Supreme Court Limits EPA Authority In Regulation Of Greenhouse Gases

scalia220px-AlfedPalmersmokestacksAssociate Justice Antonin Scalia eked out a victory against the Environmental Protection Agency in a 5-4 opinion today limiting the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases. However, the decision however does not prevent the EPA from using other means to regulate the pollutants linked to global warming. Specifically the vote means that the Clean Air Act does not allow for the EPA require a point source to obtain a PSD or Title 5 permit. The vote was a straight ideological division with Justice Anthony Kennedy joining his conservative colleagues in the majority. The majority held that “A brief review of the relevant statutory provisions leaves no doubt that the PSD program and Title V are designed to apply to, and cannot rationally be extended beyond, a relative handful of large sources capable of shouldering heavy substantive and procedural burdens.” Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency is the lead case of six cases on the regulation of greenhouse gases.


The decision reverses part of the 2012 opinion supporting the authority of the EPA on requiring permits for some industries. However, the difference may be quite small. The EPA interpretation allows the agency to reach some eighty-six percent of the targeted industrial sources while other means would still allow it to reach eighty-three percent.

As we discussed earlier, the Supreme Court ruled previously that EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases as a threat to human health and to the environment. The EPA proceeded in June 2010 to deal with pollution from cars and trucks (“mobile sources”) and then larger, stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions. That latter move prompted a determined challenge from the all-powerful utility and energy industries both in Congress and the courts. The case saw a division of states, with California and New York supporting the administration. Scalia held that the D.C. Circuit failed to make a finer distinction between pollutants:

The Court of Appeals reasoned by way of a flawed syllogism: Under Massachusetts, the general, Act-wide definition of “air pollutant” includes greenhouse gases; the Act requires permits for major emitters of “any air pollutant”;therefore, the Act requires permits for major emitters of greenhouse gases. The conclusion follows from the premises only if the air pollutants referred to in the permit requiring provisions (the minor premise) are the same air pollutants encompassed by the Act-wide definition as interpreted in Massachusetts (the major premise). Yet no one—least of all EPA—endorses that proposition, and it is obviously untenable.

The Act-wide definition says that an air pollutant is“any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, [or] radioactive . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.” §7602(g). In Massachusetts, the Court held that the Act-wide definition includes greenhouse gases because it is all-encompassing; it “embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe.” 549 U. S., at 529. But where the term “air pollutant” appearsin the Act’s operative provisions, EPA has routinely given it a narrower, context-appropriate meaning.

Recall that in April, the Court handed a big victory to the Administration in another case in upholding the regulation over 28 states in the Midwest and South to reduce ozone and fine particle emissions that flow north and east into other states.

The Court closed the door on PSD and Title V but left another open:

To sum up: We hold that EPA exceeded its statutory authority when it interpreted the Clean Air Act to require PSD and Title V permitting for stationary sources based on their greenhouse-gas emissions. Specifically, the Agency may not treat greenhouse gases as a pollutant for purposes of defining a “major emitting facility” (or a “modification” thereof) in the PSD context or a “major source” inthe Title V context. To the extent its regulations purport to do so, they are invalid. EPA may, however, continue to treat greenhouse gases as a “pollutant subject to regulation under this chapter” for purposes of requiring BACT for “anyway” sources. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Here is the opinion.

145 thoughts on “Supreme Court Limits EPA Authority In Regulation Of Greenhouse Gases

  1. Ahh, I am looking forward to the days when we will look back and laugh about the times when a sophisticated and ingenious campaign was able to convince us that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant”. It will be like us looking back now at the folks in the Middle Ages who thought taking a bath makes you sick.

  2. Svoogle, I hope your are correct. Phrenology was accepted science, as was blood letting, for decades!

  3. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia eked out a victory.

    Well-put.

    With the court dominated by corporate hacks, the case was merely a game between the corporations and the EPA. Rigged in advance.

    The supreme court generally no longer functions as a balance of power. Indeed, so much for any balance of power…it’s essentially corporate power- all branches of “our” government- vs the public.

  4. Nick, I suggest you just take Dennis Millers advice on the global warming debate and just say, “Yes, I believe in man made global warming, it is the most important issue we face as a human race”. There is no sense in arguing the religion of global warming.

  5. Dredd – when so-called scientists don’t follow the scientific method or allow their work to be examined by others freely, then they are open to ridicule and disdain.

  6. I now know why the Flat Earthers, including the Supreme Five, are called “crazy” rather than “manic”:

    I distinguish between maniacs and crazy people. A maniac will beat nine people to death with a steel dildo. A crazy person will beat nine people to death with a steel dildo, but he’ll be wearing a Bugs Bunny suit at the time.” – Carlin

  7. Schulte: “when so-called scientists don’t follow the scientific method or allow their work to be examined by others freely”

    The follow the method and they allow their work to be examined. It’s called peer review. You’re lying.

    And if you don’t think it’s real, why not bet? Afraid to put your money where your mouth is?

