This thread is for discussion of American aspects of global warming.

202 Thoughts on “USA

  1. Richard C (NZ) on March 5, 2013 at 7:04 pm said:

    The kids of course, will know nothing of the solar influence evident in climate cycles because it’s not “accepted science”.

    Unless solar cycles turn up in geology or other non climate science module in their geography class that Andy reports up-thread. Fine to teach the CO2-centric theory but how does it apply to Little Ice Ages (18 in the last 7500 yrs) when climate was radically different to the “anthropocene” and likely to be repeated in the near future i.e. in those kids lifetime for sure?

  2. Simon on March 5, 2013 at 9:17 pm said:

    It would be a rolling mean. Once again, you should never apply polynomial regressions to time series. Tamino has been blogging recently about autocorrelation in the noise of temperature data and how to correct for it, smoothing is a simple way of doing that.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on March 6, 2013 at 8:11 am said:

    It’s not a rolling mean, aka moving average, because it extends over the entire series. Look at the first and last datapoints in relation to the curve, there’s a corresponding curve point. If it were a 7 year moving average say, there would be 6 yrs missing at the start of the curve.

    >”Once again, you should never apply polynomial regressions to time series”

    What a load of rubbish. Tamino has applied a polynomial of some order and it represents the cyclical nature of the data with a very high correlation value I’m sure. It’s just a matter then, of looking for the long-term cycles that fit the curve in order to know if projection can be made and how long for. In this case it would go against the prevailing cycles to do so at this juncture because there’s no driver acting to extend it on that trajectory. Scafetta will find that out eventually too.

    The IPCC are being gazumped by natural cycles right now but don’t know it obviously because they can only point to “natural variation” while they’re scrabbling around to explain the unpredicted (by them) standstill.

    This all will make an excellent case study for educational institutions in the future.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on March 6, 2013 at 8:39 am said:

    Andrew Montford weighs in:-

    ‘A despotism over the mind’

    “I don’t know about you, but I think a balanced view of global warming would involve teaching the evidence against global warming as well as the evidence for it. Human activities are “major factors”? Surely they may be major factors. Surely the failure of temperatures to rise in recent years suggests that they may equally be minor factors. Should the attribution statement not be qualified with the fact that it depends on computer models that may be useful as toys for scientists but, having no proven ability to predict future climate, are far being ready to inform policymakers?

    Will the children be told this? Or are they just pawns of a left-wing educational establishment who must hear the recitation of the global warming dogma?”

  5. Andy on March 6, 2013 at 8:53 am said:

    Seems strange that Tamino can get a rising moving average for the 21st c when Hansen makes it flat for a 5 year moving average

  6. Simon on March 6, 2013 at 1:37 pm said:

    It will be an ARIMA model which is a moving average. Also note that the temperature series is solely the continental US (48 States) and that last year was exceptionally hot in the US.

    If natural cycles exist they would be teased out by a Principal Component Analysis. Instead, PC1 is a ‘hockey stick’, even in McIntyre’s dataset :-)

  7. Simon, thanks, I didn’t notice that this was a US only temperature series

  8. Richard C (NZ) on March 6, 2013 at 5:03 pm said:

    >”It will be an ARIMA model which is a moving average”

    A combination of regression, moving average and polynomial but mostly polynomial by the looks of this:-

    The ARIMA Procedure

    Notation for Pure ARIMA Models [page 17]

    Mathematically the pure ARIMA model is written as



    (B) is the autoregressive operator, represented as a polynomial in the
    back shift operator: (B) = 1 􀀀 1B 􀀀 : : : 􀀀 pBp

    (B) is the moving-average operator, represented as a polynomial in the
    back shift operator: (B) = 1 􀀀 1B 􀀀 : : : 􀀀 qBq

    >”If natural cycles exist they would be teased out by a Principal Component Analysis”

    “teased out”? Or identified by smoothing? There are wads of literature on the 60 year cycle (as per PDO BTW) and the multitude of natural cycles evident in times series of climate (just read Scafetta for example) but they don’t find their way into IPCC assessments natch.

    If you, Tamino, or anyone, are going to use an ARIMA model to forecast climate, the forecast will be meaningless unless the longer-term cycles (and corresponding drivers) are taken into account. Anyone using ARIMA or EMD or PCI or polynomial or moving average or linear regression for forecasting without cognizance of the limitations of the tool or what the components they are seeing in the data actually represent in the real world are fooling themselves.

    Tamino obviously does not understand the earth’s solar driven ocean heat sink based enthalpy, or ENSO processes, or thermal inertia and lag, or solar varation. He thinks they can be “taken out” of the data but by doing so he overlooks key indicators and is left with a totally unrealistic trajectory. Mind you he is not alone on that. There are papers and articles by scientists from the non-CO2 side making the same mistakes.

    It’s the (very) approx 200 year cycle that’s biting the IPCC on the backside right now (and Tamino over the next few years – he’s already wrong since 2010 in the GAT metric).

    ‘The 200-year sunspot cycle is also a weather cycle’

  9. Richard C (NZ) on March 6, 2013 at 5:34 pm said:

    >”Anyone using ARIMA or EMD or PCI…” – PCA that should be.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on March 6, 2013 at 7:03 pm said:

    I get a similar profile but not smoothed as much as Tamino’s US atm temp ARIMA (?) smoothing in IMF6 (last intermediate mode) from an EMD analysis of HadSST2 but the residual signal tells a totally different story (rapid warming is over contrary to ARIMA – if that’s what Tamino used).

    I wouldn’t project the centennial scale residual from a 132 yr series for prediction though but it is a key leading indicator that evolves (will get dropped to IMF7 and new residual eventually) as new data comes in. IMF6 is mukti-decadal oscillations and IMF5 is inter-decadal oscillations.

    Doesn’t identify the 60 yr cycle with any clarity though, ARIMA would do a good job of that I suspect if Tamino projected a longer series Scafetta style. But both guys miss what the EMD residual reveals, what the 200 yr cycle implies, and what SC24 is now telling everyone that wont listen to what the likes of De Jager, Duhau, Abdussamatov, Timo Niroma up-thread, and a bunch of others are saying.

  11. Richard C (NZ) on March 6, 2013 at 8:05 pm said:

    >”It will be an ARIMA model”

    Maybe it is but the resulting curve looks exactly like a 4th order polynomial with trajectory heading skywards in the 21st century (using SST instead of USAT). A 5th order poly turns down in the 21st century OTOH.

    Leads me to think that the orders of the polynomial representations in ARIMA (if that’s what it is) determines the shape of the model profile in the same way that manual selection of polynomial order does for a trend regression.

  12. Richard C (NZ) on April 9, 2013 at 8:09 pm said:

    New York tab for 100% renewables put at $367b

    New York would need about $US382 billion ($367 billion) and wind turbines covering an area equivalent to 13 per cent of the state’s land mass if it followed a Cornell University plan to derive all of its power from renewables.

    Robert Howarth, a Cornell ecology professor, suggested last month the state could get half its power from wind and enough from solar, tidal and other forms of clean energy to replace fossil fuels by 2030. The plan for 254 gigawatts of generation capacity would cost about $US1.5 million a megawatt, or $US382 billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

    The findings cast doubt on the ability of the state to eliminate oil, natural gas and coal from its energy supply. The Cornell proposal would require onshore wind turbines covering an area 3.3 times the size of New York City’s five boroughs.

    “It’s too ambitious by 2030 to replace all the state’s power with renewables, although big progress could be made,” Angus McCrone, a senior analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in London, said today. The projections, he said, look “unrealistic” for individual technologies.

    Read more:

  13. Richard C (NZ) on April 17, 2013 at 8:14 pm said:

    U.S. Breadbasket At Risk From Global Cooling NOAA Indicates – Crop Failures, World Hunger A Result?

    While left-leaning U.S. politicians, bureaucrats and the partisan mainstream press continue to push the silly catastrophic AGW hysteria from human CO2 emissions, a significant cooling trend (per NOAA) across a critically important global breadbasket continues – if the latest 15-year global cooling trend persists, crop yields will suffer immensely

    [see charts]

    As has been well documented, global warming has gone AWOL and in some regions of the world, global cooling trends have materialized, which scientists across the world are starting to express concern with.

    In the key crop regions of the U.S., there has been an extended cooling trend that persists despite the immense human CO2 emissions released over the last two decades. The above four NOAA charts depict those cooling trends across the a wide swath of American agricultural production. These charts represent the main American corn, soybean, spring and winter wheat growing areas.

    What the huge U.S. breadbasket needs at this point is a few years of some good old fashioned global warming that will reverse the potential devastation a mass cooling would deliver to crop yields.

    Unfortunately, though, it appears nature is not delivering what the American farmers and ranchers need this spring.

  14. Andy on May 11, 2013 at 10:42 pm said:

    Barack Obama declares war on The Deniers

    Update . Not sure if this is a scam. The second page is a donate page. Looks dodgy

  15. Richard C (NZ) on May 25, 2013 at 3:14 pm said:


    May 24, 2013

    The Supreme Court, in Mass v. EPA, stated that the EPA must treat CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), as “pollutants” and then carryout an analysis to determine whether the increasing concentrations in atmospheric CO2 may reasonably be anticipated to endanger human health and welfare. The Court did not mandate regulation; rather it mandated that EPA go through an Endangerment Finding process.

    EPA did so and on December 15, 2009 issued its ruling that CO2 and other GHGs must be regulated. This EPA finding and associated rulings were immediately challenged in the DC Circuit Court. The DC Circuit ruled in favor of EPA, but given the two strong dissents from the December 20, 2012 decision denying rehearing en banc, the matter is likely going to the Supreme Court.

    On Thursday, May 23, 2013, 11 scientists submitted an Amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of the Southeastern Legal Foundation ( SLF) et al’s Petition for a writ of certiorari. (see PDF) )

    SLF’s petition is the only petition to the Supreme Court that includes a purely science argument developed to show that EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding (EF) should be Vacated. Other Petitioners argue that such a decision is in order but make purely legal or process arguments.

