Lying Lunatic Leftist Watermelon (Green On The Outside and Red on The Insider) Obama’s EPA Proposes Rules Are Illegal and Challenged By States — Your Electrical Bills Are Going To Skyrocket — Wind and Solar 5 Times More Expensive and Subsidized! — Progressives War on Jobs, Free Enterprise Market Capitlalism and American Workers — Pull The Plug On Progressives! — Videos

Posted on January 2, 2016. Filed under: Articles, Blogroll, College, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Environment, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Fraud, Macroeconomics, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Oil, Private Sector, Public Sector, Radio, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Work, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |


Obama’s 1010 Plan No Pressure — Really?


Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket

President Obama/EPA New Energy Rules

States sue EPA over costly impact of regulations

Senator Blunt Discusses Harmful Effects Of EPA’s Clean Power Plan 8/4/15

EPA Regulatory Overreach – Impacts on American Competitiveness

McKinley Discusses Impacts of EPA Power Plant Rule

Wayne’s Story: New EPA Regulations Jeopardize Kansas Jobs

Wilbur Ross on Trump, EPA rules

Murray Energy CEO sues over new EPA rules

Attorney General Ken Paxton Announces Fight Against EPA’s Carbon Rul

EPA’s Proposed 111(d) Rule for Existing Power Plants: Legal and Cost Issues

ECO:nomics: How Much Will EPA Carbon Rules Affect Global Emissions?

‘One one-hundredth of a degree?’ EPA’s McCarthy admits Obama regs have no measurable climate impact

James Delingpole: Great Britain, the Green Movement, and the End of the World


The Truth about CO2

Is CO2 a pollutant?

Trees Are the Answer

ManBearPig, Climategate and Watermelons: A conversation with author James Delingpole

“Slap in the Face” Award: The White House/EPA Attack On Coal

Obama plot to black out 40 percent of US power supply

EPA Rule Calling For Power Plant Carbon Emissions To Be Cut By 30% By 2030 – Cavuto

Neil Cavuto & Bob Murray: Here Come Skyrocketing Electric Rates – Really

‘Clean Coal’ Fails to Capture World’s Attention

16 States Plan to Fight Obama’s New EPA Demands

EPA Proposes Methane Reduce Plan

EPA to Introduce New Rules to Cut Methane Emissions

U.S. Green Groups Urge Methane Rules For Oil And Gas Industry

Obama’s Anti-Coal Agenda Will Raise Consumer Prices and Unemployment

Whitfield: Obama’s Assault on Coal Will Lead to An 80 Percent Electricity Rate Hike

Krauthammer: Obama shuts down coal industry, kills jobs, raises electric rates – offers algae

Obama Plans to make Green Energy Affordable by Making Gasoline and Coal Unaffordable

Obama’s War on Jobs

Climate Change in 12 Minutes – The Skeptic’s Case

Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade? (1 of 2)

Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade? (2 of 2)

George Carlin on Global Warming

George Carlin – Death

Obama’s climate agenda on trial

By Devin Henry


A slate of major environmental rules rolled out by the Obama administration in 2015 will face serious challenges in the new year, as opponents look to beat back the president’s ambitious policies — a core piece of his legacy.

In the lead-up to the landmark Paris climate talks in December — an event that yielded a first-of-its-kind global agreement to cut carbon emissions — the Obama administration released a series of sweeping new environmental rules, each garnering both condemnation and deep-pocketed opposition from interest looking to torpedo the regulations in 2016.

As Obama enters the final year of his presidency, much of his focus on environmental issues will be implementing and preserving the work he’s already done. If 2015 was the year he pushed his environmental agenda forward, 2016 could be the year he looks to preserve it.

Here are some of the biggest regulations Obama finalized or proposed last year, and how they’ll be litigated in 2016.

Clean Power Plan

The most notable environmental rule issued in 2015 was the climate rule for power plants, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation designed to cut carbon emissions from the power sector.

The rule is the centerpiece of Obama’s climate change agenda, and the biggest promise he took with him to the United Nations climate talks. It’s designed to cut carbon emissions from existing power plants by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.

Environmentalists hailed the rule, but it has met with scorching opposition from Republicans, commodity groups, businesses and utilities. Opponents have argued that, while the rule will cut carbon emissions, it will do so at the expense of jobs and American energy bills, which could go up as states shift to cleaner energy mixes.

