EPA: If Congress doesn’t pass cap-and-trade, we will

Published on December 9th, 2009

Fox News finally does a good news report:

The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn’t move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a “command-and-control” role over the process in a way that could hurt business.

“This is not an ‘either-or’ moment. It’s a ‘both-and’ moment,” she said. “If you don’t pass this legislation, then … the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area,” the official said. “And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.” “So, passing the right kind of legislation with the right kind of compensations seems to us to be the best way to reduce uncertainty and actually to encourage investment,” the official said.

What EPA means is that if Congress doesn’t pass the cap-and-trade bill, they will just make CO2 a pollutant and regulate it that way. It’s ridiculous.

70 users responded in " EPA: If Congress doesn’t pass cap-and-trade, we will "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 matt said, on December 9th, 2009 at 9:02 am

gosh. i love living in soviet russia.

so if CO2 is a pollutant, then what will happen when i exhale? oops, broke the law. sorry, i just exhaled. dang. i did it again.

# 2 Dennis said, on December 9th, 2009 at 9:07 am

“Now Listen Here….”

A little power seems to go a long way. In 30 yrs of watching politics, The EPA has NEVER truly been a factor.
Why would they be starting now?

# 3 Cherman said, on December 9th, 2009 at 9:07 am

#1, absolutely.

# 4 Guyver said, on December 9th, 2009 at 9:12 am

#1, Matt, the next thing to be regulated might be ammonia since we all produce this when we sweat.

Other than that, water vapor may be next since it too is a green house gas (and in greater abundance than CO2).

In the end, we all just need a little government help to protect everyone from everyone else’s breath.

# 5 Benjamin said, on December 9th, 2009 at 9:14 am

Easy. Congress just needs to pass a law to defund the EPA.

# 6 Tim said, on December 9th, 2009 at 9:22 am

That’s funny. Joe Barton from Texas is making public an internal report created BY the EPA that states that CO2 has no effect on global warming. How will the EPA explain that CO2 is not harmful, but will be considered a pollutant.

# 7 jbellies said, on December 9th, 2009 at 9:23 am

Obviously, respired carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. But industrial quantities (hundreds of thousands of tons) can be. So what’s the scam here, that the EPA is threatening to do its job (and of course set up an incredible bureaucratic boondoggle), or that posters are making straw man arguments? Or is it all just business as usual?

# 8 SparkyOne said, on December 9th, 2009 at 9:25 am

A well trained grunt with a M40A3 and 100 rounds has a very small carbon footprint, but could prevent America from becoming a member of the 3rd world, if transported to Copenhagen and put to work, now.

# 9 jescott418 said, on December 9th, 2009 at 9:28 am

We wonder why manufacturing jobs go China?
Obama administration talks out of two sides of their mouth. Smoke and mirrors it seems.

# 10 jbellies said, on December 9th, 2009 at 9:31 am

Here’s a description of Carbon dioxide euthanasia on “small” mammals.
http://acc.ubc.ca/SOP/SOP009E4.html

[Please drop the WWW from URLs as WordPress doesn't display it properly. - ed.]

# 11 hspirate said, on December 9th, 2009 at 9:39 am

The problem with CO2 being regulated as a “pollutant” is there are no control technologies to reduced emissions. There is no scrubber, bag house filter etc thatcan reduced the amount of CO2 emitted like there are for otehr currently regulated pollutants (NOx, SOx, particulates, etc).

The only way to effectively reduce emissions is to reduce those activities that generate CO2, ie slow the economy.

# 12 pedro said, on December 9th, 2009 at 9:48 am

#4 You forgot methane.

#6 Saying that that report is outdated? Just denialist food for their apologists.

#9 Oh boy. You just said the “O” word. Now all the apologist will line up to pile on you.

# 13 Timuchin said, on December 9th, 2009 at 9:53 am

The leftists don’t seem to care about a backlash at the polls anymore. What are they going to do to the polls? They have one more year to do whatever it is to stop the elections.

# 14 Timuchin said, on December 9th, 2009 at 9:55 am

The executive branch has already overruled the congress on funding Acorn. They could overrule congress with regards funding a leftist EPA.

# 15 dusanmal said, on December 9th, 2009 at 10:03 am

@#7 “Obviously, respired carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. But industrial quantities (hundreds of thousands of tons) can be. ” Quantities are not an issue or we’ll need to kill off all animals which are producing much more than the industry,… Pollutant, scientifically should be something that Nature can’t deal with via normal ecological cycles. Say, heavy metals… You introduce them in non-trace quantities and they stay in ecosystem and accumulate until we artificially remove them. Proportions of CO2 which are known to have existed in the past vastly dwarf what we are introducing… Life didn’t cease but have thrived at those times. Until we bypass those concentrations in significant way – no it ain’t pollutant.