    Both the aforementioned Amicus brief and the SLF brief argue that each of the Three Lines of Evidence EPA uses to arrive at its 90-99 % certainty regarding its EF are very highly questionable. More specifically, the science portion of the Amicus Brief concludes with the following statement:

    “Amici believe that no scientists have devised an empirically validated theory proving that higher atmospheric CO2 levels will lead to higher GAST. Moreover, if the causal link between higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and higher GAST is broken by invalidating each of EPA’s three lines of evidence, then EPA’s assertions that higher CO2 concentrations also cause sea-level increases and more frequent and severe storms, floods, and droughts are also disproved. Such causality assertions require a validated theory that higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increases in GAST. Lacking such a validated theory, EPA’s conclusions cannot stand. In science, credible empirical data always trumps proposed theories, even if those theories are claimed to (or actually do) represent the current consensus.”


  16. Richard C (NZ) on May 25, 2013 at 3:57 pm said:

    Related: ‘The worst consequences of the global warming scare’

    Guest essay by David Archibald

    […] “During a recent briefing in Washington, D.C., IEA analyst Laszlo Varro was pessimistic about CTL. “Essentially, energy policy needs to replicate a war blockade,” he said. “The only country that has meaningful investments in coal to liquids is China.”

    Varro added, “It’s a big carbon dioxide factory.”

    With the EPA in the United States hell bent on closing down existing coal-fired power stations using carbon dioxide emissions as the excuse, getting funding for a new coal-burning facility of any sort is going to be a difficult sell. The consequence of that is that the United States is denying itself its largest potential source of liquid transport fuels commercially viable with current oil prices and technology […]

    Now let’s go back to that quote from the International Energy Agency analyst: ”energy policy needs to replicate a war blockade.” and “the only country that has meaningful investments in coal to liquids is China.” It seems that one of the reasons that China is investing in coal-to-liquids is that it expects to be subject to a war blockade in a war that it will start itself. On the other side of the Pacific, the United States, which will do the heavy lifting in any such war started by China, is handicapped by denying itself a potential supply of liquid transport fuels and the optimum allocation of its resource endowment. That, dear readers, is the worst consequence of the witchcraft and voodoo that is the current state of official climate science.

  17. From my inbox this morning, from

    Now, this is huge news:

    President Obama is set to announce his plan this week to address the growing threat of climate change.

    We’ll know more specifics on Tuesday, but it’s expected he’ll offer a bold, national approach to reducing carbon pollution — and lay out a vision to lead global efforts to fight climate change.

    The powerful, well-financed forces who still deny the science behind climate change aren’t going to like this — and they’ll be fighting this progress every step of the way. In fact, before he’s even seen the plan, House Speaker John Boehner is calling it “absolutely crazy.”

    That’s why President Obama is calling on all of us — anyone who believes that climate change is a threat — to join him in taking action right now.

    Thanks for helping hold climate deniers accountable — join the President’s call and add your name today:

    Thanks — more on this soon.

  18. Mike Jowsey on June 24, 2013 at 6:26 pm said:

    Irish deputy leader of Opposition calling Obama a war Criminal.

  19. Andy on June 25, 2013 at 2:16 pm said:

    Whitehouse deleting all of Steven Goddard’s tweets

    Obama must really have learned something from the Realclimate/Guardian/SkS teams

  20. Richard C (NZ) on June 26, 2013 at 9:54 am said:

    ‘Obama lays out climate action plan’

    By Paul Rincon Science editor, BBC News website

    President Obama mocked critics who contend climate change is not a threat or deny its reality.

    “I don’t have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real,” he said. “We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.”

    The president said climate change posed an immediate threat, with the 12 hottest years on record all occurring in the past 15 years.

    # # #

    I see Oblahblah’s right up with the latest, but irrelevant, data. And the stock response to critics too (or, how to insult, anger and alienate a large part of the populace). People voted for that?

  21. Richard C (NZ) on June 26, 2013 at 8:13 pm said:

    ‘US EPA’s key legal battles’ – SMH

    U.S. President Barack Obama will rely on the federal Clean Air Act as he tries to make good on his latest vow to address the threat of global warming.

    Obama will direct the Environmental Protection Agency to use the Act to finish a plan setting carbon pollution limits on new power plants by September 20 this year and draft a plan for existing power plants by June 2014.

    Legal challenges are almost guaranteed for federal rules written under the Clean Air Act. Industry groups and coal-reliant states have already signaled that they will challenge power plant regulations if they feel the EPA produces a plan that has overly strict timetables or emissions limits that “violate the spirit of the Clean Air Act,” one industry representative said.

    The following are major recent legal challenges to the Clean Air Act [details omitted]:

    Massachusetts vs. EPA, 2007:
    American electric power vs. Connecticut, 2011:
    Coalition for responsible regulation vs. EPA, 2012:
    Eme Homer City generation vs. EPA, 2012:
    Las brisas energy center LLC vs. EPA, 2012:
    Center for biological diversity vs. EPA, 2012:

    Read more:

  22. “Obama’s rip-roaring speech tonight has put climate change back on the agenda ”

    Geoffrey Lean

    Scroll past the fatuous article to the comments section for a laugh

  23. Richard C (NZ) on June 27, 2013 at 9:23 am said:

    Heh, turns out the president of the Flat Earth Society, Daniel Shenton, personally thinks the evidence suggests fossil fuel usage is contributing to global warming (via JN):

    ‘Actually, even the Flat Earth Society believes in climate change’

    [Shenton] “I accept that climate change is a process which has been ongoing since beginning of detectable history, but there seems to be a definite correlation between the recent increase in world-wide temperatures and man’s entry into the industrial age,” he said. “If it’s a coincidence, it’s quite a remarkable one. We may have experienced a temperature increase even without our use of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution, but I doubt it would be as dramatic as what we’re seeing now.”

    As for Obama’s dig at his group, which indeed thinks the world is flat, Shenton said he’s not surprised and doesn’t take it personally.

  24. Richard C (NZ) on June 27, 2013 at 9:36 am said:

    Obama pulled a Hansen trick:

    ‘Obama resorts to stagecraft as he lays out his aggressive climate change plan’

    by Thomas Richard,

    On June 25, President Obama, resorting to his usual props and theatrics, spoke outside on a typical June muggy day in Washington D.C., and spelled out his aggressive plan to address man-made global warming. Often during his speech, he pulled out his bright white handkerchief and wiped his forehead, a bit of stagecraft that the cameras gobbled up.

    For those unfamiliar with Georgetown University, it also has an enormous indoor, air-conditioned auditorium (see slideshow) where other prominent figures have given addresses to large crowds. So why didn’t Obama choose the more secure, cooler auditorium rather than the humidity-soaked outdoor location? Stagecraft.

    Even the Christian Science Monitor noted the obvious histrionics of a president………

  25. Richard C (NZ) on June 27, 2013 at 10:11 am said:

    ‘Obama’s Radical Climate Agenda’

    By The Editors


    If only President Obama simply had cried wolf. Instead, the president announced that, on behalf of “all of humankind,” he is in effect directing the EPA to take over the American economy. New power plants will be subject to emissions controls, and existing plants will have to be retrofitted to comply with new standards. New restrictions on heavy trucks will affect the movement of freight and goods across the country. New subsidies will be handed down for politically connected energy firms, and federal lands will be set aside for their use. New federal impositions will affect the construction of factories, commercial buildings, and private homes. The president says that this is all enabled by the “overwhelming judgment of science.”

    It certainly has not been enabled by something so mundane as the law. We rather suspect that the overwhelming judgment of Congress would be against the president’s program of regimenting the entire American economy under the management of a newly empowered EPA. But the president has made it clear that he intends to act largely through administrative fiat, subverting the democratic process and the people’s elected representatives. Unhappily, the Supreme Court has abetted this ambition by misconstruing the Clean Air Act as a warrant of action on global warming.


    # # #

    If ever there was an indictment on climate alarmism, “the Supreme Court has abetted this ambition by misconstruing the Clean Air Act as a warrant of action on global warming” is it.

    I don’t think we’ve heard the last of this from the USA.

  26. Richard C (NZ) on June 28, 2013 at 10:03 am said:

    ‘Blowing Smoke: Obama Climate Speech Riddled With Lies’

    A dangerous, arrogant, fact-free tirade.

    By Dr Tim Ball and Tom Harris


    Obama used the erroneous phrase “carbon pollution” a total of twenty times in his Georgetown speech.

    He is, of course, really speaking of CO2, an odorless, invisble gas essential to plant life and in no way a pollutant. Yet the Obama Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) still designates CO2 a “harmful substance” so as to allow greater bureaucratic control of industry under the Clean Air Act. In Tuesday’s address, the president promised to expand the EPA’s CO2 regulations to cover existing power stations, an action sure to cost billions of dollars and millions of jobs for no environmental benefit. EPA’s claim is based on three lines of evidence that a recent amicus brief [hotlinked] filed with the U.S. Supreme Court shows are invalid. Regardless, calling CO2 “carbon” helps Obama politically since it encourages people to think of CO2 as associated with soot, something that is pure carbon and is clearly dirty and undesirable.

    Of course, we can and should reduce the amount of soot going in to the atmosphere, and apart from China, significant advances have occurred. Scrubber technology for coal-fired power plants has been available for a long time. If Obama really wants to help people’s health and the environment, he should encourage all possible use of scrubbers.

    The “carbon pollution” mistake is often used by activists to focus negative attention specifically on coal-fired electricity generation, since “carbon” comes from the Latin carbo, meaning coal. Over 40 percent of U.S. energy comes from coal, and so killing this energy source is fundamental to the president’s apparent goals of expanding government control and redistributing wealth. Obama wants to end coal use entirely in the U.S., no matter how clean it can be made. Obama even told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2008: “What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.”

    Continues >>>>>

  27. Richard C (NZ) on June 28, 2013 at 10:26 am said:

    Amicus brief to the Supreme Court:

    Summary Of The Argument …………………… 4
    Reasons For Granting The Petitions ………………… 6

    I. The Conclusion That EPA Drew From Its Three Lines Of Evidence Is Demonstrably Invalid …………….. 7

    A. First Line Of Evidence: EPA’s GHG Fingerprint (Or Hot Spot) Theory……. 9
    B. Second Line Of Evidence: The Purported Unusual Rise In GAST ………. 13
    C. Third Line Of Evidence: Climate Models …………… 16

    II. Serious Deficiencies In EPA’s Process Contributed To Its Scientific Errors …………. 21

    Conclusion…………. 24

    Page 30,

    Some of the signatories to the October 2009 letter and other independent scientists, in a group that also included some of the amici before this Court, lodged an amicus brief with the court of appeals making similar points about the data and EPA’s scientific conclusions. Brief of Amici Curiae Scientists in Support of Petitioners Supporting Reversal, Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, No 09-1322 (CADC June 8, 2011), ECF No. 1312291. The D.C. Circuit declined to grant leave for that brief to be filed.

