EPA head: We don’t need to justify our regulations with data

ginaEPA Administrator Gina McCarthy took a drumming yesterday when she refused to release the ‘secret science’ her agency used when drafting new regulations. Testifying before the House Science, Space and Technology committee, Rep. Lamar Smith (R) began the Q&A by asking McCarthy why she wouldn’t release the studies and data in which her regulations are based. Rep. Smith told McCarthy that his ‘secret science’ reform act would make the data public without interfering in the EPA’s primary job and maintain the confidentiality of third parties.

Rep. Smith also quoted Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren, saying “The data on which regulatory decisions are based should be made available to the committee and should be made public. Why don’t you agree with the president’s science adviser?” McCarthy replied that while she supports transparency in the regulatory process, the bill would make public the personal information of the people working on the science.

Smith reiterated that in his secret science reform act, personal information would be redacted but the underlying studies and data that are being used to justify costly regulations would be made public so that other scientists and the American people can review it. This is especially important as the EPA has a 60-day comment period after a new proposal is announced, but the science backing up the new regulations is not included. Smith’s new bill would rectify that issue.

McCarthy also said she “doesn’t actually need the raw data in order to develop science. That’s not how it’s done.”

Rep. Smith: “But why don’t you give us the data you have and why can’t you get the data you do have? Surely you have the data that you based the regulations on?”
McCarthy: “EPA actually has the authority and the need to actually get information that we have provided to you.”
Rep. Smith: “You’re saying you can’t give us the information because it is personal and then you’re saying you don’t have the information. Which is it?”
McCarthy: “There is much information we don’t have the authority to release.”

Rep. Smith reiterated again that any personal information would be redacted and once again asked why she won’t release this information after meeting all the criteria McCarthy used to justify not revealing the information. Rep. Smith reminded her that every other agency does this, so why can’t the EPA simply redact this personal information and release the underlying science on which the EPA’s regulations are based?

McCarthy stressed that the science is generated through the peer-reviewed process and not by the agency itself, prompting Rep. Smith to say that by not showing the American people and the Congress the studies and data they used to make new regulations, it looks like the EPA has something to hide. Rep. Smith said there was no good reason other scientists couldn’t review the data, no good reason his committee couldn’t review it, and most importantly, no good reason the American people can’t review it.

Changing topics, Rep. Smith asked McCarthy about the Clean Power Plan, reminding her that after spending enormous amounts of money and implementing burdensome regulations, which would increase the costs of electricity and hurt the poorest Americans, it would only lower global temperatures 1/100 of a degree. “How do you justify such an expensive, burdensome, onerous rule that isn’t going to do much good?…Isn’t this all pain and no gain?”

McCarthy admitted the goal of the Clean Power Plan was to show strong domestic action, which can trigger strong global action, e.g., getting other countries to follow our lead. McCarthy refused to say if Rep. Smith’s analysis of the minuscule effect on global temperatures was correct, stating again it was more about leading on a global scale. She also refused to give Rep. Smith a timetable on when he could expect supporting documentation that he had been requesting for months.

Later in the hearing, Rep Dana Rohrabacher (R) was shocked that McCarthy did not have any idea what percentage of the atmosphere was made up of carbon dioxide (CO2). Stunned by this admission, Rohrabacher said, “You’re head of the EPA and you did not know? …Now you are basing policies that impact dramatically on the American people and you didn’t know what the content of CO2 in the atmosphere was… the justification for the very policies you’re talking about?”

McCarthy: “If you’re asking me how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, not a percentage but how much, we have just reached levels of 400 parts per million.”
Rohrabacher: “I think I was very clear on what I was asking. I think it was very clear you didn’t know.”

This is not the first time McCarthy has flunked basic science. In a Senate hearing in March, McCarthy was unaware of climate data showing no increase in extreme weather. At that hearing, she was asking for additional money be dedicated to the president’s controversial Clean Power Plan, an initiative to limit CO2 emissions that are blamed for any type of bad weather.

As previously reported here, CO2 levels reached a global level of 400 parts per million (ppm) in March, even though global temperatures have not risen for nearly 19 years. You can find 400 carbon dioxide molecules per one million parts of dry air. By volume, “dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide (.04% since March), and small amounts of other gases.” Carbon dioxide levels vary between 390 and 400 ppm and change seasonally as more plant life is around to absorb it in the spring and summer.

Complete video of her testimony can be viewed here.

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (150)

  • Avatar

    Peter_PNW

    |

    “even though global temperatures have not risen for nearly 19 years”

    From the data source supporting that assertion:
    http://www.remss.com/research/climate#Atmospheric-Temperature

    •Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).

    •Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.

    •The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.

    [img]http–images.remss.com-figures-climate-RSS_Model_TS_compare_globe.png[/img]

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      [quote]Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.[/quote]

      Because climate models are garbage, and written by Branch Carbonians to reflect their warped beliefs.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Peter_PNW

        |

        From the data source supporting that assertion:
        http://www.remss.com/research/climate#Atmospheric-Temperature

        •Over the past 35 years, [b]the troposphere has warmed significantly[/b]. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade). 8)

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          From the data source supporting that assertion:

          [i]But….

          The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.[/i]

          😥

          Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          [i]A new paper found that temperatures in the lower troposphere have not shown a warming trend in as many as 26 years.

          “In the surface data we compute a hiatus length of 19 years, and in the lower tropospheric data we compute a hiatus length of 16 years… and 26 years” using satellite data sets, according to Dr. Ross McKitrick of the economics department at the University of Guelph in Canada.

          McKitrick looked at two different satellite data sets in his research on troposheric temperature trends. Satellites don’t directly measure temperatures — they measure radiances in wavelength bands, which scientists then convert into data. Satellite data from the the University of Alabama, Huntsville showed that the lower troposphere has not warmed in the last 16 years. Satellite data from the Remote Sensing Systems series shows lower troposhperic temperatures have not risen in the last 26 years.
          McKitrick’s study used a method that he says is “robust” when it comes to “heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation,” as well as cherry-picking of beginning and endpoints that present biased temperature trends. He found that the lower troposphere stopped warming between 16 and 26 years ago, and that surface temperatures have been flat for the past 19 years.[/i]

          And…

          [i]One of the most vivid predictions of global warming theory is a “hotspot” in the tropical upper troposphere, where increased tropical convection responding to warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is supposed to cause enhanced warming in the upper troposphere.

          The trouble is that radiosonde (weather ballons) and satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in recent decades. Instead, upper tropospheric warming approximately the same as surface warming has been observed.[/i]

          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05/new-satellite-upper-troposphere-product-still-no-tropical-hotspot/

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            [quote name=”Gator”]
            Instead, upper tropospheric warming approximately the same as surface warming has been observed.[/i]

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Which is zero, for 19 years and counting.

            [img]https://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/pause10_thumb.jpg?w=594[/img]

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            And you know perfectly well that 19 years is an irrelevant sample.

            And you know complex systems are rarely uniformly distributed

            [img]http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_north55-80.png[/img]

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            But 1979 [i]is[/i] relevant. Right? 😆

            If you guys could only hear yourselves.

            Do me a small favor.

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            “nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate” – you are ignorant of key data.

            Please explain the statistically improbable temperature stability revealed by oxygen isotope rations during the past 10,000 years (in a 800k year record set).

            Then, explain why the technology of agriculture did not appear until well within that relative stability.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            So you are asserting that climates have never changed? Wow! Talk about a denier, you really are a kook. 😆

            It is rude to ignore a request, and make demands. So let’s try again.

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Is there a problem?