# 16 Guyver said, on December 9th, 2009 at 10:07 am

11 / 12, Speaking of methane I how will they control flatulence? And since you can’t stop people from being flatulent, I suppose this will be another gravy train for government revenue?

13 / 14, Obama can always declare martial law.

# 17 The0ne said, on December 9th, 2009 at 10:49 am

Crap, forgot to brush my teeth. Too bad for you guys!!! hahahaha

# 18 Mr. Fusion, said, on December 9th, 2009 at 10:56 am

#15, dusan,

Proportions of CO2 which are known to have existed in the past vastly dwarf what we are introducing… Life didn’t cease but have thrived at those times.

Wrong. Certain life flourished, but not all life. Current life is adapted to live within the normal parameters of the environment. That, includes temperature, water, food supply, protection from the elements (including solar radiation), etc.

Maybe if you are a giant insect and can tolerate the environment of the Carboniferous period this would work for you. I don’t think it would work for too many others.

# 19 Mr. Fusion said, on December 9th, 2009 at 11:01 am

This is currently within the purview of the EPA. Two years ago the Supreme Court even chided the Bush Administration for denying the EPA do anything about CO2 and green house emissions.

Congress either MUST write new regulations or the EPA must write them. Of course, the wing nuts think ignoring Supreme Court orders don’t count. Which is why they miss the Bush fiasco so much.

# 20 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, on December 9th, 2009 at 11:10 am

#6 Tim, wrt that report you noted, recall that the Bush Admin loaded its science agencies with political hacks, especially FDA and EPA. Everything that came out of those agencies during the second Bush term needs to be evaluated for excessive political influence. Quite a lot of the EPA’s output during that time was pure shit.

# 21 Mr. Fusion said, on December 9th, 2009 at 11:14 am

pedro,

Fox News finally does a good news report:

Wrong again. This is NOT a good news report.

It is biased, quotes Administration officials with no collaboration, does not interview any politicians except those supporting the Republican viewpoint, proposes a viewpoint that is contrary to accepted science without question or dispute, and does not mention the EPA is under a court order to make regulations concerning CO2.

# 22 Mr. Fusion said, on December 9th, 2009 at 11:22 am

#20, Mr. Baggins,

Quite a lot of the EPA’s output during that time was pure shit.

Well, the EPA is tasked with governing the amount of “shit” released as it is a pollutant. Yet as the case for the Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency is when the EPA declared that even if CO2 was a pollutant, they still wouldn’t regulate against it. So here, their shit was no shit which caused the Supreme Court to rule the shit did belong with the EPA which, under Bush, were too constipated to give a shit anyway.

# 23 smith said, on December 9th, 2009 at 11:39 am

EPA is bluffing.

The Clean Air Act requires major sources to jump through very clear hurdles before any major construction or modification can be approved.

And for starters, a “major source” is defined by the Act (not EPA) as an emitter of pollution ranging from 10 tons per year to 250 tons per year, depending on the pollutant and the location of the source. EPA is proposing the major source threshold for CO2 emitters at 25,000 tons per year. (How do you think “arbitrary and capricious” will sound in a court room?)

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to establish a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)for a pollutant that is protective of human health and the environment. This requires EPA to conduct toxicological studies to ascertain appropriate health-based standards. Just how is this going to work when CO2 levels don’t impact human health until concentrations approach the percent level, not the ppm levels under discussion.

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to designate areas as being in either attainment with the NAAQS or in violation of the NAAQS. States with portions declared to be in non-attainment with NAAQS are required to develop and implement a plan which will bring it into compliance within 5 years. Just how in the hell is this supposed to work when CO2 is considered uniformily distributed throughout the world? How can Nebraska be in compliance if India exceeds EPA’s standard? Oh, by the way, states failing to meet the standard are denied federal funds for road construction and mass transit.

There are literally dozens (hundreds?) of legal challenges that EPA will need to defend, without the benefit of statutory authority. Courts have traditionally taken a dim view of EPA asserting powers not granted by statute.

They want Congress to pass a new law and are using this as a threat. But it’s a bluff, pure and simple, because they know they can’t win this in court.

# 24 Fartacus said, on December 9th, 2009 at 11:48 am

There should be a constitutional amendment clearly defining any compulsion or threat directed towards congress as treason, with an established independent body working full time on investigating and standing by to prosecute such crimes. Congress exists as a check and balance.