  28. Richard C (NZ) on June 28, 2013 at 10:46 am said:


    In the midst of an unsettled and vigorous international debate regarding the existence of purported global warming and the role—if any—of human-emitted greenhouse gases (GHGs) in contributing to that alleged warming, EPA concluded with near absolute certainty that temperatures in the second half of the twentieth century were “unusually” high because of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. 74 Fed. Reg. 66518 (2009). That sweeping conclusion was a critical component of the EPA’s Endangerment Finding, and so was an impetus for the most significant and far-reaching regulatory program ever devised by a federal agency.

    Amici urge the Court to grant petitioners’ request for certiorari because the three “lines of evidence” from the administrative record that EPA relied on do not support the conclusion that manmade greenhouse gas emissions have caused climate warming in the latter half of the twentiethcentury. Indeed, each line of evidence is demonstrably invalid.

    EPA’s first line of evidence, its purported basic physical understanding of the effect of GHGs and other factors on climate, is invalid because it relies on the existence of an atmospheric “hot spot” or “fingerprint” that simply does not exist in the real world’s temperature data.

    Its second line of evidence, the assertion that temperatures around the globe rose to unusual and dangerously high levels over the last fifty years, is also demonstrably false using the best temperature data available.

    Likewise, EPA’s third line of evidence, involving computerized climate models, is also invalid. It can be shown that those models, premised on faulty assumptions, just do not produce forecasts that match up with the real world.

    No specialized scientific education or previous experience with climate science is needed to see that those facts are true. Each of EPA’s lines of evidence requires that the most relevant and credible temperature data available show upward-sloping trends in temperature. That is true for the Hot Spot or GHG Fingerprint theory, the assertion that worldwide temperatures have been anomalous, and for actual data to conform to EPA’s model forecasts of rising global average surface temperature (GAST). In science, theories must be validated against the most credible empirical data. Each of EPA’s three lines of evidence will be shown to be invalid via such easy to understand hypothesis testing.

    EPA reached its invalid conclusions through a highly deficient process. EPA refused to examine “relevant data,” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 513 (2009) (quoting Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Assn. of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)), and made other procedural errors. EPA’s Endangerment Finding is not “rational,” but arbitrary and capricious. Fox, 556 U.S., at 516. Amici therefore respectfully request that this Court grant petitioners’ request for certiorari in this case.

  29. Presumably these measures will depress the price of coal even further which will be good news for “green” countries like Germany who are building 24 new coal fired power plants.

  30. Richard C (NZ) on June 28, 2013 at 11:09 am said:

    Yes perhaps, but it does not necessarily follow. There will be a long time lag for that to occur that will take events beyond the Obama presidency but I think US coal producer stock prices have already taken a hit. It would be insane though if all this went ahead.

    It has been observed that US would just increase exports of coal to Asia (China) and Europe (Germany) so it will be similar the the AU situation. Not good news for Solid Energy but it might mean cheaper coal would prolong Huntly or even make a new coal burner economic. Even now it’s not out of the question.

  31. Richard C (NZ) on June 28, 2013 at 11:14 am said:

    ‘Submission of Legal Brief To the US Supreme Court.’

    by admin on May 27, 2013

    On May 23, 2013 eleven of us filed a brief with the US Supreme Court supporting the Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) et al’s Petition for a writ of certiorari. The brief is asking the Supreme Court to consider our scientific argument that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) CO2 Endangerment Finding be dropped because of scientific and legal errors. The following is the press release explaining our Brief, which is attached.


    “SLF’s petition is the only petition to the Supreme Court that includes a purely science argument developed to show that EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding (EF) should be Vacated. Other Petitioners argue that such a decision is in order but make purely legal or process arguments.”

  32. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2013 at 11:02 am said:

    Southeastern Legal Foundation.

    About SLF: Founded in 1976, Southeastern Legal Foundation is celebrating its 37th year as an national constitutional public interest law firm and policy center that advocates limited government, individual economic freedom, and the free enterprise system in the courts of law and public opinion. Our mission is to engage in litigation and public policy advocacy in support of these principles.

    We look for cases and issues in which our involvement makes a difference, not just to the parties involved, but also on the policies and issues in dispute. We believe that the U.S. Constitution is a complete document, creating limits on government. When government — federal, state and local — goes beyond the constitutional limits, we are there to enforce constitutional limitations. We are not a single-issue organization; rather, we are a conservative public interest law firm and policy center dedicated to creating binding legal precedent and positive public policy change for all Americans.

    Mission and Goals
    Southeastern Legal Foundation is a public interest law firm which advocates limited government, individual economic freedom, and the free enterprise system. We look for cases in which our involvement can make a difference, not just to the parties involved, but also on the policies or issues that are in dispute.

    Case Centers

    • Global Warming?
    • Property Rights
    • Free Speech
    • Census / Redistricting
    • Campaign Finance
    • Reverse Discrimination
    • Ten Commandments
    • Honor Roll of Freedom
    • Legislative Education
    • Unemployment Ins.
    • Budget & Taxes

  33. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2013 at 2:37 pm said:

    Southeastern Legal Foundation: Case Center • Global Warming?

    Global Warming Litigation Project

    Find out the latest on the legal and scientific battle underway to save common sense and the American economy!

    * Home
    * Why a Lawsuit?
    * How the EPA Got it Wrong
    * Legal/Case Documents
    * The Science
    * Media – Audio/Video/Print
    * About SLF
    * EPA Lawsuit Updates

    Home: Lawsuits and Science

    SLF began work on global warming issues in 2006 with investigations into mass tort/class action lawsuits filed after Hurricane Katrina alleging public nuisance claims against American industry for “causing” alleged global warming that caused the destructive hurricane. During the investigation, SLF uncovered scientific evidence by leading credible scientists that “global warming”/climate change is not the “consensus” established by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its reports. Further investigation – as well as review of recent disclosures by a whistleblower at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Copenhagen conference failures, and “Climategate” disclosures of alleged data fraud – reveal that the matter of human-caused (anthropogenic) climate change is anything but “settled science.”

    Nonetheless, despite more than 300,000 thousand lucid, relevant formal public comments submitted to the EPA during the 2009 public comment period on its proposed Endangerment Finding related to carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions, including a comprehensive report from SLF (see inside this website [top of page options] at “Why a Lawsuit?” and “How the EPA Got It Wrong”), EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson issued an Endangerment Finding on December 7, 2009.

    The Endangerment Finding indicates that draconian, costly regulations will be promulgated by the EPA in 2010 and beyond (according to reports, more than 600 pages of new mandates that will impose costly and invasive burdens on American industry and energy and, therefore, consumers and taxpayers).

    Taking the Matter to Court

    SLF, representing a group of well-informed and concerned Americans, including leaders in Congress who have been intimately involved in climate change issues for more than a decade, has brought the first of likely several court and administrative legal actions. The goal is to compel the federal government to follow the laws as enacted by Congress and to pursue legitimate public policy based on legitimate scientific data. The American people deserve no less, and the U.S. Constitution mandates it.

    The proposed measures in the EPA’s arsenal will cripple the American economy at a cost of at least $1 trillion over the next decade – and will provide no significant environmental benefit to the climate and environment over the next 30 years.

    SLF is providing background legal and scientific information on this website during the pendency of the various legal actions in order to ensure that the American people have access to the proceedings and to solid representative materials of the scientific inquiry into climate change.

    [SLF represents 12 members of Congress, 15 companies and associations, and has been joined in the appeal (Petition for Writ of Certiorari) by Competitive Enterprise Institute, FreedomWorks, and the Science and Environmental Policy Project]

  34. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2013 at 5:17 pm said:

    >”…review of recent disclosures by a whistleblower at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)”

    ‘EPA Whistleblower Criticizes Global Warming Science and Policy in New Peer-Reviewed Study’

    Study Shows Claims of Catastrophic Warming Are Overwhelmingly Contradicted By Real-World Data’

    By Christine Hall, April 01, 2011

    Washington, D.C., April 1, 2011 – The scientific hypotheses underlying global warming alarmism are overwhelmingly contradicted by real-world data, and for that reason economic studies on the alleged benefits of controlling greenhouse gas emissions are baseless. That’s the finding of a new peer-reviewed report by a former EPA whistleblower.

    Dr. Alan Carlin, now retired, was a career environmental economist at EPA when CEI broke the story of his negative report on the agency’s proposal to regulate greenhouse gases in June, 2009. Dr. Carlin’s supervisor had ordered him to keep quiet about the report and to stop working on global warming issues. EPA’s attempt to silence Dr. Carlin became a highly-publicized embarrassment to the agency, given Administrator Lisa Jackson’s supposed commitment to transparency.

    Dr. Carlin’s new study, A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change [link at bottom of page], is published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. It finds that fossil fuel use has little impact on atmospheric CO2 levels. Moreover, the claim that atmospheric CO2 has a strong positive feedback effect on temperature is contradicted on several grounds, ranging from low atmospheric sensitivity to volcanic eruptions, to the lack of ocean heating and the absence of a predicted tropical “hot spot.”

    However, most economic analyses of greenhouse gas emission controls, such as those being imposed by EPA, have been conducted with no consideration of the questionable nature of the underlying science. For that reason, according to Dr. Carlin, the actual “economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less” than what is claimed in those reports.


    See ‘Getting To The Bottom Of Cook’s 97% Lie’ in the Skeptical Science thread re the Carlin paper (“endorses the consensus” in The Consensus Project):

  35. Richard C (NZ) on July 2, 2013 at 6:18 pm said:

    >”…according to Dr. Carlin, the actual “economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less” than what is claimed in those reports”

    See ‘The Social Cost of Carbon’ in the Economics thread:

  36. Richard C (NZ) on July 4, 2013 at 9:42 pm said:

    Re Obama circumventing Congress law to regulate CO2 emissions, Carlin’s EPA whistleblowing, and the EPA Endangerment Finding vs Global Warming Litigation Project – some duplicity (and nativity) in The Guardian:

    ‘James Clapper, EU play-acting, and political priorities’

    Fixations on denouncing Edward Snowden distract, by design, from the serious transgressions of those who are far more powerful

    Glenn Greenwald

    “….the oft-repeated claim from President Barack Obama that the NSA is not listening in on Americans’ calls without warrants……..indisputably false.”

