Week in review – policy and politics edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

JC note: Please keep discussion of the U.S. presidential race on the other thread, unless your comment directly relates to energy/climate policy.  I will put up a new presidential discussion thread on Wed.

Both political parties are fractured, but on energy each is unified [link]

Federal Court to Decide if Kids Can Sue Government for Failing to Act on #ClimateChange  [link]

“Don’t Let the Planet Bern” – How Bernie Sanders’ policies would increase global warming. @TedNordhaus crushes it [link] …

States Fight Back Against EPA’s ‘Coercive Federalism’  [link]

Fossil Fuel Fights That Could Rock U.S.-Canada Relations [link] …

The climate math of EPA’s costly methane rule [link]

Reading:  @ElizHarball story on how the #CleanPowerPlan could cost one Democratic governor his election: [link] …

Hydropower dams cause $231 million in damage to #Mekong Delta: [link]

New legal analysis of #CleanPowerPlan = lots of uncertainty.  [link]

How a growing number of companies are tying CEO compensation to the climate. [link]

Very interesting read: How a few young lawyers out of uni ended writing a UN #climate deal in 1991  [link]

Which Countries are the Best and Worst Stewards of the Planet [link]

Rising Seas Pull Fort Lauderdale, Florida’s Building Boomtown, Toward a Bust [link]

New Yorker: The climate summit of money  [link]

Interesting article from New Security Beat: The President has more or less authority to act on climate depending on whether it’s a security or humanitarian problem [link]

With Russia’s focus turned elsewhere, a door has opened for cooperation in the Arctic: [link]

A brilliant read on Obama’s foreign policy, via @TheAtlantic: [link]

Amid ‘serious’ situation, China eyes soil pollution law in 2017 [link]

 

146 responses to “Week in review – policy and politics edition

  1. Generally speaking, the Democrats want more government involvement—more government-led investment and federal regulation. In contrast, Republicans want the free market—consumer choice—not government to determine the winners and losers.

    The next president will have a significant impact on how America produces, uses, and distributes energy.

    http://oilpro.com/post/22945/both-parties-fractured-but-energy-each-unified

    That solves it for me. I support the Republicans for this year’s US Presidential election.

    • Oliver K. Manuel

      Ted Cruz should lead the ticket. He can beat Hillary in the General election and he know that the US National Academy of Sciences cannot be trusted. Donald Trump should be appointed as this country’s spokesman at the UN. He has the courage to tell the followers of Stalin that we want no part of that kind of government

      • The 2016 presidential election is getting ugly because the outcome might end seventy years (1946-2016) of Stalin’s falsehoods disguised as “consensus science.”

    • I thought that analysis was pretty superficial.

      Let’s take a look at the Democratic side, for instance.

      Clinton is a known commodity, and what we’re going to get from Clinton is lip service to the environmentalists and a continuation of business as usual. All her actions when she was Secretary of State scream this so loudly that a person would have to be completely deaf to have missed it.

      But with Bernie? Well that’s an open question.

      If we look beyond the pretty wrapping paper that Sanders comes packaged in, he is one scarry dude. But Clinton? Nah.

      For instance, has Clinton articulated her willingness to use some mythical apodictic science as a blunt political weapon the way Sanders has?

      Has Clinton trashed our democracy and articulated her willingness to destroy our republican institutions to the degree that Sanders has in order to fulfill some fantastical and hallucinatory “transformation of our energy system”?

      Has Clinton articulated the sort of government jihad against those who disagree with her stance on AGW the way Sanders has?

      Take this, for instance, from Sanders’ web page:

      • Climate change is the single greatest threat facing our planet.

      • The debate is over, and the scientific jury is in: global climate change is real, it is caused mainly by emissions released from burning fossil fuels and it poses a catastrophic threat to the long-term longevity of our planet.

      • We have got to solve this problem before it’s too late. We have a very limited window of time to transition away from fossil fuels toward clean energy for all Americans to prevent a global temperature increase that will cause cataclysmic impacts.

      If our democracy worked the way it’s supposed to, that would be enough – the debate would be over, the facts would be heard and lawmakers would obey the will of the people.

      • But that’s where the billionaire class comes in. Instead of engaging on this issue in good faith and allowing democracy to play out, executives and lobbyists for coal, oil, and gas companies have blocked every attempt to make progress on climate change, and thrown unprecedented amounts of money at elected officials to buy their loyalty.

      • Let’s be clear: the reason we haven’t solved climate change isn’t because we aren’t doing our part, it’s because a small subsection of the one percent are hell-bent on doing everything in their power to block action. Sadly, they have deliberately chosen to put their profits ahead of the health of our people and planet.

      • We’re already transitioning to a clean energy economy – but scientists say we need to do it faster and we need to do it right.

      • [W]e can create millions of jobs for working families by investing in clean energy. The answer is clear and affordable. The solutions are within our reach – we just need average Americans to come together to make it happen.

      • Cut U.S. carbon pollution by 40 percent by 2030 and by over 80 percent by 2050 by putting a tax on carbon pollution, repealing fossil fuel subsidies and making massive investments in energy efficiency and clean, sustainable energy such as wind and solar power.

      • Invest in clean, sustainable energy sources powered by the sun, wind and Earth’s heat. Massive and sustained investment in clean energy technology development and implementation can get us where scientists tell us we need to be. It’s no great secret that clean energy technologies are a good investment. We actually get more energy out of the money invested in sustainable energy technologies than we do out of fossil fuel.

      • We must leave the vast majority of global reserves of coal, natural gas and oil in the ground.

      • Put a price on carbon. A tax on carbon is one of the most straightforward and cost-effective strategies for quickly fighting climate change.

      Embrace a science-based standard for carbon pollution emissions reductions.

      • Ban fracking for natural gas.

      • Increase fuel economy standards to 65 miles per gallon by 2025.

      • We must move our transportation sector beyond oil by running our cars and trucks on electricity generated by solar and wind power.

      • Work toward a 100 percent clean energy system and create millions of jobs. Scientists tell us we have a short time to make an aggressive cut in our carbon pollution emissions. Transitioning toward a completely clean energy system for electricity, heating, and transportation is not only possible and affordable it will create millions of good jobs, clean up our air and water and decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

      Ban fossil fuels lobbyists from working in the White House. Heavy-handed lobbying causes climate change skepticism. It has no place in the executive office.

      Bring climate deniers to justice so we can aggressively tackle climate change. It is an embarrassment that Republican politicians, with few exceptions, refuse to even recognize the reality of climate change, let alone are prepared to do anything about it. The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is to blame for much of the climate change skepticism in America. Bernie recently called for the Department of Justice to investigate Exxon Mobil, which may have not only known about the dangers of climate change, but has spent millions of dollars to spread doubt about the causes and impacts of burning fossil fuels.

      https://berniesanders.com/issues/climate-change/

      • The dilemma that Sanders and the rest of the climatariat face is that it is they who don’t want to “obey the will of the people.”

        And then Sanders has the nerve to call Trump a “pathological liar.”

        Go figure.

        “Bernie Sanders Calls Donald Trump a ‘Pathological Liar’”
        http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-pathological-liar/story?id=35854731

      • Glenn, every poll I have seen show pretty strong support for efforts to mitigate climate change..