Americans elect a president every 4 years, but once they pick one of usually only two candidates they are stuck.

Look at what Obama promised re: troops, and what he has done. He has defied the majority and there’s nothing anyone can do about it, except CONGRESS.

The Vietnam war, a tragic mistake of epic fail proportions, ended only when congress decided to cut the funds. The voice of the majority was finally heard, but not through the “administration”.

# 25 hspirate said, on December 9th, 2009 at 11:48 am

@23- You are correct. There are many legal hurdles that must be crossed for the EPA to regulate this as a pollutant. I spoke to a consultant today that said their is a ridiculous amount of lawsuits that will brought against the EPA if this passes.

# 26 chuck said, on December 9th, 2009 at 11:48 am

When did the EPA become a separate branch of government. It is under the jurisdiction of the executive branch. So if the EPA is threatening to regulate CO2, then it’s the Obama administration that is doing the threatening.

Either Congress can pass a law limiting what the EPA can do, or Obama can issue an executive order to the EPA.

# 27 brm said, on December 9th, 2009 at 12:02 pm

If the EPA has the power to regulate, what’s the point of having Congress weigh on this at all?

Furthermore, how did we get in this situation?

# 28 sargasso said, on December 9th, 2009 at 12:07 pm

The EPA is effective, at fulfilling it’s agenda. The Congress, is not.

# 29 smith said, on December 9th, 2009 at 12:08 pm

#19 Fusion — you have your facts wrong. What the Court ruled (5-4) is that nothing in the Clean Air precludes EPA from regulating CO2 as a pollutant. But it also instructed EPA to either regulate CO2 under CAA or to tell the Court why it can’t. The Bush administration laid the groundwork for why it can’t, but the Obama administration scrapped all that and is claiming that CO2 fits under the CAA just fine (a bluff, as I posted earlier).

And another VERY important item that I failed to mention in my earlier post: All data, documents, and models used by EPA in establishing its regulation of CO2 as a pollutant must be available for public scrutiny. Let’s see if the AGW crowd can hide its dirty laundry during the discovery phase of a legal challenge.

# 30 ByeByeEPA said, on December 9th, 2009 at 12:45 pm

Sounds like it’s time for someone in Congress to propose a bill to deauthorize the EPA or at least explicitly strip their ability to regulate CO2. When is congress going to wake up and stop letting the executive branch usurp their authority by decree? Even congressmen who want CO2 regulated should realize this is just another executive branch power grab and put them in their place.

I think the EPA at first brought some real value to help eliminate some very clear environmental problems. The trouble for them now is, much of the work is done. Ongoing monitoring and enforcing compliance with regulations doesn’t make the front page. No, they have to have something to do so they nit pick everyone and make up problems to justify their continued existence. Common to bureacracies, when the job is done, make up some work to keep the pay checks rolling.

# 31 gquaglia said, on December 9th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

In other news, President Obama’s poll numbers continue to plumet.

http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/obamapollwatch/

# 32 Guyver said, on December 9th, 2009 at 1:16 pm

Wow! More people disapprove of Obama than those who approve of him on the most recent CNN poll: http://tinyurl.com/khp5v

# 33 The0ne said, on December 9th, 2009 at 1:37 pm

The Deep Carbon Observatory was looking good until this had to happen. Too bad for them :/ I was actually very interested in this too.

http://www.gl.ciw.edu/deep_carbon_project

Damn CO2!

# 34 pedro said, on December 9th, 2009 at 2:31 pm

#21 Who are you quoting? You’re so conFusing that you embarrass yourself. Please, don’t stop doing it, it’s hilarious.

#24 Best nickname ever.

#29 Be gentle with him. He got his facts wrong ‘cuz he’s conFused.

#33 Let me know when they start a deep methane observatory. I have some candidates from this blog to work there. They’re excellent at observing the current POTUS’ methane emanations.

# 35 Mr. Fusion said, on December 9th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

#29, Smith,

Not quite. The Court rejected all of the EPA’s arguments. The court unequivocally stated that the EPA MUST take action unless it can demonstrate that CO2 is not a pollutant. Here are some excerpts from the ruling.

Causation
EPA does not dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. At a minimum, therefore, EPA’s refusal to regulate such emissions “contributes” to Massachusetts’ injuries.

…
The Remedy
While it may be true that regulating motor-vehicle emissions will not by itself reverse global warming, it by no means follows that we lack jurisdiction to decide whether EPA has a duty to take steps to slow or reduce it.
…
and to EPA’s ardent support for various voluntary emission-reduction programs, 68 Fed. Reg. 52932. As Judge Tatel observed in dissent below, “EPA would presumably not bother with such efforts if it thought emissions reductions would have no discernible impact on future global warming.”

