Climate news

EPA can  no longer regulate CO2 emissions from power generation plants

This is, in my view, huge! Supreme Court ruling : EPA doesn’t have power to regulate carbon dioxide. In reading the summary of the ruling, we find Chief Justice Roberts’ words …

“But the only interpretive question before us, and the only one we answer, is more narrow: whether the “best system of emission reduction” identified by EPA in the Clean Power Plan was within the authority granted to the Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. For the reasons given, the answer is no.”

It appears that EPA is a usurpatory agency – I made that word up. It also appears that Congress did not do its job, as it is the body that must do the regulation if regulation need be done. Instead it shifted that responsibility to EPA, and the final nine say that is a no-no.

In a perfect world someone would say “Show me the science” behind CO2 being a pollutant. It’s not there. But in the world of climate alarmism, science takes a back seat to propaganda and hasty generalizations. The driving forces behind climate alarmism are two, at least:

  1. The news media is under control, wall-to-wall, so that no evidence contrary to the assertions of alarmists get through; and
  2. Brute force is asserted against any who dissent from the alarmists’ statements.

Those, of course, are not hallmarks of science. But it is how propaganda is done.

I wish we had a better ruling on this matter, even as it is somewhat satisfying to see EPA scolded. I wish someone would rule that there be no further regulation or shutting down of industries and power plants until science is settled around the matter of CO2 being a danger to us and a pollutant. For now, electrical generating plants don’t have to worry about CO2 emissions. That’ll have to do.


Man with very long title has very little scientific knowledge

The above graph was once upon a time pretty much a reflection of accepted knowledge, that the 1930s were the hottest decade on record. We have plenty of anecdotal and historical evidence to that effect, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) is charged with protecting temperature records. Climate change alarmists, you see, want to alter the past, and if given access to temperature records, will change them.

Andrew Dessler, Professor, (Official Title: Director, Texas Center for Climate Studies; Reta A. Haynes Chair in Geosciences, Climate change, remote sensing, climate change policy) says that graph, which is historically accurate, “just doesn’t look right,” That’s about as much science as alarmists are capable of delivering.

Nobody knows, by the way, why the 1930s were so hot. That’s where we are at in terms of understanding climate. We know nothing of the future, and little of the past. Weather forecasts are accurate to maybe ten days out now, but look below at the work of the climate modelers who work for and around the IPCC.

Each wavy upward trending line is a climate model. The black dotted line would be the average of all of them. The green dotted line is HADCRUT4, or Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit Temperature.

Temperature data is collected monthly from surface boxes all over the globe and assembled by Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. As you can see, the HADCRUT4 temperatures are much lower than anything in thee IPCC climate models.

Spencer, of course, is a controversial figure, as he is not participating in the propaganda and hype of the climate alarmism movement. Google has demonetized his blogs.  That’s what I meant above when I said that brute force is asserted against anyone who disagrees with the alarmists.

Google is part of the propaganda system. So are most search engines, which are heavily censored, you know, just like in China.

The blue dotted line is a measurement of lower troposphere temperatures, also collected at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, though the “M” might well stand for Montgomery. That data is taken from polar orbiting satellites.  The troposphere begins at the Earth’s surface and extends as high as 12 miles at the equator, 4 miles at the poles. As you can see, that line is as flat the HADCRUT4.

Policy decisions by world governments are based, nonsensically, on climate models and not on the actual temperature data compiled by HADCRUT4 and UAM Lower Troposphere data. This is because climate change alarmism is a propaganda movement. Since it has control of all media outlets, it is the only way for ordinary people to collect information.

Even so, it seems most people are capable of sticking their heads out of their car windows and seeing that the climate is stable, affected by very slight warming as has been going on since the trough of the Little Ice Age, 1680 or so, and of course, climate variability, which alarmists always attribute to global warming. Climate change ranks very low on the list of concerns among polled Americans.

It’s a sad state of affairs, major decisions affecting all of us made by people who don’t do honest science and engage in a whole lot of lying. Stick that in your windmill and spin it.


Steve Kelly: A man who understands government agencies

And finally, this one is right up Steve Kelly’s alley. Below is a comment Steve left on another post.

State and federal agencies are funded extravagantly by state legislators and Congress to 1) put out wildfires, and 2) to ignite wildfires (“backfires,” “prescribed ” fires to improve “forest health,” burn slash piles left by timber companies, and fires lit to kill sage and juniper so privately-owned cows might have more public grass to eat). That’s one hell of a business model if you ask me.

Let me introduce you to the New Mexico Hermit’s Peak fire, labeled by Cliff Mass (The Cliff Mass Weather Blog) as “an unnecessary tragedy. “This Hermit’s Peak fire began about 30 miles east of Santa Fe and 15 miles northwest of Las Vegas, NM.  Joining another escaped fire two weeks later (the Calf Canyon Fire), the Hermit’s Peak fire has now burned 342,000  acres and destroyed over 900 structures.”

The Hermit’s Peak fire was caused by a US Forest Service controlled burn that got away from them. Climate change had nothing to do with it, but the guilty culprits who made this major boondoggle are of course blaming CC.  Due to an unusually wet summer last year, grasses grew well beyond normal, and when they dried out, created surface fuel far beyond normal. The Forest Service decided to do a controlled burn to rein in this dangerous situation.

The Forest Service report states that the key reason why the fire got away from Forest Service personnel was “variable and shifting winds.”    The truth is that such winds were clearly forecast well before the prescribed burns were initiated during the late morning of April 6. (Cliff Mass emphasis.)