      • If it is asked as a yes/no question on whether to control emissions, 2/3 of Americans say yes, and it has been at least that number for a decade. For example, one of many polls,
        http://ecoaffect.org/2016/02/23/new-poll-64-of-americans-believe-reducing-carbon-emissions-should-be-a-priority/

      • Joseph and Jim D,

        “If our democracy worked the way it’s supposed to,” as Sanders implies it doesn’t, but instead worked according to Sanders’ notion of the way it is “supposed” to work, would it be necessary for the long arm of the law to reach out and silence those with whom Sanders disagrees?

        And speaking hypothetically, what if Sanders’ position on CAGW were the majority position, as you two claim? Would that justify using the long arm of the law to reach out and silence those with whom Sanders disagrees?

      • It may also be the majority view that the Republican view on climate change is a fossil-fueled sham in which case Sanders is also following up on where that should lead.

      • JIm D,

        So then you’re advocating, the same as Sanders, that we do away with the American notion of democracy and free speech, as famously articulated by Thomas Jefferson?

        [T]hat to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy…, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve and condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

        that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;

        and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradit them.

        — THOMAS JEFFERSON, 1786

        Why does the climatariat hate democracy so much?

      • It can be for the law to decide whether the Republican position is just ignorance which is protected, or willfully guided by their sponsors, which would be corruption. To many it looks like corruption on its face which requires an investigation.

      • Jim D,

        Are you aware of the burden of proof necessary to convict someone of a criminal offence in our judicial system?

        This is a court fight that I, and I’m sure many others, would love to see with the Bernie Sanders of the world:

        Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

        ”Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the highest legal standard.

        This is the standard the U.S. Constitution requires the government to meet in order to prove a defendant guilty of a crime. (In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970).)

        Courts over the years have debated the extent to which the government has to prove its case to meet this high standard. But it’s clear that, according to the standard, it’s not enough for the trier of fact to simply believe the defendant is guilty.

        Rather, the evidence must be so convincing that no reasonable person would ever question the defendant’s guilt. The standard requires that the evidence offer no logical explanation or conclusion other than that the defendant committed the crime. Courts sometimes describe this level of confidence in a verdict as a moral certainty.

        http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/legal-standards-proof.html

        Can you imagine the climatariat trying to defend its pseudoscience in a court of law, and trying to demonstrate proof of harm based upon this pseudoscience?

      • catweazle666

        Joseph | March 13, 2016 at 12:10 pm |
        “Glenn, every poll I have seen show pretty strong support for efforts to mitigate climate change..”

        Well then you weren’t looking very hard were you?

        Out in the real world, the CAGW hoax is losing credibility fast.

        Public support for a strong global deal on climate change has declined, according to a poll carried out in 20 countries.

        Only four now have majorities in favour of their governments setting ambitious targets at a global conference in Paris.

        In a similar poll before the Copenhagen meeting in 2009, eight countries had majorities favouring tough action.

        The poll has been provided to the BBC by research group GlobeScan.

        Just under half of all those surveyed viewed climate change as a “very serious” problem this year, compared with 63% in 2009.

        The findings will make sober reading for global political leaders, who will gather in Paris next week for the start of the United Nations climate conference, known as COP21.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34900474

        The 2015 United Nations ‘My World’ global survey of causes for concern currently covering 9,721,479 respondents shows ‘action on climate change’ flat last, 16th of 16 categories.

        http://data.myworld2015.org/

        Crying “WOLF!” can only work for so long, and as not a single one of the catastrophic predictions of the Warmist religion over the last 3 decades has actually happened – in fact in the majority of cases such as hurricane landfall frequency and polar ice disappearance they have been diametrically wrong – their credibility is rapidly approaching zero.

        Of course, most people realise that there are plenty of really clear and present dangers in the World without worrying about a superannuated scare story that hasn’t managed to get a single one of its apocalyptic predictions right since the 1980s and has now degenerated into crackpot prognostications of doom and gloom not just tens, not just hundreds but thousands of years in the future.

        The real problem is that these scammers and the credulous bedwetters that unquestioningly support them are destroying the credibility of real science – and not just in the field of climate either, and just as in the fable, when a real wolf does come – and it will, sooner or later, nobody will believe them.

    • Never underestimate the power of denial.
      Fear is at the root of denial, and fear is a strong motivator.

  2. Ted Cruz has a good chance to beat Hillary in the general election, and Donald Trump would be a great spokesman for this country at the UN.

  3. Federal Court to Decide if Kids Can Sue Government for Failing to Act on #ClimateChange [link]

    There is no actual real evidence that CO2 causes anything other than it makes green stuff grow better with less water. If CO2 is reduced, green stuff on earth will not grow as good and it will not feed the people and other creatures as well. Reducing CO2 would be a real actual crime that would do real actual harm. This lawsuit is really sick stuff.

    • popesclimatetheory,

      Not only that, but I believe the supposed GHG with the largest effect is H2O. If you burn a hydrocarbon you get at least carbon dioxide and water, both essential for plant life, and ours. The Warmist Wallys that want to remove GHGs from the atmosphere want to exterminate us all.

      No more, no less.

      Cheers.

    • This frivolous lawsuit should result in sanctions against the attorneys. And responsible adults should sanction the individual plaintiffs by taking away their electronic gadgets and other modern conveniences while they’re at it.

      If my generation couldn’t get standing to challenge undeclared wars (among other clear constitutional violations) this elitist effort shouldn’t get past the first Court hearing. Yet given the trial court location (Oregon) and the Appellate Court (9th Circuit) — all bets are off.

      Plaintiffs seek a court order requiring the president to immediately implement a national plan to decrease atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to a safe level: 350 ppm by the year 2100. This case places indisputable climate science squarely in front of the federal judiciary, requesting an order that our government cease jeopardizing the climate system to the detriment of present and future generations.

      And, of course, Hansen’s granddaughter is a plaintiff.

  4. 2.1.6 How the NRC stopped the U.S. nuclear power industry.

    It was the U.S. Congress that created the NRC in 1975 at the behest of the coal industry. Official line was that the Atomic Energy Commission had a conflicting mission of promoting nuclear energy and ensuring safety. The mission of promoting nuclear was given to the DOE and dropped. The NRC was given the mission to “maximize safety”. Orders for nuclear plants were cancelled as electric companies correctly anticipated skyrocketing costs and delays from onerous NRC regulation. In the 40 years since the NRC opened its doors not a single nuclear power plant was built from conception to completion. It will take the proverbial act of congress to reign in the NRC, or better yet, abolish it and replace it with something similar to the Atomic Energy Commission under which about 70 or 80 nuclear reactors were built in 10 or 15 years. That act of congress isn’t going happen as long as the fossil fuel industries own congress.
    — Jerry Nolan (first comment here: http://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/02/11/scientists-say-climate-change-should-propel-nuclear-energy-to-prominence/#comment-3001619)


    http://nukespp.blogspot.com.au/

  5. Curious George

    How a few young lawyers out of uni ended writing a UN #climate deal in 1991. Published in nicely named climatechangenews.com. We have professors of climate change (who abandon an ice-bound ship in Antarctica), news of climate change, and reporters of climate change. How exciting!

    From the article: “Representatives from the most vulnerable have enjoyed high profiles at the UN climate talks, from Vanuatu’s Robert Van Lierop in 1991 to the Maldives’ Mohamed Nasheed in 2009 and the statesmanlike Marshall Islands’ Tony de Brum in 2015.” More data:

    Vanuatu’s population 252,763
    Maldives population 345,023
    Marshall Islands population 52,634

    High profile, indeed. What exactly makes them most vulnerable, other than crying wolf loudly?