    “What we see here, yet again, is this authoritarian strain in US political life that the most powerful political officials cannot commit crimes or engage in serious wrongdoing. The only political crimes come from exposing and aggressively challenging those officials.”

    “How is it anything other than pure whistleblowing to disclose secret documents proving that top government officials have been systematically deceiving the public about vital matters and/or skirting if not violating legal and Constitutional limits?”

    “…and yes: the US persecutes whistleblowers”

    H/t bill July 4, 2013 at 5:26 pm

    Clapper vs. Congress: Further proof, if any were needed, that these garçons do not feel that they are beholden to their democratic governments.

  37. Richard C (NZ) on July 4, 2013 at 10:06 pm said:

    “nativity” should be naivety. I used spellcheck to correct naivity assuming the correct rendition would be top of list – it wasn’t.

  38. Richard C (NZ) on July 21, 2013 at 9:08 pm said:

    Republican report: Critical Thinking on Climate Change

    Senate GOP criticizes past global warming claims ahead of hearing

    Senate Republicans have released a report debunking catastrophic predictions made about global warming in advance of the Environment and Public Works Committee hearing held today.

    “Over nearly four decades, numerous predictions have had adequate time to come to fruition, providing an opportunity to analyze and compare them to today’s statistics,” reads the report from Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

    The report examines the 15-year break from global warming, sea level rises, extreme weather, and the unilateral regulations proposed by the Obama administration.

    United States Senate
    Environment and Public Works Committee
    Minority Report

    ‘Critical Thinking on Climate Change’

    Questions to Consider Before Taking Regulatory
    Action and Implementing Economic Policies

    July 18, 2013


    INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………… 1







    Page 23:

    “The energy of the mind is the essence of life.” – Aristotle, Greek philosopher and polymath, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great

  39. Richard C (NZ) on July 23, 2013 at 5:14 pm said:

    ‘US Republicans seek to stymie Obama on climate’

    US House Republicans proposed cutting the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by a third and denying funds for a key part of President Barack Obama’s plan to combat global warming.

    The House Appropriations committee’s panel that oversees the EPA will consider cutting $US2.8 billion ($3.03 billion) from the agency’s 2014 budget, and prohibit the administration from spending on greenhouse-gas rules for power plants, the centerpiece of Obama’s climate plan. The budget for the year starting October 1, which will get a vote tomorrow in the subcommittee, also would bar the EPA from imposing new curbs on sulfur in gasoline and on the use of water by power plants.

    “By holding back overly zealous and unnecessary environmental regulations, this bill can have a positive effect on our economy and will help encourage job growth,” Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, a Kentucky Republican, said today in a statement.

    House Republicans are seeking to limit the president’s efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, which scientists say are causing global warming. While the measures with the restrictions have little chance of being adopted in the Democratic-led Senate, they underscore efforts administration critics are considering to head off or slow the EPA’s regulation.

    Read more:

  40. Richard C (NZ) on July 27, 2013 at 1:40 pm said:

    ‘The Problem with the 10th Circuit’s Ruling in State of Oklahoma et al. v. EPA’

    by William Yeatman on July 26, 2013


    To be precise, EPA disapproved Oklahoma’s estimate of what BART controls would cost. Oklahoma calculated that scrubbers, a retrofit to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, would cost $1.8 billion to install at six power plants. Based in part on this estimate, state officials deemed that scrubbers were too expensive to serve as Regional Haze BART.

    EPA contested this conclusion by hiring an “independent” consultant. According to this “independent” consultant, Oklahoma’s accounting was improper, and the actual cost of installing the six scrubbers was half what the Sooner State claimed it was—about $900 million.


    I followed the case closely, and I thought it would be a slam dunk for Oklahoma. For starters, the State won a stay preventing EPA’s implementation of its Regional Haze rule while the court deliberated the case. This is always a good sign for the petitioners. More importantly, the previous case law made it clear that States get to choose BART. It seemed obvious that EPA had engineered a rationale to impose the controls it preferred. It is, after all, EPA policy under the current administration to see that all coal-fired power plants in the U.S. are retrofitted with scrubbers.

    So I was a bit shocked when the 10th Circuit delivered a ruling last Friday that supported EPA’s takeover of Oklahoma’s Regional Haze authority. My shock turned to dismay after I read the majority (2-1) opinion. Here’s why: The decision’s logic rested on the credibility of EPA’s consultant.

    About that “Independent” Consultant…

  41. Richard C (NZ) on July 27, 2013 at 2:03 pm said:

    >”About that “Independent” Consultant…”

    [quoting Yeatman]

    “EPA’s consultant—Dr. Phyllis Fox—is anything but independent. Her resume demonstrates that she’s a go-to litigation witness for the Sierra Club”

    A Record of Being Wrong

    Most damning of all is that fact that Dr. Fox’s cost analysis has been proven wrong on the very subject that the 10th Circuit was considering.

    As I noted above, she performed as an “independent” consultant for EPA in New Mexico and North Dakota, in addition to Oklahoma. In New Mexico, state officials estimated that BART for the San Juan Generating Station would cost $730 million; Dr. Phyllis Fox claimed it cost $340 million. And based on this, EPA disapproved New Mexico’s plan and imposed a Regional Haze federal plan in its stead. PNM subsequently solicited bids to actually build the technology. The utility received two bids, and the cheapest was $750 million!

    Long story short: Congress wanted States to call the shots on Regional Haze. EPA justified a disapproval of Oklahoma’s Regional Haze plan based on the work of a supposedly “independent” consultant, who, in fact, is biased. More to the point, this “independent” witness has been proven wrong in a parallel situation that, in a logical world, would undermine her credibility.

    It was a close decision, with two judges siding against one. The dissenting judge, moreover, was forceful. So I’ve not lost all hope of successful appeal.

  42. Richard C (NZ) on July 29, 2013 at 7:44 pm said:

    EPA Endangerment Finding:

    By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

    The US Solicitor General, Department of Justice, and EPA attorneys filed their petition to the US Supreme Court requesting that it deny the petition from the group in which SEPP participates asking for the court to review the decision by the US Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the EPA Endangerment Finding (EF) that greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), particularly carbon dioxide (CO2), endanger public health or welfare.

    […summary of petition case…]

    As stated previously, the Court’s decision on whether or not to hear the case will be on legal grounds, not scientific grounds. Unable to link to the EPA petition at this time.

    Note: this is a different petition to the SLF petition which is on scientific grounds,

  43. Richard C (NZ) on August 2, 2013 at 12:22 pm said:

    ‘Lawmakers vote to thwart EPA move on ‘social cost of carbon’ ‘

    By Ben Geman and Pete Kasperowicz

    The House voted Thursday to block the Environmental Protection Agency from weighing the benefits of curbing carbon emissions when crafting major energy-related regulations.

    Lawmakers voted 234-178 for Rep. Tim Murphy’s (R-Pa.) amendment to prevent EPA from factoring the “social cost of carbon” into rules unless a federal law is enacted that allows its consideration.

    Fifteen Democrats voted with almost all Republicans for the amendment, while three Republicans opposed it.

    The amendment was tacked onto GOP legislation that allows the Energy Department to veto EPA rules with $1 billion or more in costs if the department determines they would harm the economy.

    The amendment vote was the latest scuffle over the recent White House increase in the social cost of carbon, a metric of estimated damages caused by heat-trapping emissions.


    But Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, called the amendment an assault on efforts to address dangerous climate change.

    “The Murphy amendment denies that carbon pollution is harmful,” Waxman said ahead of the vote. “According to this amendment the cost of carbon pollution is zero.”

    “That is science denial at its worst,” Waxman said.

    Murphy’s amendment is part of wider GOP criticism of the increased social cost of carbon estimate. Click here, here and here for more coverage.

    The underlying bill is slated to clear the House Thursday afternoon but faces dim prospects in the Democrat-led Senate.

    Read more:

  44. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2013 at 10:45 am said:

    DOE’s Social Cost of Carbon Mischief (My Comment Letter in Support of Landmark Legal Foundation’s Petition)

    by Marlo Lewis

  45. Richard C (NZ) on October 28, 2013 at 8:59 am said:

    ‘Nebraska’s Climate Scientists Afraid Of The Truth’

    By Paul Homewood


    “If it’s only natural (causes), but not human, we would not be interested,” [Martha Shulski, climatologist and director of the High Plains Regional Climate Center]

    As the study of natural climate cycles seems to be beneath these “scientists”, perhaps I might offer my services. All the data is readily available from NOAA, so let’s start with precipitation.


    The above plot suggests cycles of about 30 years in length, and this cycle, and its effects, are well known amongst scientists – the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or AMO.


    It is easy to see why Nebraska’s climatologists are so afraid to publish this sort of analysis, as it totally undermines their warnings of armageddon, at least on a local scale.

  46. Richard C (NZ) on December 10, 2013 at 10:42 am said:

    ‘PHOTOS: It’s snowing around the NFL’

    Check out the catch gif at bottom of page.

  47. Richard C (NZ) on December 10, 2013 at 12:29 pm said:

    [NOAA Nov 21, 2013] “…warmer-than-average temperatures this winter are expected from the Desert Southwest into the Southern Plains and Deep South.”

    [Steven Goddard] “Two weeks later, the US appears headed for possibly the coldest December on record”

  48. Richard C (NZ) on January 10, 2014 at 9:36 am said:

    We the Geeks: “Polar Vortex” and Extreme Weather | The White House

    Here at the White House, while we’re beginning to thaw from this week’s bone-chilling deep freeze, our discussions about the science of weather extremes are heating up.

    We know that no single weather episode proves or disproves climate change. Climate refers to the patterns observed in the weather over time and space – in terms of averages, variations, and probabilities. But we also know that this week’s cold spell is of a type there’s reason to believe may become more frequent in a world that’s getting warmer, on average, because of greenhouse-gas pollution.

    Join us this Friday, January 10th at 2:00 p.m. ET for We the Geeks: “Polar Vortex” and Extreme Weather, for a conversation with leading meteorologists, climate scientists, and weather experts about why temperatures dipped to such frigid lows this week, how weather experts turn raw data into useful forecasts, and what we know about extreme weather events in the context of a changing climate.