Dozens of opponents sued against the rule the day in October that it hit the Federal Register, arguing the EPA went beyond its legal authority in assigning states carbon reduction targets.

“EPA’s rule is flatly illegal and one of the most aggressive executive branch power grabs we’ve seen in a long time,” West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said. “The EPA cannot do what it intends to do legally.”

The EPA defended the rule as one with “strong scientific and legal foundations” and has sought to protect it from the lawsuits. Opponents want federal judges to issue a stay on the rule and, with legal filings on the matter due on Dec. 23, the first judicial skirmish over the rule is set for early 2016.

Clean Water Rule

A federal court dealt a blow to another EPA rule in 2015 when it blocked implementation of a new rule setting regulatory authority over small waterways.
The so-called “Waters of the United States” rule looks to clarify which streams, wetlands and other smaller waterways the federal government has regulatory authority over.

But opponents of the rule — Republicans, red states and the agriculture industry among them — argue the rule is overly-broad and an unjust expansion of federal power. They sued against the regulation, and two federal courts issued separate injunctions against it in 2015, ruling that opponents have a strong case and could win when their challenges move forward.

The EPA and Army Corps. of Engineers have maintained that the rule is legal and plans to fight the lawsuits against it. The stay didn’t overturn the rule: the courts need to go through the process of making a full ruling on it, and the appeals process could eventually bring the water rule to the Supreme Court.


When the Obama administration finalized a new standard for acceptable concentrations of surface-level ozone particles, neither industrial groups nor public health and environmental coalitions were pleased.

Businesses and manufacturers sued over the new 70-parts-per-billion standard in December, arguing that the new standard would be hard to implement and lead to billions of dollars in compliance costs.

“The EPA’s ozone regulation, which could be one of the most expensive in history, is unworkable and overly burdensome for manufacturers and America’s job creators,” said Linda Kelly, the senior vice president and general counsel for the National Association of Manufacturers.

Greens and health officials defended the EPA’s ability to issue the new rule, which came out in October. But they filed lawsuits of their own, arguing regulators should have finalized a standard even stricter than the one they landed on.

“This standard leaves kids, seniors and asthmatics without the protection doctors say they need from this dangerous pollutant,” Earthjustice attorney David Baron said. “The EPA has a duty to set standards that assure our air is safe to breathe. We say they violated that duty here.”

Even before the ozone rule was released, both sides said they expected to sue over the final standard, citing their dueling lawsuits against the EPA the last time it updated the rule, in 2008.

Neither side succeeded then, and the rule stood.

Beyond legal challenges, the power plant, water and ozone rules could all face challenges from congressional Republicans, as well.

While legislative measures stopping the rules are dead with Obama in office, Republicans showed last year that they were willing to try using the appropriations process to block them anyway.

Key Republicans, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), have said they plan to exhaust their legislative options for blocking the regulations even with Obama in office. But McConnell acknowledged in October that lawmakers’ hands are likely tied for now, despite passing a since-vetoed Congressional Review Act resolution against the power plan.

“Our options to stop [the Clean Power Plan] are quite limited,” McConnell said then. “We do have the possibility of a CRA. The weakness of that, obviously, is that even though we can pass it through here with a simple majority, [Obama is] likely to veto it.”

Methane emissions

The Obama administration led off 2015 promising to take action on methane emissions from oil and natural gas drilling sites.

The EPA proposed rules in August to require drillers use new technologies to track and block accidental and purposeful leaks when producing and transmitting oil and gas. The proposal kicked up a potential fight with the gas industry.

Greens have said a strong methane rule is one of the last major climate initiatives Obama can effectively push through during his final term in office. Methane has about 25 times the global warming power of carbon dioxide, and a push to cut down on leaks will compliment Obama’s work on carbon emissions elsewhere, they say.

Drillers, though, are skeptical of the rule, saying they are already taking steps to cut methane leaks on their own. They support EPA’s opt-in programs for cutting methane emissions, but warn that actual regulations could “undermine American competitiveness” in the oil and gas sector.

“EPA’s proposal for additional methane regulations on oil and gas wells and transmission are duplicative and costly,” Howard Feldman, the senior director of regulatory and scientific affairs at the American Petroleum Institute, said in December. “They could also undermine the progress our industry has made lowering greenhouse gas emissions.”

Republicans, too, have opposed new methane rules, with House Natural Resources Committee chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) calling the proposal “another unprecedented attack” on oil and gas interests.