  6. Plutarchspam

    Interesting you ignore Lamar Smith expanding his fishing expedition harassment against NOAA to include all emails from anyone anywhere in the satellite service (NESDIS) that mentions the words ‘temperature’, ‘climate’, or ‘change’. Nesdis being parent organization to Ncdc/ncei. Far larger than ncdc.

    • Lamar Smith’s committee’s efforts were good political fodder at best. After Judicial Watch sued NOAA / Department of Commerce under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in December, 2015 for release of documents and emails, NOAA did begin to release “some” emails and pledged to go through it’s databases to locate and send other documents and emails. My guess given the track record on similar situations is this will be difficult.

    • Willis Eschenbach

      Thanks, Plutarch. As reluctant as I am to address someone with “spam” in their name, I’m not sure what your point is here. Well, I mean I see you don’t like Smith’s actions. Nor do I.

      On the other hand, I truly don’t understand what NOAA has to hide. I’ve worked in all kinds of businesses, and I never put something on paper that I wouldn’t be happy to see in the New York Times.

      So just what is it that these scientists are hiding?

      Next, they are government employees who have been doing public business on the taxpayer’s dollar. Why shouldn’t we have FOIA access to their files and records?

      Finally, Nixon, Clinton, and Obama have all proven each in their own way that the coverup is far worse for you than the crime … so when I see the NOAA guys fighting the sunlight as if they were vampires, it shows me that a) they have something to hide, and b) they are foolish enough to try to hide it.

      So … those are my points.

      What was your point?

      w.

      • His point seems to be that he doesn’t like Smith’s actions. You seem to agree. Why?

        Do you think that the Congressional oversight committee responsible for overseeing of NOAA having been alerted by whistle blowers to some alleged shenanigans has any less interest or right to the emails than those folks who are making FOIA requests?

      • Willis Eschenbach

        Regards, Don. I thought Smith’s first request was reasonable. The search terms used were “hiatus,” “global temperature,” and “climate study”. I was glad he did that.

        Smith’s second request, on the other hand, was for a search using the terms:

        “Karl”
        “buoy”
        “ship”
        “temperature”
        “climate”
        “change”
        “Paris”
        “United Nations”
        “President”
        “Obama”
        “White House”

        I thought that list was overly broad, poorly chosen, and would lead to a lot of political pushback. The purpose of the underlying FOIA was to find out what was behind the new Karl “hiatus-busting” paper … I can justify some of those search terms under the FOIA request, but others like “White House” seem more political in nature.

        Having said that, however, Smith has the authority to request it, and I certainly am glad he’s fighting the good fight.

        Let me say that I also don’t buy the idea that the scientists need confidentiality in order to discuss the science freely. Say what? What’s the big secret that they don’t want the world to know?

        The lunacy of that idea was well exposed by Climategate. Secrecy allowed them to freely admit to what they denied completely in public. In other words, their confidential discussions allowed them to lie to the public and to conspire in scientific malfeasance and not get caught out … at least until their lies were exposed.

        So no, I do NOT want government scientists to have secret off-the-record discussions, no matter how important they say it is. If they can’t talk about their science freely in public, then we damn well shouldn’t be paying them to do their work in secret.

        Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and the rest of the un-indicted co-conspirators have conclusively proven in their own words just how bad an idea that is. Sunlight is always the best disinfectant.

        w.

      • I would assume his second search was informed by the result of his first search.

      • “Next, they are government employees who have been doing public business on the taxpayer’s dollar. Why shouldn’t we have FOIA access to their files and records?”
        ________

        Yes, and we should have access to Smith’s files and records, including those of his staff, if he and his staff are on the government payroll. Perhaps we do and I haven’t heard about it.

      • Willis

        “So no, I do NOT want government scientists to have secret off-the-record discussions, no matter how important they say it is.”
        _______

        Well, that’s too bad, because they will find a way to do it whether you like it or not. People aren’t going to put up with having everything they say being scrutinized by someone who will misrepresent their words to suit his agenda.

      • max1ok | March 13, 2016 at 3:15 am |

        Yes, and we should have access to Smith’s files and records, including those of his staff, if he and his staff are on the government payroll. Perhaps we do and I haven’t heard about it.

        Can’t do that. They are elected representatives. They make the laws. They by constitution and statue have a right and obligation to ensure their instructions (laws) are carried out.

        http://www.c-span.org/video/?192756-1/searches-congressional-offices

        The FBI did a search in a corruption case. If it is tried again Congress will probably pass a law making it illegal without congressional approval. By tradition the congress regulates it/s own affairs.

        People aren’t going to put up with having everything they say being scrutinized by someone who will misrepresent their words to suit his agenda.

        if you are talking about Federal employees, yes they are, or they can hit the road. They are civil servants not civil masters. They should have less rights than a private employee not more.

        Further this “aren’t going to put up with having everything they say being scrutinized by someone who will misrepresent their words to suit his agenda” attitude really upsets me. Liberals believe only they have a right to “scrutinize someone and misrepresent their words”. Since they are going to keep doing it, it is only fair that conservatives get to play the game as well.

      • Mr. Willis, NOAA whistle blowers have suggested that Smith look into alleged political influence on the scientific process at NOAA. That seems to be what he is doing. Anyway, no argument with the gist of your comment. Vote for The Donald and ye shall be redeemed:)

      • Did Smith plant some whistle blowers?

      • PA, you are naive. If you and I were government scientists and had a face to face conversation at one of our homes about our work, do you think that’s on record?

      • Pay no attention to the teddy bear holding the GoPro with the blinking red light.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        max1ok | March 13, 2016 at 3:35 am |

        Willis

        “So no, I do NOT want government scientists to have secret off-the-record discussions, no matter how important they say it is.”

        _______

        Well, that’s too bad, because they will find a way to do it whether you like it or not. People aren’t going to put up with having everything they say being scrutinized by someone who will misrepresent their words to suit his agenda.

        First off, ask Phil Jones how well your cockamamie claim worked for him? He tried to roll with your BS, saying he wasn’t “going to put up with” my FOIA request.

        And just like you suggest, he was able to “find a way” to illegally avoid my FOIA questions … and he got his fundament handed to him for his arrogance. Since he ended up weeping in public and subject to massive depression because of his foolishness, I doubt greatly that he’d recommend your brilliant plan to anyone else …

        Second, whether NOAA employees like it or not, FOIA is the law of the land. If you are unwilling to “put up with” having your emails being scrutinized, don’t work for the government. Why is that so hard to understand?

        Finally, while there are legit reasons that some few federal emails should not be revealed, the claim that our federal employees are entitled to hide their emails from us because someone might “misrepresent” them is a joke. People misrepresent each others words all the time, it has assuredly happened to you here on the intarwebs … so freakin’ what?

        They are not concerned that their emails will be “misrepresented”.

        They are concerned that their emails will be seen for what they are.

        w.

      • Willis, I’m not talking about e-mails, when I say scientists will find away around being spied on by snoopy climate deniers trying to find some dirt. I’m talking about one scientists having a discussions with another scientists in the privacy of his home. If they don’t want you to know what they said, you aren’t going to know, unless you would stoop to having their houses bugged.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        max1ok | March 13, 2016 at 4:48 pm |

        Willis, I’m not talking about e-mails, when I say scientists will find away around being spied on by snoopy climate deniers trying to find some dirt.