  8. Dredd, because science is eeeevil, to Oil Qaeda. It behooves them to keep the flat earthers believing in the religion of Black Gold and SUVs. Never mind their grandchildren that they always cry about when it comes to the deficit. Who cares about the deficit when there won’t be enough dry land to keep the earth’s humans on? Who cares about farm produce, honey bees, just learn to love seaweed, or blue green algae.

  9. Jim22: “There is no sense in arguing the religion of global warming.”

    Religion cannot prove the existence of God. Science can prove the existence of global warming.

    If you don’t think so, why not bet? What are you guys afraid of? That you’re as wrong about this as you were about Iraq?

  10. Scott, these same folks tend to want to go back into Iraq with guns blazing, and ya know the Russian Bear is restless! Never met a war they didn’t lust over.

  11. Jim22: “It’s nice to see the EPA get pushed back even if it is just a little.”

    Where do you get off asserting a right to spoil the commons? Can you people not get rich without cost-shifting your negative externalities onto the rest of us?

  12. Yeah, Annie, I saw Dicky Cheney blathering on… not wanting to talk about 10 or 12 years ago… Odd, that. I’d think he’d be all for defending his BS.

    Authoritarians gotta get their war on. And their torture.

  13. Michael Mann refuses to allow his data to be released. He just survived another law suit trying to pry the data in the public. The peer-review process in paleoclimatology is a joke as is the editing of the IPCC report.

  14. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – when so-called scientists don’t follow the scientific method or allow their work to be examined by others freely …
    ==========================
    It is how you decide “when” that is the problem.

    The laws of when:

    The First Law of ‘When’: the more critical an issue is to the future of our civilization, the difficulty of determining when that critical issue will take effect tends to increase exponentially.

    The Second Law of ‘When’: the greater the amount of time it takes for that critical issue to play out completely tends to exponentially diminish Civilization’s grasp of that critical issue.

    The Third Law of ‘When’: the more destructive the impact which that critical issue would have on civilization tends to exponentially increase the time when that critical event will be understood to have begun to take place.” – Dredd

    (Quotes).

  15. Annie, Democrats have been more than obliged to play stooge for the military-industrial complex. Note that your preferred candidate Hillary (from previous comments) voted for Iraq (1), has supported arming rebels in Libya and Syria, which is now coming full circle.

    Pretending that an “us vs. them ” exists between democrats and republicans seems a bit silly. The only person/group that has consistently stayed on point about staying out of needless wars and foreign conflicts unrelated to US interests have been libertarians (Paul).

  16. Paul C. Schulte

    Michael Mann refuses to allow his data to be released. He just survived another law suit trying to pry the data in the public. The peer-review process in paleoclimatology is a joke as is the editing of the IPCC report.
    ===============
    Translation: “Michael Mann is ‘all scientists’, except ‘the three true scientists’ (Larry, Curley, and Moe) who work for and are paid by Koch Bothers.”

    That is only true if you say it while wearing a Bugs Bunny suit while praying Frisbee mantras.

    Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.” – Carlin

  17. troy: “The only person/group that has consistently stayed on point about staying out of needless wars and foreign conflicts unrelated to US interests have been libertarians”

    Bull. Like so many Glibertarians, you find the existence of progressive, anti-war Democrats problematic, so you ignore them.

    And while we’re at it… show me Rand Paul being against the Iraq war before we went in….

  18. troy

    …The only person/group that has consistently stayed on point about staying out of needless wars and foreign conflicts unrelated to US interests have been libertarians (Paul).
    ====================
    That is utterly false.

    Paul is a republican last time Bugs Bunny checked.

    They are leaders in the war on the Earth (global warming pollution supporters), which is a war against all people everywhere.

  19. Paleoclimatology is a very small, very incestual field. They all peer-review each others stuff. Anyone who counters them is driven from the publishing game. We found this out from the released emails between Michael Mann and his band of merry hoaxers.

  20. Well, if you are so proud of it, prove it. Koch Bros are offering money for people to actually prove it.

  21. Paul C. Schulte.

    Your errors concerning Michael Mann are informative.

    RE: the law, the facts, and Michael Mann:

    Back in 2012, after the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Review each published pieces that likened climate scientist Michael Mann to a child molester and called his work a fraud, Mann fought back with a lawsuit, charging them with libel. Now, in a preliminary ruling, a Superior Court Judge has sided with Mann, paving the way for the case to move forward and potentially setting an important precedent about the limits of disinformation.

    The ruling, in essence, reinforces the wise adage attributed to former New York Sen. Patrick Moynihan that, while everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, we are not each entitled to our own facts.

    (Live Science). I am glad that Michael Mann sued the bastids.

  22. The Koch brothers are not offering money to anyone who can prove it. It has been proven. If you don’t think so, bet on it.

    What the Koch boys are doing is public relations. This guy I linked to is offering 10k to anyone who can use the scientific method to prove it isn’t happening.

    So, step up.

  23. Paul C. Schulte

    Paleoclimatology is a very small, very incestual field …
    ====================
    Yep.

    You, Larry, Curley, and Moe Scientists Innernachural.