…

On the merits, the first question is whether §202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles in the event that it forms a “judgment” that such emissions contribute to climate change. We have little trouble concluding that it does. In relevant part, §202(a)(1) provides that EPA “shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in [the Administrator’s] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” …

Because EPA believes that Congress did not intend it to regulate substances that contribute to climate change, the agency maintains that carbon dioxide is not an “air pollutant” within the meaning of the provision.
The statutory text forecloses EPA’s reading. The Clean Air Act’s sweeping definition of “air pollutant” includes “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air . . . .” §7602(g) (emphasis added). On its face, the definition embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe, and underscores that intent through the repeated use of the word “any.”25 Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt “physical [and] chemical . . . substance[s] which [are] emitted into . . . the ambient air.” The statute is unambiguous.26
Rather than relying on statutory text, EPA invokes post enactment congressional actions and deliberations it views as tantamount to a congressional command to refrain from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Even if such post enactment legislative history could shed light on the meaning of an otherwise-unambiguous statute, EPA never identifies any action remotely suggesting that Congress meant to curtail its power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants.

…

The alternative basis for EPA’s decision—that even if it does have statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it would be unwise to do so at this time—rests on reasoning divorced from the statutory text. While the statute does condition the exercise of EPA’s authority omits formation of a “judgment,” 42 U. S. C. §7521(a)(1), that judgment must relate to whether an air pollutant“cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” ibid. Put another way, the use of the word “judgment” is not a roving license to ignore the statutory text. It is but a direction to exercise discretion within defined statutory limits.

…

Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do.

Part Two of your post is also very wrong. The EPA may only be challenged on very narrow grounds. Any petitioner would have to demonstrate that the EPA has exceeded the jurisdiction of the Clean Air Act. Since the Supreme Court has already ruled the EPA must regulate CO2 as a pollutant, no court will allow challenges on that part.

The only way the EPA can be challenged otherwise would be if they decided CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas. And that isn’t likely to happen, they already conceded that point to the Supreme Court. Courts like to hear evidence, they don’t like factitious challenges that are based upon garbage science.

So this will not end up being dragged out in the courts.

# 36 Sea Lawyer said, on December 9th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

“Congress either MUST write new regulations or the EPA must write them.”

lol, so the Supreme Court is in the business now of compelling the Congress to write legislation is wants?

As dumb and conFused as always.

# 37 RSweeney said, on December 9th, 2009 at 3:39 pm

Surely higher taxes, higher costs, and more regulations will improve the economy.

Any of you Democrats feeling even a little bit guilty yet?

Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

Or is it still all BOOOSSHHHH to you?

# 38 Greg Allen said, on December 9th, 2009 at 3:43 pm

God forbid a government agency should actually do what we pay it to do!

Protect the environment? THAT’S OUTRAGEOUS! The EPA was set up to run interference for multinational corporations. Everybody knows that!

# 39 Greg Allen said, on December 9th, 2009 at 3:48 pm

>> matt said, on December 9th, 2009 at 9:02 am
>> gosh. i love living in soviet russia.
>> so if CO2 is a pollutant, then what will happen when i exhale? oops, broke the law. sorry, i just exhaled. dang. i did it again.

Did you fail BOTH sixth grade history AND science?

Try this little test: but a plastic bag on your head and then see if too much CO2 is a problem.

Oh, perhaps you’ve already tried that experiment… I don’t see how anyone with a normal amount of brain cells could equate the EPA with the KGB.

# 40 Greg Allen said, on December 9th, 2009 at 4:08 pm

Sorry Matt — I realized I came across too harsh in my post above.

But c’mon you have to admit that confusing the EPA with the horrific, genocidal soviet repression which murdered tens of millions of people is stupid beyond belief.

# 41 Smith said, on December 9th, 2009 at 4:50 pm

#35 Fusion — Wrong again.

“We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy con-cerns can inform EPA’s actions in the event that it makes such a finding. Cf. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Re-sources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843–844 (1984). We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.” (emphasis mine)

And how odd that you believe the Court’s opinion limits a petitioner to very narrow grounds. Every decision that EPA makes, from its endargement finding onward, can be challenged in court — including the very basis for linking CO2 to climate change.

# 42 pedro said, on December 9th, 2009 at 5:04 pm

#38 Your head seems to be running on co2

##5 get the Double Pwned award of the day. Wanna go for three?

# 43 brm said, on December 9th, 2009 at 5:20 pm

#38:

“The EPA was set up to run interference for multinational corporations. Everybody knows that!”