        “Spied on”? Say what? So your claim is that I was “spying on” Phil Jones when I made an FOIA request for his information?

        Gotta say, Max, you really, really need to both read more about and think more about the Freedom of Information Act … and particularly, consider that if scientists were honest and transparent about their work and their goals, nobody would every have to make an FOIA request of them. I didn’t request information from Phil Jones because he was so dang open about his work.

        I requested it because I thought that Phil was engaged in chicanery behind the curtain … and guess what I found out when the Climategate emails were revealed? I found out that I had no idea how many ugly things would crawl out when that particular rock was turned over.

        “Spied on”? You’ve lost the plot entirely. The FOIA is a crucial tool to keep people from lying, cheating, and conspiring in private. The idea that it allows people to spy on government employees is a sick joke.

        w.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        Don Monfort | March 13, 2016 at 4:07 am |
        “Mr. Willis, NOAA whistle blowers have suggested that Smith look into alleged political influence on the scientific process at NOAA. That seems to be what he is doing.”

        Thanks, Don. I agree that is what he is doing, and that he should do exactly that.

        I just think he is doing it in a clumsy and obviously political way, which is not productive and which has already lead to blowback.

        w.

      • Willis Eschenbach,
        Would you have a link or list of just what original data it was that Phil Jones, ‘dumped’? I have asked Steven, he does not want to address the question. Others who should be able to get an answer are not interested. I would like to understand what it was, how much of it was ‘dumped’ and how it was disposed of at the time. If you could help I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your time and help.

        Sincerely, Arch

      • Willis Eschenbach

        Arch Stanton | March 13, 2016 at 6:34 pm |

        Willis Eschenbach,
        Would you have a link or list of just what original data it was that Phil Jones, ‘dumped’? I have asked Steven, he does not want to address the question. Others who should be able to get an answer are not interested. I would like to understand what it was, how much of it was ‘dumped’ and how it was disposed of at the time. If you could help I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your time and help.

        Sincerely, Arch

        Thanks, Arch. While I would like to help, I have no idea what action of Phil Jones’s you are referring to, as you are the first person in this post to use the word “dumped”.

        As far as I know, I’ve never said that Phil “dumped” anything …

        Best regards,

        w.

        PS—Who is “Steven”?

      • I first read Phil Jones statement in the emails…

        http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2009/11/30/climate-change-scientists-admit-dumping-data.html

        No one seems to care about finding the ‘body’.

      • Mr. Willis, no matter what Smith does it will be portrayed by the NOAA Obama apparatchiks and their allies as a clumsy political fishing expedition. Nobody is really paying attention, except the usual cast of entrenched climate controversy warriors. That little maxie okie –snip– disturber is really a fierce one. Watch your ankles.

      • I agree with Willis …. “what are these scientists hiding.” Any takers – I put real money on the administration, e.g., John Holdren, the president’s extra legal “climate czar” (accountable to no one) working directly in concert to orchestrate the removal of the hiatus from the temperature records right before the Paris COP21 meeting, so that the president could talk from his soapbox / teleprompter at the meeting. The last seven years has seen a level of intensity in mass manipulation not seen since Joseph Goebbles and his Reichstag acquaintance, Willi Münzenberg. But the Obama administration canceled the official policy of the Office of Administration toward Freedom of Information Act required release of files and emails, in March 2015, saying only that it will not be responding to FOIA requests in the future.

  7. The link, “Federal Court to Decide if Kids Can Sue Government for Failing to Act on Climate Change,” can only mean one thing… it won’t be long before the Democrat party agitates to lower the voting age to 5.

    • Not a bad idea. Some climate skeptics aren’t as bright as 5-year olds. I don’t mean you, Waggy. You are a denier.

      • …and, global warming believers are, corrupt?

      • They are the finest citizens you will ever meet.

      • > They are the finest citizens you will ever meet

        Until they turn 6, like you

        Climategate just continues to splatter all over attempts at pretending there is no cheating. So most CAGW activists just avoid it, like you do

        And I now promise I won’t bother playing your silly games any further. It’s a pointless, no-progress activity, like trying to argue with Jiminy Doodlebug

      • Fine citizens, maybe… perhaps friends of Mao but, not friends of science, just like the salacious Dr. R.K. Pachauri (member of the India Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change) stepped down as director general of the IPCC (the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Pachauri dropped the charade and explained a lot on his way out the door, admitting in his resignation letter that global warming isn’t science – it’s religion: “For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”

      • ianl8888 | March 13, 2016 at 5:26 am |

        “Climategate just continues to splatter all over attempts at pretending there is no cheating.”
        ________

        I’ll have to remember that when scientists say something I don’t like, it means the scientists are liars and are hiding things from me.

        On second thought, that sounds like paranoia.

        Jimmy Doodlebug ?

      • Willis Eschenbach

        max1ok | March 13, 2016 at 3:06 pm |

        ianl8888 | March 13, 2016 at 5:26 am |

        “Climategate just continues to splatter all over attempts at pretending there is no cheating.”

        ________

        I’ll have to remember that when scientists say something I don’t like, it means the scientists are liars and are hiding things from me.

        On second thought, that sounds like paranoia.

        Sorry, Max, but that’s an exaggeration, not the lesson.

        The lesson is that you have to remember when climate scientists say something, they very well may be lying to you and hiding things … and since we have clear and recent evidence that just exactly that has happened more than once, you’d be a fool to ignore the possibility.

        w.

      • Willis, how do I know you are not lying to me. To bad the FOIA does not let me demand all your records so I can find
        out?

      • Willis Eschenbach

        max1ok | March 13, 2016 at 6:09 pm |

        Willis, how do I know you are not lying to me. To bad the FOIA does not let me demand all your records so I can find
        out?

        That’s a nice herring you’ve got on display there, Max … pretty red color too.

        Thanks, Max, but I fear your reply is totally unresponsive to anything I’ve said here. It appears you don’t like my answers, so you’d like to divert to another question, viz:

        “Should the FOIA be extended to all people on the planet?”

        Sorry, not gonna play that game.

        w.

      • Willis,
        I know your records aren’t covered under the FOIA, so I will not be able to determine whether you are lying or how pure your motives are. But I do think if you are making a FOIA request, as a condition for receiving the information, a citizen such as myself should be able to request the same from you. Your FOIA request is costing me money as a taxpayer, don’t you think it fair I get something in return?

      • Willis Eschenbach

        max1ok | March 13, 2016 at 6:55 pm |

        Willis,
        I know your records aren’t covered under the FOIA, so I will not be able to determine whether you are lying or how pure your motives are. But I do think if you are making a FOIA request, as a condition for receiving the information, a citizen such as myself should be able to request the same from you. Your FOIA request is costing me money as a taxpayer, don’t you think it fair I get something in return?

        You do get something in return … you, like the requester, get whatever they were hiding before they got the FOIA.

        But in any case … seriously? Do you really think that when ask (as I did) that the UEA send me the climate data that Phil Jones was hiding from the world, your claim is that to balance the scales I need to send the UEA an equivalent amount of my own climate data that I’m not hiding from the world … really? How is that supposed to work in practice?

