The Climate Industrial Complex (CIC) has decided to play dirty. They obviously do not like Scott Pruitt and apparently decided that since they cannot win on the doubtful merits of their arguments or their standard media scare tactics, the best way to proceed was to attack any and all perceived ethical and excessive cost problems they could pin on him. So they sent out their hounds and brought home very little.
Pruitt’s apartment rental comes down to a judgment as to whether $50 per night is a fair market price for a Capitol Hill apartment with specified amenities. It was approved by the EPA career ethics officials. And whether his use of enhanced personal security and first class air travel is required to protect him from bodily harm after a number of personal threats against his life is also a matter of judgment. Personally, I believe it is better to err on the side of safety.
So why is the CIC so concerned about Pruitt? Because he is trying to make major reforms at EPA to bring back science as the basis for policy and to concentrate on real pollution problems, not manufactured ones based on the CIC’s “consensus” science and overwhelming control of the mainstream media. He has shown great personal courage by attempting to repeal some of the most egregious actions of the Obama EPA.
The Outdated CAFE Standards Are One of Pruitt’s Well Deserved Targets
His new attempt to revise the Obama CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards for cars is an example of why the CIC does not like him. This regulation was dubious from the start. CAFE was based on fears that the US would have an oil shortage if not run out of it and be at the mercy of the Arab oil sheikhs. So the idea was that cars would have to be put on a fuel diet. This idea was hijacked by the CIC in the early Obama years with the help of the weakness of the auto industry during the recent extended recession to turn this effort into another climate regulation.
The Obama version of the CAFE standards would force Americans to either use very small cars or expensive electric vehicles despite their obvious preference for larger, more powerful, more cost-effective, and safer cars. There was no need for CAFE from the start and it has long since lost whatever justification it might have had. And as discussed many times on this blog, reducing human-caused CO2 emissions will have no significant effect on global warming, which is a benefit in modest amounts anyway.
Technical Progress Is More than Making Up for Oil Depletion
It should now be obvious that there is no danger of running out of oil in the US for many years. We have even started to export some. Technical progress is more than making up for the diminishing availability of large oil reservoirs of easy-to-extract oil. The CIC has long held the view that critical resources for modern society, particularly energy resources, would inevitably run out and we must conserve them at the expense of human welfare and convenience. Their current goal is the absurd just “leave it in the ground” phrase. Obama even claimed that it was impossible for the US to drill our way out of this energy shortage problem. But he and the rest of the CIC could not have been more wrong. In recent years the price of energy has even fallen substantially. The reason is that technological progress is more than keeping up with resource depletion despite the Reverend Malthus’s views.
What is needed is not more counter-productive, economy-distorting government regulations like CAFE, but fewer and better infrastructure to get our abundant energy resources to market and fewer attempts to prevent use of the new technology, especially fracking, by states. Pruitt is definitely on the right track, but the CIC is fighting back in the worst traditions of Washington swamp dwellers. I may have a few disagreements with Mr. Pruitt about how soon to get rid of the unscientific EPA CO2 Endangerment Finding, but Pruitt is definitely on the right track. The time has come to decrease the influence of the CIC swamp dwellers, not Scott Pruitt.
The Fake News with its fake narratives helps muddle many topics.
Pruitt used to rent from an Oklahoman. This was not illegal or terrible, but enabled mud slinging by hostile a. So pruitt has changed living atrangements. much ado about absolutely nothing.
The Wall Street journal had an unlikely story General Kelly wanted Pruitt out. Fusion disinformationist Glenn Simpson is a graduate of the WSJ. Fake news can come out of the journal too.
Boss gave Pruitt support via tweet. He ought to give Scott the Lincoln bedroom to live in.. This can eliminate his rent altogether plus Pruitt would gain secret service protection.
The interview by sleazy Ed was fishy. Who put him up to that nonsense or is he rude to everyone?
The interview was a message that Trump has republican backstabbers, not just Schumer clowns.
Administrator Pruitt did a good job jousting with a longtime CNN reporter, Ed Henry. He moved to Fox circa 2012.
Henry had to take a break from Fox after there were news reports he was having an affair with a Stripper or sex worker based in Las Vegas. If true, Henry seems not a credible interrogator about choice of accommodation.
Mr Pruitt has not been reported cavorting with strippers, as has holier than thou Henry. Imagine how the CIC would complain if EPA was led by somebody like Henry?
It would seem apt time for somebody at Fox News to do a performance appraisal of Ed Henry. Drop kick him back to CNN.
The Fox interview by sleazy Ed Henry may have been a set up. Pruitts team could have assumed it would be an opportunity to put out their messages. It was not. One reason the swamp is the swamp is all the double dealing and backstabbing.
Some Republicans oppose the President. The Koch Brothers want open borders and cheap labor. Some like free trade and dislike tariffs.
As a result, It’s not just left wing environmentalists gunning for Pruitt, but Republicans who oppose the Presidemt about anything.
Pruitt needs to hang tough.