  24. Troy, I’ve haven’t stated my preferred candidate is Hillary Clinton, I’ve been saying it’s Elizabeth Warren.

  25. Dredd, what really pissed Pat Michaels off about his bet with me is that he’d already agreed to the bet before he learned my charity (to whom the loser will send $250) is the Climate Scientists Legal Defense Fund.

  26. Annie, Troy is suffering from the same problem as all Glibertarians: progressive blindness syndrome. They hate Democrats so much that it’s hard for them to admit that there’s a huge block of Democrats who don’t vote for war, who voted against renewing the Patriot Act (70% of Dems did, only 14% of Republicans did), and who voted to keep the DEA out of state medicinal marijuana programs (91% of Democrats in the house voted for that bill, only 22% of Republicans did).

  27. Before they took Intrade away, I was betting on global warming there (GISS temps). I’d bet the monthly anomalies, the annuals, and even some in the long term bets, like 2019 to be warmer than 2009… There’s a lot of noise in the monthly anomalies, of course, but they were fun to bet if you had a system. The “over 0.75 anomaly” for each month was selling at about $0.25 a share ($10 pay off), and I’d always buy a few more every month at that price as the long shot.

    Last month was a 0.76.

    There were guys in there who were swearing we’d never see a 0.76. They would bet $9.75 to win a quarter they were so sure.

    Oh how I miss Intrade.

  28. If I were some people here, and I am not, I would stop the libel of Michael Mann and get real:

    Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice [by journalists], they are actionable. Viewing the allegations of the amended complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a reasonable finder of fact is likely to find in favor of the plaintiff on each of Counts I-VI, including the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress alleged in Count VI as to both sets of defendants.

    (Michael Mann, Phd. vs The National Review, et. al.).

  29. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – ad hominem attack.
    =====================
    Yes, your Michael Mann attack is not only ad hominem, it is defamatory and actionable.

    My pointing it out is for your benefit.

  30. They show their work, Schulte. Mann is not the only climate scientist. You can smear the source all you want (genetic fallacy again–you sure do love that one) but you’re not arguing the facts.

    CO2 traps heat. It’s a fact. We’re over 400ppm again last month.

    I will bet on future high temps. How about you?

  31. A final word on libel per se in Michael Mann, Phd. v The National Review, et.al. and those here not yet wised up:

    Id. at 1233. The statement “he has molested and tortured data” could easily be interpreted to mean that the plaintiff distorted, manipulated, or misrepresented his data. Certainly the statement is capable of a defamatory meaning, which means the questions of whether it was false and made with “actual malice” are questions of fact for the jury. 7 A reasonable reader, both within and outside the scientific community, would understand that a scientist who molests or tortures his data is acting far outside the bounds of any acceptable scientific method. In context, it would not be unreasonable for a reader to interpret the comment, and the republication in In Count VII, plaintiff alleges that CEI published, and National Review republished, the following defamatory statement: “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and
    planet.” The allegedly defamatory aspect of this sentence is the statement that plaintiff “molested and tortured data,” not the rhetorically hyperbolic comparison to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky. 6 To “molest” means “to annoy, disturb, or persecute esp. with hostile intent or injurious effect.” Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 741 (1977). To “torture” means
    “to twist or wrench out of shape”; and to “distor[t] or overrefin[e] a meaning or an argument.”

    National Review, as an allegation that Dr. Mann had committed scientific fraud, which Penn State University then covered up, just as some had accused the University of covering up the Sandusky scandal. For many of the reasons discussed in Judge Combs Greene’s July 19 orders, to state as a fact that a scientist dishonestly molests or tortures data to serve a political agenda
    would have a strong likelihood of damaging his reputation within his profession, which is the very essence of defamation. See Payne v. Clark, 25 A.3d 918, 924 (D.C. 2011) (citing Clawson v. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, LLC, 906 A.2d 308, 313 (D.C. 2006)). Viewing the alleged facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as the court must on a motion to dismiss, a reasonable jury is likely to find the statement that Dr. Mann “molested and tortured data” was false, was published with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, and is actionable as a matter of law irrespective of special harm.

    Just Sayin’ … zip it.

  32. Scott Supak

    Dredd, what really pissed Pat Michaels off about his bet with me is that he’d already agreed to the bet before he learned my charity (to whom the loser will send $250) is the Climate Scientists Legal Defense Fund.
    ===========
    Excellent.

  33. Paul, You fell for their trap, there is no sense in arguing with anyone here. They drank the kool Aid. You would be better off beating your head against a tree. Waite better not use a tree, the EPA might fine you.

  34. Jim22 – Michael Mann is being counter- sued for $10 million because he lost a suit, actually failed to defend it, in Canada. It really puts him at risk here since he was required to show the metadata behind the ‘hockey stick’ and he failed to appear to show the data. In fact he was defending a suit at his old employer to hid the data.

  35. The right wing obsession with Kool Aid fascinates me. But their obsession with incest is troubling considering how limited their gene pool is already.

    Forget the global warming, Jim, I want to know where you get off thinking you can cost-shift ANY negative externality onto the rest of us.

    Now, back to the warming… How much will you bet?

