The rumors concerning the Trump Administration’s climate policies are not all favorable. The Daily Caller says that the Trump Administration will issue an executive order to rescind or revise the Obama Administration’s so-called Clean Power Plan (CPP) next week. I count that as a plus and consistent with Trump’s campaign promises.
But there is also a rumor that the Trump Administration will not rescind the EPA greenhouse gas Endangerment Finding (EF) as part of the Executive Order. If the EF is not rescinded, it is widely believed by legal experts that the climate alarmists can force the Administration to issue a different regulation limiting CO2 emissions through the courts. This new regulation may not be as strong as the CPP, but the alternative of rescinding the EF is a much better route since it would not only more accurately represent the current state of climate science, but would force some future alarmist-inclined Administration to first issue still another new EF justifying CO2 reduction before it could re-rewrite the CO2 emission control regulation. We need as much protection against future government intervention in energy markets as we can get.
And there are increasing signs that the Trump Administration may not end US involvement with the Paris “Treaty” or the UNFCCC, as previously reported. The latter would have the same effect since the UNFCCC is the umbrella under which the “treaty” was concluded, and withdrawal would end most US involvment with the UN on climate. UNFCCC withdrawal would be desirable, but the important thing is to end the US involvement in the Paris “treaty.” Mr. Trump even promised to do this if elected.
Why do I favor taking a stronger stand against climate alarmism? Because the scientific evidence is overwhelming that reducing CO2 emissions will have no measurable effect on global warming, that increased atmospheric CO2 is good, not bad, that moderate increases in global temperatures are good, not bad, and that there is no evidence that catastrophic increases in global temperatures will result if no action is taken. Hence there is no justification for government intervention in the energy markets on the basis of climate policy. The main danger is what government may do to disrupt the energy markets, not what catastrophic effects CO2 emissions might have.
Ivanka and Kushner need to read your book Dr. carlin. Their lives have been so dominated by fake news, they do not know you are correct about global warming.
At least Ivanka is a patriot. She may be educatable.
Could it possibly owe to the erosion of free speech and thought within academia, the national Academy of Sciences, the fake news media, and the Royal Society?
Could the problem owe to group think and rational democrats allowing themselves to be herded like lemmings?
How about help from union influenced federal government scientists who cannot uphold their QA procedures, at least in press releases?
Dr. Carlin-
Severin Borenstein had a blog post on climate policy in CA that you might find of interest:
https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2017/02/27/what-do-we-want-from-california-climate-policy/
I am looking forward to your analysis of what went wrong with the environmental movement.
I don’t think the authors of this quote:
….“Americans regard climate science as less precise than other fields of study, even though it is plagued by many of the same uncertainties. When people regard a field of study as imprecise, they believe research from that field has little value. (Broomell & Kane, 2017).”
http://www.theclimatechat.org/news/2017/2/24/research-roundup-for-february-2017
considered that they could of provided some rational for reducing budgets.
I was reminded of a post at spottedtoad’s:
I Don’t Think it Means What You Think it Means
https://spottedtoad.wordpress.com/2017/03/07/i-dont-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means/
Mark
Comment by Alan Carlin: As explained at some length in my book, Environmentalsim Gone Mad: How a Sierra Club Activist and Senior EPA Analyst Discovered a Radical Green Energy Fantasy, the environmental movement was gradually taken over by left wing extremists. The danger that this might happen was already evident during the period I spent as a Sierra Club activist, but it did not. During that period, for example, David Brower, who advocated a much more left wing approach to energy policy, was forced to leave as the Club’s Executive Director as as a result of a contentious membership vote. Although there were many issues in the election, environmental extremism was certainly an important one. The current Club leaders are considerably to the left of Brower, and the older, much more pragmatic leaders of my day have largely died or retired. Patrick Moore relates similar experiences at Greenpeace.
How a senior EPA analyst discovered a radical energy fantasy
Hmmm…
I wonder what a book entitled with these words could possibly be about????
How could you have noticed something subtle like this?
Its mildly interesting which of my offerings you accept versus those you that do not (if received).
I have not read your book, so I am not trying to read your mind, clearly. I assume it’s a good book so would be charmed to collect an autograph someday, if an occasion presented itself.
I do not carefully read essays at your blog either, based on the assumption and impression that you know which end is up, Doctor carlin.
Comment by Alan Carlin: To my knowledge I have approved all your comments. But there is a long process by which Word Press reviews comments before they reach me. So perhaps some of yours have gotten lost in the process since I have no record of having deleting any of yours or any others that are on topic.
Thanks, one or two did not arrive, so I wonder if it was my phone or something I said that was a little over the top
I have to salute your titles. Government intervention in the energy markets is the real danger, not co2. What could this one possibly be about? Does the title say it all? Yes.
In general, the titles are punchlines