Maybe the President can send General Kelly away, like Tillerson, McMaster, Bannon, and the Mooch.
If administrator Pruitt has to step aside, this would be disheartening for fans of reviving the American manufacturing economy. This would hurt the enthusiasm of trump voters heading into fall elections. the administration is well served to retain Pruitt, to motivate their voters.
Pleased note my support for Mr. Pruitt in a report I wrote to President Trump “CO2 the Other view”
CONTROVERSY OVER SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS (SPE) TASK FORCE REPORT ON CLIMATE CHANGE and Exxon Mobil
CO2 ANOTHER VIEW
By SPE Legion of Honor Member Louis(Lou)W. Powers
Background
Back in 2012 Lou’s book was published by PennWell Publishing, entitled the “World Energy Dilemma.”i. He raised the issue of Global Warming being caused by man burning Fossil Fuels being one of the industry dilemmas. In 2015 he challenged the leadership of the United Methodist Church on this issue when he discovered that the Church had taken the position in the early 1980’s that manmade CO2 was bad.
In July 2017 Janeen Judah SPE President, reported the results the SPE yearlong task force on Climate Change.ii The task force started off with the Paris Agreement and encouraged the SPE members to reduce CO2iii
The General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist encouraged its church members to work with environmental Climate groups to reduce CO2.
The main difference between the SPE Taskforce and the Methodist Church officials was the Methodist Church thought it was a matter of my religion.
Dr. Frank, a retired Houston weatherman, climatologist and former head of the U. S. Hurricane Center produced a videoiv on this subject, https://youtu.be/LVkUKNOPI3g in conjunction with Powers Methodist Project. Dr. Frank’s conclusion was that increasing CO2 has very little to do with either Global Warming or Climate Change. Dr. Frank has given some 20+ talks on this subject in the Houston area including the SPE Gulf Section and two Exxon-Mobil retirement clubs. His talks have been well received.
The SPE position on reducing CO2 was a total surprise to me and most of my older SPE friends. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to show “CO2 The Other View.” What is CO2?
CO2 represents a very small part of the air we breathe, 0.04 %. It is colorless, and odorless, and the greenhouse property CO2 has does not make it black as many environmentalists would have you believe. Prior to World War I CO2 was around 0.026%. Yes, it has risen but it is still only a small part of the air we breathe. Higher CO2 helps plants grow as proven by many nursery tests where CO2 enrichment has been appliedv,vi What are the Facts? The Antarctic ice is increasing, the Artic ice has been pretty stable since 2012, There has been a worldwide decrease in hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones during the past three decades. While the USA had three severe storms this year that does not change the decreasing trend. There has been a decrease in tornadoes during past 20 yearsvii Dr. Franks video also supports these comments. So What is the Global Warming Controversy? viiiFigure 1 clearly shows the 60 year temperature cycles. Thirty years of cooling or flat temperature, followed by 30 years of rising temperatures. Notice how temperatures began to flatten out around year 2000 and per satellite measurements have
Figure 1ix
Figure 2 Figure 2 shows world temperature measurements along with CO2 for the period 1979-2013 and shows the flattening of temperature while CO2 continues to increase.x
Figure 3
This schematic was in Dr. Franks video presentation. These three graphs clearly demonstrate there is no correlation between increasing CO2 and world air temperature. Glaciers Started Melting in Alaska in 1750 Many Years before the Increase in CO2
Yet CO2 air concentration did not start increasing much till after World War I (1920) and then on a non-cyclic trend.
This map of Glacier Bay by the National Park Servicexi shows that the
Figure 4
Ice in 1750-1760. One hundred to 110 years later, 1860 ,well before CO2 had shown much increase the ice had retreated some 40 miles up the bay. I have highlighted the years of interest. Thus, one can conclude that CO2 had nothing to do with the early melting of Glacier Bay. Some experts have concluded that Temperature increases have been the driving force behind CO2 increasesxii This example would suggest just that too. So What About the Paris Agreement?
First off President Trump cancelled the Paris Climate Accord from the USA perspective. I supported President Trumps action. Certainly, President Trump was also aware of the technical problems which appeared to be overlooked by the SPE Taskforce.
Dr. Alan Carlin former EPA Sr. Administrator sums up my feelings about the Paris Agreementxiii. “that it is a political Treaty (not just an agreement) based on false science” From another climate scientist living in Indiaxiv ij Jayaraj “ The Paris Agreement is all set to become a massive failure. Major member states of the Paris agreement are set to miss the deadlines to reduce
their carbon dioxide emissions.” He on to conclude, “Prophets of climate doom continue proclaiming “The end is near!” But the end that’s near is not that of the planet or the climate or human or natural wellbeing but that of the Paris agreement. The world will soon be free from the fairytale of climate alarmism that it had espoused during the past two decades.
Remember the Paris Agreement was the SPE Task force starting point. If CO2 is not the Main Driver What is the Cause of the Climate Getting Warmer?