  36. Dredd – by the time National Review gets done with him he won’t have the money to prosecute the suit much less sue me. Saying that he hides his data is the truth. The defense to either libel or slander is ‘the truth.”

  37. Paul C. Schulte

    An update on the Michael Mann suits.


    =============================
    That idiot John “John Boy” O’Sullivan says there was “Massive counterclaims, in excess of $10 million … by Mark Steyn.”

    Steyn isn’t even a defendant in the case, so he can’t file a counter claim.

  38. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – by the time National Review gets done with him he won’t have the money to prosecute the suit much less sue me. Saying that he hides his data is the truth. The defense to either libel or slander is ‘the truth.”
    ================
    In every so called defense, the jury decides the truth.

    The National Review already apologized and will settle with Michael Mann, Phd. or the jury will settle with them.

    The court clearly said “a reasonable finder of fact is likely to find in favor of the plaintiff on each of Counts I-VI, including the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress alleged in Count VI” and went on to say the same about Count VII.

    Your position is not tenable as a matter of the law of the case at this point.

    So, you are with the Frisbeetarians on this one.

  39. Scott, Cost shifting happens all over the place. Do you eat bacon? Do you play sports? Do you go to see others play sports? Do you have a gym membership? Just because you hate business, doesn’t mean that they are all corrupt.

    As for the gene pool, what are we 2? Well your ugly, so there.

  40. I don’t hate business, so why are you lying about me? I’m willing to pay for the costs of what I use. I don’t want to shift the costs of anything onto anyone else.

    You do.

    What gives you that right?

  41. Always funny how shrill ecologists get when their dogma is questioned. Also funny to see how religion keeps operating based on the same principles. Apocalypticism has been around forever, and it always works for the high priests as a way to control the masses. Sad, actually!

    To the ecologists: yes, CO2 traps heat. Yes, humans contribute to that factor. This is one of the few things we understand about climate. The hundreds of other factors which we do not fully understand, or are not even aware of, are what constitutes omitted variable bias in all those “sophisticated” computer models that are now the new Bible. So excuse me for not wanting to halt economic progress in the world based on your paranoia driven assumptions.

  42. Svoogle: “halt economic progress ”

    Complete BS. No one wants to halt progress. Even Laffer is willing to trade a carbon tax for a lower corporate tax.

  43. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – Steyn is a defendant in the suit.
    =============================
    You are correct.

    I am starting a series on the case, so I looked closer and I stand corrected on that issue.

    I will say that Steyn made a mistake of the “me thinks thou protest too loudly” sort.

    Anyway, thanks for the correction.

    I will follow this case very closely on my blog.

  44. I don’t bet because people on here do not pay their debts. Someone, who shall remain nameless, owes me $1000 for a bet they lost.

  45. Too bad that 25 years from now, when we’ve melted the arctic and millions are dying and billions are being wasted trying to fix the damage, none of you guys will be man enough to apologize and admit you were wrong.

    Anyone wants to bet, you know how to contact me. I won’t hold my breath.

  46. Oh, good…. as my house goes under water, from rising oceans, in South Florida, I’ll gasp out Scuuzzillia’s name as I drown………. In the mean time, though, I’ll just pray that the Juicetice Scalia gets struck by a bolt of lightening from a summer storm.

  47. Christopher Booker of The Telegraph reported on 6/21/14 that NOAA “fiddled”[lied] about 20th century data and the US has been cooling since the 1930’s. Lies, liars, and thieves, taking our taxes and giving it to billionaires for green energy.

  48. Obviously the alarmists never heard the Chicken Little “the sky is falling” story in grammar school.

  49. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – Steyn is a defendant in the suit.
    ========================
    Why is he appearing pro se in a case like this?

    Is he a lawyer or does he have a JD?

  50. Scott, It’s a stupid bet. What’s the time frame? Who’s data do we get to use? How will we prove it one way or the other? How will we know it wasn’t natural causes either way? Again, it is a stupid bet and just throwing it out there doesn’t make your junk science any more factual.

    I’m sure if you look at your life you do shift the costs of something in it.

  51. Hey, SPINELLI! You want to bet or not? The deniers prefer the HadCRUTx datasets. That’s what Michaels and I bet on:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/09/pat-michaels-bets-on-25-years-of-no-warming/

    There’s the link AGAIN, Jim22… since you apparently didn’t read the comment where I AGAIN posted the link.

    “How will we know it wasn’t natural causes either way?”

    The bet is whether it’s getting warmer, not why.

    But if you’re interested in the why, CO2 levels now at 400ppm, a level we haven’t seen in a good long time, and it’s all because of us releasing all that stored carbon, ie, cost shifting negative externalities, as usual, on those who can least afford it.

  52. Spinelli, Christopher Booker is a joke. But I’ll go for the meat of the issue (it’s not the genetic fallacy to point out that someone has a horrible track record on a issue):

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

    > Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models.

    Computer models don’t “fabricate.” They extrapolate. GISS temp does the same thing out over the poles where we don’t have instruments.

    SO, if you don’t like those data sets, let’s use HadCRUT4. OK? Ready to bet now?