Incredibly, they did not check the forecast. The incompetence is mind-boggling.

Better to blame climate change than to look in a mirror.

8 thoughts on “Climate news

  1. “They did not check the forecast. The incompetence is mind-boggling.”

    It’s not incompetence. All govt destruction, of all types, is intentional, to justify funding.


  2. I can’t remember exactly when we purchased our electric (cord) “weed eater, ” but I’m guessing 20 years ago. It’s beginning to lose power, as electric motors tend to do over time. Conveniently, just last winter, we were given a gas (oil mix) operated weed eater, which sits in our barn unused. It’s noisy and burns gas. Now, battery-operated weed eaters are all the rage. You can check out all the top brands here before you buy the latest, new thing:

    Now, I’d wager a small sum that the landfill is loaded with gas and electric weed eaters, compliments of “climate change” and fairly ordinary marketing strategies and tactics . We’ve come full circle, “back to electricity.” That’s another successful business model, which we could parse, analyze, and solve using logic and science. Bottom line: invest in landfills, it’s where all this “smart” stuff will eventually end up. If business, and especially banks, when looking at the business hierarchy, “owns/captures” government agencies, Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court, well then it is hardly “incompetence” driving this train. “It’s a big club,” as George Carlin used to say, “and you ain’t in it.” I’d say it’s a cult that worships money — the God of Mammon.


    1. I’d say it is us who worships money. They are the money. We worship them. I don’t really get it why suddenly there are all kinds of battery driven machines. There is no new technology inside. It’s the same batteries as always. They may work a little longer and lose less of their capacity but it’s still the same chemistry behind it. And they get used up the same way as always. After few years all the batteries can’t be used anymore, can’t be repaired and have to be replaced.
      Electric motors don’t lose power Steve. The moving parts can get used up, but other than that, an electric motor is supposed to work the same way as long as the laws of nature don’t change. It’s actually a very fascinating topic. Electricity is a free energy available everywhere. You just need to move two coils against each other and it will create electrical current. Everywhere in the world.
      As for climate change: did anyone heard about the hydrotrioxids (in connection with chemtrails)?


      1. Yes, electricity is free, you just need to move two coils against each other.
        Too bad moving the coils is not.


        1. I remember my 7-years older brother discussing electricity at our dinner time once, when I was maybe 11 or 12. He said that the only way we would ever be allowed to have electricity is if someone got paid for it. It may be free in theory, but in reality it is a controlled commodity.


  3. Electricity is free because it is everywhere and just needs to be taken, converted, used.
    If you can’t make electricity yourself due to lack of a power generator, you have to pay somebody who will do it for you. Power generators need some maintenance of course too, but that is not the point. The point is, the electricity is there, in the middle of Sahara as in the middle of the ocean.
    In comparison to fire: fire is not free, you need something to burn. And once you’ve burned it, it is gone. Changed into something else of course, since nothing is really gone in the universe.
    You can reasonably claim that once the last drop of fuel is burned all the cars become useless. Even though we can’t really say, when this will happen or if ever. This kind of claim does not apply for electricity.
    If you buy yourself a wind turbine or some photovoltaic panels, after some time, they will create enough electricity to pay for themselves and after this you’ll get economically “free” electricity.


    1. Electricity as a force may be “free”; possible to generate from Gaia’s forces herself (Tesla coils, saline batteries), but it is a question of efficiency and quantity.

      Small electric currents is one thing, but running even a modest household on “free” electricity…? Build a working prototype and I am all ears. I have heard enough Musky carnies claiming all kinds of stuff without backing it up.

      You can reasonably claim that once the last drop of fuel is burned all the cars become useless. Even though we can’t really say, when this will happen or if ever. This kind of claim does not apply for electricity.

      You can claim that but that is not how natural resources work. It is not that “we run out of fossil fuels”, there are enough around. If the apocalypse happens, people start burning bogs again, like the Dutch and northern Germans survived for ages.

      It is a question of economic value. And there the fake oil price comes in.

      Consider this:

      how can 1 barrel, 159 liters, 42 gallons of a product that takes a very very long time to form have been just a handful of dollars (early Coronacaust)

      while a bottle of replenishable (infinite with proper ecologic managament) spring water (theoretically also just packaging a natural resource) costs many multiples of that, here you get a 600 ml (20 fl oz.) bottle of water (not spring, but ok) for 2000 COP, so $0,50 USD, so 265 USD a barrel !

      Which confirms what I said always tongue-in-cheek ; the only oil price that would make sense is that it is more expensive than beer (then I still drank), but water at minimum. Producing that barrel of crude oil COSTS a lot of water already….

      But you said fuel, so not the crude product.

      And there you have a point ; a combustion engine runs little without fuel. But that fuel can be vegetable oil also nowadays and in old diesels, so do we really depend on Big Oil?

      And I agree with you that in this transformation enforced on us; electrification, no more oil, that narrative, there is a huge benefit for US, the ones who try to get away from that Building of the Beast.

      Indeed, with proper solar panel managements (forget wind turbines, they are way too expensive, invasive and maintenance is insane) we can build our own energy farms and even possibly create a network of it, alternatively. Small scale upscaled initiatives are key.

      But if you sit back and wait, the dependency on The Net, will be much MORE with electricity. Because you need to tap into a grid, and that grid is owned by the Animal Farmers…. so you are less free if you are a New Normie, but you are more free if you shift into independency.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s