commodity. Not only would this disappoint children but would endanger the ski industry (and in New England Maple Sugar industry as the maple trees would pack their bag and move north to Canada). This claim was made to ski areas and the maple sugar industry at a summit on top of Mt. Washington by the Union of Concerned Scientists (an environmental advocacy group - not real scientists) in the summer of 2007.
That winter that followed, record snows fell from Alaska to Colorado and northeast to northern and central New England. Michael Berry, President of the National Ski Area Association said it was likely the best season ever.
Snow has been increasing in thee fall and winter the last 48 years.
4 of the top 5 snowiest winters for the northern hemisphere have occurred in the last 6 years.
Last November to April had a record snowcover for the hemisphere.
The number major impact east cost storms this decade just 4 years in is up to 13 (3 already this year), makes this the snowiest decade on record.
The snowcover today for the hemisphere is extensive even with a gap in Europe (after 5 snowy years).
The snowcover for the first week of February is 6th greatest for North America and 9th greatest for the Northern Hemisphere (out of the 48 years the NYT article claims).
Another few winters like those of recent years and maybe the psuedo-scientists and their adoring fact-less feckless media may be preserved in ice for future generation’s amusement.