USEPA is currently reviewing a number of Obama-era regulations with the apparent intention of repealing or revising some of them. They appear to have a plan as to how to do this, with what they view as the most egregious regulations to be revised or eliminated first and with an early deadline for completing the overall review process.
They are already having difficulty satisfying the liberal DC Circuit Court of Appeals that they are implementing the Obama-era climate Endangerment Finding (EF). The EF is the scientific and legal justification for all EPA climate regulations and has been shown to be scientifically invalid by two separate innovative research reports over the past two years (see here and here). The Court is normally the first stop for review of legal disputes concerning Federal regulations.
The Court has emphasized the necessity for the Agency to observe the EF. As long as it is in effect, EPA will have to satisfy the Court that new or revised regulations meet the EF. Failure is likely to result in adverse decisions by the Court concerning the regulations under dispute. The Court has already told EPA that the 2009 EF means the EPA has an “affirmative statutory obligation to regulate greenhouse gases.”
The Clean Power Plan
The Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP), which limits carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector in each state using a very broad interpretation of the Clean Air Act, appears to be the most important of the climate regulations involved. The Trump EPA has proposed to repeal the CPP and has asked the public in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) for comments on what if anything should replace it.
There are presumably only three things the Agency could reasonably do given their proposal to repeal the CPP: (1) Propose a replacement for the CPP in accordance with the EF, such as restricting the CPP to cover only changes inside power plant fences as provided under the Clean Air Act, (2) propose no replacement for the CPP but instead reconsider and (hopefully) repeal the EF, or (3) propose that there be no replacement for the CPP and no repeal of the EF. The problem with (1) is that the Agency would end up reaffirming the current EF, which would make later reconsideration of the EF more difficult, end up being very expensive, and have no real benefits. Option (3) is likely to run afoul of the DC Circuit and perhaps even the Supreme Court. The best alternative appears to be option (2). Presumably EPA will have to decide which of these actions to take after the CPP is repealed and comments are received on the ANPRM.
You can submit your comments to USEPA on the repeal of the CPP until April 26 and on the ANPRM until February 26. It is only by repealing the scientifically invalid EF that scientific objectivity can come to future EPA actions concerning climate change. And nothing else will make it harder for possible future climate alarmist-inclined administrations to easily reimpose the CPP and even more damaging regulations.
1xBet является очень популярных на рынке. 1xbet сайт Огромный выбор спортивных и киберспортивных событий, множество открытых линий, высочайшие коэффициенты. Также, БК имеет широкий функционал и немногие дает возможность совершать ставки по специальным промокодам. Используя их, вы можете получить настоящие деньги, не внося абсолютно никаких средств. Это реально! Узнать актуальный промокод вы можете сейчас же, однако использовать его необходимо в соответствии с условиями и инструкциями, которые приведены ниже.
This weeks column got picked up at Climate Depot under EPA whistleblow. Good headline.
I am surprised Climate Depot and other skeptical websites do not cross advertise Doctor Carlin a bit more. His posts are usually accessible to the layperson. They are written With dignity and seriousness. They often entail original thinking. The website has an effective design and look.
In any event, I enjoy it and think it renders public service especially during these Trumpian times.
It has been a practice of alarmists to avoid genuine public debates about the justifying science. This is a big warning indicator of a con.
Another is to hurl abuse. Flat earther is one term.
Another is denier, which brings to mind deniers of the holocaust. But the holocaust really happened, whereas global warming is not.
Or alarmists are claimed to be paid by fossil fuel interests.
The alarmists in effect claim moral superiority plus scientific omniscience. Any doubters are corrupt or stupid.
This profound imbalance precludes internal debate within the fantasy bubble of the alarmists. It encourages fanaticism or alienation or cynicism. It does not encourage thoughtful discussion leading to a narrowing of differences or appreciation of uncertainties.
These EPA rules have to be revoked. AGW is total nonsense and is a political movement from the Left. There is no serious science in AGW at all.
Recently there was a science paper reporting a hole in the warming climate of the south eastern United States.
It may be well intentioned reporting by a serious minded scientist at Dartmouth.