    Cristin Dorgelo and resident polar-science expert Brendan Kelly from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy will moderate the live discussion, to include:

    * Stephanie Abrams, The Weather Channel
    * Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd, President of the American Meteorological Society and Professor, University of Georgia
    * Jim Overland, Arctic researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    * Jason Samenow, Capital Weather Gang’s chief meteorologist and the Washington Post’s Weather Editor
    * Bernadette Woods Placky, Emmy-award winning Meteorologist at Climate Central

  49. Richard C (NZ) on January 10, 2014 at 9:56 am said:

    >[The White House] – “…..this week’s cold spell is of a type there’s reason to believe may become more frequent in a world that’s getting warmer, on average, because of greenhouse-gas pollution.”

    In “recent years” cold spells have increased (i.e. since around 2007/08/09)

    ‘The Global Warming-Extreme Weather Link’

    A Review Of The State Of Science

    Madhav L. Khandekar

    • Cold weather extremes have definitely increased in recent years; for example, the
    severe winters in Europe (2012/13, 2011/12, 2009/10) and North America (2012/13,
    2007/08). There have also been colder winters in parts of Asia (2012/13, 2002/03)
    and South America (2007, 2010 and 2013).

    But the world has NOT been “getting warmer, on average” this century (see page 17).

    So recent cold spells cannot be “because of greenhouse-gas pollution”.

  50. Richard C (NZ) on January 10, 2014 at 10:14 am said:

    >”But the world has NOT been “getting warmer, on average” this century (see page 17)”

    Alternative 21st century graph, with trend stats, here:

  51. Richard C (NZ) on January 10, 2014 at 10:40 am said:

    We the Goofs | The White House

  52. Richard C (NZ) on January 12, 2014 at 10:22 am said:

    ‘Scientists: Americans are becoming weather wimps’

    By SETH BORENSTEIN January 9, 2014 5:33 PM

    WASHINGTON (AP) — We’ve become weather wimps.

    As the world warms, the United States is getting fewer bitter cold spells like the one that gripped much of the nation this week. So when a deep freeze strikes, scientists say, it seems more unprecedented than it really is.

    >”As the world warms” – Huh? There it is again.

    >”…seems more unprecedented than it really is” – Good grief!

    What they’ve done is average out all the record lows by including the warm States like California. Here’s a list just of the Tuesday of the cold snap:

    ‘List of record low temperatures set Tuesday’

    Doyle Rice, USA TODAY 4:06 p.m. EST January 7, 2014

    At least 49 daily record lows were set across the country Tuesday morning, thanks to a fierce cold snap that’s bringing the coldest weather in decades to portions of the central, eastern and southern USA.

    Bitterly cold air straight from the Arctic, courtesy of the polar vortex, will continue to shatter records through Tuesday and into early Wednesday before moderating temperatures return by Thursday and Friday.

    A list of low-temperature records broken Tuesday morning:


    4 in Huntsville: Previous record low 5

    7 in Birmingham: Previous record low 11

    14 in Mobile: Previous record low 18

    More (another 13 States) >>>>>>

    Anne commenting at Yahoo:

    “Yeah, well, those climate scientists calling us wimps are welcome to our fair city in Northern MN where they can experience for themselves just what -50F windchill feels like! For days on end.”

  53. Richard C (NZ) on January 18, 2014 at 11:02 am said:

    Sen. Inhofe on Obama’s Global Warming Claims: ‘The President Just Made that Up’

    By Craig Bannister

    Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) told a Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee hearing today that the president must have fabricated two oft-repeated climate claims.

    “Both statements are false,” Sen. Inhofe said of Obama’s global warming claims, since neither the EPA nor the U.N. IPCC climate group can provide any supporting statistics:

    “On multiple occasions, and most recently on May 30th of last year, President Obama has said, and this is a quote he has used several times, he said that ‘the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even ten years ago’ and that ‘the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.’

    “Both statements are false, and through letters to you, Ms. McCarthy, and on the record in this Committee, we’ve asked the EPA to provide us with the data backing up these two statements, the two statements made by the president, but they don’t have any data and referred us to the UN IPCC. And, their scientists, apparently, the EPA thought they were the source of this.

    “Well, we went there and they had nothing to back it up, so apparently the president just made that up.


  54. Mike Jowsey on January 20, 2014 at 9:41 am said:

    Steve Goddard claims 1deg.C warming per century trend has been added to US temperature record by NOAA. As Goddard says, FOIA time. Reminds me of a certain NZ data set.

    RSS does not show the NCDC discontinuity, and NCDC is diverging from RSS at almost 1C/century….

    Bottom line is that the NCDC US temperature record is completely broken, and meaningless.

  55. Richard C (NZ) on February 26, 2014 at 9:51 am said:

    ‘A look at the behind the scenes legal battle with the EPA over the ‘social cost of carbon’ and looming carbon tax’

    Posted on February 24, 2014 by Anthony Watts

    WUWT has been granted exclusive first access to this new legal document [comment from Francis J. Menton, Jr. Attorney at Law] challenging the EPA’s proposed use of calculations on SCC.

    Menton letter, Re: OMB request for public comments (“Request for Comments”)

    Anthony Watts has lifted (without attribution):

    “The three lines of evidence used by the EPA are A. B. and C.”

    That jpg is copied from the Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) et al’s Petition for a writ of certiorari. The brief is asking the Supreme Court to consider their (SLF’s) scientific argument that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) CO2 Endangerment Finding be dropped because of scientific and legal errors. See this thread re SLF Petition (up-thread from this current comment):

  56. Richard C (NZ) on March 8, 2014 at 8:44 am said:

    ‘House passes bill to block Obama climate plan’

    By MATTHEW DALY / Associated Press / March 6, 2014

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Aiming at the heart of President Barack Obama’s strategy for fighting climate change, the Republican-controlled House voted Thursday to block the administration’s plan to limit carbon pollution from new power plants.

    The bill targets Obama’s proposal for the Environmental Protection Agency to set the first national limits on heat-trapping carbon pollution from future power plants. It’s part of the GOP’s election-year strategy to fight back against what Republicans call a ‘‘war on coal’’ by the Obama administration.

    The bill passed by a 229-183 vote. Ten Democrats, mostly from coal-producing states or the South, joined Republicans in support of it. Three Republicans opposed the bill.

    A similar measure is pending in the Senate but faces a more difficult path.


  57. Richard C (NZ) on March 9, 2014 at 6:07 pm said:

    Examiner Editorial: Chevron win in Ecuador case is huge defeat for Big Green, trial lawyers

    By Washington Examiner | MARCH 7, 2014

    It was lost among the week’s more dramatic news in Ukraine and Lois Lerner’s continued refusal to tell America and a congressional committee what she knows about the IRS scandal, but U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan landed a devastating blow against greenmail. That’s what can happen when Big Green environmental activists and class-action lawyers combine forces to use the federal court system to shake down corporate defendants for billions of dollars, usually via out-of-court settlements. Kaplan’s ruling concerned Big Oil giant Chevron on one side and New York trial lawyer Steve Donziger on the other.


    Chevron fought Donziger until an Ecuadorian judge ruled against the oil company. In the course of its appeals, Chevron discovered how far Donziger and his Big Green accomplices had gone to win. As a result, Chevron filed a separate suit accusing Donziger and others of fraud. Kaplan provided an amazing description in his 500-page ruling in Chevron’s favor:

    “They submitted fraudulent evidence. They coerced one judge, first to use a court-appointed, supposedly impartial, “global expert” to make an overall damages assessment and, then, to appoint to that important role a man whom Donziger hand-picked and paid to “totally play ball” … They then paid a Colorado consulting firm secretly to write all or most of the global expert’s report, falsely presented the report as the work of the court-appointed and supposedly impartial expert, and told half-truths or worse to U.S. courts in attempts to prevent exposure of that and other wrongdoing. Ultimately, [Donziger’s team] wrote the [Ecuadorian] court’s judgment themselves and promised $500,000 to the Ecuadorian judge to rule in their favor and sign their judgment. If ever there were a case warranting equitable relief with respect to a judgment procured by fraud, this is it.”

    The Colorado firm Kaplan mentioned is Stratus Consulting, which since 2009 has received more than $180 million via 1,308 federal contracts including 811 through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.


  58. Richard C (NZ) on May 7, 2014 at 2:29 pm said:

    Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) Blog [Bloomberg Law]

    Southeastern Legal Foundation v. Environmental Protection Agency

    Issue: Whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.

    Linked with:

    Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency
    Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency
    Pacific Legal Foundation v. Environmental Protection Agency
    American Chemistry Council v. Environmental Protection Agency
    Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. Environmental Protection Agency
    Energy-Intensive Manufacturers Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Regulation v. Environmental Protection Agency
    Texas v. Environmental Protection Agency
    Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Environmental Protection Agency

    Date, Proceedings and Orders

    May 23 2013 Brief amici curiae of Scientists filed.

    I. The Conclusion That EPA Drew From Its Three Lines Of Evidence Is Demonstrably Invalid…. 7
    A. First Line Of Evidence: EPA’s GHG Fingerprint (Or Hot Spot) Theory …………. 9
    B. Second Line Of Evidence: The Purported Unusual Rise In GAST ………. 13
    C. Third Line Of Evidence: Climate Models ……………………………………………… 16
    II. Serious Deficiencies In EPA’s Process Contributed To Its Scientific Errors …………. 21….pdf

    Last entry to date: Feb 24 2014

  59. Richard C (NZ) on May 7, 2014 at 2:40 pm said:

    ‘Supreme Court Revives EPA Rule on Air Pollution Across State Lines’

    Court’s 6-2 Ruling Is Victory for Obama Administration; 28 States Will Have to Reduce Power-Plant Emissions


    In court papers, the EPA said upwind states can be significant contributors to pollution problems in downwind locations, citing New Haven, Conn., where the agency said 93% of the ozone pollution comes from out-of-state emissions.

    “Required to balance the possibilities of under-control and over-control, EPA must have leeway in fulfilling its statutory mandate,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. She added that if a state concludes it has been forced to reduce emissions below the relevant threshold, it could file a narrower lawsuit based on a particular grievance instead of seeking wholesale invalidation of the EPA’s effort.

    Justice Antonin Scalia signaled strong disagreement with the ruling by reading parts of his dissent from the bench, saying EPA hadn’t followed the approach set forth by Congress. “Today’s decision feeds the uncontrolled growth of the administrative state at the expense of government by the people,” he said. Justice Clarence Thomas joined Justice Scalia in dissent.


