The EPA Climate Regulations

How Scott Pruitt could gut them:

s Pruitt and President Trump look to unwind Obama’s major climate policies, the endangerment finding might be imperiled.

“You know what’s interesting about the situation with CO2, Joe, is we’ve had a Supreme Court decision in 2007 and then the endangerment finding that you’re making reference to in 2009,” Pruitt told CNBC host Joe Kernan, referring to the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA decision — the court ruled that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and the EPA has to determine whether they should be regulated.

“Nowhere in the continuum, nowhere in the equation, has Congress spoken. The legislative branch has not addressed this issue at all,” Pruitt said.

“The decision in 2007 was not that the EPA had to regulate. The decision in 2007 was they needed to make a decision.”

And what was decided can be undecided. Live by the pen and the phone, die by the pen and the phone. Though I’d like to see Massachusetts v. EPA reversed as well, given that we now know, since the release of the emails from CRU, that it was based on junk science. The notion that plant food as a trace gas is a “pollutant” is nonsensical.

[Update a few minutes later]

Speaking of Massachusetts, it could get up to two feet of snow tomorrow, a week before the vernal equinox. Because, you know, the earth is overheating.

[Update early afternoon]

Yes, Scott Pruitt is right on CO2. But he’s a religious heretic, so he must be condemned.

[Tuesday-morning update]

Let’s talk about Scott Pruitt’s “denial” of global warming.

12 thoughts on “The EPA Climate Regulations”

  1. “Speaking of Massachusetts, it could get up to two feet of snow tomorrow, a week before the vernal equinox. Because, you know, the earth is overheating.”

    Or as Howie Carr a local talk show host likes to say:

    “We’re going to get 2 feet of Global Warming tomorrow.”

      1. Of course, if it supports the climatist religion, it’s climate. Otherwise it’s just weather.

      2. Of course, if it supports the climatist religion, it’s climate. Otherwise it’s just weather.

        (and somehow my comment is recorded as made, but it isn’t showing here.)

      3. dpd, you need to update your source code for the latest talking points. Weather events like a heavy snowfall are now considered evidence for AGW.

        Instead of saying, “Don’t you know what weather is? Gah!”

        You should be saying, “This snowfall is only because of global warming and you are stupid if you can’t tell that a warming planet means we get more snow.”

        When you update your script, please feel free to credit me.

        1. C’mon, Climate Change. The heavy snowfall is not “weather”, it is evidence for “Climate Change.” Sheesh!

      4. “You don’t understand the difference between weather and climate do you?”

        Like most moronic trolls, you fail to recognize sarcasm/jokes when you read them. If you can read at all….

        I’m sure you thought you made a smashing rejoinder…..sorry to destroy your world view.

  2. Time to check in again with that master of mirth Phil Plait, who has left Slate and moved on to something called blastr. Here he is last week hyperventilating on Pruitt:

    This is science denialism at a stunning level. And it’s incredibly disingenuous, too. Note his phrasing: He’s saying that disagreement about the amount of human-caused warming means CO2 is not the primary driver of warming. That’s like saying, “I don’t know if there’s a traffic jam at the corner of Main and 1st street or Main and 2nd, therefore cars don’t exist.”

    And the models? Oh he’s got that covered:

    As to Pruitt’s second point, computer models that take into account all known physical factors show that humans are not only the main cause of warming, but that we may be causing all of it. Like 100%.

    Go Phil Go! And that image, so awesome! The hell with that simple little gif of a small earth with a feeble flame coming off it. This one shows part of the planet frying and the other half melting into some horrible deformed mess. Now if that doesn’t get people horrified and activated, nothing will!

    My Hero!

    1. As to Pruitt’s second point, computer models that take into account all known physical factors show that humans are not only the main cause of warming, but that we may be causing all of it. Like 100%.

      In the Walking Dead episode from two weeks back, Rick and Michone were out hunting for guns to seal a deal with another settlement. Several years into the zombie apocalypse, things were already very picked over by all of these groups living so close to each other. Where would they ever find the guns?

      Then it happened. Rick and Michone stumbled on an amusement park that was being used by the military at the time of the zombie outbreak. Somehow, no one had looted the place yet and there were guns all over the place. It was amazing, just when the crew needed guns, they magically appeared.

      I’ve noticed this before in fiction, how the outcome of events always comes across as if scripted by some otherworldly omnipotent power. It’s almost as if someone has decided what they want to happen and then manufacture the conditions required to get to the outcome.

      Why shouldn’t computer models show what their creators want? It is just too bad there is no way to use observations to separate the models from reality. But since perception is reality, it is more important to control how people perceive that reality in service of saving the world than examine the perception that the world needs saving.

      Don’t you want to be a hero like Michone and Rick?

      1. I’ve noticed this before in fiction, how the outcome of events always comes across as if scripted by some otherworldly omnipotent power. It’s almost as if someone has decided what they want to happen and then manufacture the conditions required to get to the outcome.

        Out of curiosity, has anyone compiled a list of such happenstance in climate research. I know we have the famous “hockey stick” which came out at a convenient time for the IPCC to disregard the Medieval Warm Period. We have extreme weather (and the ambiguous term, “climate change”) which came out when people were wondering what the rush was. Mann et al was able to publish a rebuttal of Curry et al’s stadium wave paper the same month the latter paper finally made it to physical paper (it had been online for about 8 months prior).

        1. Not that I am aware of but there are other examples. Didn’t the “pause buster” paper come out just before the Paris thing?

          I don’t follow any sites that deal exclusively in climate change because to me, it has been clear from the beginning that the movement is about manufacturing fear and taking advantage of foibles in human nature to control other people.

          Some people argue that only climate scientists should have an opinion but I argue that anthropology, geology, religion, and even story telling should be used to analyze the creation of mass delusions like AGW apocalypse.

  3. Phil Plait:

    “…………………computer models that take into account all known physical factors show……..:

    Clearly this Plait guy is as moronic as DePloreD as no such model exists.

Comments are closed.