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            1- all climate forcing are not known, so your request is farciful.

            2 – Nothing observed in the last 1, 10, 100 or 1000 years is anywhere near the magnitude of change inherent within the natural energy systems we depend on. Your request reveals your willful ignorance, or misdirection, neither of which am I interested in.

            Now, don’t be rude…

            Please explain the statistically improbable temperature stability revealed by oxygen isotope rations during the past 10,000 years (in a 800k year record set).

            Then, explain why the technology of agriculture did not appear until well within that relative stability

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]1- all climate forcing are not known, so your request is farciful.[/quote]

            And obviously, so are the models.

            [quote]2 – Nothing observed in the last 1, 10, 100 or 1000 years is anywhere near the magnitude of change inherent within the natural energy systems we depend on. Your request reveals your willful ignorance, or misdirection, neither of which am I interested in. [/quote]

            Failure to answer, and on top of that we have seen a LIA and MWP. Try again.

            Instead of avoiding the answers, try being honest.

            Once again…

            Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Rhetorically: Where have I refuted natural variation? So, your #2 question is misdirection, a defense.

            “nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate” – you are ignorant of key data

            Now, don’t be rude…

            Please explain the statistically improbable temperature stability revealed by oxygen isotope rations during the past 10,000 years (in a 800k year record set).

            Then, explain why the technology of agriculture did not appear until well within that relative stability.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            So you admit that the models are farcical, and that natural variability has never been disproven.

            You are learning!

            Now, as for your wordy nonsense…

            [quote]
            Please explain the statistically improbable temperature stability revealed by oxygen isotope rations during the past 10,000 years (in a 800k year record set).[/quote]

            It is just that, nonsense, and needs no answer.

            [img]http://www.debate.org/photos/albums/1/2/1423/35583-1423-x9xs7-a.jpg[/img]

            Clearly there is nothing unprecedented taking place.

            Find a new hobby Peter.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Your time sample period is irrelevant. The variation illustrated is minuscule relative to long term variation.

            Your narrow constraints on the facts may impress the Willing. They simply defend your platoon from venturing near the edges of the flat world.

            Come on, venture a bit:
            Please explain the statistically improbable temperature stability revealed by oxygen isotope rations during the past 10,000 years (in a 800k year record set).

            Then, explain why the technology of agriculture did not appear until well within that relative stability.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Peter, you have nothing to offer here. The MWP and LIA are both well documented global events that make our current warming that stopped nearly 20 years ago seem small.

            Blather on, but from now on, provide data or admit that you have no clue what you are speaking of.

            [img]http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Globe%204650×2847%20mit%20Graphen%20und%20Linien%20JPEG.jpg[/img]

            Maybe bigfoot is more your speed.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            I enjoy our little chats. Amusing, informative, challenging, keeps me attuned to the range of hubris humanity is capable of when endowed by so much Knowing.

            Please explain the statistically improbable temperature stability revealed by oxygen isotope rations during the past 10,000 years (in a 800k year record set).

            Then, explain why the technology of agriculture did not appear until well within that relative stability.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            There has been [i]no[/i] stability, so I cannot answer a nitwit question. We had an ice age prior to the advent of agriculture, and it is the beneficial warming since that has allowed man to progress beyond hunter gatherer.

            Provide data, or admit that you are a liar or know nothing.

            And the word of the day thanks to the climate change denier named Peter is…

            [b]hu·bris[/b] ˈ(h)yo͞obrəs/ noun
            1-excessive pride or self-confidence.

            Now who is it that claims “the science is settled”? 😆

            I really do wish you tards could hear yourselves.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Seriously, a studied expert and you don’t have data on O isotopes?

            http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/shackleton.pdf

            http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/paleoclimate/

            A fav:
            http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/

            [img]http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation_to_2004.jpg[/img]

            Or you could just ask the google and let it do the walking for you.

            Let me know when you’re up to speed.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Seriously, you think this somehow erases the LIA and MWP?

            Back to reality.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            It also in no way explains why every single CAGW Model has failed. :zzz

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            LIA / MWP are contained within the range of motion measured in the most resent 10K years (a relatively stable period compated to all other 10K samples) on every oxygen isotope sample set of over 100K years, then what kind of climate events are indicated by the body of that that data? I’ll assert two facts: 1) very large (much larger than the tiny LIA/MWP, and 2) no one knows – nothing is known about climate events or swings indicated by the natural RANGE of the O2 isotope record.

            So don’t prattle on about weather changes during the last 10,000 years – and enjoy your cereal.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            You are the twit prattling on about weather. Perfectly natural weather, nothing unprtecedented.

            Did you hit your head?

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Typical redirection. Were you that guy on the debate team, tasked with redirection when faced with a difficult fact set?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            No Pete, I was never on the debate team. And it is not redirection, it is direction. Pay attention.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Its the framing of a debate that establishes the content, and sure, I’ve stepped into this interesting little pool so, as a guest, I’m going to do my best to emulate style and method.

            Hey, what a pretty sunset last night, eh?

            Enjoy your cereal.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Moronic troll comments are no more appreciated than alarmist troll comments Pete.

            You are going off about recent weather. And claiming that until 1979, our climate had been stable for 10,000 years. That is just provably false nonsense, and we proved it false.

            Go take your childish foot stamping elsewhere.

            [img]http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/Andes1.JPG[/img]

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Moronic troll comments are simply a stylistic matching to the environment – when in the company of romans…

            Your failure to acknowledge the obvious conditions I have described over and over, including pointers to evidentiary content, is a simple blind, smoke.

            I know you understand natural variation, and that you understand that ranges are key to describing conditions within any delineated environment, and that the past 10K years exhibits unique, relatively tight ranges, and that no reference to any phenomena within that 10K period can describe the “natural variation” normal on this plant, which is very likely inconsistent with the practice of agriculture.

            Comprehension is optional; consequences are not.

            I’ll leave ya’ll to you extremely fine science and convenient judgments.

            Enjoy your cereal.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Sure! I’ll enjoy my cereal(mostly in a fermented form) for what? The next few thousand years? After that you can say “I told you so!” 😀

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Pete can’t read simple graphs. 😥

            [img]http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/Andes1.JPG[/img]

            And Pete cannot provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            Not [i][b]one![/b][/i]

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Pete is a religious kook, who does not know when he has been humiliated. 😆

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Gator, we are entertained? 8)

            How about you tell me all about the natural weather patterns emergent from climatic periods excluding the Holocene?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Sure! Just as soon as you produce [i]even [b]one[/b][/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            Just [u][i][b]one![/b][/i][/u] 😆

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Enjoy your low IQ!

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Why not you first? You seem fixated on this oxygen isotope temperature multi-proxie record. Like it is the end all be all of your little world.

            In fact it seems to be all you ever cite in your Gotcha postings.

            Explain it to us little brained pee-ons. If you can.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            The real question is why is the oxygen isotope record omitted from the “we don’t know so everything’s OK” litergy.

            IF LIA / MWP are contained within the range of motion measured in the most resent 10K years (a relatively stable period compared to all other 10K samples) on every oxygen isotope sample set of over 100K years, then what kind of climate events are indicated by the body of that that data? I’ll assert two facts: 1) very large (much larger than the tiny LIA/MWP), and 2) no one knows – nothing is known about climate events or swings indicated by the natural RANGE of the O2 isotope record.

            So don’t prattle on about weather changes during the last 10,000 years – and enjoy your cereal.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Again, you are the twit prattling on about perfectly average and unprecedented weather.