    Funny how you guys love science when it’s pushing a drag racer, but hate it when the idea of a carbon tax (even if it’s traded for a lower corporate tax as Laffer proposes) scares the hell out of you.

    If only you’d been so skeptical before we were lied into Iraq.

  53. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – you are always allowed to defend yourself. You do not need an LLM or JD.
    ===================
    Yes.

    But he had lawyers as did the national review until they lost and now fact a jury (“The National Review changed its lawyers, and Steyn decided to represent himself in court. If the court declines further appeal, the case will move to discovery“).

    That is an indication that they cannot get along with lawyers who “lose on their behalf” which is indicative of hubris and ignorance.

    Their lawyers did not libel Michael Mann, Phd., those luddite libertards did.

    IMO, they are in for a sound thrashing if they continue to double down.

  54. Schulte, who once copied and pasted from Wikipedia, a source he disparages, without citing it, now steals from Annie again:

    Supak – HO HUM HO HUM

    Just to be clear, this is a “ho hum” to the damage the planet and it’s people will suffer because of Schulte’s greed and cost-shifting.

  55. I notice that the lawyer (David Rivkin) for the national review wrote the torture memos and believes a president can do just about anything.

  56. Paul C. Schulte

    Dredd – by the time National Review gets done with him he won’t have the money to prosecute the suit much less sue me. Saying that he hides his data is the truth. The defense to either libel or slander is ‘the truth.”
    ===========================
    I notice that Michael Mann, Phd. has now filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim of Steyn.

    Mann’s lawyers ask for costs per the D.C. SLAPP law.

    Will Steyn re-hire his lawyers?

  57. Dredd – have no idea what is going to happen. Much has changed since the end of the U. Va case, the Canada case, etc. There is some thought that the judge clearly overstepped, but that appeals do cost money.

  58. Scott, why would I bet on something that I don’t believe we have any control of either way? Climate changes, it might get warmer, it might get cooler. Saying put up or shut up doesn’t win you an argument. I also don’t believe I am cost shifting any more than you do. You just pretend to think that all of your actions are neutral.

  59. Paul, Have you ever seen the hurricane prediction paths that the computer models make? You might as well just throw a dart at the map. I use CFD flow modeling software for work. Nothing nearly as complicated variable wise as Earth and there isn’t an engineer in our facility that will bet their job on the results being the same as the real world. We use the models to push us in a particular direction in our design process. But the real world always throws you a curve.

  60. The Middle East is exploding but John Kerry is doing his Fat Al Gore lying act. John “Man Up” Kerry felt compelled to pull a number out of his ass. He said “99% of our countries scientists believe in climate change.” LOL if it wasn’t so idiotic.

  61. Jim: “You just pretend to think that all of your actions are neutral.”

    Wrong again. I’m willing to pay what my energy actually costs (half my power comes from Niagra).

    “why would I bet on something that I don’t believe we have any control of either way?”

    Since you’re not denying that the planet is getting warmer, then I guess you don’t want to bet then.

    “hurricane prediction paths”

    Weather is not the same as climate.

    CO2 traps heat. Add more CO2, get more heat. This is basic. Volcanoes might cool us off occasionally, other things might make small differences, but the basic physics remains: CO2 traps heat.

    And the idea that making people pay the true cost of carbon will ruin the economy is complete crap.

  62. Paul C. Schulte

    YOU: “Dredd – by the time National Review gets done with him he won’t have the money to prosecute the suit much less sue me. Saying that he hides his data is the truth. The defense to either libel or slander is ‘the truth.”
    —————
    ME: “I notice that Michael Mann, Phd. has now filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim of Steyn.

    Mann’s lawyers ask for costs per the D.C. SLAPP law.

    Will Steyn re-hire his lawyers?”
    —————
    YOU: “… have no idea what is going to happen. Much has changed since the end of the U. Va case, the Canada case, etc. There is some thought that the judge clearly overstepped, but that appeals do cost money.”
    ====================
    He is digging a deeper grave for himself, filing a tirade against the court and judge, to wit:

    Shortly before this Court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaint, Steyn filed a motion to vacate the Court’s July 19 orders — which was nothing other than an extended diatribe against this Court, accusing it of “improper”, “grotesque”, and “zombie-like” behavior.

    (Mann’s Motion to dismiss Counterclaim, and for sanctions). Not a good sign for Steyn.

    The National Review lawyers are being subverted by Steyn and he has no clue about what he is doing to all of the defendants.

    Can you imagine the cross-exam before the judge and jury … “Ok Mr. Steyn, how was the judge “zombie-like” and “grotesque”?

    This Steyn is a slander mouthed fool who is going down in his own fire.

  63. Spinelli:

    “The Middle East is exploding”

    What a joke. If this is exploding, then it was nuclear while the cod-pieced draft dodger Bush was shocking and awing the place.

    Idiotic?

    “99% of our countries scientists believe in climate change.”

    Of the 13950 peer-reviewed scientific articles on global warming between 1991 and 2012, 24 rejected global warming.