The agency hopes to finalize the rule by the spring.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Save Your Job and Life–Abolish The Environmental Protection Agency!

Posted on April 18, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Climate, Communications, Economics, Life, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Science, Security, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , |


History of Atmospheric CO2 through geological time (past 550 million years: from Berner, Science, 1997). The parameter RCO2 is defined as the ratio of the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere at some time in the past to that at present (with a pre-industrial value of 300 parts per million). The heavier line joining small squares represents the best estimate of past atmospheric CO2 levels based on geochemical modeling and updated to have the effect of land plants on weathering introduced 380 to 350 million years ago. The shaded area encloses the approximate range of error of the modeling based on sensitivity analysis. Vertical bars represent independent estimates of CO2 level based on the study of ancient soils.

“Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) – 280 (parts per million – ppm) – that’s unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it’s been quite higher than that,”

~ Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer

Climate Change in 12 Minutes – The Skeptic’s Case

Heritage In Focus: Supreme Court’s EPA Ruling

 Greenhouse Gases

Carbon Dioxide is Our Friend

Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 1

Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 2

Unstoppable Solar Cycles

60 Minutes – Climate Change Debate Part I

60 Minutes – Climate Change Debate Part II

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 1 of 4

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 2 of 4

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 3 of 4

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 4 of 4

EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Pose Threat to Public Health, Welfare / Proposed Finding Comes in Response to 2007 Supreme Court Ruling

“…EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate.

The scientific analysis also confirms that climate change impacts human health in several ways. Findings from a recent EPA study titled “Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone,” for example, suggest that climate change may lead to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful pollutant. Additional impacts of climate change include, but are not limited to:

  • increased drought;
  • more heavy downpours and flooding;
  • more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires;
  • greater sea level rise;
  • more intense storms; and
  • harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems. …”

The radical socialists, aka Democrats,  of President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency or EPA in a move that could eventually wreck the US economy and destroy jobs, by taxing carbon dioxide emissions have declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

There are  two very big problems or issues with this position.

First, carbon dioxide or CO2 is not pollutant, it is a trace gas and one of the greenhouse gases.

Carbon dioxide or  CO2 is a trace gas.

CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1

Carbon Cycle and Global Warming

The most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, which also is not a pollutant.

Why was water vapor not added to the list of one of polluting greenhouse gases?

Simple, the EPA would be revealed as fools and become a laughing stock.

Man-made caused global warming would be exposed as a fraud and hoax if they declared water-vapor a pollutant.

 Only a fanatic or a fool would attempt to control water-vapor emissions and propose that water vapor be taxed.

So, the EPA did not include water-vapor as a pollutant, but did assert that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

Second, carbon-dioxide is not a cause of global warming but a result of global warming.

A rising level of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere from about  280 parts per million to about 390 parts per million or ppm are a lagging result of rising temperatures.

Note the reason carbon dioxide is called a trace gas is that the earth’s atmosphere contains only 390 part per million.

Carbon dioxide increasing in our atmosphere

What the radical socialists and their government funded scientists want to do to is to get the United States economy off of fossil fuels by reducing carbon dioxide emissions:

Understanding Atmospheric Oxygen: Global Carbon Dioxide

The EPA clearly states what it is planning to do: “…The Administration is developing 

a comprehensive energy and climate

change plan to invest in clean energy, end our

addiction to oil, address the global climate crisis,

and create new American jobs that cannot

be outsourced. After enactment of the Budget,

the Administration will work expeditiously

with key stakeholders and Congress to develop

an economy-wide emissions reduction program

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions approximately

14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020,

and approximately 83 percent below 2005 levels

by 2050. This program will be implemented

through a cap-and-trade system, a policy approach

that dramatically reduced acid rain at

much lower costs than the traditional Government

regulations and mandates of the past.

Through a 100 percent auction to ensure that

the biggest polluters do not enjoy windfall profits,

this program will fund vital investments in

a clean energy future totaling $150 billion over

10 years, starting in fiscal year 2012. …”


If the above cap and trade carbon dioxide tax is implemented in the United States, this is what is going to happen to the American economy and global carbon dioxide emissions:  


Glenn Beck: Cap & Trade SCAM

Global Warming: How Hot Air and Bad Science Will Give You Staggeringly Higher Taxes and Prices.