            Enough word salad Pete.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Your time sample period is irrelevant. The variation illustrated is minuscule relative to long term variation.[/quote] Yeah, so is the alarmists then. They have a mere 20 years where rising Co2 and temperature correlate, from around 1979 (there’s that date again, the first day of time for the Branch Carbonians) and around 1998. When the “Pause” began.

            [img]http://sppiblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/co2-temp-correlation.png[/img]

            And our “irrelevant” time period is now over 19 + years. With the last decade showing a slight cooling.

            [img]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2005&endyear=2015&month=12[/img]

            If one time period is irrelevant so is the other, surely not worthy of the massive redistribution of wealth and socialist controls alarmists are proposing as a “solution”.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2005&endyear=2015&month=12

            Compared to alarmists mere 20 or so years of correlation with temperatures and Co2…

            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/sunclimate_3b1.gif[/img]

            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/image0091.gif[/img]

            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/crcfig31.jpg[/img]

            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/crcfig51.jpg[/img]

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

            So yeah, mann made whatever!

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            It is long enough to invalidate the Models according to alarmists themselves.

            [quote]According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%:

            “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
            According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [ over 19 years]. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.[/quote] You better run and tall NOAA about your magic beans/ isotopes! 😀

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            That doesn’t look like it’s global, cherry pick much? 😀

        • Avatar

          amirlach

          |

          How much of that “warming” is just “adjustments” made to the raw data?
          [img]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif[/img]

          0.6F According to NOAA.

          So one has to ask. What does the record look like without these “adjustments”?
          [img]http://jennifermarohasy.com//wp-content/uploads/2009/06/hammer-graph-5-us-temps.jpg[/img]

          Pretty “alarming” right?

          Reply

        • Avatar

          amirlach

          |

          Or is this more of your “Anger Addiction” nonsense?

          Reply

  • Avatar

    Peter_PNW

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.[/quote]

    Which is to say, if one leaves out human caused inputs, the models don’t conform to actuals.

    Which is to say, if one puts the human caused inputs into the model, the model reconciles to actual.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Models? Really? My nephew has a model of Godzilla. Does that make him real? 😆

      How about being scientific and relying on data instead of fantasies.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      Actuals? What are those? Are you referring to the “actual” recorded Temperatures? Or the fraudulently “adjusted” ones?

      Which Co2 based Model has skillfully predicted recent climate?

      I can show you several Co2 Free Models that have.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Peter_PNW

        |

        So, the models are incompetent, and the measurements are corrupt. Once again we return to the foundation of “We don’t know”.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          Here’s what we [i]do[/i] know.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Nothing that humanity has seen – NOTHING in the last day, year, decade, century or millennia (or 10K years) – has anything to do with the normal distribution of climate expression on this planet.

            Explain to me the relationship between the unique stability found in the most recent 10K years of the oxygen isotope records, and the emergence of the technology of agriculture.

            Or… I’ll just help you with the framework:

            Stonehenge (and all the other 5K old celestial measurement tools) are agricultural calculators, dependent on a unusually stable climate to determine when to sow. Within the low range of variation of the past 10K years, these tools work well keep the crop failures to survivable magnitudes.

            Enjoy your cereal.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            There is no “stability”, climate change is chaotic and you are a fool to think otherwise.

            You, Pete, are a climate change denier of the highest order.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Look at the graphic data. The artifact is present in every set I’ve every examined.

            Of course, actually looking at the phenomena would be a difficult challenge; you’d actually have to invent some description for a period of time when the range of variation is substantially reduced, something different that “stability” since you’ve now ruled that word out.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Pete, do you know what an artifact is?

            We know you don’t understand ice core isotopes or the meaning of the word stability, or that climates change naturally. So here you are…

            ar·ti·fact ˈärdəfakt/ noun
            1. [i][b]an object made by a human being[/b], typically an item of cultural or historical interest.[/i]

            Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            “For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally.

            In that case, there is nothing natural about agriculture.

            Enjoy your cereal.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Is there a point your trying and failing to make with all your inane ramblings?

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            My basic point is that the practice of agriculture is incompatible with the natural ranges of variation expressed on this planet – until about 10,000 years ago, when the ranges of variability reduced you what you and the other flatworlders consider “normal”.

            Enjoy your cereal.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Flatworlders? 😆

            Nice ad hom, but I guess when you cannot disprove natural variability, that is all you have left.

            [i]Modern humans (Homo sapiens, primarily ssp. Homo sapiens sapiens) are the only extant members of the hominin clade (or human clade), a branch of the great apes; they are characterized by erect posture and bipedal locomotion, manual dexterity and increased tool use, and a general trend toward larger, more complex brains and societies.

            They began to exhibit evidence of behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago, and migrated in successive waves to occupy all but the smallest, driest, and coldest lands.[/i]

            So, in other words, man had to first evolve to a point where he could develop agriculture, and then when a warming planet benefitted all life, farming began.

            [img]http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/Andes1.JPG[/img]

            No stable climate. Never was, never will be.

            Enjoy your low IQ.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            “They began to exhibit evidence of behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago”, and yet couldn’t figure out agriculture until well within 10K years.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            What part of “interglacial” do you not get? What part of “evolution” do you not get?

            Are you a creationist? 😆

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            What kind of strawman word sald is this Pete?

            Refute the 4,500,000,000 year precedent or find a new hobby. You are embarrassing yourself.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Your 4.5B “precedent” is a simple blind, to evade the evidence.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            What evidence? You have provided none.

            Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Avatar

            UzUrBrain

            |

            It is obvious that you are then looking at smoothed, fudged, data. Nature is NOT stable. Period. Never has been never will be.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Ice cores are very unreliable. Gases migrate through the ice and mix, while the ice is under compression. Alarmists believe that CO2 “traps” heat, and that ice “traps” gases. Too bad their minds only trap alarmist claptrap.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            “Ice cores are very unreliable”

            I’d enjoy seeing those facts

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            No, I doubt you would, facts are like water to the witch for you. 😆

            [i]In ice sheets, ice transforms through different stages, from snow on the surface to dense ice at great depths. New snow compresses steadily under the accumulating weight of more falling snow. Old snow compresses into granular ice called “firn”. Grains that make up firn squeeze together even tighter to form successively denser layers of ice. This process continues until it produces the densest glacial ice. Throughout the transformation from snow to firn to glacial ice, atmospheric air intermingles with the ice sheet in a progression of its own [16]:

            Air mixes with snow.
            Snow compresses under its own weight into granular ice (firn), between whose grains air continues to circulate.

            As firn compresses further, air becomes more stagnant and more closed off from the atmosphere.
            At deeper layers in the ice sheet, air becomes trapped as air bubbles in dense glacial ice.

            At the greatest depths, air bubbles get squeezed out altogether, and individual air molecules become imprisoned in cages of hydrogen bonds, to form a class of crystal-like solids called “air hydrates” or “clathrates”.

            Werner F. Kuhs [18] admits, “in several respects, a deeper understanding of the chemico-physical behavior of air in contact with ice is not yet obtained.” Kuhs makes several important points:

            Air hydrates (clathrates) most likely behave as rigid units when embedded in an ice sheet subject to visco-plastic deformation processes.
            Even so, there is evidence that diffusion of water molecules in the microscopic channels between ice grains occurs faster than the visco-plastic deformation process.
            At high pressures deep in the ice sheet, the interactions between air and ice is more complex, and how this interaction takes place on a microscopic level is still an open question.

