EPA employees do not want to cooperate with the Trump Administration.
“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted,” Obama said during a 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board. Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton also pledged that “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”
“This Labor Day, America has 83,000 fewer coal jobs and 400 coal mines than it did when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, showing that the president has followed through on his pledge to “bankrupt” the coal industry.”
The paragraphs above are from the dailycaller 5 September 2016 posting “Obama kept his promise-83,000 coal jobs lost and 400 mines shuttered.
Who are the cheerleaders wanting the coal business to fail? The EPA !! Who authored the Clean Power ACT? The EPA !!
The website inc.com/quora posted “Why You Should Never, Ever Stop Challenging Conventional Wisdom”. I have lifted most of their little gems of wisdom. I am posting this as it fits well with my previous blog about theTheory of Man-Made Global Warming Effect.
The experts are usually wrong.
Experts (those who predict the future for a living) are, more often than not, dart-throwers. They perform no better than chance. And recently they have performed even worse than chance.
“Economists have predicted nine of the last five recessions.”
We are ALL biased. We see the world through a very hazy prism of our experiences.
There is no unbiased news outlet. Even “real news” has an element of untruth to it. Almost every news story I had intimate knowledge of made a significant reporting mistake of factual error in the story.
We’re human, and we make mistakes. We’re human, and we see the world with our strong bias. We overweight individual sources and underweight others. We discount data that is very good, and we rely on data that is wrong. We see patterns when there are none and see coincidences when there are conspiracies
The “expert” can be dangerous. Continue reading
The EPA has been overstepping its authority. This has led to regulations that are unnecessary, burdensome and often not in concert with bills passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. At times, the EPA has been acting as a law making body, which is beyond their authority. The current Administration intends to correct this situation.
As the Administration undertakes this task, the Left will mount a campaign intended to defeat the Administrations objestives. The Left will tell you that the Administration is going to poison your children, make all rivers a sewer, make the air you breathe toxic and Earth will be destroyed by catastrophic climate change. None of which is true. The media of course will join in and support anything the Left says. They will report about someone who is supposed to be suffering because of the actions of the Administration. They will ignore the many who are able now make a success of their business as the useless regulations are canceled. The left knows they will miss their opportunity to tax and regulate if the Administration is successful.
Posted in AGW, Al Gore, carbon tax, Climate Alarmism, CO2, EPA, Government Regulations, Government Revenues, Media Bias, NGO's eg Greenpeace/WWF, WWF
The website EnergyMatters’ posting titled “Attributing the blame for global warming” is one of the most intriguing postings I have read lately. The posting discusses a report made by a UN group to determine who is responsible for the man-made greenhouse gases that the warmers say have damaged the Earth. The Paris Agreement, for example, blames the Developed Nations and wants them to pay reparations to the rest of the world. The posting, on the contrary, persuasively argues that the developed nations aren’t not the primary sources of greenhouse gases. Further the folly of the “Developed Nations are at fault theme” is that when projected into the future the evidence says it is even less true. For those of us that believe that nature is the primary forcing agent with regard to global climate change, who is to “blame” is not particularly our big issue, but it is for the warmers. This posting seems to point out they continue to get it wrong:
Whistleblower Dr. John Bates really has stirred up a hornet’s nest. He says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s(NOAA) global temperature revisions made just before the Paris COP meeting are suspect. Skeptics have been critical of those revisions from the very beginning. The UK Daily Mail posted “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.” The Daily Mail opened up their posting with this:
“The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Environment, EPA, Global Temperatures, IPCC, NOAA, President Trump, skeptic science knowledge, United Nations, warmer prediction fails
There are many regulations issued by ex-President Obama that the current Administration would like to rescind. But if you have been following this issue, you would have probably heard that only new regulations passed within the last 60 days can be rescinded by President Trump. In fact it appears the law may not be so limiting. One of the authors of the Congressional Review Act of 1996 (CRA), Todd Gaziano says the law gives the Republicans much more power to overrule the regulations. Scott Johnson posted on the PowerLine website “Review This.” A review of Kim Strassel’s WSJ posting “A GOP regulatory game changer”—(Behind a paywall.).
“The accepted wisdom in Washington is that the CRA can be only used against new regulations, those finalized in the past 60 legislative days. That would allow the Republicans to reach back to June 2016 , teeing up 180 rules or so for override. Included are biggies like the Interior Department’s “streams” rule, the Labor Department’s overtime-pay rule, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s methane rule.
“But what Mr Gaziano told Republicans on Wednesday was that the CRA grants them far greater powers, including the extraordinary ability to overrule regulations even back to the start of the Obama administration. The CRA also would allow the GOP to dismantle these regulations quickly, and to ensure those rules can’t come back, even under a future Democratic president. No kidding.”
Strassel goes on to explain”
“ It turns out that the first line of the CRA requires any federal agency promulgating a rule to submit a “report” on it to the House and Senate. The 60 day clock starts either when the rule is published or when Congress receives the report—which ever comes first.
“There was always intended to be consequences if agencies didn’t deliver these reports,” Mr. Gaziano tells me. “And while some Obama agencies may have been better at sending reports, others, through incompetence or spite, likely didn’t.” Bottom line: There are rules for which there are no reports. And if the Trump administration were now to submit those reports—for rules implemented long ago—Congress would be free to vote the regulations down.”
Also from the posting is the following:
Some of the regulations that deserve to be overruled may have followed the rule by submitting a report to Congress which apparently makes them exempt. Let’s hope that no report was submitted for the most of them.
I am reblogging the “The Impending Collapse of the Global Warming Scare“. That’s the title of a posting by Francis Menton on the Manhattan Contrarian blog. His description of the state of the catastrophic man-made global warming theory and how it got to be so pervasive if not persuasive is spot on. He outlines why he thinks the new administration will take actions that will ultimately cause its collapse. I think he is right that if the funding dries up, or is finally given to skeptics too, the science will finally put the computer forecast science out of business.
There is a caution in my mind. And that is I think the really wealthy NGOs like World Wildlife Fund and wealthy people like Soros and Styer who have political reasons to want to continue the scare will put up an enormous fight to keep it alive. The scare tactics will not diminish, but with the help of the liberal media, the scare stories will reach new heights. I hope I am wrong about this.
Posted in AGW, China, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, Environment, EPA, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Government Regulations, IPCC, Media Bias, President Trump, Renewable Energy