The  EPA declares that carbon dioxide is both a pollutant and man is the primary cause of global warming.

When man uses energy or burns carbon based fuels, the result is an increases carbon dioxide emissions.

These man-made carbon dioxide emissions are the cause of global warming or climate change according to the EPA and its government funded climate computer model scientists.

The EPA needs you to believe this big lie.

The radical socialists want to significantly decrease energy use produced by carbon based fossil fuels such as coal, gasoline and natural gas.

The EPA and President Obama need either a cap and trade carbon dioxide tax or a carbon tax to accomplish this.

The radical socialists or Democrats will increase taxes on the American people to finance more government programs for their supporters and campaign contributors.

They need to make you believe that you are responsible for global warming  by using electricity, heating oil, and driving a car or truck.

This results in carbon dioxide emissions which in turn according to the EPA is pollution and causes global warming.

Nice fairy tale, but as the above videos have shown, it is simply not true.

So the radical socialists proposed a cap and trade carbon dioxide tax that would significantly raise the cost of all goods and services that require energy in the form of  electricity or transportation.

Should yet another cap and trade bill is defeated in Congress, the radical socialist backup plan is to use the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and tax it.

The radical socialists are liars and thiefs.

Do not believe a word they say.

Protect your property, job and life.

Either a carbon tax or a cap and trade carbon dioxide tax would significantly impact the economy resulting in a reduction in economic growth and the loss of jobs.

All of this based on the junk science of discredited computer climate models.

The EPA and President Obama are nuts if you they think the American people are going to go along with their stupidity and ignorance of science.


Taxes are NOT the problem…

Alternative Energy Sources…

George Carlin – Saving the Planet

Carbon dioxide or  CO2 is a trace gas.

“…Here’s a simple example of how much man has contributed towards CO2 in the atmosphere.

Think of the atmosphere as 100 cases of 24 one-litre bottles of water — 2,400 litres in all.

According to the global warming theory, rising levels of human-produced carbon dioxide are trapping more of the sun’s reflected heat in the atmosphere and dangerously warming the planet.

But 99 of our cases would be nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), neither of which are greenhouse gases. Only one case — just 24 bottles out of 2,400 — would contain greenhouse gases.

Of the bottles in the greenhouse gas case, 23 would be water vapour.

Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yet scientists will admit they understand very little about its impact on global warming. (It may actually help cool the planet: As the earth heats up, water vapour may form into more clouds and reflect solar radiation before it reaches the surface. Maybe. We don’t know.)

The very last bottle in that very last case would be carbon dioxide, one bottle out of 2,400.

Carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, and most of that — at least 95% — is naturally occurring (decaying plants, forest fires, volcanoes, releases from the oceans).

At most, 5% of the carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as power plants, cars, oilsands, etc.

So in our single bottle of carbon dioxide, just 50 ml is man-made carbon dioxide. Out of our model atmosphere of 2,400 litres of water, just about a shot glassful is carbon dioxide put their by humans …”

Global Warming Alarmists Dislike CO2 Scrubbers

The Big Obama and EPA lie that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warm could mean you lose your job.

Cap and Trade

Obama’s Cap and Trade Taxes Will Destroy America

Warren Buffett Slams “Cap and Trade” as a Regressive Tax on All Americans

The Obama Energy Tax Is Misguided and Unfair

Time to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency before it kills you for exhalling too much carbon dioxide or breathing oxygen.

If you value your job, suggest you vote out of office any politician, Democrat or Republican that votes in favor of either a carbon tax or a cap and trade carbon dioxide tax.

“..But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.’ CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving ‘pollutant’ and ‘poison’ of their original meaning. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2.  That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration.  CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth.

~ Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer

Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age


The Ice Age

Ice Age/ Interglacial Cycle


Ice Age/Interglacial Cycle
During the last Ice Age, approximately one-third of all land was covered by glaciers. Glaciers reached as far south as New York City. This huge volume of ice reduced the amount of water in the oceans, which lowered sea level by several hundred feet. As a result, a land bridge joined Siberia to Alaska, making travel between the two continents possible.

Climate Scientists Laugh at Global Warming Hysteria

Respected Australian scientists laugh at Julia Gillard, David Suzuki and other climate change drama queens.
Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University is a Marine Geologist.
Professor Peter Reid of James Cook University is a Marine Physics specialist.
Professor Garth Paltridge is a former Cheif Scientist at the CSIRO and is an Atmospheric Physicist.
Listen to 100 years of experience in the field!