            In a very technical paper, A. W. Rempel and J. S. Wetttlaufer [19] provide insights into the latest understanding of glacial ice:

            Careful studies reveal ice core segments where appreciable changes in the original deposits have occurred.
            [b]Microscopic boundaries between ice grains can connect as a fluid network of veins where liquid transports and mixes impurities.[/b]

            [b]Downward diffusion through this network of veins eventually outpaces the flow of the ice, thereby separating substances from the ice with which they were deposited.[/b]

            Scientists require a model that includes such a capillary process to better interpret ice records for reconstructing prehistoric climates.
            More On Diffusion

            In the JOURNAL OF GLACIOLOGY (2008), Jinho Ahn [20] and coauthors, in the article, CO2 Diffusion In Polar Ice, write, “[b]The processes of gas diffusion related to variable physical properties of ice are still not well known[/b].” While never questioning the fundamental premise of constructing ancient atmospheres from ice core CO2 measurements, they nonetheless point to undeniable facts:

            [b]CO2 diffusion in ice after the air is trapped in bubbles is poorly understood, because the extremely small rate of CO2 diffusion has not been accurately determined.
            Other types of diffusion (for example, via liquid in ice grain boundaries or veins) may also be important, but their influence has not been quantified.[/b]

            Substantial CO2 diffusion may occur in ice on timescales of thousands of years.

            Expanding on the second fact above, Ahn and coauthors write:

            “Processes other than volume diffusion may be important but are difficult to quantify. For example, [b]there is evidence of the existence of melt at triple junctions of grain boundaries in polar ice[/b] (Mulvaney and others, 1988) . Thus, CO2 may dissolve and migrate in the liquid vein, while noble-gas species, with lower solubility, may mostly stay at the original sites. If this is the case, the diffusion via the liquid vein or ice grain boundaries may be governed directly by the grain growth rate, as suggested from an ion chemistry study (Barnes and others, 2003).”

            Additional important points by these authors are:

            [b]Diffusion of CO2 may significantly increase with greater depth in the ice due to geothermal warming.

            The relationship between the solubility of CO2 in ice and temperature is unknown.[/b][/i]

            So, gases migrate, and it would be expected that any graph made from these cores would reflect a smoothing of those gases.

            Enjoy your low IQ.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Thank you for the excellent material Gator. Interesting how:
            – O2 isotopes are never mentioned (though we can extrapolate that they we be distributed by the same seepages;

            – O2 isotope ratios measured in many different samples indicate similar ratios patterns through time, meaning the seepage is negligible when considering the isotope rations as a marker for evaporation rates (i.e. temperature).

            So, I’m left unconvinced. Relative to the range of variability in prior times, the Holocene is a comparatively stable period of temperature variability, in which the practice of agriculture emerges, 10’s of thousands of years after language.

            But thanks for digging that up.

            Did you think I meant for cereal to be an indicator of your IQ? I’m sorry, I was foreshadowing the consequences of my hypothesis.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            😆

            Do you even know what O2 is?

            As the peer reviwewed references explain, gases (O2 is as gas moron) migtrate, and of course you are unconvinced. You are unconvinced because this information wrecks the only multi-trillion dollar climate change talking point that you thought was still valid.

            Disregard all the other info that refutes your notion of a “stable” climate the last 10,000 years, and cling bitterly to your warped and unsupportable beliefs.

            And have you found that singular paper yet? I asked for [i]only [b]one[/b][/i]. The paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Enjoy your cereal. 😆

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Have you tested the hypothesis which seems central to your obsession?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Of course he hasn’t, it is just as I predicted…

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            I can understand why ya’ll are so angry and crude to those like me who bring the minority report; ya’ll seeing the factual world so clearly (which you do), and seeing distortion of that fact set bent to social political will. And I feel guilty (but only a little) at the fun we’ve had, matching ya’lls sophomoric style.

            As I said (and you’ve tactically failed to acknowledge, instead indulging in a barrage of repetitive Barnum and Bailey rhetoric), nothing we’ve seen in the past day or year or decades is anything other than normal garden variety natural variation.

            You are simply wrong about relative stability of the Holocene. It is as plain as biscuits, repeated over and over in every 100k+ yr O2 isotope sample ever collected. The Holocene is the fortunate cradle our species stumbled upon, coming to understand that when the sun reaches *this* place in the sky, the floods will come, and when this star is *here*, sow the seeds. That only works if spring is a thing that happens in the sample place, year after year (which it has for 10K years).

            Where I live, spring came 60 days early. Summer too. And I don’t know what we’ll call what coming next (in my region, “the 1,000 Year Burn”). But, this is still, obviously, natural variation normal to the Holocene.

            It is unimaginable hubris to say we (“Homo Colossus” – none of us are the wise ape any longer) can transact massive geologic change and there will not be unanticipated consequences. Ya’ll may be right about the forcing values of CO2 being inadequate to drive warming over some edge (I tried those physics and just have to listen to those with that skill). But you don’t know what has caused the Holocene, our lovely little lagoon from which we suckle our cereals. You… don’t … know. And THAT lies at the heart of your science – not knowing. You remind me of a pass across the Free Thinkers I once enjoyed – who argued with complete conviction, logic and evidence of the non-existence of G-d. With complete believe in the righteousness, and factuality, of their circuitous matrix of arguments.

            During the past months, your forum has inspired the private development of a set of facts, and a set of judgments, that underlie my election of courses of political action. I toyed with the idea of sharing it with ya’ll, to let you shred it, and so perfect it. Seeing that, with all your powerfully defended (and justifiably so) logic, you are in fact a small group of smart people fighting for what you believe in and in the end, like all the rest of us, that is your limit of tolerance. I’ll spare you that shredding pleasure… but for this one fact….

            All judgments are made in an absence of information.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]I can understand why ya’ll are so angry and crude to those like me who bring the minority report…[/quote]

            Clearly you do not. You refuse to acknowledge science and logic, and only parrot the multi-trillion dollar climate change indistry talking points. Meanwhile 7 million people needlessly starve each day because you and your ill ilk demand we tilt at windmills.

            [quote]You are simply wrong about relative stability of the Holocene. It is as plain as biscuits…[/quote]

            BS. We have shown you multiple sources that prove this is wrong, yet you cling bitterly to an isotope that hasd also shown to be unreliable.

            [img]http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/Andes1.JPG[/img]

            [quote]Where I live, spring came 60 days early. Summer too…[/quote]

            That’s called weather Bill.

            [quote]It is unimaginable hubris to say we can transact massive geologic change [/quote]

            Geologic change? 😆

            [quote]You remind me of a pass across the Free Thinkers I once enjoyed – who argued with complete conviction, logic and evidence of the non-existence of G-d. With complete believe in the righteousness, and factuality, of their circuitous matrix of arguments.[/quote]

            Zzzzzzzzz…. Zero relevance…

            [quote]During the past months, your forum has inspired the private development of a set of facts, and a set of judgments, that underlie my election of courses of political action.[/quote]

            Yes, we know that you are all about politics, and know nothing of science.

            [quote]All judgments are made in an absence of information.[/quote]

            In your world.

            Enjoy your cereal.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            You [i]cannot[/i] provide [i]even [b]one[/b][/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes. And you cannot disprove the 4,500,000,000 year precedent.

            So where does that leave you Pete? It leaves you in the church of natural climate change denial.