  60. Richard C (NZ) on May 7, 2014 at 2:50 pm said:

    Podesta: Congress Can’t Stop Obama On Global Warming

    Written by Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller on May 06 2014.

    House adviser John Podesta told reporters Monday afternoon that Congress could not derail the Obama administration’s efforts to unilaterally enact policies to fight global warming.

    Podesta said that the president was committed to using executive orders to pass regulations under the Clean Air Act to limit carbon dioxide emissions that they say cause global warming.

    “They may try, but there are no takers at this end of Pennsylvania Avenue,” Podesta told reporters at a Monday press conference at the White House.

    Republicans and some Democrats in Congress have urged the Obama administration to scale back their climate goals because of the adverse impact of new regulations on the coal industry. Coal supporters have portrayed the administration’s actions as the “war on coal” due to huge job losses in coal states like Kentucky and West Virginia.

    “We’re getting the living crap beaten out of us,” West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin told President Obama’s nominee to be the country’s top energy regulator last year. “There has been nothing more beat up than coal.”

    “They just beat the living daylights out of little West Virginia, but they sure like what we produce,” Manchin told former nominee Ron Binz. “We could do it a lot better if we had a government working with us as a partner.”


  61. Richard C (NZ) on May 7, 2014 at 3:00 pm said:

    EPA Chief Promises To Go After Republicans Who Question Agency Science

    Michael Bastasch, The Daily Caller

    Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy has issued a warning to Republicans who continue to question the integrity of the agency’s scientific data: we’re coming for you.

    McCarthy told an audience at the National Academy of Sciences on Monday morning the agency will go after a “small but vocal group of critics” who are arguing the EPA is using “secret science” to push costly clean air regulations.

    “Those critics conjure up claims of EPA secret science — but it’s not really about EPA science or secrets. It’s about challenging the credibility of world renowned scientists and institutions like Harvard University and the American Cancer Society,” McCarthy said, according to Politico.

    “It’s about claiming that research is secret if researchers protect confidential personal health data from those who are not qualified to analyze it — and won’t agree to protect it,” she added. “If EPA is being accused of secret science because we rely on real scientists to conduct research, and independent scientists to peer review it, and scientists who’ve spent a lifetime studying the science to reproduce it — then so be it.”

    Republicans Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana and Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas have led the charge on pressing the EPA to make publicly available the scientific data behind its clean air regulations. McCarthy promised she would make such data publicly available during her confirmation process last year. Now her refusal to cough up the data has angered Republicans.

    “EPA’s leadership is willfully ignoring the big picture and defending EPA’s practices of using science that is, in fact, secret due to the refusal of the agency to share the underlying data with Congress and the American public,” said Vitter.

    “We’re not asking, and we’ve never asked, for personal health information, and it is inexcusable for EPA to justify billions of dollars of economically significant regulations on science that is kept hidden from independent reanalysis and congressional oversight,” Vitter added.

  62. Richard C (NZ) on July 11, 2014 at 6:46 pm said:

    ‘Integrity and Objectivity: The Shaken Pillars of Environmental Science’

    Jul 10, 2014 | Rachelle DeJong

    In 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency began classifying greenhouse gases as pollutants and regulating their emissions. That meant that normal economic activities—tilling a small farm, running a local store—that produced normal amounts of the naturally occurring vapor became potentially subject to EPA standards and, for those that exceeded the limits, crushing fines of up to $37,500 per day.

    The EPA’s authority to regulate emissions, though, rests on shaky legal and environmental grounds. A small nonprofit of indomitable determination, the Institute for Trade, Standards, and Sustainable Development (ITSSD) has set itself the task of finding out whether the EPA has been telling the truth. NAS, as an academic organization that seeks to promote rigorous science and open debate, and as an interested observer of the way the EPA’s findings become the basis for college campus sustainability initiatives, has a stake in promoting accountability and transparency. EPA pronouncements find their way into campus offices of sustainability, greenhouse gas reduction plans, and sustainability tracking sheets. If ITSSD’s investigations discredit the EPA’s pronouncements, colleges and university should guard the integrity of their environmental commitments and verify the EPA’s findings before acting on them.

    More >>>>> Redefinitions, Peer Review, FOIA

  63. Richard C (NZ) on July 31, 2014 at 7:43 pm said:

    The Chain of Environmental Command: How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA

    United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
    Minority Staff Report, July 30, 2014

  64. Richard C (NZ) on July 31, 2014 at 8:00 pm said:

    BREAKING: Senate Committee Report Details Environmentalists’ Inner Workings

    Shock U.S. Senate Report: Left-Wing ‘Billionaire’s Club’ Using Environmentalism to Control the US Economy and Subvert Democracy

    Breaking: The (Leftist) Billionaire Boys Club

    TANGLED WEB: U.S. Senate Releases Report Showing Collusion Between EPA, Billionaires, and Far-Left Enviros

  65. Richard C (NZ) on July 31, 2014 at 8:39 pm said:

    Southeastern Legal Foundation v. Environmental Protection Agency

    Opinion [hotlink to pdf, link below], Jun 23, 2014

    Holding: The Clean Air Act neither compels nor permits the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt an interpretation of the Clean Air Act requiring a stationary source of pollution to obtain a “Prevention of Significant Deterioration” or Title V permit on the sole basis of its potential greenhouse-gas emission. However, EPA reasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act to require sources that would need permits based on their emission of chemical pollutants to comply with “best available control technology” for greenhouse gases.

    Judgment: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on June 23, 2014. Justice Scalia announced the judgement of the Court and delivered an opinion, Parts I and II of which were for the Court. Justice Thomas and Justice Alito joined the opinion as to Parts I, II-A, II-B-1, and Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan joined as to Part II-B-2. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan joined. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Thomas joined.

    Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency
    From Wikipedia

    In a fractured decision, the Court largely upheld the ability of the EPA to regulate greenhouse emissions

    Opinion of the Court

    Justice Scalia authored the majority opinion, which Justices Roberts and Kennedy joined in full. The Court ruled that the EPA can regulate greenhouse emissions on power plants and other large stationary sources of pollution, but the agency overstepped its authority when it started to use those same regulations on smaller stationary sources like shopping centers, apartment buildings and schools

    Justice Breyer wrote a concurring/dissenting opinion, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Breyer argued that the EPA should have been allowed to interpret the “any air pollutant” language broadly to also include greenhouse emissions: “I do not agree with the Court that the only way to avoid an absurd or otherwise impermissible result in these cases is to create an atextual greenhouse gas exception to the phrase ‘any air pollutant’.”[11]

    Alito, joined by Thomas, wrote a second concurring/dissenting opinion, arguing that the EPA should not be able to regulate the larger sources of greenhouse emissions either using those regulations: “The Clean Air Act was developed for use in regulating the emission of conventional pollutants and is simply not suited for use with respect to greenhouse gases.”[12] He cited two scenarios of incompatibility between greenhouses gases and normal pollutants, which caused the EPA to eventually either declare that officials may disregard some provisions in the Act,[13] or give authorities “a great deal of discretion”.

    The petition (Scientist’s brief) appears to have been ignored, viz:

    I. The Conclusion That EPA Drew From Its Three Lines Of Evidence Is Demonstrably Invalid
    A. First Line Of Evidence: EPA’s GHG Fingerprint (Or Hot Spot) Theory
    B. Second Line Of Evidence: The Purported Unusual Rise In GAST
    C. Third Line Of Evidence: Climate Models
    II. Serious Deficiencies In EPA’s Process Contributed To Its Scientific Errors

    The full Opinion, which should detail consideration of the petition (or not), is here:

  66. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2014 at 10:23 am said:

    To: Senate Democrats
    From: Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray
    Re: The impact of climate change on the federal budget
    Date: Friday, August 1, 2014

    The scientific consensus on climate change and the human activity that contributes to it is well established.1 Unprecedented levels of heat-trapping emissions—primarily carbon dioxide—cause temperatures to climb, altering weather patterns, triggering a rise in sea levels, and creating the conditions for more frequent and intense extreme weather events. Scientists continue to conduct research into the wide-ranging projected effects of climate change, but it is clear that climate change will dramatically impact the health and wellbeing of families and communities across the

    A less-noted consequence of climate change, which also underscores the need to act, is its impact on the federal budget. Climate change, if left unaddressed, will both weaken economic growth and impose additional direct budgetary costs on the federal government. As a result, climate change poses an increasing threat to the federal government’s already challenging long-term fiscal outlook.

    Continues (15 pages) >>>>>>>

  67. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2014 at 10:35 am said:

    ‘Leaked Memo Gives Away Dems’ ‘Extreme Weather’ Talking Points’ [refer previous comment]

    by Michael Bastasch

    Democratic claims that “extreme weather” was becoming more common as carbon dioxide levels increase have been disputed by scientists who say the data tells a different story.

    “It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,” University of Colorado climate scientist Dr. Roger Pielke said in his testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last year. “It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.”

    “Hurricanes have not increased in the U.S. in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900,” Pielke added. “The same holds for tropical cyclones globally since at least 1970.”

    But Democrats have not relented in their push to convince the public that extreme weather will continue to get worse.

    Read more:

  68. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2014 at 10:38 am said:

    ‘A Dozen States File Suit Against New Coal Rules’

    By CORAL DAVENPORT, AUG. 1, 2014

    WASHINGTON — Twelve states filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration on Friday seeking to block an Environmental Protection Agency proposal to regulate coal-fired power plants in an effort to stem climate change.

    The plaintiffs are led by West Virginia and include states that are home to some of the largest producers of coal and consumers of coal-fired electricity


    The suit was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The other plaintiffs are Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming.

  69. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2014 at 4:35 pm said:

    ‘Everyone Declares Victory After Supreme Court’s EPA Ruling’

    By Adam Chandler, Jun 23, 2014

    Twitter comments, bottom of article:

    America’s Power @AmericasPower
    Pretend impact worth more than real people? Enviros view those hurt by #EPA regs as acceptable “collateral damage.”
    3:28 AM – 24 Jun 2014

    Leads to this article:

    ‘In Team Obama’s world US workers are ‘collateral damage’ to green agenda’

    By Stephen Moore

    One of the leading leftwing environmentalists last week described the hundreds of thousands of Americans who may lose their jobs due to the Obama administration’s new anti-carbon regulations as “collateral damage” in the fight against global warming. The offensive comments were issued by William S. Becker, the head of the Climate Action Project, a well-funded environmental group.