So the multi-nationals go play ball elsewhere, and the EPA is left to screw up our economy. Great.

# 44 JimR said, on December 9th, 2009 at 5:32 pm

Carbon dioxide levels would have to increase 350% from base to be barely noticeable, but still without any health effects. So far industrialization has increased the base amount by roughly 35% according to the IPCC. We are 1/10 the way there to barely noticing it as far as breathing… or deeming it a poison, is concerned.

Should we do nothing? Well, surprise, surprise, last time I looked there were hundreds of new initiatives to harness the energy from air, water and sunlight. Instead of crying wolf at every pin drop, why not super-fund those initiatives to fruition? Nah, too much fun issuing dire warnings and extorting carbon money from the hardest and least paid workforce… you know, like blood money.

# 45 Toxic Asshead said, on December 9th, 2009 at 6:09 pm

I was going to say something, but I’m too busy releasing C02. Do it every chance I get.

# 46 Toxic Asshead said, on December 9th, 2009 at 6:15 pm

What the hell is Rosanne Barr doing in the EPA?

# 47 John E. Quantum said, on December 9th, 2009 at 7:12 pm

My father always told me that one day they would figure out a way to tax the air we breathe and by God they’ve finally done it!

# 48 deowll said, on December 9th, 2009 at 9:02 pm

Obama says we are going to grow jobs by spending more money!

Obama appointee says Congress better put a big tax on energy and limit energy use or we will shut down the economy!

Some how or other I don’t think jobs is actually a priority with Obama and if I were a black with 55% unemployment I’d want to nail his two faced hide to a wall. With friends like him who needs enemies?

# 49 Mr. Fusion said, on December 9th, 2009 at 9:11 pm

#41, Smith,

Ignorance is becoming your hallmark. That and selective quotations.

In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause orcontribute to climate change. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, . . . or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 42 U. S. C. §7607(d)(9)(A). We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy con-cerns can inform EPA’s actions in the event that it makes such a finding. Cf. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Re-sources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843–844 (1984). We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.

Yet, even looking at your highlighted portion says a lot. The EPA MUST follow the statute. They didn’t. The Clean Air Act required them to. (You do understand what a mandamus is?)

Under the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act the EPA is entrusted to formulate regulations for all pollutants. Outside the hearing process there is little private parties can do. Simply because they won’t have standing to appeal this to a court.

Since the Supreme Court just told the EPA to write their regulations according to the law (The Clean Air Act) that is what the EPA must do. The only challenge under the CAA would be if someone is unfairly effected or the EPA’s new regulations do not follow the statute.

Challenges have rarely been upheld by the courts; I am unaware of any. The EPA was over ruled several times for inaction during the Bush Administration, Massachusetts is only one.

The only alternative to have the EPA not write new regulations is for Congress to write them. Until Congress changes the law, the 1972 CAA is still in effect. Whether or not this is a bad law, it remains the law.

# 50 Mr. Fusion said, on December 9th, 2009 at 9:19 pm

#36, SL,

lol, so the Supreme Court is in the business now of compelling the Congress to write legislation

Still don’t understand much beyond your navel.

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA regulate everything found to be a pollutant. After the EPA declined to write regulations the Supreme Court told them they had to.

As I just told Smith in #49, the Clean Air Act is still the law and either the EPA writes the regulations or Congress writes a new law. Of course, Congress is under no compulsion to write a new law, in which case the EPA will, as required by the 1970 law.

Sorry you have a headache trying to understand such a simple thing.

CORRECTION:

Above I wrote the Clean Air Act was from 1972. It is actually from 1970.

# 51 gooddebate said, on December 9th, 2009 at 10:19 pm

Here’s the executive summary from the EPA report on CO2 (page 84):

4.1 Executive Summary

Page ES-7, new separate paragraph anywhere on the page: Based on the Sections 1.7 and 2 above we suggest adding the following paragraph:
Despite the IPCC and CCSP reports there is substantial evidence that the factors most closely correlated with temperature changes are the following:
2. Oceanic climate oscillations, particularly PDO, AMO and ENSO
3. Solar variability
4. Carbon Dioxide

There are a number of inconsistencies between the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis and available observed data that make this hypothesis scientifically invalid unless they can be resolved:
1. Lack of observed upper tropospheric heating in the tropics
2. Lack of observed constant humidity levels, a very important assumption of all the IPCC models, as CO2 levels have risen.
3. Satellite data show no appreciable temperature increases during the period 1978-1997, just when the surface station data show a pronounced rise (see Section 2.5). Satellite data after 1998 is also inconsistent with the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis
4. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account or show the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the ENSO. Leaving out any major causes for global warming from the analysis results in the likely misattribution of the effects of these oscillations to the GHGs/CO2 and hence is likely to overstate their importance as a cause for climate change.
5. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility of indirect solar variability, which if important, would again be likely to have the effect of overstating the importance of GHGs/CO2.
6. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility that there may be other significant natural effects on global temperatures that we do not yet understand. This possibility invalidates their statements that one must assume anthropogenic sources in order to duplicate the temperature record. The 1998 spike in global temperatures is very difficult to explain in any other way.