            Enjoy your cereal.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]During the past months, your forum has inspired the private development of a set of facts, and a set of judgments, that underlie my election of courses of political action. I toyed with the idea of sharing it with ya’ll, to let you shred it, and so perfect it. Seeing that, with all your powerfully defended (and justifiably so) logic, you are in fact a small group of smart people fighting for what you believe in and in the end, like all the rest of us, that is your limit of tolerance. I’ll spare you that shredding pleasure… but for this one fact….[/quote] Is this your “Rapid Climate Mobilization and Government Control” thing? Or the one where you cracked Gravity? 😮

        • Avatar

          UzUrBrain

          |

          YES the models are incompetent. I make computer models. I have written computer models for aircraft simulators and Power plant simulators. I can make a “Model” do what ever you want it to do. The MAJOR problem with “climate” models is that they have not, I repeat NOT been verified to the real world. The basic foundation of all climate models is the exact same models that the weather forcasters use to tell you how warm/cols/set/dry it will be tomorrow, next Friday, etc. and they have been proven to only be between 50 to 75% accurate. And you in your brilliant wisdom conclude that you can compound the results of a guestimate that is only 50% accurate 10, 50, 100 years into the future? If so, then take that model and use it to predict the results of just one aspect of the model, like ocean level, then invest your money based upon that into the stock market and become a billionaire. If the modelers really believed in their models they would be billionaires NOW. Where are they? Writing a model for the NYSE would be easier that modeling the global atmosphere, Writing a model for just one stock would be trivial compared to that effort. WHERE are these models? Where are all of the billionaires? If you can not see the parallel in these facts then you are beyond education, and as they say only believe in the religion of global warming.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Seriously, you think the global capital markets are run by people?

            I make models too. They are never “correct”. Ever.

            As software manufacturers learned decades ago, nothing emulates the real world like the real world.

            I guess we’ll just have to wait for the next service pack on climate simulation, huh?

          • Avatar

            UzUrBrain

            |

            Then WHY do you believe the AGW models? That is their ONLY proof. Period.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            I never “believe” models.

            I use models to inform judgment because they are the best tools for administering complexity.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            So you use models that have failed confidence at the 95% level to inform your judegements. You are dumber than I thought.

            According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%:

            [i]“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”[/i]

            http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

            Page 24, Middle column

            [i]According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.

            He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend. [/i]

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

            We are now well past 18 years and counting.

            Now, once again, please provide [i]even [b]one[/b][/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            It is basic logic that if you cannot disprove the null hypothesis, then you cannot blame man. Period.

            Paper please.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            I don’t believe in models, nor do I disbelieve them. I use them to inform judgment. If a model isn’t producing valuable behaviors, then we fix the model. Because simply saying “we don’t know” is a lose of opportunity, and invites risk.

            Nobody has refuted natural variation Gator. What is interesting about the Holocene is its unique range of variation, which you’ve tactically avoided acknowledging (substituting your circus rhetoric as a blind), and I suspect you’d be a candidate for the Nobel if you could.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            And what information do you deduce from the failure rate ?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]What is interesting about the Holocene is its unique range of variation, which you’ve tactically avoided acknowledging… [/quote]

            No, what I have tactically done is dismemeber the false premise that there is anything unusual or unprecedented about our current climate or how we got here.

            If it were unprecedented, there would be a paper refuting natural variability, and there isn’t. You want to believe in an ice core O2 isotope, which goes against all other data sets and historical records, and that is just plain idiotic.

            The models have not been fixed, they have been falsified at the 95% confidence level. Period.

            The models assume a positive feedback (care to know why?) that is not observed in nature.

            And why does every model get this wrong?

            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/clip_image026.jpg[/img]

            Are you familiar with bandwidth saturation? Do you know what the alarmist models use to suggest CAGW? Hint: It’s not CO2.

            And why would any intelligent human use climate models to “inform judgement” when they get things so terribly wrong?

            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/michaels-102-ipcc-models-vs-reality.jpg?w=720[/img]

            I prefer to verify, rather than believe. Belief is for the religious.

            Where is that singular paper Pete? Why are you having so much difficulty performing step #1 of investigating the cause of climate change?

            Enjoy your cereal. 😆

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Here we are again, quibbling over an geological instant, when it is clear that anything less than 10’s of 1,000’s of years is meaningful.

            But I do have a suggestion for ya’ll – put together a communication that is tailored for the average voting idiot, something that clearly and undeniably makes the case that there’s nothing to be worried about. Because the disjointed jargon you steep yourself in (and I’m such it all as clear as crystal to you) is not effectively communicating your case.

            And if communicating the case is not of interest, then what exactly are you doing here?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Honestly Pete, I am not interested in communicating with idiots.

            Enjoy your cereal.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            The final refuge of the rhetorical.

            You do know where cereal comes from, right… that agriculture depends on the orderly procession of seasons?

            Relax, we don’t know, and there’s nothing to be done.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            I know where one idiot comes from. PNW.

            Care to disprove the 4,500,000,000 precedent?

            Care to disprove the peer reviewed literature that shows O2 migrates in ice cores?

            Why don’t you go read up, and come back when you know something.

            Enjoy your cereal.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            You mean you don’t know… “Comprehension is optional, and disadvantageous in your case.” Ol Danny Boy

        • Avatar

          amirlach

          |

          You act like your the “only” one who does know. Yet you have not proven you know anything.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Comprehension is optional, and disadvantageous in your case.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”

            Albert Einstein

            Keep trying though. 😀

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            An excellent quote.
            But I do have a suggestion for ya’ll – put together a communication that is tailored for the average voting idiot, something that clearly and undeniably makes the case that there’s nothing to be worried about. Because the disjointed jargon you steep yourself in (and I’m sure it all as clear as crystal to you) is not effectively communicating your case.

            And if communicating the case is not of interest, then what exactly are you doing here?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Again Pete, we are not interested in communicating with idiots.

            Enjoy your cereal.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Complete waste of time in your case Danny. You firstly come here pretending you are the only one who understands O2 isotope records, acting like everyone else knows nothing.

            Then when you run into something you cannot comprehend, you try turning it around, demanding we do what the government run education system failed to do.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            I never asserted what you claim of me, and your claim is a demonstration of a weak distraction and misdirection.

            We simply disagree that the Holocene exhibits a unique range constraints over 10K years. Like someone arguing that all federal debt was incurred by Obama (different forum, same attitudes), we have no real basis for discussion without that plain fact.

            This one’s been especially entertaining. Thanks much…

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Care to disprove the peer reviewed literature that shows O2 migrates in ice cores?

            Why don’t you go read up, and come back when you know something.

            Enjoy your cereal.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Once again you prove you are simply a partisan hack and immune to facts. And you have yet to demonstrate you understand anything about your nonsensical O2 isotopes. Maybe they are never mentioned by anyone because they are irrelevant? 😥
            [quote] So once more, a short civics lesson.
            Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.
            And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period: [/quote]
            [img]https://bsimmons.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/debt1.jpg[/img]

            [quote]If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.[/quote]

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            “And you have yet to demonstrate you understand anything about your nonsensical O2 isotopes. Maybe they are never mentioned by anyone because they are irrelevant? ” – blatant elitist drivel.

            Go ask the google about Holocene climate stability. Then go study natural variation, ranges shifts therein, and top it of with complex systems instabilities, and maybe a desert of unanticipated consequences.

            Arrogance is no excuse for ignorance.

            Don’t you just love what can be done with graphs these days….