        Sorry, Max, but that idea is as a non-starter. The laws are almost never even-handed in that manner.

        It’s like say campaign finance. Campaign finance laws give you the right to find out how much Bernie or the Donald are spending … but they don’t give Bernie and the Donald the right to find out how much you are spending.

        And similarly, the sunshine laws in this state give me the right to know what government employees are doing in their meetings … but those same laws don’t give them the right to know what I do in my meetings.

        Regards,

        w.

      • Willis, I don’t want to make the FIOA requests for records. You do because you want to find out whether the scientists are hiding anything. But as a taxpayer, your curiosity will cost me money. So what I want in return is to see your records, so I can find out if you are hiding anything. You get what you want, and I get what I want. What could be more fair? If you refuse to hand over your records, can you blame me for suspecting you are hiding something.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        max1ok | March 13, 2016 at 10:15 pm |

        Willis, I don’t want to make the FIOA requests for records. You do because you want to find out whether the scientists are hiding anything. But as a taxpayer, your curiosity will cost me money. So what I want in return is to see your records, so I can find out if you are hiding anything. You get what you want, and I get what I want. What could be more fair? If you refuse to hand over your records, can you blame me for suspecting you are hiding something.

        Hey, Max, if you want to try to change the FOIA act so it also applies to the personal records of anyone who thinks that government employees might be hiding something, be my guest. However, I doubt that is what you really want.

        I also have no clue how your proposed change would make it any more equitable than it is now. I mean, at present I can ask Phil Jones for the records which he has compiled on a taxpayer-paid salary. Equally, Phil is just as free to ask me for the records that I’ve compiled on a taxpayer-paid salary. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, what could be changed to make that more fair?

        Seems to me that you are either just trolling, or you truly don’t understand the reason and purpose of the FOIA. The FOIA was designed to bring light to dark corners OF THE GOVERNMENT. Not to bring light to the dark corners of your undershorts, or of mine for that matter. To bring light to dark corners of the government.

        The purpose is to make sure that the people who are spending taxpayer money do so honorably and honestly and correctly, and by and large it applies justly, equally, and impartially to everyone who is spending taxpayer money.

        I don’t see how it could be made fairer than that. And I definitely don’t think it would be made fairer by shining the spotlight on your undershorts just because you happen think the government is not playing by the rules …

        And yes, as you point out, it does cost money, but it’s small money, on the order of some small multiple what has been wasted on the researcher who was looking into gender bias in our scientific views of glaciers. He’s gotten nearly three quarters of a megabuck from the government.

        Call me crazy, but I’m willing to spend small money to make sure that the government is not wasting big money … or worse, and the government has done lots of worse things than wasting money, things that have been revealed by the FOIA. The FOIA is just cheap insurance.

        And regarding FOIAs in climate science, we just gave half a billion climate dollars to third world scammers and despots … so please, don’t bother me about the cost of fulfilling an FOIA request. Small money.

        Best regards to you,

        w.

      • Willis, no, the FOIA is not going to be amended to require you to reveal personal information about yourself or records you may have that are related to your requests. It would, however, be to your credit if your requests were for the purposive of advancing science instead of making enemies of scientists. That wouldn’t necessarily require you to agree with scientists or even like them, but it would mean gaining trust that you are acting in good faith. With time you might find it easier to get the information you want without making FOIA requests. Of course you might lose all your old buddies at WUWT.

      • max10k,

        You wrote –

        “It would, however, be to your credit if your requests were for the purposive of advancing science instead of making enemies of scientists.”

        You must be a Warmist. Do you really think any rational person is concerned about your bizarre assumptions? Do you have the faintest idea what advancing science involves?

        Maybe you are convinced that climatology is, in fact, a science. You have no basis for this delusional fixation, by any usual definition of science. Climate is defined as the average of weather over an arbitrary nominal period. Any reasonably intelligent 12 year old can be taught to calculate averages in a few minutes. No higher learning required.

        And, indeed, all sorts of odds and sods – generally pedestrian under performers – pretend to climatology, in an effort to obtain respect and admiration they could not achieve in any real scientific field.

        But worship at the feet of these pretenders if it makes you feel good. Maybe wearing sackcloth and ashes, and making predictions of doom will bring solace. Of course, making unverifiable predictions will help, particularly if you call them scenarios or model outputs. Even better, pretend that big impressive digital computers used physics to make the predictions. Make sure no competent physicists are involved. Their laughter might annoy you.

        So there you go. Of course, I’m shaking in my boots waiting for you to unleash the climatological hit squads in my direction. Only joking, of course!

        It seems fairly obvious you still haven’t found Steven Mosher’s missing clue, as you still seem singularly clueless about science, amongst other things. No offence intended, but if you wish to take some, feel free. I can spare some, I’m sure – my pleasure, in fact.

        Cheers.

      • Sorry, Mike, but trying to read your post triggered my ADD. I’ll try to get back to it when I don’t feel a need for something interesting to do.

      • max10k,

        You wrote –

        “Sorry, Mike, but trying to read your post triggered my ADD. I’ll try to get back to it when I don’t feel a need for something interesting to do.”

        Not bad. A cut above the usual Warmist puerility. I sense a glimmer of rationality under the Warmist fanaticism. It seems most Warmists suffer from some mental handicap ranging from full blown delusional psychosis to mild retardation. I hope you are joking about your mental disorder, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re not. You have my sympathy in that case.

        Please let me know if you need any help to cope with reality.

        Cheers.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        max1ok | March 14, 2016 at 2:54 am |

        Willis, no, the FOIA is not going to be amended to require you to reveal personal information about yourself or records you may have that are related to your requests.

        Amigo, you suggested it, not me.

        It would, however, be to your credit if your requests were for the purposive of advancing science instead of making enemies of scientists. That wouldn’t necessarily require you to agree with scientists or even like them, but it would mean gaining trust that you are acting in good faith. With time you might find it easier to get the information you want without making FOIA requests. Of course you might lose all your old buddies at WUWT.

        Max, I fear you are totally clueless about me and the FOIA. I have filed exactly two FOIA requests, both involving the same data. It all started out when I politely asked Phil Jones for the raw data underlying the HadCRUT global temperature average. It was only after he blew me off with a double fistful of excuses that I filed the first FOIA. What more would you have had me do? I wasn’t going to osculate his fundament, I was simply asking for data, and good manners had gotten me nothing.

        For his next move, Phil flat-out lied and claimed that he couldn’t give anyone the data because it was covered by confidentiality agreements with each of the hundred or so countries involved. So of course he was politely asked for copies of the agreements.

        And it was only after Phil dodged a simple request for data a second time, by refusing to reveal the purported confidentiality agreements, that I filed the second FOIA, for the agreements … and guess what?

        In the event, out of all of the dozens and dozens of countries supplying data to Phil, there were only three such agreements, and one of them didn’t even prevent sharing the data. It was yet another validation of my rule of thumb, which is that when a man hides something, it’s probably because he has something to hide. In this case what Phil was hiding, unknown to anyone until after Climategate, was that he’d managed to misplace a portion of the data, and the rest was in a terribly confused state, with identically named files in different folders, so the HadCRUT temperature series was no longer replicable … who knew?

        So your claims about my uses of the FOIA are nothing but uninformed mud-slinging … not good for your reputation. You should do your homework before making inane accusations of bad faith.