# 52 matt said, on December 10th, 2009 at 6:04 am

Greg Allen:

No you idiot I didn’t fail 6th grade science and history.

You can call me whatever you want for making the comparison between the two, but I can promise you it’s going to be people like you who are going to allow that kind of repression on us.

With all of the “czars” and heads of agencies we’re only a few years away from being socialist ourselves.

I’m pretty sure if this crap keeps going on, I’m buying an island and burning radioactive waste just because I can.

And stop being so damn literal. “Put a plastic bag over your head and see if CO2 is leathal.” Yeah, and the next time I go eat Mexican I’ll dig a hole in the ground to fart so it doesn’t escape into the atmosphere.

# 53 Mr. Fusion said, on December 10th, 2009 at 6:17 am

#51, fakedebate,

Is this the “report” you referenced but didn’t link to?

# 54 Mr. Fusion said, on December 10th, 2009 at 6:22 am

#52, matt,

“Well lay me on the floor and call me matt”

No you idiot I didn’t fail 6th grade science and history.

Your posts give every indication of little science knowledge or comprehension. Most right wing nuts understanding of history is extremely selective, to be charitable, and invented in most cases.

# 55 smith said, on December 10th, 2009 at 8:39 am

Fusion said, “Since the Supreme Court just told the EPA to write their regulations according to the law (The Clean Air Act) that is what the EPA must do. The only challenge under the CAA would be if someone is unfairly effected or the EPA’s new regulations do not follow the statute.”

Which is exactly my point. The statute says that a major source in a nonattainment area (i.e., the entire country) is an emitter of greater than 100 tons per year. Apply that standard to CO2 and EVERY industry, appartment building, office building, farm, and a lot of households just became a major source.

Your home is a major soure and you want to have another child? Well the CAA requires you to find offsets for your ncreased emissions. I guess you can ask grandpa if he is ready to take one for the family.

So EPA dodges this issue by setting the threshold at 25,000 tons instead of 100. Where does it say they can do this in the statute? And why 25,000 tons and not 10,000 tons or 50,000 tons? This is only one of many problems they have with regulating CO2 under the Clean Air Act.

# 56 Mr. Fusion said, on December 10th, 2009 at 9:25 am

#55, Smith,

… The only challenge under the CAA would be if someone is unfairly effected or the EPA’s new regulations do not follow the statute.”

Which is exactly my point.

Say what?

In #23 you wrote:
There are literally dozens (hundreds?) of legal challenges that EPA will need to defend, without the benefit of statutory authority. Courts have traditionally taken a dim view of EPA asserting powers not granted by statute.

They want Congress to pass a new law and are using this as a threat. But it’s a bluff, pure and simple, because they know they can’t win this in court.

In #29 you wrote:
And another VERY important item that I failed to mention in my earlier post: All data, documents, and models used by EPA in establishing its regulation of CO2 as a pollutant must be available for public scrutiny. Let’s see if the AGW crowd can hide its dirty laundry during the discovery phase of a legal challenge.

In #41 you wrote:
And how odd that you believe the Court’s opinion limits a petitioner to very narrow grounds. Every decision that EPA makes, from its endargement finding onward, can be challenged in court — including the very basis for linking CO2 to climate change.

Taking a different tact today?

BTW, the EPA is not restricted in what limits it may regulate for each unit. There is no magic “10 tons” or “250 tons” limits. While this specific Supreme Court ruling addressed automobile emissions, the EPA regulations will be based upon the whole fleet, not the individual engine.

Courts have already ruled that the EPA has the authority to make regulations so there will be no challenge there.

The science is settled so any challenge will need to be contrary, stand on its own, and refute the accepted science. That means mere questions will not refute the accepted science. The anti CO2 crowd will have to provide evidence, which they don’t have. Courts take a dim view of having their time wasted by frivolous arguments.

# 57 Mr. Fusion said, on December 10th, 2009 at 9:29 am

#55, Smith,

It is easy to see your arguments are becoming stale.