            [img]http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/2013/819/image004.gif[/img]

    • Avatar

      Me

      |

      Yeah 2 B Fish, it doesn;t look that way now does it. The projections have failed. So now we know what your BS is

      Reply

  • Avatar

    John West

    |

    The problem is that we’ve abandoned separation of powers. The legislative branch makes a law and then delegates to the executive branch the power to create regulations to implement said law. For all intents and purposes a regulation is a law created by, approved by, and enforced by the executive branch. The regulation process consists of a federal agency proposing a new rule (regulation) that the public is then allowed to comment on to the same agency that proposed the rule which then reviews the comments adjusts the rule if it wants to and approves its own proposal. In what sane world does the fox guard the henhouse?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    4TimesAYear

    |

    She says (in the video) that the EPA’s job is to protect our health and the environment – but atmospheric CO2 is not a threat to either one of them. They call it the “Clean Power Plan” but she says “this is not about pollution control” – and if it’s not about pollution control, it’s not about pollution and has nothing to do with “clean power” – carbon pollution (i.e., CO2) is a myth. Atmospheric CO2 is not pollution. I don’t know what makes her think she can fudge words like that.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Me

      |

      Because she is a control freek, and uses it to do so.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard C NZ

    |

    IPCC climate change criteria: radiative forcing “measured at top of atmosphere” (IPCC FAQ – “What is radiative forcing”).

    0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2).

    1.5+ W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (IPCC Table of Forcings, same as net anthro).

    Game over. CO2 “forcing” is more than double the TOA imbalance, CO2 is an ineffective climate forcing.

    0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc

    Sfc imbalance is ocean heat accumulation. Therefore, TOA imbalance is simply solar SW going straight into the oceanic heat sink and lagged in energy out at Sfc and LW out at TOA.

    No need to invoke CO2 “forcing”.

    Game over.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Peter_PNW

      |

      Richard, while the compressed style is effective for brevity with a dedicated audience, I find I’m not following the reasoning.

      Can you point to an instance of this point that written for a more general audience?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Richard C NZ

        |

        Peter_PNW >”Can you point to an instance of this point that written for a more general audience?”

        No. There is nothing to add. All the necessary references are there for you to follow. Look them up, read, think. Follow the reasoning, it’s very simple.

        If you can’t understand the basic reasoning then you’re at the bottom of a very steep learning curve and ill equipped to argue for/against MMCC.

        This is IPCC rationale by their own definition and citations. If you’re arguing for the MMCC case you should be already familiar with all the relevant IPCC AR chapters, terminology and definitions, and citations. This requires word-for-word reading, a lot of time, effort, and comprehension. You have to do this for yourself, I can’t help you.

        Beyond the basic as laid out by the IPCC, which you’re apparently not equipped for yet, it is still fundamental thermodynamics and energy flow i.e. a sun => ocean(+land) => atmosphere(+space) system. The energy transfer is a combination of instantaneous speed of light (radiation) and very slow processes (latent heat of evaporation, sensible heat conduction and convection); horizontal transport of heat accumulated in the tropical ocean takes decades to dissipate towards the poles and then to atm and space (“10 – 100 years” – Trenberth).

        And if you can’t work out the theoretical CO2 forcing over any timeframe for yourself from dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) then you have no “feel” for how the forcing SHOULD be acting by now. Berkeley Labs (2014) found 0.2 W.m-2/decade empirically at Oklahoma and Alaska 2000 – 2010. That’s on top of ALL the forcing supposedly built up since 1750 which adds to 1.5+ W.m-2 (as is net anthro). This is a little less than theoretical but obviously of no effect at TOA. The MMCC theory is busted at this point.

        The problem for folks like you Peter is that the MMCC case has been built largely on anecdotal and non-real world “evidence” (models). It is abstracted and removed from the basic criteria, you’re not used to dealing with the critical details. So when the contra-case is put simply in terms of the critical criteria your eyes glaze over. You want it in some other form. There is no other form Peter.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Peter_PNW

          |

          I appreciate your comments.

          There actually is another form. I don’t have to have 400 level biology to understand how basic elements and compounds are nutrients to my garden. I don’t need a doctorate in physics to understand hydro electric power generation. I don’t have to “do that for myself”. The concepts have been rendered into forms that make sense in non-technical language. If I spoke to my co-workers like they were ignorant every time my expertise put me in a position to do so, I’d quickly lose all political effectiveness. In the spectrum of communication of ideas, there are always interlinking abstractions.

          Communicating in compressed codes and external citations comes across as obfuscation to an idiot like me. Perhaps you’re not writing to a wider audience, and its not your role to do so. Which is fine. But using “MMCC” without a hyperlink or the initial complimentary literal is just lazy writing (google it…). Or maybe that just how you write. You have to remember, you’re communicating with an idiot. And there are lots of us. And we vote. And, if I’m not mistaken, this site invites debate, the purpose of which is to change minds? If so, ya’ll are doing a pretty good job, explicitly or tacitly, of isolating yourselves from open minded non-conforming interests

          So, again, thank you for the content, which I will try as time allows to render to something comprehensible to a working man ill equipped to communicate with the elite Endowed.

          I’ll keep an open mind, and apply the facts and reasoning to my basic hypothesis, and will be very happy if I am wrong.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Richard C NZ

            |

            >”Communicating in compressed codes and external citations comes across as obfuscation to an idiot like me.”

            The citations (Stephens et al, Loeb et al) are the IPCC’s Chapter 2 citations in respect to TOA. They are not “external”.

            Your criticism of my citations is also a criticism of the IPCC’s entire Assessment Report format because citations like that is what you will find all through the IPCC reports. It is up to the report reader to look up the cited literature and see for themselves what is actually in the papers. Thus, the IPCC’s narrative can be in turn assessed for how well, or otherwise, it relates to their citations and case.

            In the case of MMCC – not good. They neglect to address the critical disparity.

            The “code” is the scientific language, terminology and abbreviations used in the literature, in this case the IPCC citations.

            This is all hiding in plain sight Peter, there is nothing obfuscatory. Read the Assessment Reports and the literature, learn the language and you will understand the processes described.

            BTW, MMCC = Man-Made Climate Change (the IPCC’s CC attribution). I’m amazed you couldn’t decipher that particular acronym given you appear to be a proponent of it.

          • Avatar

            Richard C NZ

            |

            >”In the case of MMCC – not good. They neglect to address the critical disparity.”

            Which again, is simply this:

            0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2).

            1.5+ W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (IPCC Table of Forcings, same as net anthro).

            Game over.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            I’m sure the game is indeed over, but I work for a living man. If you can’t say “”0.6 W.m-2 TOA” in plain English, then you don’t get the need for technical communications outside narrow specialties.

            You expect to win a debate by telling millions of folks to “go learn math you idiots”?

          • Avatar

            Richard C NZ

            |

            >”If you can’t say “”0.6 W.m-2 TOA” in plain English, then you don’t get the need for technical communications outside narrow specialties”

            “Narrow specialties” ? Good grief, introductory level physics is now a “narrow specialty” is it?

            0.6 Watts per metre squared Top Of Atmosphere.

            There. In plain English. Does that help?

            Watts being Joules per second. You know what Joules are a measure of or can look that up can’t you?

            When you’ve got your head around this maybe we can move on to energy-per-photon in respect to the electromagnetic spectrum (EM). Something climate science seems oblivious to i.e. real power (as in the solar range IR-A/B) vs apparent power (as in the LWIR range IR-C, think CO2 emission).

            Electromagnetic spectrum
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

            Infrared
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared

            Note energy-per-photon in the solar IR-A/B range is in electron Volts (eV) but downwelling infrared from the atmosphere (DLR/LWIR) is in MILLI electron Volts (meV).

            Consequently DLR only penetrates water to a depth roughly the thickness of human hair (100 microns) and effective at only 10 microns i.e. DLR is NOT the ocean heating agent climate science assumes it is.