        The only bad faith was from Phil. If he had answered me honestly and given me the data he had, and spelled out exactly what data he’d lost, I would never have had any reason to complain, much less file an FOIA request. And as usual, the coverup was much worse than the crime. If he’d come clean, he wouldn’t have ended up depressed and in disgrace.

        w.

      • Well, I’ve rarely found any value in interacting with this Max, but if it provokes such plain paragraphs of Phil Jones’ scientific sin by Willis, let’s have more.
        ==================

      • Claims our resident tard.

        Max is the cast iron pot calling the bone white china black.

    • max10k: Some climate skeptics aren’t as bright as 5-year olds.

      I think that lawsuits would be a nuisance, especially if dragged out like the Steyn/Mann lawsuits, but actual trials would have mostly upside for the “skeptical” and “lukewarmer” positions. Everybody now claiming great danger from CO2 would be sworn to testify truthfully, and then cross-examined under oath, that is under penalty of perjury, by informed counsel. And in open court with a court recorder. Who would be wiling to testify against the skeptics in that milieu? Naomi Oreskes? (her writing is full of innuendoes and “straw people”.) Make a list, and plenty of volunteers will flock to the defense attorneys with plentiful, highly detailed papers full of their liabilities. Michael Mann?

      • We have freedom of speech. We have freedom to sue.

      • This is how the lawsuit begins:

        For over fifty years, the United States of America1 has known that carbon dioxide
        (“CO2”) pollution from burning fossil fuels was causing global warming and dangerous climate
        change, and that continuing to burn fossil fuels would destabilize the climate system on which
        present and future generations of our nation depend for their wellbeing and survival.

        Defendant Obama responds –e.g., “I stopped the seas from rising so, what’s the problem?”

        Case over.

      • max10k: We have freedom of speech. We have freedom to sue.

        No quarrel from me on those points: I occasionally support the speech and other communication rights of “skeptics”, “lukewarmers”, etc. We don’t have a “right” to prevail: That requires evidence and testimony submitted under oath and subject to cross-examination and perjury rules.

        My claim is that, if testifying under oath, cross examined, and under penalty of perjury, almost everyone in the public arena would back off from their extreme claims (I cited only Oreskes), revealing how much mush is in the case against CO2.

      • Matthew, imp, law suits are to be avoided. I have never been a party in one, but friends who have been tell me it wasn’t worth it.

      • max10k: Matthew, imp, law suits are to be avoided.

        If a lawsuit has been brought against you, it is worthwhile to consider whether the cost of defending yourself is greater than the cost of capitulation. Whatever the costs to the defendants in this lawsuit, it would be in the interest of society at large and science in particular for them to mount a vigorous and well-informed defense.

  8. From the linked article about the kids and their law suit:

    “This kind of case might sound, well, juvenile, but trade groups with ties to the oil and gas lobby—the American Petroleum Institute, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and the National Association of Manufacturers—were concerned enough about it that they joined as co-defendants in November of last year.”
    _______

    Big Business against kids? WOW, what a PR disaster! My dog would have had better since than that.

    • max10k: Big Business against kids? WOW, what a PR disaster!

      Big Business would not be against kids, it would be against Pied Pipers leading the kids.

    • The Obama administration’s official position is that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”.

      So it’s a little hard to imagine the administration presenting a full and fair defense against even this frivolous lawsuit. More likely is a result similar to the EPA’s “please don’t throw me in the briar patch” lawsuit coordination with environmental activists.

  9. No, it’s sense, not since, dummy.

  10. Critiques of Obama Doctrine article (Atlantic)
    How Iraq Warped Obama’s Worldview
    The president is certain he’s right. Is that what we want in a leader?
    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/obama-doctrine-iraq-islam/473148/

    The Slipperiest Slope of Them All
    An American president who rejected the notion of a “global war on terror” has now launched one.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/obama-doctrine-goldberg-inaction/473520/

    The Disappointment of Barack Obama
    He admits one major mistake: not making sufficient allowances for how unreasonable other people are.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/obama-doctrine-goldberg-disappointment/473172/

    • Obama didn’t start a third ward in the Middle East and get lots of American soldiers killed.
      Obama haters didn’t like it, but they never like anything he does, so no surprise there.

  11. Oil industry pushes back against Exxon climate accusations

    “In truth, the articles produced by ICN are deeply flawed,” Energy In Depth writes in its new blog post, saying that “the writers cherry-picked some facts, and ignored others, to produce a completely distorted view of the company’s work on climate change.”
    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/272509-oil-industry-pushes-back-against-exxon-climate-accusations
    http://energyindepth.org/national/insideclimate-fools-some-journalism-award-judges-but-not-all/

  12. I wish I had stopped wasting my time after reading this foolishness:
    _____________________________

    “John Kerry today expresses no patience for those who argue, as he himself once did, that Obama should have bombed Assad-regime sites in order to buttress America’s deterrent capability. “You’d still have the weapons there, and you’d probably be fighting isil” for control of the weapons, he said, referring to the Islamic State, the terror group also known as isis. “It just doesn’t make sense. But I can’t deny to you that this notion about the red line being crossed and [Obama’s] not doing anything gained a life of its own.”

    “Assad is effectively being rewarded for the use of chemical weapons, rather than ‘punished’ as originally planned.” Shadi Hamid, a scholar at the Brookings Institution, wrote for The Atlantic at the time. “He has managed to remove the threat of U.S. military action while giving very little up in return.”

    Obama’s defenders, however, argue that he did no damage to U.S. credibility, citing Assad’s subsequent agreement to have his chemical weapons removed.

    History may record August 30, 2013, as the day Obama prevented the U.S. from entering yet another disastrous Muslim civil war, and the day he removed the threat of a chemical attack on Israel, Turkey, or Jordan. Or it could be remembered as the day he let the Middle East slip from America’s grasp, into the hands of Russia, Iran, and isis.”
    _________________________________

    Well, if we had bombed Assad he would still have given up the chemical weapons, only a lot quicker and without that thug Putin getting any credit for mediating the deal. There is no way in hell Assad would have used those weapons on Turkey, Jordan, or Israel. If he had, he would have been very dead, very soon thereafter.

    Failure to take the opportunity to hit Assad hard for crossing the red line was a very big and foolish mistake. Who would have stopped us from bombing the crap out of some military installations and notifying Assad that his air force was grounded? They come up, we shoot them down. Assad decides to leave town.

    And the fawning narrative of Obama’s foreign policy genius gets more comical from there:
    _________________________________

    “Over the course of our conversations, I came to see Obama as a president who has grown steadily more fatalistic about the constraints on America’s ability to direct global events, even as he has,late in his presidency, accumulated a set of potentially historic foreign-policy achievements—controversial, provisional achievements, to be sure, but achievements nonetheless: the opening to Cuba, the Paris climate-change accord, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, and, of course, the Iran nuclear deal.”
    _________________________________

    Who gives a flying –snip– about the opening to Cuba? Paris non-binding BS agreement. TPP that will very likely never be approved by Congress. That great Iran nuclear deal negotiated with the help of our Russian and Red Chinese partners takes the economic pressure off the Ayatollahs and gives them the financial resources to be profligate in financing terrorism, ICBMs and the purchase of A-bombs from their little partners in North Korea. And we let them keep their centrifuges so they are no more than one year away from their own home grown bomb, anytime they choose to break out.