However it is like a report that there is a hole in the tail of the Loch Ness monster.
Or a report about fewer sightings of Bigfoot.
Finding a hole within something that does not even exist is sincere and possibly well intended. But it should not encourage anyone to pay tuition to Dartmouth.
By aligning itself with a mad Eco theory and insulting anyone who questions the mad orthodoxy, the Democratic Party is not helping its credibility.
Al gore has brushed off doubters as flat earthers. That reveals intolerance for thoughtful civil discourse. It inevitably brands the democrats as anti science and anti the pursuit of truth.
As Doc Carlin has noted, none of the dire predictions have come true or even could happen. Climate Forecasts based on bad models are foolish. The theory of global warming owing to CO2 is 19th century in origin and long ago failed the scientific method.
Did the Wallace papers get printed in peer reviewed journals? I am curious if their have been any rebuttals of them submitted to the authors. If they are to be used as evidence in a hearing on the validity of the EF it would be beneficial if they had been successfully defended or not challenged at all.
On a similar note I hear Harde is not being allowed to respond to the Kohler rebuttal by the journal. I thought Kohler argued aginst points that were not in the Harde paper in the first place and it is a shame noone can point out his errors.
Comment by Alan Carlin: To my knowledge the Wallace, et al. papers have not been published in journals but have been extensively reviewed by a number of knowledgeable experts.
One early influence on my voyage to understanding climate fanaticism was the “great global warming swindle,” a British documentary. Before that, while I may have subconsciously doubtful, this amusing film introduced me to smart skeptics like John Christy, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Tim Ball and others. It suddenly hit me like a ton of bricks how silly and audaciously dishonest the claims of warming were. The flick became available via the Web and I could not stop watching it again and again. Very amusing. This may have been 2008.
I knew Eco activists could hold lunatic ideas, but I had not read much about climate change and must have assumed it had some basis in fact, even if exaggerated. The Swindle movie woke me up to the cause just being audaciously rotten to the core.
In 2009 and 2010, I read the blog, climate audit. It was superb and destroyed published claims of alarmists.
I also read the emails written by climate scientists at the university of east anglia after these came to light. They showed appalling disregard for sound science.
If there are billions of people and academics who support alarmism, this matters not one iota to me. Science is about evidence, probabilities, inferences, and reason. It does not depend on popularity.
I started following Doctor Carlins blog especially after election of president Trump. Respected his objection to alarmism during tv interviews back in 2009. I like the nicely modulated writing style and substantive content of his blog posts. Much easier to understand than climate audit, more serious than climate depot (though humor has its place too).
Read Doc’s 575 page book. It is excellent.
The Economist began publishing climate alarmist stuff during the reign of leftist Tony Blair. It used to be fine magazine so its reportage on climate may have misled me for a while.
Then I saw an article about regulation of chemicals in California. This clearly favored ignoring fundamentals of toxicology. In one article, the economist was helpfully revealed to no longer respect science. I never renewed a subscription. The economist had a wide readership around the planet and proximity to the Royal Society, so once it was captured by alarmists, the cult of alarmism likely gained in plausibility among the bourgeoisie.
One reason is to drag out repeal of climate programs. The President can keep punching them for years. This delights his supporters and demoralizes opponents.
trump loves the job of being President. It is fun for him.
So each year he can cut the budget of USEpa and reduce its employees. Drag it out. Dont close it all at once, but slowly.
Keep having fun. Keep showing who is the Boss.
Invalidate the finding on procedural grounds during 2018. Then in 2019 hold the debate about science. Then in 2020 formulate and announce a science based position that there is no climate change threat.
The situation described might warrant the Administrator repealing the EF on grounds of gross violation of process? The Agency held no serious review of climate science. Administrator Pruitt could make a strong case in any court that the Endangerment Finding was not based on legally required due process.
Taking this step might make sense in the short run. Invalidating the Endangerment Finding can liberate the undoing of derivative regulations, thereby helping the American economy.
This would defer holding a blue red debate. This debate could be pushed back to 2019 or 2020. It still needs to be held, but it does not have to be held during 2018.