            Net LWIR (LW up/out – LW down) is a cooling effect at the surface (Outgoing Longwave Radiation – OLR around 50 W.m-2). Solar UV-A/B, Vis, IR-A/B) is the ocean heating agent (IR down to around 19m in the tropics in ideal conditions, UV down to 80+m).

            The ocean accumulates in the order of 24 W.m-2 in the tropics. Stephens et al and Loeb et al give a globally averaged 0.6 W.m-2 but this is obviously not the full story.

            One day climate science will figure this out, but if only they would defer to experts (the relevant “narrow specialtys”). Starting with oceanographers but medical laser physics know far more about radiation-matter interaction than anyone (think laser surgery and H2O in the human body).

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            “Pete’s” narrow specialty seems to be O2 isotopes and Holocene Stability… Or something. We are not sure we cannot decipher his O2 Isotope-ese.

            Every thing he does not understand is “Blatant elitist drivel.” 😀

            [quote]You expect to win a debate by telling millions of folks to “go learn math you idiots”?[/quote] It’s people like you “Pete”, with your self deluded arrogance and immunity to facts that we expect to win over the masses.

            Your doing our work for us.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Nicely done, and thank you.

          • Avatar

            Richard C NZ

            |

            >”Consequently DLR only penetrates water to a depth roughly the thickness of human hair (100 microns) and effective at only 10 microns i.e. DLR is NOT the ocean heating agent climate science assumes it is.”

            Yet we still have to endure this baloney from NASA:

            “A new NASA study of ocean temperature measurements shows in recent years extra heat from greenhouse gases has been trapped in the waters of the Pacific and Indian oceans.”

            http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/nasa-pause-exists-and-is-due-to-ocean-heat-storage.html

            But when you read further on what Veronica Nieves, Josh Willis and Bill Patzert of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) have to say it turns out that “the cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)” is the determining factor and ““Natural, decadal variability has been with us for centuries, and it continues to have big regional impacts on society.”

            IPCC AR5 Chapter 3 Oceans: Observations was unable to identify the “air-sea fluxes” that Chapter 9 Radiative Forcing speculates as being the anthro ocean heating mechanism. Speculation unsupported by any science and citation(s) – none. This after 25 years and 5 Assessment Reports.

            Hard to know who takes the prize: EPA, NASA, or IPCC?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            The “idea” that “extra heat” from this thin surface layer is somehow going into the very deepest parts of the oceans, while bypassing the cooler layers in between defies logic.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Maybe it went to the Moon.

            BANG—————ZOOM

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            So, do you want to be right, or do you want to be right [u]and[/u] politically effective?

            Until “A Convenient Truth” captures the imagination of the public, you’ll be cast in the role of the Minority Report, and will suffer the political fate of the minority.

            There a great Einstein quote elsewhere in this thread – something like if you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            You have already admitted you are an idiot. Leave it at that, and you will at least have [i]some[/i] credibility.

            Enjoy your cereal.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Credibility here is not something I’m interested in.

            It is not my job to connect the dots for you.

            I come here to learn, and test ideas.

            Your comprehension of that agenda is optional.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]Credibility here is not something I’m interested in. [/quote]

            Obviously! 😆

            Care to disprove the 4,500,000,000 precedent?

            Care to disprove the peer reviewed literature that shows O2 migrates in ice cores?

            Why don’t you go read up, and come back when you know something.

            Enjoy your cereal.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Actually, it is Climate Alarmism which has failed to capture the public’s imagination. After decades of failed predictions of doom and gloom. Fewer and fewer people care anymore.
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/05/climate-concerns-fading-despite-paris-hype/

            It is the little boy’s crying wolf who will be left out in the cold.

            You are right about it being a political movement. It was and always has been about leftists dreams of a global redistribution of wealth.

            Sadly they tried to bundle it up with a fraudulent hypothesis. Likely because they are duplicitous to the core and because instinctively they know they cannot sell the mass starvation, poverty, disease and genocide which comes with socialism on it’s own merits.

            No Cereal for You Comrade Danny Boy!

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote] You have to remember, you’re communicating with an idiot. [/quote] What happened to the utter “enjoy your cereal” surety of your O2 isotope hypothesis? Which only -you- seemed to “understand”? Your know it all condescending tone? [quote]Explain to me the relationship between the unique stability found in the most recent 10K years of the oxygen isotope records, and the emergence of the technology of agriculture.[/quote]Now you don’t “know” anything? 😀

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        Thank you for your insightful lack of understanding Peter_PNW, but…

        Comprehension is optional.

        Your condescending attitude and inability to clearly explain your own “hypothesis” shows you do not really know much of anything.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Peter_PNW

          |

          My condescending attitude is a form I adopt for this particular forum – I just see that that’s the way ya’ll do it here when a minority viewpoint appears.

          I prefer civil and productive debate, but honestly, the abuse I’ve been heaped in here is the best illustration of character I could hope for.

          We laugh out loud. 🙂

          Reply

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            You come here to be an ass and are surprised when it backfires?

            And who is we? You have worms there ol Danny Boy?

    • Avatar

      Richard C NZ

      |

      I should add that IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution does not address the growing disparity between TOA imbalance and CO2 or net anthro forcing.

      This is their own primary climate change criteria. It is impossible to take the IPCC seriously given oversight like this (or is it intentional negligence?).

      But then, who needs data? The EPA doesn’t.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    Here is the funny thing, she can not give a date for the documents they requested, but expects everyone else to comply by what date again? Don’t pass their deadline but their deadlines to produce info is a different story, Yeah they can’t do.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Me

      |

      And her mention of secret science isn’t so open and transparent.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Me

        |

        And there she “Believes” and bases her decesions on what she believes!

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    HAHAHA! And she don’t know what % of CO2 is in the atomsphere, Priceless! 😀

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    Yep, cost isn’t a factor, but if you don’t pay your Obama care then you have to pay because Tax or penality, err something, because Carbon. Too big to fail all over again. I thought the leftest were against this. Well you will get what you want and don’t complain about it when you get your way.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    And she uses the magic word again projections. Too funny!

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Me

      |

      Droughts they have not seen in the last 800 years? Provide the data, and how old is the US again?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Me

        |

        I can’t watch anymore of that BS EPA junk.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Peter_PNW

    |

    I just want to say I enjoy our little rants. I’ve learned a great deal from this site’s regulars, and appreciate the willingness to dialog with such diligence, enthusiasm and certainty.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Pete, our dear delusional friend, who is making sweeping statements of certainty except you? You claim that the climate has been “stable” for 10,000 years and that man is changing the climate.

      We say “prove it”. And you cannot. You babble on about isotopes, which are derived from ice cores that are not reliable, and we point to documented warm and cool events.

      For you to make your CAGW claim valid, you must do the following.

      1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

      2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      You have already admitted the models are farcicle, and you have not once disproven that any climate change in the past or present is not a result of the 4,500,000,000 year precedent.