    And our old trustworthy Paris “Peace” Agreement pals, the Red Vietnamese, are helping us control The Red Chinese:
    ________________________________

    “Obama wanted to lobby the Vietnamese on the Trans-Pacific Partnership—his negotiators soon extracted a promise from the Vietnamese that they would legalize independent labor unions—and he wanted to deepen cooperation on strategic issues. Administration officials have repeatedly hinted to me that Vietnam may one day soon host a permanent U.S. military presence, to check the ambitions of the country it now fears most, China. The U.S. Navy’s return to Cam Ranh Bay would count as one of the more improbable developments in recent American history. “We just moved the Vietnamese Communist Party to recognize labor rights in a way that we could never do by bullying them or scaring them,” Obama told me, calling this a key victory in his campaign to replace stick-waving with diplomatic persuasion.

    I’ve been very explicit in saying that we have more to fear from a weakened, threatened China than a successful, rising China,” Obama said. “I think we have to be firm where China’s actions are undermining international interests, and if you look at how we’ve operated in the South China Sea, we have been able to mobilize most of Asia to isolate China in ways that have surprised China, frankly, and have very much served our interest in strengthening our alliances.”
    _______________________________

    OMG! How did Obama ever get the Vietnamese commies to “legalize independent labor unions” and why should anybody ever believe that labor unions will actually be independent in a totalitarian state? Anyway, it has been “hinted” that someday we may move back into Cam Ranh Bay blah..blah..blah. So don’t worry, we have the Red Chinese thugs in check, because we got labor unions in Vietnam. You can’t make this stuff up.

    Terrorism perpetrated by certain dastardly parties with no known religious affiliation will be solved by getting some guy nobody has seen for some time. We don’t know if he is alive, but we will get him:
    ____________________________________

    “This is why the fight against isis, a group he considers to be a direct, though not existential, threat to the U.S., is his most urgent priority for the remainder of his presidency; killing the so-called caliph of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is one of the top goals of the American national-security apparatus in Obama’s last year.”
    _____________________________________

    Yeah, we get the head of ISIS we solve terrorism, again, like getting Bin Laden got Obama re-elected and solved the previous problem we had with terrorism that of course had nothing to do with Islam. It was some damn internet video.

    I could go on for a week with what is wrong with Mr. Goldberg’s BS. We don’t have to wonder why Mr. Goldberg has gotten such extensive access to our fearless leader who is desperate to conjure up a respectable legacy. I can’t wait till the “Goldberg’s Fawning BS Obama Foreign Policy Legacy: for Dummies” paperback comes out.

    • Don Monfort | March 13, 2016 at 4:21 am | Reply
      I wish I had stopped wasting my time after reading this foolishness:
      _____

      I’m scratching my head over this one. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to not waste time by reading whatever was “this foolishness.” But that’s Don.

      • it’s probably lice

        (Now you all see that? Don’t take this little dip–snip– troll seriously and you’ll save yourselves a lot of time.)

      • Good one, Don! Glad to see your brain recovered from reading about Obama.

  13. The link about the methane rule avoiding 0.004ºC is wrong. They don’t disclose exactly what they did, but the fatal flaw is that by converting from methane to CO2 equivalent they assume the former will accumulate in the atmosphere at the same rate as the latter, when in fact it’s barely accumulating at all. I ran some numbers and arrived at ‘idealistic’ figure of 0.0016ºC by century’s end, and a realistic one of 0.001ºC.

    While this may sound comical, it’s in fact something of a bargain compared to most greenhouse gas subsidies and taxes. For example, if climate sensitivity is 2ºC, then it takes an additional 200ppm to raise temperature 1ºC (I know, I know – it’s logarithmic not linear so the first 200ppm actually matter more, but it’s close enough). With a CO2 tax of $20 per ton of CO2, 7.8 billion tonnes per ppm and 50% airborne fraction, you’re essentially saying each degree centigrade is worth 7,800,000,000 x 2 x 20 x 200 = $62 trillion.

    So as long as Obama’s methane rule costs less than $62 billion (one thousandth of $62 trillion), it will be more cost-effective than a $20 CO2 tax. I don’t support Obama’s rule because methane emissions are unverifiable, but I just wanted to give some cost context. (Notice that climate sensitivity may of course be higher or lower than 2ºC, but for this calculation it doesn’t matter because it also affects the amount of warming avoided by the methane rule).

    We really need to stop talking in terms of emissions, or dollars per ton of CO2, and start talking in terms of dollars per degree. Hopefully it will show how ludicrous most climate policies are.

    This emissions-versus-concentrations issue is generally a problem with all estimates of non-CO2 GHGs, but especially so with methane. In fact, if emission ‘estimates’ of about 330 million tonnes (110 ppb) of methane a year are right, the airborne fraction is just 4 or 5% – compared to 50% for CO2. So the methane monster goes from being ’25 times more powerful than CO2′ to ‘a couple times more powerful’. Phew!

  14. The article about Ft Lauderdale is baloney. I grew up there, own a house a few blocks west of highway 1 near downtown. The major subsidence problem has ALWAYS been in the Las Olas area, and East of near the beach, where the houses were built on soft sediments altered by the canals dug to provide waterfront.

    I’ve looked at it from a practical standpoint, dug a hole in my backyard and found the house is located on about 50 cm of sand which sits on top of carbonate rock. In a few years I’ll remodel it, and build a larger house in the back of the property. I’ll put it on a raised area about 60 cm above street level, and that should do for another 50 years.

    • Correct. The situation at Lauderdale was baked into the cake when Ponce de Leon arrived 500 years ago. Natural forces and geology have more to do with the water levels than anything the 747 flights by Gore and Obama could ever do. The only thing changed from my first Spring Break at the Elbow Room in 1964 is that the bikinis are now skimpier.

    • Fernando, I live there on the beach at Galt Ocean Mile. The article is simply OFF. The Las Olas Isles/canals are dredged sediments from the old New River mangrove lagoon that are subsiding. Main problem for next 50 years is the Isles storm sewers. They are being fitted with check valves to stop the minor neap tide flooding. Miami beach has a similar issue, and it is booming also. The rate of old tear down and new Isles construction is amazing. Nothing under a $million for a 2br condo with boat slip. But code now requires building on top of reinforced concrete pilings down to bedrock (about 40-60 feet) and Ground slab up maybe a couple of feet from what is now ground level. That is why for are the new stuff. Yhere is an upslope from the street to the garage. Across from the Isles, Blackstone is proposing a $1billion redevelopment of the Bahia Mar yacht basin waterfront properties it picked up during the crash.

    • Curious George

      The author seems to never have heard of The Netherlands. Strange; that country tolerates drugs.

  15. Listening to kids (prompted and patronised by the usual adult nags) making speeches about the planet and greed is no way to understand “youth”.

    To understand “youth” and its needs and aspirations one needs to observe what “youth” does immediately BEFORE and immediately AFTER Earth Hour. And then for the rest of the year.

    Just as well those energy companies are still keen to make a quid. There are no tree-huggers in the wet, cold, dark trenches.

  16. RE: “New Yorker: The climate summit of money”

    Amazing how the Masters of the Universe characterize “climate change as a systemic threat to the global economy.”

    This is accompanied by no small amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth over “damatic projections of market dislocation from shocks of climate change,”

    It’s all about the future, and not the present.