    That’s more than 99%

    http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

  64. Jim22

    Paul, Have you ever seen the hurricane prediction paths that the computer models make?

    ===================================
    They predicted exactly where Sandy would hit when it was a hundreds of miles away.

    Wanna bet you can beat them?

    You see a swirling, spinning monster in the ocean, and you can tell where it will hit better than those models?

    Nutcase rising.

    The computer models are incredibly accurate compared to human guesswork dood.

  65. Dredd: “This Steyn is a slander mouthed fool who is going down in his own fire.”

    Yeah, unfortunately he and his ilk are going to take the rest of us down with them.

    Still no bets I see… I guess the argument has shifted… Now we’re going to get warmer, but it’s not the CO2…

    What a joke. I sure do miss Intrade. Nothing sweeter than taking money from science deniers and poll unskewers.

  66. Heh… Dredd… “The computer models are incredibly accurate compared to human guesswork dood.”

    What’s really funny is that weather forecasting has actually gotten much better, and, of course, the Europeans (who are much less anti-science than we are) are much better at it…

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130307-weather-snowstorm-wrong-forecast-meteorology-world-europe-science/

    > Can you give an example of the European model outperforming U.S. models?

    > I could give you lots of them. The most famous was Hurricane Sandy. The European Centre predicted that the storm would swing toward the East Coast two days before the American model predicted it. That’s a pretty significant difference.

  67. Scott, Yes, I know that hurricanes are weather. But if a model can’t even predict the path of of one, why would you think any model would have any worth predicting a larger variable set over a longer time period?

    Yes, CO2 traps heat in a closed system. But you gloss over the many Earth systems that interact with CO2. Add in solar variations, along with cyclical ocean currents and how they mess with temperatures and you get a very complex system.

    I will say it again, I doubt very much that you pay your true costs to society.

  68. Meanwhile, we’ve got coastal states like NC passing laws that forbid scientists from doing their jobs.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/north-carolina-sea-level-rises-desipte-senators/

    > Could nature be mocking North Carolina’s law-makers? Less than two weeks after the state’s senate passed a bill banning state agencies from reporting that sea-level rise is accelerating, research has shown that the coast between North Carolina and Massachusetts is experiencing the fastest sea-level rise in the world.

    But you know, Scientific American. What does that old rag know about science?

  69. Scott Supak

    Paul went from “The National Review is going to bankrupt Mann” to “I don’t know what is going to happen” (paraphrased).

    Here is a link to Mann’s Motion To Dismiss Steyn’s counterclaim (PDF).

  70. Jim keeps lying: ” But if a model can’t even predict the path of of one”

    I just posted a link that shows that not only did the US computers accurately predict the path, but the European computers did it days before ours.

    “But you gloss over the many Earth systems that interact with CO2. ”

    Another lie. I specifically mentioned that other aspects of the planet have effects. Problem is, the more CO2 we pour into the air, the smaller those effects will be compared to the warming.

    Futher, I provided a link above that shows that the actual measurements have been right in line with model predictions.

    “I doubt very much that you pay your true costs to society.”

    None of us do. That’s the whole point. As for your other lies, all the answers are here:

    http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    I’m sick of arguing about it. That’s why I say let’s bet. I’m sure of what’s going to happen. You’re not. So, just run along then if you don’t have some money to put on it.

  71. Dredd: “Paul went from “The National Review is going to bankrupt Mann” to “I don’t know what is going to happen” ”

    So typical…

    http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html

    “…bull[$#|T]ters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. Frankfurt concludes that although bull[$#|T] can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner’s capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not. Liars at least acknowledge that it matters what is true. By virtue of this, Frankfurt writes, bull[$#|T] is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.”

  72. OK, so it only renders you tube videos? Whatever… Click through to see that the models have actually been pretty good. Not that facts matter in a post truth world.

  73. Dredd, I never said I could predict the path better than the models. But nice personal attack anyway. It’s not all that impressive that they could tell us where Sandy was going once it was a well established storm. Hurricane path predictions more then a 2 day period are more of a guess than anything else. I don’t remember them telling us that Irene was going to turn left and go up the Hudson Valley.

  74. And Jim ignores the person posting that which he cannot argue…

    Here you go AGAIN, Jim…

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130307-weather-snowstorm-wrong-forecast-meteorology-world-europe-science/

    > Can you give an example of the European model outperforming U.S. models?

    > I could give you lots of them. The most famous was Hurricane Sandy. The European Centre predicted that the storm would swing toward the East Coast two days before the American model predicted it. That’s a pretty significant difference.

  75. Scott, I’m not interested in arguing it either. That is why on my first post I said it’s not worth it since you have drank the Kool Aid. There’s nothing I could do or show you to change you mind. Enjoy your religions “End of the world” hysteria. I’m out.

  76. “Kool Aid”

    GO to the link above. Look at the charts that show the agreement between predictions and observations. That’s not Kool Aid. That’s good science.

    I’m guessing you think evolution is Kool Aid too?

  77. the real climate article basically agrees the models are wrong but makes excuses and thinks it will catch up with itself later. It is a rationalization for keeping the climate change models the way they are.