The EPA can not regulate natural sources. That includes people and animals. Automobile emissions are not natural and thus may be regulated.

This is only one of many problems they have with regulating CO2 under the Clean Air Act.

Not only a valid point, but the whole reason the EPA would rather have Congress draft legislation instead of have the EPA craft regulations. Or weren’t you paying attention?

# 58 pedro said, on December 10th, 2009 at 10:45 am

#57 Quit while you’re behind, will ya!

# 59 Mr. Fusion said, on December 10th, 2009 at 11:14 am

#58, Cherman,

Still making a fool of yourself?

# 60 gooddebate said, on December 10th, 2009 at 1:15 pm

# # #… Fusion, You don’t get it, the debate is over. Besides, you’re not here to debate, you’re just here appear to be intellectual.

Here’s the actual report:
http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf

The point here is to show a dissenting view within the EPA. But sense you brought up the article that also adds that this dissenting view was silenced by the new incoming EPA head (see heading: “The EPA’s Internal nightmare on Global Warming”).

You’re problem is that you can’t win a real debate so you lead everyone off into the weeds where you can find camouflage. So, here’s your challenge, prove that there is a greenhouse signature in the upper atmosphere (#1 on the EPA list by the way). Lets see just how intelligent you are; enter into a real debate or avoid it and show what you’re really doing.

# 61 Mr. Fusion said, on December 10th, 2009 at 1:53 pm

#60, Nodebate,

In #51 you made reference to “ the executive summary from the EPA report on CO2”

Your link does not go to an EPA report. It does to a “Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions under CAA”

I apologize. I overestimated your intelligence and actually expected you to know the difference between an internal discussion paper and a final report. Now I know.

YOUR point is to show a dissenting view. Not by a scientist(s). But by an economist.

Why not read this article, over half of EPA staff scientists were muzzled by the Bush Administration. Yup, the very ones included that wanted to speak up about CO2.

You’re problem is that you can’t win a real debate so you lead everyone off into the weeds where you can find camouflage

The problem is you can’t win a debate when you bullshit your way through. This whole blog is another bullshit hit piece in order to get hits. Maybe if you had of read my earlier posts you would understand. Read over the first 25 comments and see how many actually added anything to the discussion and how many were just an opportunity for wing nuts to spew their bullcrap.

The EPA is under a court order to write regulations on CO2 emissions. The only way they may be stopped from writing regulations is if Congress writes them. The EPA has already admitted CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has voluntary means of reducing emissions.

So, here’s your challenge, prove that there is a greenhouse signature in the upper atmosphere (#1 on the EPA list by the way). Lets see just how intelligent you are; enter into a real debate or avoid it and show what you’re really doing.

It is not up to me to prove anything one way or another. I have neither the expertise nor the finances to prove that argument. I will accept that scientists at the EPA have agreed it is a problem.

The vast majority of serious scientists agree that green house gases are contributing to global warming. The few scientists that have been bought off by carbon emitters can only question the conclusions, they have yet to refute any of it. While meteorologists, electrical engineers, and veterinarians may be serious (See the Oregon Petition), they are not climatologists.

The deniers are of two minds on this. One group admit there is global warming and CO2 is partly the cause, BUT man is not to blame. The other group just deny there is a problem. So which is it? Is there global warming or not?

# 62 smith said, on December 10th, 2009 at 1:57 pm

Fusion, my point, as stated in my very first post, is that EPA is bluffing. The Clean Air Act was never designed to regulate “greenhouse” gases. Nothing in the Supreme Court’s opinion changes that. If EPA attempts to regulate CO2 in the same manner it regulates criteria or hazardous air pollutants, they will need to regulate virtually every activity in the U.S., and virtually every activity will need to obtain an Operating Permit. EPA knows this, so they are attempting to establish standards and rules that are inconsistent with the Statute. Hence, the basis for all of the legal challenges I have predicted.

Dude, this is my job. I’ve been doing this for twenty, damn long years. I’m really very good at it.

# 63 gooddebate said, on December 10th, 2009 at 3:17 pm

Fusion. Thanks for showing that you’re great at bullying. Besides that (bullying comments) the only other thing that you said was “It is not up to me to prove anything one way or another.” Kind of a reverse ad hominen attack; instead of telling me I’m not qualified you say that you’re not qualified. As if the only opinion that matters is mine and you have nothing to do with it. So, what is your purpose, bully everyone else?

I know what evidence is, don’t you?

Show me one piece of evidence that shows the greenhouse signature (That would be warming about 10 km above the surface, which should be especially pronounced in the tropics). Or do you only want to stay on the meaningless fringes bullying people to fulfill you’re own intellectual needs.