Background Articles and Videos

Beware of Cap and Trade Climate Bills

by Ben Lieberman

“…Carbon dioxide is the unavoidable byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, which currently provides 85 percent of America’s energy. Thus, it will be very costly to move away from this preferred energy source, and especially doing so as expeditiously as S. 2191 requires. A study by Charles River Associates puts the cost (in terms of reduced household spending per year) of S. 2191 at $800 to $1,300 per household by 2015, rising to $1,500 to $2,500 by 2050.[2] Electricity prices could jump by 36 to 65 percent by 2015 and 80 to 125 percent by 2050.[3] No analysis has been done on the impact of S. 2191 on gasoline prices, but an Environmental Protection Agency study of a less stringent cap and trade bill estimates impacts of 26 cents per gallon by 2030 and 68 cents by 2050.[4]


Dems Failure to Fast Track Cap-And-Trade a Terrific Omen

Marc Sheppard

“…Yesterday, a genuine bi-partisan coalition (twenty-six Democrats and forty-one Republicans) denied cap-and-trade legislation a filibuster-and-amendment-proof path through the Senate.  The move effectively prevents overzealous legislators the likes of Boxer and Waxman from turning their paranoid green dreams of citizen-control into law by circumventing Senate procedures.
And while I probably wouldn’t have your eyes on loan if you thought that anything less than good news – it’s actually nothing short of tremendous news. 
You see, as recently as Tuesday it appeared the climate-hysterics might succeed in attaching their dreadful stealth national sales tax scheme to the budget resolution by employing a sneaky little trick called the reconciliation process.  But yesterday’s passage of an amendment put forth by freshman Senator Mike Johanns (R-Neb) forces the green ideologues to muster 60 votes instead of a simple majority to pass their inane plan.  And, given yesterday’s clear message sent via vote by Democrats from home-states most overwhelmed by the financial disintegration this legislation would assure, such, thankfully, won’t be an easy task.
After all, did over two dozen Democrats suddenly have a moment of group clarity and grasp the madness of raising every American’s energy costs by thousands of dollars annually in a futile and meaningless attempt to diminish atmospheric levels of CO2?  Have the decade-long cessation of warming, or the almost daily news of yet another climate expert concurring that the minuscule levels of this trace gas mankind might influence has no bearing on climate whatsoever, finally sunk in?  Were the trickle-down consequences of an abrupt $2 Trillion expense to industry and utility companies debated more clearly yesterday than they had been hitherto?
Not likely.  Smart money would instead be on a lack of cohesion within the Congressional Green Caucus.  And why not?  The latest Gallup Poll reports that 41% of Americans consider global warming an exaggeration.  And a January Rasmussen poll found 44% percent believing that “long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming.”  So one must wonder — what percentage of Senate and House Democrats remain true believers as opposed to those dutifully following party orthodoxy?  And just how far will they be willing to stick their necks out to abide those tenets?
The numbers would appear to favor the sane. …”

Air Pollution

“…Air pollution is the introduction of chemicals, particulate matter, or biological materials that cause harm or discomfort to humans or other living organisms, or damages the natural environment, into the atmosphere.

The atmosphere is a complex, dynamic natural gaseous system that is essential to support life on planet Earth. Stratospheric ozone

Greenhouse Gases

“Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] Common greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons.

In our solar system, the atmospheres of Venus, Mars and Titan also contain gases that cause greenhouse effects.

Greenhouse gases, mainly water vapor, are essential to helping determine the temperature of the Earth; without them this planet would likely be so cold as to be uninhabitable. Although many factors such as the sun and the water cycle are responsible for the Earth’s weather and energy balance, if all else was held equal and stable, the planet’s average temperature should be considerably lower without greenhouse gases.[2][3][4]


Water Vapor

“…Water vapor or water vapour (see spelling differences), also aqueous vapor, is the gas phase of water. Water vapor is one state of the water cycle within the hydrosphere.[2] Water vapor can be produced from the evaporation or boiling of liquid water or from the sublimation of ice. Under normal atmospheric conditions,[3] water vapor is continuously generated by evaporation and removed by condensation. …”