  78. This is how conservatives argue:

    ““End of the world” hysteria”

    Who said anything about the end of the world? The world will still be here. So will we. But the costs, in lives and treasure, will be enormous.

    You know why? Because, as TWO conservatives here have both agreed (with physics), CO2 traps heat.

    What are we doing? Adding more CO2.

    What does that mean? More heat.

    We’re already seeing it. Hottest May ever. Pick your temp record. Use HadCRUT if you want, since there’s no extrapolation. They all show the same thing.

    MORE HEAT.

    Just as predicted.

    But, hey, Yellowstone could blow tomorrow, and that would mean LOTS of cooling.

    So, I wonder… when did the word “conservative” start to mean “we’ll blow trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives on Dick Cheney’s lies, but your carbon tax–even if traded for a lower corporate rate–will have to be pried from our hot, moldy, damp dead hands”?

  79. “the real climate article basically agrees the models are wrong”

    Face palm. I’m thinking science isn’t your strong suit, Schulte? Do you deny evolution?

    Models make predictions with confidence levels:

    What part of that says they got it wrong?

    What it says is that they were right, but the actual temps have been slightly lower than expected.

    Nice try.

    Several new papers have shown that the heat is going into the oceans. Years ago, the models didn’t take into account how much heat is going into the oceans.

    And now that there’s a lot less ice up top to reflect the heat back, and a lot more dark water that absorbs it, it’s going to get worse.

    And the Tundra melts and releases methane, and it gets worse.

    And the land ice on Antarctic is sliding faster, and it gets worse.

    But you were willing to blow trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives on Iraq–borrowed money no less… So why on earth would I think you can think at all?

  80. If Yellowstone blows we are talking nuclear winter for several winters and the destruction of much of the West.

  81. Here is AZ we are expecting a wet summer. And probably a wet winter, so our temperatures will be down.

  82. Scott,

    Ok. You didn’t like the triple turbo diesel car prize. How about a free trip to China? FYI, don’t bad mouth them over there. They arrest guys like you. Want to bet?

  83. “If Yellowstone blows we are talking nuclear winter for several winters and the destruction of much of the West.”

    You don’t get it, do you? Your only hope for a cooler world is a super volcano that would cause a mass extinction event.

    Do you openly hope for that while riding the dinosaur at the creationism theme park?

    “Here is AZ we are expecting a wet summer. And probably a wet winter, so our temperatures will be down.”

    What does that have to do with anything?

    But for the record, I’ll bet your rainfall is below normal. I’ll make that same bet for the next 20 years at slightly increased amounts wagered each year.

  84. As for racing, I’m a big fan. More of a formula one guy. Used to drive the fuel truck for a classic car racer across Baha. Lots of fun.

    I know that we’ve gotten many of our fuel economy and safety ideas from racing.

    All fossil fuel is solar power. Why not just go with the cleaner version? After all, even if you don’t believe in evolution, er, global warming, there’s lots of other things we spew into the commons that kill thousands every year…

    Here’s the future:

    http://www.nedra.com/

    National Electric Drag Racing Association

  85. I have never seen anyone so desperate to make a bet. You are also incapable of making a comment without a personal attack.

  86. “You are also incapable of making a comment without a personal attack.”

    What attack? I honestly want to know if you have ever denied climate science while riding the dinosaur at the creationism museum.

    Your denial of the facts will lead to much death and destruction, and I’m supposed to be nice to you? The problem I have with liberals is that too many of us have been pushovers for you hippie punchers for too long. Time more of us took a stand, like I did many times against your little war in the Middle East.

    You know, when I was physically assaulted by authoritarians like you for being against borrowing trillions and killing hundreds of thousands because you were all to eager to show how right you were about what? WMD? Ties to Al Qaeda?

    What did all those people die for?

    http://aattp.org/absolutely-nothing-a-veterans-savage-indictment-of-the-iraq-war/

    What will all those future people die for?

    So you can save a few pennies here and there by cost shifting your negative externalities onto those who can least afford to pay for them?

  87. “I have never seen anyone so desperate to make a bet. ”

    Who’s desperate? I’m always willing to make that bet, and I’m certainly not desperate. The desperation is coming from those whose arguments are shown wrong time and time again, who can only weasel around with whiny words about why they’re not willing to put their money where their mouths are.

  88. Jim22

    Dredd … It’s not all that impressive that they could tell us where Sandy was going once it was a well established storm. Hurricane path predictions more then a 2 day period are more of a guess than anything else.

    ============================
    For you it is a guess.

    They predicted exactly where Sandy would turn west from its north heading and make landfall in New Jersey.

    Your argument is bogus because you do not understand the software involved and have a bias.

  89. Jim22

    Yes, I believe in man made global warming, it is the most important issue we face as a human race
    ===================
    Good for you!

    Just remember that the software is composed of modules written by several different developers, both in the US and in Europe.

    The Weather people use them all and give them a weighted average based on past performance.

    The individual algorithms do not predict the same path, but together with the weighed historical averages, they save many, many lives of those who heed the warnings.