    In his piece in the Huffington Post praising the new Environmental Protection Agency regulations to stop climate change, he lamented that “there is nothing explicit in the [Obama] plan to mitigate or adapt to the economic disruption the clean energy transition will cause for coal and oil-country families.” He said that the pain and suffering to the estimated 200,000 families put out of work is an “evolutionary step in technology and the economy” and a move toward “economic progress.” Mr. Becker wants more government programs to help the “disrupted” families, as though yet another government job training program will solve the problem that these workers’ lives have been turned upside down. Perhaps this is what the left means by “environmental justice.”

    The “let them eat cake” attitude may strike readers as unbelievably offensive and cavalier. Imagine the outcry if a Republican referred to middle class job losers as acceptable “collateral damage.” The story would be on the front page of every newspaper in the country and if Mr. Becker were the head of an industry group he would almost surely be facing intense pressure to resign. But Mr. Becker is at least giving an honest assessment of the negative impact of the radical anti-carbon lobby’s crusade on middle class families.

    The job losses in the coal mining, oil and drilling, construction and trucking industries are acceptable to the left climate change zealots, especially if it means the U.S. will take a mostly symbolic step to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. One study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce finds that the new EPA regulations will destroy 200,000 mostly blue collar energy jobs, reduce the U.S. GDP by about $50 billion a year and cost families thousands of dollars over the next decade in higher energy costs. The workers who will be harmed live in places like Wheeling, West Virginia and Bakersfield, California and hundreds of energy industry towns in between.

    Will voters in these areas tolerate these disruptions to their lives? Will they accept that they are”colletaral damage” to the radical green movement? We will see.

    Stephen Moore is a Fox News contributor. He serves as chief economist at the Heritage Foundation.

    ‘No One Left Behind in Coal Country’

    William S. Becker, Executive Director, Presidential Climate Action Project

    When we speak about environmental justice, the term usually refers to the people of the world who are being hit hardest by climate change, but who are least responsible for it and least able to cope. They are the people of poor nations who bear no responsibility for the carbon in the atmosphere today, but who are suffering the heaviest consequences of global warming. We in the industrial world are enjoying the comforts and conveniences of fossil fuels while billions in the world are suffering the damages.

    Similarly, there are issues of economic justice that seem as threatening to coal families as flooding is in Bangladesh or famine is to families in Sudan. It is not the fault of generations of soft-rock miners that the coal they provided turns out to be damaging us in ways we are just beginning to see. Yet they will suffer some of the greatest economic impact as the nation’s coal use declines.

    While it is ridiculous to accuse President Obama of warring against coal, it is fair to ask what his climate action plan can do to ensure that America’s transition to clean energy is compassionate and just.

    The plan President Obama announced a year ago contains several directives designed to help communities hit hardest by the physical impacts of climate change. In a sentence in the middle of Page 13, he directs that “through annual federal agency Environmental Justice Progress Reports, the Administration will continue to identify innovative ways to help our most vulnerable communities prepare for and recover from the impacts of climate change.” On Page 14 he directs that “federal agencies will report on the impacts of climate change on other key sectors and strategies to address them, with priority efforts focusing on health, transportation, food supplies, oceans, and coastal communities”.

    However, there is nothing explicit in the plan to mitigate or adapt to the economic disruption the clean energy transition will cause for coal- and oil-country families. We know that economic disruptions are part of progress. They are the collateral damage of every evolutionary step in technology or the economy.


  70. Richard C (NZ) on October 20, 2014 at 9:45 am said:

    Not quite climate but……

    ‘Fed Up With Govt Misconduct, Federal Judge Takes Nuclear Option’

    Federal Prosecutor Alleges Boss Pressured Him To Engage in ‘Unethical Conduct'; Judge Calls Abuses ‘Egregious,’ ‘Pervasive,” and “Reprehensible”

    By Sidney Powell | 10/15/14 9:45pm

    In perhaps the most stunning documentation yet of abuses by Eric Holder’s Justice Department, two former Assistant United States Attorneys spoke to defense attorneys and revealed appalling deceit and corruption of justice. This latest litigation time bomb has exploded from multi-million dollar litigation originally brought by the Department of Justice against Sierra Pacific based on allegations that the lumber company and related defendants were responsible for a wildfire that destroyed 65,000 acres in California.

    In what was dubbed the “Moonlight Fire” case, the tables are now turned. The defendants have discovered new evidence and filed a stunning motion. The new evidence and disclosures are being taken seriously by the Chief Judge of the Eastern District of California—as they should be. In a shocking action, Judge Morrison C. England Jr. ordered the recusal of every federal judge in the Eastern District of California.


    The Sacramento Bee reported on the Defendant’s filing. Indeed, the Defendants’ motion informs us that a former Assistant United States Attorney came forward and disclosed that he believes that he was removed from the original prosecution by “his boss, David Shelledy, chief of the civil division in the United States Attorney’s office,” because he “rebuffed” pressure to “engage in unethical conduct as a lawyer.” Of course, like other former prosecutors who were unethical, Mr. Shelledy is to receive Attorney General Holder’s highest award for excellence—this week.


  71. Richard C (NZ) on February 26, 2015 at 9:11 am said:

    ‘Dem. Congressman on Witch Hunt Against Climate Scientists’

    10:13 AM, Feb 25, 2015 • By MARK HEMINGWAY

    On his blog this morning, Roger Pielke Jr. at the University of Colorado, a respected climate scientist, reveals that he was one of seven academics being being investigated by Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Natural Resources. Grijalva wants to know all university financial disclosure policies that are applicable to Pielke, detailed information about any sources of external funding and grants he may have received, as well as any communications related to external funding. He also wants copies of any speeches and testimony before lawmakers Pielke has delivered, as well as salary and travel expense information.

    You can read Grijalva’s full letter to CU here [hotlink], but per the letter, here is Pielke’s supposed crime:

    “Prof. Roger Pielke, Jr., at CU’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research has testified numerous times before the U.S. Congress on climate change and its economic impacts. His 2013 Senate testimony featured the claim, often repeated, that it is “incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.”

    According to Pielke, this is nothing but a witch hunt: [hotlink]


    [Pielke, see link above] – “The letter goes on to note that John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor, “has highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke.”

  72. Richard C (NZ) on February 26, 2015 at 9:13 am said:

    ‘Shocking letter of intimidation from Congressman to MIT re climate skeptic Richard Lindzen’

    Posted on February 25, 2015 by

    ‘Democrat’ Congressman Raul Grijalva closes in on 1933 Germany, and the Soviet Union.

    Here’s the letter from Rep. Raul Grijalva (Comrade-Ariz.) to the president of MIT [hotlink].

    Check out Rep. Grijalva’s background with the Communist Party USA [hotlink].

  73. Richard C (NZ) on April 3, 2015 at 3:26 pm said:

    ‘Republican Senators Seek Detailed Answers on EPA Climate Change Science, Modeling’

    By Patrick Ambrosio, Bloomberg BNA

    April 1 — Four Republican senators are seeking additional information from the Environmental Protection Agency on the science linking climate change to drought, hurricanes and increased temperatures, including an analysis of climate change modeling results.

    In an April 1 letter, Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) asked EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to defend recent statements that there have been more frequent and more intense hurricanes and droughts and detail whether climate models have accurately predicted temperature increases.

    The questions stem from a March 4 hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on the EPA’s fiscal year 2016 budget request.

    During that hearing, Republican members of the committee asked McCarthy several questions about climate change, including a line of questioning from Sessions on increasing global soil moisture, fewer major hurricanes in recent years and other data points that he suggested don’t support the existence of climate change.

    In the letter, the senators said that none of the “clear and straightforward” questions on climate science asked during the hearing were directly answered by McCarthy. The senators asked McCarthy to provide data and analysis comparing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate models with actual global average temperatures.

    “Given that the Administration’s proposal to fundamentally change the nature of domestic energy generation is based on the apparent need to avoid `devastating’ climate impacts to the United States and the planet, it is imperative that the agency be candid and forthright in assessing the reality of this projection,” the senators said.

    The letter requested that the EPA respond no later than April 21.


    At the March budget hearing, Sessions asked McCarthy to cite specific evidence that climate change modeling has proven to be correct. After McCarthy asked Sessions to clarify which models he was referring to, Sessions said it was “stunning” that the head of the EPA doesn’t know about climate modeling.

    Temperature Rise Comparison Requested

    In the letter, Sessions and the other senators requested that McCarthy provide an EPA-produced chart comparing the actual global average temperature increases with the predictions derived from IPCC climate models.

    Additionally, the senators asked the EPA to detail the steps the agency has taken to review the accuracy of climate projections and how much of the EPA’s fiscal 2016 budget request of $8.6 billion would be allocated to monitoring the accuracy of climate projections.

    # # #

    April 1 — Heh! Impeccable timing.

    Sessions, Inhofe, Wicker and Barrasso poking a bit of borax the way of McCarthy and the EPA. May as well have some fun at their expense, imagine the wriggling and squirming going on there.

  74. Richard C (NZ) on April 4, 2015 at 10:07 am said:

    Full Sessions/Inhofe/Wicker/Barrasso/EPW letter to McCarthy/EPA here:



    1. In its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded the following:

    “[T]here is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, owing to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. [….snip…]”

    Do you agree or disagree with the IPCC’s conclusion? Please provide all data, analyses, and other evidence that you reviewed and relied on to reach your conclusion.


    1. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report concluded the following:

    “Current data sets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century. . . . No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”

    Do you agree or disagree with the IPCC assessments regarding data sets on global tropical cyclone frequency and trends in annual tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes in the North Atlantic basin?

    [and see 2 – 5]

    Temperature data

    1. Dating back to the 1970’s, IPCC climate models have historically predicted a significant increase in global temperatures. At the March 2015 budget hearing, Senator Sessions asked “[i]f you take the average of the models predicting how fast the temperature would increase, is the temperature in fact increasing less than that or more than that?”

    You replied that you could not “answer that question specifically,” but later committed to submitting written information explaining whether you believe the models have been proven correct and whether temperatures have increased less than projected or more than projected.

    Please provide data and analyses showing actual global average temperatures since 1979 versus IPCC predictions, including an EPA-produced chart comparing actual global average temperature increases since 1979 (when satellite temperature data became available) versus the latest IPCC predictions. Please also provide your conclusion on whether IPCC climate models have proven correct.