“…Gaseous water represents a small but environmentally significant constituent of the atmosphere. Approximately 99.99% of it is contained in the troposphere. The condensation of water vapor to the liquid or ice phase is responsible for clouds, rain, snow, and other precipitation, all of which count among the most significant elements of what we experience as weather. Less obviously, the latent heat of vaporization, which is released to the atmosphere whenever condensation occurs, is one of the most important terms in the atmospheric energy budget on both local and global scales. For example, latent heat release in atmospheric convection is directly responsible for powering destructive storms such as tropical cyclones and severe thunderstorms. Water vapor is also a potent greenhouse gas. Because the water vapor content of the atmosphere is expected to greatly increase in response to warmer temperatures, there is the potential for a water vapor feedback that could amplify the expected climate warming effect due to increased carbon dioxide alone. However, it is less clear how cloudiness would respond to a warming climate; depending on the nature of the response, clouds could either further amplify or partly mitigate the water vapor feedback.

Fog and clouds form through condensation around cloud condensation nuclei. In the absence of nuclei, condensation will only occur at much lower temperatures. Under persistent condensation or deposition, cloud droplets or snowflakes form, which precipitate when they reach a critical mass. …”

Part-Per Notation

“Parts-per” notation is used, especially in science and engineering, to denote relative proportions in measured quantities; particularly in low-value (high-ratio) proportions at the parts-per-million (ppm)…”

EPA: Carbon Dioxide, 5 Other Gases Pose A Danger

“…The Environmental Protection Agency concluded Friday that greenhouse gases linked to climate change “endanger public health and welfare,” setting the stage for regulating them under federal clean air laws.

The EPA action marks the first step toward imposing limits on pollution linked to climate change, which would mean tighter rules for cars and power plants. Agency officials cautioned such regulations are expected to be part of a lengthy process and not issued anytime soon. …”

“…The agency said in its finding that “in both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem” and that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases “that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”

The EPA concluded that the science pointing to man-made pollution as a cause of global warming is “compelling and overwhelming.” It also said tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles contribute to climate change. …”

EPA Proposes Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions

By Juliet Eilperin

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 17, 2009;

“…The Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposal today finding greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to the public’s health and welfare, a determination that could trigger a series of sweeping regulations affecting everything from vehicles to coal-fired power plants.

In a statement issued at noon, EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson said, “This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations.”

She added, “This pollution problem has a solution — one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil.”

Enron, Kyoto, and trading pollution credits

Thomas Lifson

Investigate Magazine is a New Zealand publication which has been looking into the history of Kyoto and pollution credit trading:

…without Enron there would have been no Kyoto Protocol.

About 20 years ago Enron was owner and operator of an interstate network of natural gas pipelines, and had transformed itself into a billion-dollar-a-day commodity trader, buying and selling contracts and their derivatives to deliver natural gas, electricity, internet bandwidth, whatever. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to put a cap on how much pollutant the operator of a fossil-fueled plant was allowed to emit. In the early 1990s Enron had helped establish the market for, and became the major trader in, EPA’s $20 billion-per-year sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade program, the forerunner of today’s proposed carbon credit trade. This commodity exchange of emission allowances caused Enron’s stock to rapidly rise.

Then came the inevitable question, what next? How about a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program? The problem was that CO2 is not a pollutant, and therefore the EPA had no authority to cap its emission. Al Gore took office in 1993 and almost immediately became infatuated with the idea of an international environmental regulatory regime. He led a U.S. initiative to review new projects around the world and issue ‘credits’ of so many tons of annual CO2 emission reduction. …”

Prominent Scientist Tells Congress: Earth in ‘CO2 Famine’ 

‘The increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind’ 

‘Children should not be force-fed propaganda, masquerading as science’ 

“…Award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken” and noted that the Earth was currently in a “CO2 famine now.”  Happer, who has published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, made his remarks during today’s Environment and Public Works Full Committee Hearing entitled Update on the Latest Global Warming Science.”  

“Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) – 280 (parts per million – ppm) – that’s unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it’s been quite higher than that,” Happer told the Senate Committee. …”

“…“I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind,” Happer told the Committee. “What about the frightening consequences of increasing levels of CO2 that we keep hearing about?  In a word, they are wildly exaggerated, just as the purported benefits of prohibition were wildly exaggerated,” he explained. “At least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player,” he added.  “But the climate is warming and CO2 is increasing.  Doesn’t this prove that CO2 is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect? No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2.  There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide.  Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models,” Happer testified. …”

“…“I keep hearing about the ‘pollutant CO2,’ or about ‘poisoning the atmosphere’ with CO2, or about minimizing our ‘carbon footprint.’  This brings to mind another Orwellian pronouncement that is worth pondering: ‘But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.’ CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving ‘pollutant’ and ‘poison’ of their original meaning. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2.  That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration.  CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth. Commercial greenhouse operators often use CO2 as a fertilizer to improve the health and growth rate of their plants. Plants, and our own primate ancestors evolved when the levels of atmospheric CO2 were about 1000 ppm, a level that we will probably not reach by burning fossil fuels, and far above our current level of about 380 ppm. We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels.”  …”

EPA May Classify Carbon Dioxide as a Pollutant

“…By concluding that greenhouse gases are pollutants that could endanger human health and welfare, the EPA is essentially over-riding a Bush-era decision to allow public comment on the threat of global warming-related pollution. The Bush-era EPA had made that decision after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007 instructed the EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases should fall under the Clean Air Act.

If the White House approves the EPA proposal, which was sent with little fanfare March 20 to President Obama, it would mean possible emissions caps for businesses from auto manufacturers to steel forgeries to utilities, according to a Bloomberg article.

It also could mean regulation of automobile tailpipe emissions, according to the Detroit News.

The Obama Administration reportedly would prefer that Congress impose a cap-and-trade system, but this recent move is being held out as a backup plan if Congress does not move forward with a plan.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says the EPA’s move is a potential boondoggle to the economic stimulus package.

“This will mean that all infrastructure projects, including those under the president’s stimulus initiative, will be subject to environmental review for greenhouse gases. Since not one of the projects has been subjected to that review, it is possible that the projects under the stimulus initiative will cease. This will be devastating to the economy,” said Bill Kovacs, vice president, of environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in an interview with The Washington Post. …”

Carbon Cycle

“The carbon cycle is the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged among the biosphere, pedosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere of the Earth.

The carbon cycle is usually thought of as four major reservoirs of carbon interconnected by pathways of exchange. These reservoirs are:

  • The plants
  • The terrestrial biosphere, which is usually defined to include fresh water systems and non-living organic material, such as soil carbon.
  • The oceans, including dissolved inorganic carbon and living and non-living marine biota,
  • The sediments including fossil fuels.

The annual movements of carbon, the carbon exchanges between reservoirs, occur because of various chemical, physical, geological, and biological processes. The ocean contains the largest active pool of carbon near the surface of the Earth, but the deep ocean part of this pool does not rapidly exchange with the atmosphere.

The global carbon budget is the balance of the exchanges (incomes and losses) of carbon between the carbon reservoirs or between one specific loop (e.g., atmosphere ↔ biosphere) of the carbon cycle. An examination of the carbon budget of a pool or reservoir can provide information about whether the pool or reservoir is functioning as a source or sink for carbon dioxide …”



“…Funding Highlights:



• Provides $10.5 billion in total for the Environmental Protection Agency, a 34-percent increase

over the 2009 likely enacted level.

• Provides $3.9 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, an

unprecedented Federal commitment to water infrastructure investment in the United States.

• Provides $475 million for a new Environmental Protection Agency-led, interagency Great Lakes

restoration initiative, which will target the most significant problems in the region, including

invasive aquatic species, non-point source pollution, and contaminated sediment.

• Funds the Agency’s operating budget, which comprises its core regulatory, research, and

enforcement activities, at $3.9 billion, the highest level ever.

• Provides over $1.1 billion in grants for States and Tribes to administer environmental programs.


Crooked Carol Browner: Obama’s ethically-challenged energy czar

By Michelle Malkin

My syndicated column today puts the screws on Clintonite Carol Browner, rumored to be Obama’s choice for energy czar. She’s not so fresh and so clean. And conservatives should raise their voices for, you know, real change.


Same old, same old.

The trouble with Obama’s energy czar
by Michelle Malkin …”

“…After a two-year legal battle, Judge Lamberth finally held the EPA in contempt of court for the systemic file destruction – actions Lambert lambasted as “contumacious conduct” (obstinate resistance to authority). As is typical in Washington, Browner weaseled out of any serious repercussions. Lamberth inexplicably decided that slapping the agency as a whole with contempt – rather than any individual – would deter future cover-ups.