Mr. Leighton Stewart in his 2014 presentationxv pointed out some 22 drivers of world temperatures. With the sun and the earth’s wobble as being very significant.
As Mr. Stewart concluded, “With twenty-two climate drivers constantly operating on varying time scales why would you ever expect earth’s climate to remain stable? It never has! But rise or fall, someone will use the temporary trend to scare money out of your pocket.” Is The House of Cards the SPE Task Force Built Their Position On about to Fall? I conclude this article with a letter from Mr. Jack Threet. It was written to the SPE President related to her July 2017 SPE report on The, Climate Taskforce report.
From: Jack Threet To: president Cc: Louis Powers Sent: Wed, Oct 4, 2017 12:12 am Subject: CLIMATE CHANGE
To the President of SPE, Janeen Judah Dear Ms Judah,
I have read with interest your article in SPE’s Journal of Technology June 2017 and also Dr Trey Shaffer’s presentation of the organization and conclusions reached by SPE’s Task Force on Climate Change.
As a professional Earth scientist all my adult life I must challenge the views expressed by both you and the Task Force on Climate Change. My work experience includes 65 years in oil, gas and minerals exploration and production, at home and abroad, including nearly 40 years with Shell Oil Company where I was Head of Exploration for the last 9 years of my Shell career. Throughout my entire career the
gathering and analysis of SCIENTIFIC data to interpret and understand the history of planet Earth were always of the utmost importance. With that as background I respectfully submit to you the following comments for your consideration, starting with SPE’s Task Force on Climate Change.Regrettably, had SPE, a scientific and professional society, started with a task force instructed to find SCIENCE-BASED DRIVERS of climate change in descending order of magnitude they never would have developed this HOUSE OF CARDS approach.
Since the creation of Earth, long before man, Earth has experienced numerous periodic major and minor climate changes driven by very difficult to quantify natural variations in solar activity, Earth’s orbit around the sun, ocean currents, volcanic activity and more. These same natural variations continued after man first inhabited Earth and are continuing to drive climate change today.
Thus, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt or deny climate change on Earth. What I DO DOUBT and STRONGLY DENY is that global warming has ever been driven, or even measurably modified, by increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) as the result of man’s burning of fossil fuels. CO2 is a clear, odorless, non-polluting gas that is critically important for plant growth and their release of oxygen into the atmosphere for man to survive.
There is NOT ONE SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that changes in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere have had any measurable effect on global climate, past or present !!! Certainly models, such as created by the United Nations Panel of Climate Scientists to explain and forecast climate change are NOT scientific evidence. They are, at best, an effort to model a very complex set of factors influencing climate change — and, at worst are biased to provide desired outcomes.
Finally, as to the Paris Accord on Climate Change, it follows from the above that there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for the support of this Accord. Man’s burning of fossil fuels has not had, nor will it have, any measurable effect on global climate change, warming or cooling. Because of this very major flaw in the Accord it was understandable and very important that the United States of America chose not to ratify this Accord.
In closing, of course my views on Climate Change are not unique. They are shared by an often all-toosilent group numbering tens of thousands of fellow Earth scientists around the world, some of whom were once members of the UN Panel of Climate Scientists.
Thank you for taking time to consider my comments. Sincerely, Jack C Threet
i “The World Energy Dilemma” by Louis W Powers 2012 PennWell Publishing
ii Climate Change and SPE Janeen Judah 2017 SPE President July Journal of Petroleum Technology
iii Slides by Dr. Trey Schaffer About SPE Vision presented to SPE Gulf Coast Section September 2017
iv The Slides of Dr.Franks video are shown at http://TheWorldEnergyDilemma.com under news dated March 12, 2016
Vhttp://Plants needCO2.org/default.aspx?menueitemid=225
vi An inconvenient deception HOW AL GORE DSISTORTS CLIMATE SCIENCE AND ENERGY POLICY, BY Dr. Roy W. Spencer, published by Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, 2017 vii https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/do cuments/HHRG-115-SY-WState-JChristy-20170329.pdf
viii Personal Discussion between Dr. Neil Frank and the Author ix Graph by Dr. Richard Lindzen MIT
x Leighton Steward, Distinguished Alumnus of Southern Methodist University, Author of “Fire Ice and Paradise,” published in 2009, was a presenter “At the Crossroads, Energy & Climate Policy Summit” in Houston, Texas hosted by the Texas Public Policy xi National Park Serivice Map of Glacier Bay Alaska
xii https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-inantarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-atmost/
xiii https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-inantarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-atmost/
xiv Vijay Jayaraj (M.S., Environmental Science) is the Research Associate for Developing Countries for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. He currently lives in Udumalpet, India. You can follow him on Twitter @vjxxvj xv Leighton Steward, Distinguished Alumnus of Southern Methodist University, Author of “Fire Ice and Paradise,” published in 2009, was a presenter “At the Crossroads, Energy & Climate Policy Summit” in Houston, Texas hosted by the Texas Public Policy