      Find a new hobby Pete, you really suck at this.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    UzUrBrain

    |

    Are all of the AGW zealots ignoring that EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is lying to us? Do you find it acceptable for the US government and the heads of the US government agencies to LIE to us? So it is acceptable “for the greater good”?? Is that like the greater good of Hitler and the 5-10 million that he had exterminated. And he did not just exterminate just Jewish people, look up REAL history, not liberalized history. Is that like the greater good that Stalin and his killing and starving to death of over 20 million people? Couldn’t happen here you say? then look into the number of statues in the USA of Lenin and Stalin. Why are there so many? Why so many in just NYC alone? WHY? And you find it acceptable for the government to achieve its goals by lying to us, forcing the eradication of coal power with NO scientific bases that has been proven? Next will be the elimination of health support for the aged. then the handicapped. then the non working, then the —-
    Use Your Brain, while you have one.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Lying is what AGW zealots do, they have to, because the science does not support their agenda…

      [i]”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So [b]we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance
      is between being effective and being honest[/b].”[/i]
      – Prof. Stephen Schneider,
      Stanford Professor of Climatology,
      lead author of many IPCC reports

      [i]”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. [b]Even if the theory of global warming is wrong[/b], we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”[/i]
      – Timothy Wirth,
      President of the UN Foundation

      [i]”[b]No matter if the science of global warming is all phony[/b]… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
      bring about justice and equality in the world.”[/i]
      – Christine Stewart,
      former Canadian Minister of the Environment

      [i]“[b]The data doesn’t matter[/b]. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. [b]We’re basing them on the climate models[/b].”[/i]
      – Prof. Chris Folland,
      Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

      [i]“The [b]models are convenient fictions[/b] that provide something very useful.”[/i]
      – Dr David Frame,
      climate modeler, Oxford University

      [i]”[b]It doesn’t matter what is true[/b], it only matters what people believe is true.”[/i]
      – Paul Watson,
      co-founder of Greenpeace

      Reply

  • Avatar

    prestigio

    |

    why
    is this endless
    sabre rattling
    going on

    it is settled logic
    that there is no
    greenhouse effect
    as proposed by
    the agw / climate change
    alarmists

    end of question
    class dismissed

    Reply

  • Avatar

    NoFreeWind

    |

    look at what the IPCC says about their “models”. they were completely wrong, by a factor of 5. In other words, they future over-estimated global warming 5 times over in a 15 yr period. It is there in black and white.
    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
    Go to page 766 (page 28 of pdf)
    111 out of 114 guessed the no-trend, the hiatus wrong!

    Of course, excuse me if you don’t even know who the IPCC is, and only read “the news”, which is even more absurd than the IPCC which the news “claims” are the so-called scientists who have all this stuff figured out!

    It all comes down to this. To really understand this take some study. It much easier for most to just trust who you think are the “good people”, the ones who want to help everyone and make this a better world. Sadly, all they want to do is to FORCE you to give them your money! That’s why they HATE CAPITALISM, because at least in theory, you have a choice and freedom (another word they hate) to do and buy what you want. Whereas in Socialism or Marxism, we just let the “good people” figure it all out and make it equal. That’s why many of these climate scientists are going to retire on 80K guaranteed income plus benefits!!!!

    Sadly, no matter what Gator and Amrlach try to teach you, there is very little hope you would be able to accept their information, this is why Communism has been able to be an extremely powerful and destructive force the past 100 yrs.

    Seriously, ANYONE who lives in our civilized society and doesn’t think that fossil fuels are “good”. There is very little hope for them, they are too far GONE!!

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Richard C NZ

      |

      >”111 out of 114 guessed the no-trend, the hiatus wrong!”

      3 came close, INMCM4 was closest. Distinguishing features (by RonC at Climate Etc):

      1.INMCM4 has the lowest CO2 forcing response at 4.1K for 4XCO2. That is 37% lower than multi-model mean

      2.INMCM4 has by far the highest climate system inertia: Deep ocean heat capacity in INMCM4 is 317 W yr m22 K-1, 200% of the mean (which excluded INMCM4 because it was such an outlier)

      3.INMCM4 exactly matches observed atmospheric H2O content in lower troposphere (215 hPa), and is biased low above that. Most others are biased high.

      So the model that most closely reproduces the temperature history has high inertia from ocean heat capacities, low forcing from CO2 and less water for feedback.

      Definitely worth taking a closer look at this model, it seems genuinely different from the others.

      http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/23/climate-sensitivity-lopping-off-the-fat-tail/

      And, I suggest, throw out all the others.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        It looks to me like they deliberately made all of these models to fit on the graph like a spectrum.

        This way if one happened to be correct they could point to it and say “See? We told you so!” Trouble is the lowest and least alarmist of these is still slightly high.

        [img]https://informativestats.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg[/img]

        Reply

  • Avatar

    squidly

    |

    I just have to say, I am dizzy from reading the incoherent psychobabble from Peter_PNW … What utter nonsensical BS!

    Hey Pete, explain to me again how a cooler object can make a warmer object warmer still. Explain to me how, given two molecules, (A) and (B), both of same energy state, how can (A) raise the energy state of (B)?

    There is no so-called “greenhouse effect” … Your magical CO2 is powerless to do anything other than cool. Period … now, instead of enjoying your cereal, I recommend you dump out your cereal and find something else as it is clearly causing you severe mental instability. It has to be your diet…

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Peter_PNW

      |

      Thank you for your insightful commentary squidly. Always a pleasure.

      Comprehension is optional.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        squidly

        |

        Beh, you’re a psychotic moron … go away…

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    The EPA should immediately produce anything the elected officials request without stonewalling ,otherwise fire them for cause .

    $$ Billions are expected to be spent on this overblown scam and the head of the EPA bureaucracy thinks law makers are not “authorized ” to receive vital information that supposedly makes the EPA case ??

    When your employer asks you to provide information used to develop policy and you refuse , guess what… your ass is grass . The EPa arrogant disregard of is staggering .
    Stop the availability of EPA “grant ” money used to prepay friendly and predictable information to support their agenda .

    What other Government agency gets away with giving the middle finger to elected representatives ?

    What “personal ‘ information is she
    claiming to be protecting ?

    Could it be that bought and paid for input will just become a little to
    obvious to hid from ? The EPA just doesn’t want to open up it’s books
    and expose it’s alliances for what they are .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Actually, congress should simply defund the EPA.

      If you were paying a contractor to work on your home, and that contractor refused to show you plans or listen to the building inspector, would you keep writing checks to him?

      No, you would stop all payments and he would go away. Then you could consider suing him for the money you already paid.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Peter_PNW

        |

        If you look at the history and development of regulatory agencies, they are explicitly intended to act as a buffer between the noisy public and natural resource consumption. They remove risk and uncertainty from markets.

        Take aware the EPA, and the public will go directly after every corporation, individually. A unified front is a much more effective defence.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          [i]We then turned to the “structured analogies” method to forecast the likely outcomes of this movement. In this ongoing study, [b]we have, to date, identified 26 historical alarmist movements. None of the forecasts for the analogous alarms proved correct. In the 25 alarms that called for government intervention, the government impost regulations in 23. None of the 23 interventions was effective and harm was caused by 20 of them.[/i][/b]

          http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/Report%20for%20Congressional%20hearing-R14%20%282%29%20armstrong%20update.pdf

          [i]“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” [/i]
          —Daniel J. Boorstin

          Enjoy your cereal.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            And, certainly, those 26 cases are an exhaustive list of all the detrimental effects regulation has tackled.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            I see math is another of your weak points, not surprising for an idiot

            Care to disprove the 4,500,000,000 precedent?

            Care to disprove the peer reviewed literature that shows O2 migrates in ice cores?

            Why don’t you go read up, and come back when you know something.

            Enjoy your cereal.

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    In a medieval society, charlatans like the principles of the EPA and IRS as well as their enablers like O’Bama and Gore would have dragged out of their luxury and summarily hanged.

    We are not in medieval society.

    But the charlatans should be summarily dismissed, humiliated and held up to public ridicule with forfeit of pay and retirement.

    When you lie and cheat the people who lawfully must serve, you deserve all of that and more.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.