Is this a gamble the Obama administration wants to take? Browner has crossed the line and violated public trust before in her capacity as eco-chief. Early in her first term as EPA head, Browner got caught by a congressional subcommittee using taxpayer funds to create and send out illegal lobbying material to over 100 grassroots environmental lobbying organizations. Browner exploited her office to orchestrate a political campaign by left-wing groups, who turned around and attacked Republican lawmakers for supporting regulatory reform. These are the very same groups – anti-business, anti-sound science, pro-eco-hysteria – that Browner would be working arm in arm with as Obama’s “energy czar.”

This is regression we can’t afford. …”

And another one bites the dust: EPA nominee withdraws over grant fraud scrutiny/conflict of interest

By Michelle Malkin

This is beginning to get repetitious. Just in from the EPA, another Obama nominee is bailing out over scrutiny of his past:

EPA Statement on Jon Cannon
Release date: 03/25/2009

Contact Information: Betsaida Alcantara, 202-564-1692 / or Brendan Gilfillan, 202-564-2081 /

(Washington, D.C. – March 25, 2009) Jon Cannon, nominee for Deputy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, released the following statement:

“Today I am voluntarily removing my name from consideration to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. It has come to my attention that America’s Clean Water Foundation, where I once served on the board of directors, has become the subject of scrutiny. While my service on the board of that now-dissolved organization is not the subject of the scrutiny, I believe the energy and environmental challenges facing our nation are too great to delay confirmation for this position, and I do not wish to present any distraction to the agency.”

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said: “I’m disappointed that Jon Cannon will be unable to serve as Deputy Administrator, and I thank him for his many years of dedication to the EPA. The administration will move quickly to identify a new candidate who can help us carry out our mission to preserve environmental sustainability and create green jobs as we transition the nation to a clean energy economy.”

Breaking: Obama to ration oxygen

By Michelle Malkin

No, not really. But hell, why not?

This is the actual headline:

E.P.A. Expected to Regulate Carbon Dioxide

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.

The decision, which most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power.

Translation: Another billion, trillion, multiple gazillion down the drain in the name of our savior-based economy.

I can’t breathe. …”

Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 1of2 Bogus Climate Models


Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 2of2 Stratospheric Cooling


Understanding Atmospheric Oxygen: Global Carbon Dioxide

The Oceans and Global Warming


Climate Science at Scripps

Cap-and-trade like Soviet-style central planning

Global Warming – what do the numbers show.


Glaciation – Lesson 19 – Part 1 of 7

Glaciation – Lesson 19 – Part 2 of 7


Glaciation – Lesson 19 – Part 3 of 7


Glaciation – Lesson 19 – Part 4 of 7


Glaciation – Lesson 19 – Part 5 of 7


Glaciation – Lesson 19 – Part 6 of 7


Glaciation – Lesson 19 – Part 7 of 7


Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Al Gore 2.0 and The Coming Renewable Energy Ice Age–The Big Chill

Al Gore: Agent of Influence or Useful Idiot of Disinformation

Al Gore: Agent of Influence and Planetary Propeller Head!

Al Gore’s Little White Lie: Man-Made Global Warming Causing Polar Bears To Drown

Al Gore’s Big Whopper–Sea Levels Rise By 2100: Gore 20 Feet vs IPCC 2 Feet?

Barack Obama’s Socialist Green Commissar Carol Browner

Global Warming is The Greatest Hoax, Scam and Disinformation Campaign in History

Global Warming Videos

Global Warming Books

Global Warming Sites


National Center for Policy Analysis–A Global Warming Primer

Let Them Eat Cake Act: American Elites Killing and Starving The American People

ANWR: Pristine–Pristine–Pristine–Desolute–Desolute–Desolute–Drill–Drill–Drill– McCain/Romney: Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less!

McCain: Cut–Drill–Victory vs. Obama: Increase–Talk–End

2008 Presidential Choice: Leader or Diletant–McCain or Obama

Clinton’s Cap and Trade Tax on The American People for Consuming Electricity and Driving Cars, SUVs and Trucks!

Facing Fundamental Facts

Presidential Election 2008: American Elites Vs. American People

Let Them Eat Cake Act: American Elites Killing and Starving The American People

The Heidelberg Appeal: Beware of False Gods and Prophets

Going Deep–Cool–Deep Ocean Water (DOW)–Ocean Power!

Saving The World: The Importance of Getting The Priorities Right

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 37 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...