    Without them the graveyards would be much larger much faster.

  90. When Scalia cuts an artFay in Conference, it is referred to by Ginsberg as a Greenhouse Gas Leak. So says Alito’s clerk in her emails which were stingrayed.

  91. Any weakening of the EPA by the Supreme Five conservatives comes at the worst time for it in history:

    With records dating back to 1880, the combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces reached a record high for May, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) higher than the 20th century average. This surpassed the previous record high anomaly of 0.72°C (1.30°F) set in 2010. Four of the five warmest Mays on record have occurred in the past five years: 2010 (second warmest), 2012 (third warmest), 2013 (fifth warmest), and 2014 (warmest); currently, 1998 has the fourth warmest May on record. Additionally, May 2014 marked the 39th consecutive May and 351st consecutive month (more than 29 years) with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average global temperature for May occurred in 1976 and the last below-average temperature for any month occurred in February 1985.” -(NOAA)

    Hottest May global temperatures of all relevant history:

    2014 – hottest May in relevant history
    2010 – second hottest
    2012 – third hottest
    1998 – fourth hottest
    2013 – fifth hottest

  92. A couple of years back, I was attending a family wedding in Jefferson, Wisconsin. Hanging around the bar, I learned that several were unemployed; some of them older, a couple of them young. A few more were employed part-time, and a few others were employed part of the time. None of them were in their conditions by choice, they missed the go-go years of the Clinton era. But even during the hey-days, the best that most of them ever did in a year was $50,000; not too shabby, but nowhere near a top earning income at the time and certainly not sufficient to have socked away enough to weather the financial meltdown at the end of the Bush regime. They were all hit hard to varying degrees.

    The conversation rolled around to politics. They despised Obama, of course, but they had a special gripe about…Dodd-Frank of all things.

    And I’m thinking, here’s a bunch of guys from the heartland who have practically little, if any, tied up in investments, who have suffered severe economic harm as a result of Wall St. chicanery, and now stand to be screwed again some time in the near future by the same forces, and they are bitterly decrying this nominal banking regulation as a communist/socialist plot.

    When I pointed out that the system had privatized profits and socialized the losses, a kind of heads they win tails we lose scenario, I could tell that they absorbed the idea only enough to formulate a retort. They wouldn’t be talked out of the idea that Dodd-Frank, and Glass-Stegall for that matter, was the result of an anti-capitalist conspiracy to destroy America. And I thought to myself, you guys are a bunch of fools.

    That’s the feeling I get when I read and hear comments that deride climate change as non-existent, that CO2 is benign, that years from now we’ll look back and laugh at how silly we were, as if climate change were as unfounded as Y2K.

    Have another drink, boys.

  93. MarieK, Repeat after me, “Yes, I believe in man made global warming, it is the most important issue we face as a human race.” You will feel better than arguing against the new religion.

  94. People do not care much about a world wide phenomena which will affect the next generation but maybe not me. Yeah, the Chinese are dying of pollution. The ducks are not flying as far north as they used to and the shores of Florida are shrinking. But I am 65 and the shoreline will lose a foot in the next twenty years and in the meantime I will lose three inches in height, my sexual appetite, my poodle, my ability to see through my telescope, my 65 Mustang, my Smartphone to spies, and my good looks. What do I care really about global warming when all else fails? Schmucks who moan about global warming are the types who move into nursing homes to watch tv with a group of other schmucks.

  95. Al – as a historian I know that Cleopatra’s palace at Alexandria is actually underwater. Now it did not go underwater in our life-time, but probably during the Medieval Warming Period. So, the real question is, who do we blame and at what cost do we blame them?
    I agree that China is a mess and I, although invited to visit, will not go there. It would shorten my life. Animals change patterns for a variety of things we have done to the planet. You have to prove more causality then what you have presented.

  96. Please read:

    CO2 heats the atmosphere…a counter view

    Posted on August 5, 2010 by Anthony Watts

    Guest post By Tom Vonk (Tom is a physicist and long time poster at many climate blogs. Note also I’ll have another essay coming soon supporting the role of CO2 – For a another view on the CO2 issue, please see also this guest post by Ferdinand Engelbeen Anthony)

    If you search for “greenhouse effect” in Google and get 1 cent for statements like…

    “CO2 absorbs the outgoing infrared energy and warms the atmosphere” – or – “CO2 traps part of the infrared radiation between ground and the upper part of the atmosphere”

    …you will be millionaire .

    Even Internet sites that are said to have a good scientific level like “Science of doom” publish statements similar to those quoted above . These statements are all wrong yet happen so often that I submitted this guest post to Anthony to clear this issue once for all.

    In the case that somebody asks why there is no peer reviewed paper about this issue , it is because everything what follows is textbook material . We will use results from statistical thermodynamics and quantum mechanics that have been known for some 100 years or more . More specifically the statement that we will prove is :

    “A volume of gas in Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium (LTE) cannot be heated by CO2.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/

  97. Schulte: “RTC – any bill named after Frank is bad for the country.”

    Now who could argue with that logic? Rather, who would?

Comments are closed.