“Is there global warming or not?” After spending so much time working on your smug response and saying how it’s not up to you you ask me to draw a conclusion? Nice. Lets see how many more attempts to derail the debate you can think of.

# 64 pedro said, on December 10th, 2009 at 3:21 pm

#60 He doesn’t get that nor anything else. He’s conFused.

#62 I hope you know what a troll is (hint: Mr. conFusion)

# 65 Rick Cain said, on December 10th, 2009 at 11:16 pm

CO2 is a pollutant, duh.

The difference is obvious, when you breathe out, that CO2 laden breath is part of a closed cycle.

But when you turn up your thermostat, you are using electricity that was generated by coal or natural gas, adding CO2 to the atmosphere that came from a carbon source that would ordinarily be locked deep inside the earth forever.

Conservatives know this, but feign ignorance. No, cow farts aren’t the problem, non-renewable energy sources are.

# 66 Mr. Fusion said, on December 11th, 2009 at 7:50 am

#62, Smith,

If EPA attempts to regulate CO2 in the same manner it regulates criteria or hazardous air pollutants, they will need to regulate virtually every activity in the U.S.

Maybe you should read the Supreme Court decision again. The case dealt with tailpipe emissions.

Even so, the EPA may not regulate naturally occurring chemicals, such as exhaled breath or volcano emissions. But they may regulate turning carbon into CO2 or sulfur into sulfuric acid in a commercial enterprise.

. EPA knows this, so they are attempting to establish standards and rules that are inconsistent with the Statute. Hence, the basis for all of the legal challenges I have predicted.

And what, pray tell, are these standards “inconsistent” with the statutes? That the EPA may make regulations is firmly established. No court will entertain a frivolous argument that the EPA does not have authority. This is called settled law. Any argument that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas will need much more evidence than a bunch of screaming right wing nuts calling the EPA a bunch of communists.

I’m really very good at it.

Actually, you have shown nothing to indicate you know much, if anything, about this. You have yet to indicate ONE area or point that may be realistically challenged.Your spiel, as with most deniers, is reminiscent of Orly Tate.

And for many many years I have been on both, a professional as well as personal, quest to root out bullshit.

# 67 gooddebate said, on December 11th, 2009 at 7:57 am

Rick,

The idea that CO2 is a pollutant is based on the idea that too much of it is harmful to the environment by causing a rise in temperature through the greenhouse effect. To have a convincing argument though, you’d have to find at least one piece of evidence that that shows that higher CO2 means higher temperatures.

BTW, if cow farts are the problem then why is the left throwing around the idea that livestock should be regulated?

# 68 Mr. Fusion said, on December 11th, 2009 at 8:11 am

nodebate,

Fusion. Thanks for showing that you’re great at bullying.

Bullying? And then you accuse me of ad hominem attacks? What kind of an idiot are you? You were the one that wanted to change the debate. You were the one that created your own strawman challenge. You are the one with all the accusations that have no foundation. And you call me a bully.

Show me one piece of evidence that shows the greenhouse signature (That would be warming about 10 km above the surface, which should be especially pronounced in the tropics).

Question. Are you going to fund my research?

I can tell you right now that is a bullshit quest. The air at that level is extremely low density. That means very little specific heat. Since there is so very little at that height that effects human activity it would be a low priority for any earth scientist. The true indicators are those areas of high specific heat. At the earth’s surface the most obvious is water and ice.

What a typical right wing nut comment. No substance, just “answer the question, you’re wrong if you can’t.”

# 69 Mr. Fusion said, on December 11th, 2009 at 8:26 am

#67, nodebate,

To have a convincing argument though, you’d have to find at least one piece of evidence that that shows that higher CO2 means higher temperatures.

Ice cores.

Ice cores provide evidence for variation in greenhouse gas concentrations over the past 800,000 years. Both CO2 and CH4 vary between glacial and interglacial phases, and concentrations of these gases correlate strongly with temperature.

This is accepted science. If you want to challenge it YOU provide the evidence.

# 70 gooddebate said, on December 11th, 2009 at 9:42 am

First, the preliminary ice core data used to support the idea but there is better data now. Closer study of the ice core data now shows that CO2 follows temperature by an average of 800 years.

Second, if CO2 was driving temperature then we would have to explain why the greenhouse effect doesn’t keep going as CO2 rises. The theory is that it should gain momentum and we’d be in a runaway situation. But something else stops this process from continuing. That means that there is something more powerful than CO2 but none of the models account for this.

According to the ice core data, climate change (yes, the climate changes) can’t be explained by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!