The following are 5 Master Resource postings examining opportunities of the Trump Administration to correct harmful wind energy-related policies,
U.S. Wind Energy Policy: Correcting the Abuse in 100 Days (Part I) 2/2/17
Federal Energy Efficiency Mandates: DOE’s End Run vs. the Public Interest (Part II)
By Mark Krebs and Tom Tanton — January 31, 2017
Big Wind: Threat to Air Navigation, Military Assets (Part III)
By Lisa Linowes — February 16, 2017
DOE: Breaking the Federal Arm of the Wind Industry (Part IV)
By Lisa Linowes — February 23, 2017
Wind Energy and Aviation Safety (Part V) 3/02/17
Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, Electricity, Environment, EPA, Government Regulations, Government Revenues, President Trump, Renewable Energy, Windpower
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 Senate approved a bill to cut NASA’s global warming research that is done by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS). The Bill now goes to the House of Representatives where it is expected to be approved. President Trump is expected to sign the bill into law. NASA was created to explore space but it now spends more on global warming. Former President Obama incredibly told the head of NASA that he wanted the focus to be on Muslim outreach.
NASA will still have a role in global warming research as a good bit of research data is obtained from satellites that they build and operate. But GISS, directed by Gavin Schmidt, will be eliminated as their global warming research duplicates work being done in other government Departments.
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
The Trump administration has formed a team charged with making recommendations for changes to the EPA. This action is needed because gone are the days when the EPA followed the legislation written by Congress. Good things were accomplished by the EPA. But now the EPA has over stepped it authority. The EPA task is to administer the law, not make it. For example, it has developed criteria to justify their own efforts, often invites “friendly lawsuits to expand their activities, and uses “secret science” to justify their regulations:
The following are some of the areas that the team need to address, in my opinion:
- Social Cost of Carbon
- Secret Science
- Peer Reviewed Studies
- Friendly Law Suits
- The Endangerment Finding
- Research Grants
- Last Minute Regulations
Federal Funding Bias
Postings discussing the bias in allocation of grants for scientific studies are numerous. The following comes from Dr Roy Spencer’s “Science under President Trump: End the Biases in Government-Funded Research” opens up with the following:
Government funds science to support pre-determined policy outcomes
So, you thought government-funded science is objective?
Oh, that’s adorable.
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, Environment, EPA, Government Regulations, Government Revenues, IPCC, Media Bias, President Trump