    [and see 2]

    Climate impact monitoring

    [see 1]

    2. What portion of EPA’s budget request for FY 2016 is dedicated to monitoring and verifying the accuracy of the agency’s climate projections?

  75. Richard Treadgold on April 4, 2015 at 11:54 am said:


    “Do you agree or disagree with the IPCC’s conclusion?”

    It is deeply gratifying that somebody backing the alarmist side is being asked questions like these in a forum which requires them to make answers that will be scrutinised. Who would have thought that the seminal debate on climate science might take place on a political stage? Thank God for even the similitude of democracy. I should raise your comments to a post, but when? Family calls again today, so I’ll see.

  76. Richard+C+(NZ) on April 4, 2015 at 1:28 pm said:

    >”Family calls again today”

    Yes, heed the call. Climate can do whatever it pleases in the meantime, as it always has.

  77. Richard C (NZ) on April 18, 2015 at 4:23 pm said:

    ‘Open Letter to U.S. Senators Ted Cruz, James Inhofe and Marco Rubio’

    Bob Tisdale / April 14, 2015

    Subject: Questions about Climate Model-Based Science

    From: Bob Tisdale – Independent Climate Researcher

    To: The Honorable Ted Cruz, James Inhofe and Marco Rubio

    Dear Senators Cruz, Inhofe and Rubio:

    I am writing you as chairs of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and of the Committee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard. I am an independent researcher who studies global warming and climate change, and I am probably best known for my articles at the science weblog WattsUpWithThat, where I would be considered an investigative reporter.

    I have a few very basic questions for you about climate model-based science. They are:

    # Why are taxpayers funding climate model-based research when those models are not simulating Earth’s climate?
    # Why are taxpayers funding climate model-based research when each new generation of climate models provides the same basic answers?
    # Redundancy: why are taxpayers funding 5 climate models in the U.S.?
    # Why aren’t climate models providing the answers we need?
    Example: Why didn’t the consensus of regional climate models predict the timing, extent and duration of the Californian drought?

    I have discussed and provided support for those concerns in the following.

    Note: I began this letter a couple of months ago, back when it was announced that you would be chairs of those committees. Two of you are now running for President. Even with that in mind, I hope that you and your staffs will consider these questions.

    Questions follow>>>>>

  78. Richard C (NZ) on April 22, 2015 at 3:11 pm said:

    Legal Challenges to EPA Regulating CO2 Begin

    April 21, 2015, Senate Republican Policy Committeee

    # The D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments challenging EPA regulating CO2.

    # In the consolidated cases, 15 states and the nation’s largest privately owned coal producer raised the first of many legal objections against the rule.

    # The president’s 2016 budget requests $52 million to hire lawyers to defend the rule.


  79. Richard C (NZ) on April 25, 2015 at 1:35 pm said:

    ‘Obama and the environment: Clean power or power play?’

    Written by Richard O. Faulk, The Hill on 24 April 2015.

    Recently, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals heard one of the strangest cases ever argued in a federal appellate court – a seemingly esoteric controversy that, in any other context, might be relegated to obscurity. But since winning this case is the linchpin President Obama needs to win the “War Against Coal,” the EPA has staked everything on pulling an oversized rabbit out of a very small hat.

    Cue State of West Virginia v. EPA and Murray Energy v. EPA, two joined cases comprising the first challenge to the president’s recent efforts to cement his climate change legacy. Fifteen states, along with select coal companies, have sued for an “extraordinary writ” to prevent the EPA from promulgating new carbon regulations set to be finalized this summer.

    This legal imbroglio began with the president’s desire to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from coal-fired electrical power plants. CO2 is the principal “greenhouse gas” blamed for global warming. As such, it is now the focus of the most aggressive EPA action under the Clean Air Act since its passage decades ago.

    Last year, as part of the president’s proposed Clean Power Plan, the EPA began drafting rules expected to force states to curb emissions within a year – an onerous burden, as the states involved in Thursday’s challenge will likely agree. But it is also dubious from a federalism standpoint. The EPA claims the right to regulate emission concentrations “beyond the fence line” – without restricting its inquiries to amounts actually emitted from power plants. Thus, its authority would extend beyond power generators to consider dispatch and retail demand, areas historically regulated by the states, and not the federal government.

    Beyond this unprecedented regulatory preemption of state authority lies an even greater and more dangerous overreach. The EPA’s argument confidently hinges on convincing the courts that the Clean Air Act doesn’t mean what it says. By its plain language, the bill prohibits the EPA from regulating the power plants from which these emissions derive. Moreover, coal plants are already addressed under an entirely different section of the bill than the one EPA insists justifies its new powers.

    Under a less ambitious administration, that would be the end of the controversy. Instead, the EPA identified one of the most unusual Congressional oversights in American history to prove its position.

    As the result of a “drafting error,” Congress actually passed two versions of the provision at issue, 111(d) – one which prohibits the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases from coal-fired power plants, and one which permits such regulation. The prohibitive version was published in the United States Code, while the permissive one was printed elsewhere. With a regulatory “sleight of hand,” the EPA now claims its right to a “deferential” interpretation of the Clean Air Act, and argues that the more permissive section should be applied.

    If the EPA’s argument prevails, the consequences cannot be overstated. In spite of a lack of clear statutory authorization, this unelected body could take complete command of energy production and the manner by which it is used throughout the United States. Major components of our economy that have never before been affected by EPA regulation or the Clean Air Act may be subjected to its regulatory authority.

    At least the Affordable Care Act was passed by Congress. Here, this vast new scheme has sprung full-grown from the president’s imagination.

    Fortunately, the D.C. Circuit, and ultimately the Supreme Court, can still prevent this imperial power grab. Less than a year ago, in reviewing the scope of the EPA’s regulatory capabilities on greenhouse gases, the High Court expressed a “measure of skepticism” when the EPA discovered an “unheralded power to regulate” a “significant portion of the American economy.” The Court warned that it “expect[s] Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of ‘vast economic and political significance.’” To say the least, Congress has not done so here.

    Obama, through his EPA, is acting beyond the scope of his authority – a persistent symptom that threatens the Constitutional separation and balance of powers that has protected our liberties since our Republic was founded. It is time, indeed past time, for our nation’s courts to pay heed and, echoing Chief Justice Marshall, once again stress “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Such a rebuke will remind the President that, despite his immense power, he cannot govern our democracy with imaginative strokes of his pen.

    Faulk is a trial, appellate, energy and environmental lawyer. He is senior director for Energy, Natural Resources and the Environment for the Law and Economics Center at George Mason University School of Law and a partner with Hollingsworth, LLP, in Washington, DC.

  80. Richard C (NZ) on June 30, 2015 at 10:00 am said:

    ‘Gina McCarthy and Obama’s Totalitarians’

    Shades of insane asylums for Soviet dissidents.

    Jamie Glazov, June 25, 2015

    Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov disappeared from public view in early May, 1984 after he had begun a hunger strike to get permission for his wife, Yelena Bonner, to travel to the U.S. for heart surgery. In the Soviet paradise, wanting one’s anti-Soviet wife to live, and, worse still, to be saved by evil capitalist surgeons and not by the holy surgeons of the Soviet utopia, was, clearly, an exercise in abnormal psychology.

    Sakharov was undoubtedly “mentally ill.” No wonder, therefore, that Soviet authorities forcibly confined him in a closed ward of the Semashko Hospital in Gorky, where he was force-fed and given drugs to alter his state of mind. This is how Soviet authorities believed they would get the Soviet dissident to not only stop caring about his wife, but to also make a public recantation about his abnormal anti-Soviet views – a gambit in which they ultimately failed.

    The Soviet system had a long and cruel record of perverting psychiatry to abuse political dissidents. Labelling many thought-criminals ”insane,” the communist regime institutionalized them under horrifying conditions in mental hospitals and force-fed them dangerous and mind-shattering drugs. Dissidents such as Pyotr Grigorenko, Joseph Brodsky, Alexander Esenin-Volpin, Vladimir Bukovsky and Natalya Gorbanevskaya were among the brave heroes who did not elude this grotesque form of Soviet barbarity. Grigorenko was forcibly committed to a special psychiatric hospital for criticizing the Khrushchev regime. Brodksy was sent to mental hospitals for not writing the right kind of poetry; his treatments involved “tranquilizing” injections, sleep deprivation and forced freezing baths. Esenin-Volpin was institutionalized in the Leningrad Special Psychiatric Hospital for his anti-Soviet thoughts. Bukovsky was also confined to the same psychiatric hospital for “anti-Soviet agitation.” Gorbanevskaya was committed to a psychiatric hospital for, among other “abnormality” crimes, attending the 1968 Red Square demonstration against the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.

    And now enter the leftist totalitarians of the Obama stripe. While anti-Soviet ideas caused dissidents to be confined to psychiatric institutions in the Soviet Union, the soil is now being fertilized for the same process in the American leftist land of Alinskyite hope and change. Indeed, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy consoled leftists worldwide this past Tuesday, engaging in Soviet-style labeling vis-à-vis global warming dissidents that would have made Leonid Brezhnev and Yuri Andropov proud. Addressing an audience at a White House summit, she stated that “normal people,” and not climate skeptics, would win the debate on global warming. She made the comment in the context of why the EPA had issued a recent report on global warming’s negative impacts on public health, stressing that, “It’s normal human beings that want us to do the right thing, and we will if you help us.”


  81. Richard C (NZ) on June 30, 2015 at 4:50 pm said:

    ‘US Supreme Court blocks Obama’s limits on power plants’


    President Barack Obama suffers a defeat in the courts.

    The US Supreme Court on Monday blocked one of the Obama administration’s most ambitious environmental initiatives: an Environmental Protection Agency regulation meant to limit emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants.

    Industry groups and some 20 states had challenged the EPA’s decision to regulate the emissions, saying the agency had failed to take into account the punishing costs its rule would impose.

    The Clean Air Act required the regulation to be “appropriate and necessary.” The challengers said the agency had run afoul of that law by deciding to regulate the emissions without first undertaking a cost-benefit analysis.

    Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. Statutory context supports this reading.”


    The decision, Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-46, does not strike down the rule, but it means the EPA will have to review and rewrite it, taking costs into consideration. Industries will be expected to comply with the current rule until a revised one is issued.


  82. Richard C (NZ) on June 30, 2015 at 4:57 pm said:

    Supreme Court to EPA: power plant regs do ‘more harm than good’

    Written by Thomas Richard, on 29 June 2015.

Comment navigation


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>