    This is one of the tell-tale signs of a mass movement:

    While mass movements idealize the past and glorify the future, the present world is denigrated: “The radical and the reactionary loath the present.”[12]

    Thus, by regarding the modern world as vile and worthless, mass movements inspire a perpetual battle against the present.

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

  17. Dr. Curry said Ted Nordhaus crushes it (regarding the need for natural gas and nuclear power in the CPP).

    But David Wojick has stated that people like Nordhaus are not worth reading, except to have fun flagging their ignorance — where Mr. Wojick said just last week: “The revised CPP basically precludes construction of new natgas fired power plants.”

    • David Wojick

      I do not recall saying anything about Nordhaus. I do consider his 300+ year SCC projections to be ridiculous, but that is a different issue.

      More to the point, the revised EPA CPP CO2 emissions limit is based on a scenario that includes no new gas fired generating capacity and no new nuclear generating capacity. It is however true that the heavy reliance on renewables in the scenario could be met using nuclear instead of renewables, because neither emits CO2.

      The States are not bound by the specifics of the EPA scenario, just the emissions limits therefrom. In that regard new gas fired capacity is not ruled out, rather it is just not included. If it replaced existing coal fired capacity it might even have a role to play.

      • Mr. Wojeck — How can you say: IF it [natural gas] replaced existing coal fired capacity it might even have a role to play”

        One would have to be living under a rock not to know this is exactly what’s happened in the U.S. for the past ~decade.

        And you are calling people (who don’t agree with you on CE) ignorant — Geez.

      • David Wojick

        Stephen, I am not aware that I called anyone ignorant, but there is a significant confusion here. I am talking about the specific scenario that EPA used in order to calculate the allowable State by State CO2 emission limits under the final CPP. You seem not to grasp that. What has happened or will happen is not the point. (By the way, if you insist on being overly formal it is Dr. Wojick.)

      • David Wojick

        To begin with, here is the core CPP rule:

        “For fossil fuel-fired steam generating units, we are finalizing a performance rate of 1,305 lb CO2/MWh. For stationary combustion turbines, we are finalizing a performance rate of 771 lb CO2/MWh. The EPA has also translated the source subcategory specific CO2 emission performance rates into equivalent statewide rate-based and mass-based CO2 goals and is providing those as an option for states to use. Under CAA section 111(d), each state must develop, adopt, and then submit its plan to the EPA. For its CAA section 111(d) plan, a state will determine whether to apply these emission performance rates to each affected EGU, individually or together, or to take an alternative approach and meet either an equivalent statewide rate-based goal or an equivalent statewide mass-based goal…

        FR pages 64707-64708”

        So the State seems to have two basic options — use the unit performance standard or the statewide goal. But the first is impossible if there is significant coal fired generation because no coal plant can meet this standard.

        So most states have to use the statewide goal. Here the EPA con word is “translated”. What EPA actually did was construct a scenario of future power generation. They then derived the so-called goal, actually a requirement, from the CO2 emissions in this scenario.

        For the scenario they assumed just the following three ways for a State to reduce emissions.
        1) Improve the efficiency of coal fired power plants (not feasible).
        2) Use existing gas fired plants instead of the coal plants.
        3) Add renewable generating capacity.

        Note that the renewables part makes a big CO2 cut that cannot be made via the existing system. Also, I think this cut is quite large because in the proposed rule they also included energy efficiency, the “outside the fence” part that was the focus of litigation. EPA dropped EE and probably shifted its cuts onto renewables. Need more research here.

        Given the large zero emissions renewables component built into the required reductions there is no way to comply simply by increasing the use of natural gas. Adding a lot of renewables appears to be built in, as opposed to switching from coal to gas. There is actually very little flexibility here, or so it seems.

      • Adding a lot of renewables appears to be built in, as opposed to switching from coal to gas. There is actually very little flexibility here, or so it seems.

        My question is, where do these limits stand WRT replacing coal with a gas/solar mix. Equal capacities for both.

        Given the very low capital cost of CCGT, with somewhat higher fuel costs than with coal, it seems likely to me that the mix could be cost-competitive with coal, if not today then within 5-10 years, assuming the solar panel cost continues its exponential decline at a growth rate of -0.5/five years (cutting in half every 5 years).

        Question is, how would this mix rate in fossil emissions compared to the required reductions?

      • Dr. Wojick — Last week (in discussing the importance of NG and the CPP) you said the following when we began discussing this topic: https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/05/open-thread-weekend-42/#comment-769381

  18. Wow. Five of the world’s smaller, richer and mostly homogeneous countries are the best environmental stewards. I have to wonder how they could not be.

    Five of the world’s poorest, heterogeneous, war torn colonial remnant countries are the worst environmental stewards. I wonder how they could not be.

    So judgemental and arbitrary.

  19. Curious George

    A political party is a mechanism with fixed rules, attempting to stick with the rules at almost any price. Call it an organism – an organism ill-equipped to fight a virus. The virus uses an existing machinery for it’s own purposes. David Duke’s 1991 campaign for Governor of Louisiana is a perfect example.

  20. CPP legal analysis is pretty lame. Does not even discuss the major issues which caused SCOTUS to stay it until resolved. Very warmunist perspective.

  21. When I was a child, a large Cold War propaganda agency (NASA) promised us a future of interplanetary exploration.
    That never happened.
    I’m still a bit miffed.
    I wonder how today’s kids are gonna feel in 50 years when Manhattan is still dry.
    (and off limits to none but the rich)
    We never considered a lawsuit.

    P.S.
    If you want to ruin children, start teaching them in grade one that their society is irredeemably biased and an existential threat to nature.
    Hammer the message all the way through college.

    Oh wait, this has already happened.

    Climate Change is the Trojan Horse of the Oligarchy.

  22. Re: Sci-Hub and the continuing fight over privatized profits from restricting access to publicly funded research.

    Journal publishers collectively earned $10 billion last year, much of it from research libraries, which pay annual subscription fees ranging from $2,000 to $35,000 per title if they don’t buy subscriptions of bundled titles, which cost millions. The largest companies, like Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, Springer and Wiley, typically have profit margins of over 30 percent, which they say is justified because they are curators of research, selecting only the most worthy papers for publication. Moreover, they orchestrate the vetting, editing and archiving of articles.

    In response to the suit filed against her, Ms. Elbakyan wrote a letter to the judge pointing out that Elsevier, like other journal publishers, pays nothing to acquire researchers’ studies. Moreover, publishers don’t pay for the volunteer peer reviewers or editors. But they charge those same researchers, reviewers and editors, not to mention the public, whose tax dollars most likely funded the study in the first place, to read the resulting articles.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/opinion/sunday/should-all-research-papers-be-free.html?_r=0

    • Expensive paywalling of papers deemed “critical” or “seminal” is a despicable practice, one which I’ve often critised. To no avail,of course

      For an individual, one could finish up as the best-informed bankrupt in the region

      It seems akin to the medieval issue wherein only priests who could read Latin were considered the fonts of knowledge; here, those who have pecuniary access to the texts are similarly regarded

      No, I’m not anti-capitalism (quite the reverse) but hiding self-defined critical results of tax-funded research behind substantial paywalls and demanding the general public defer to the imputed knowledge is quite awkward to defend on any reasonable grounds

      • Yes, you are anti-capitalist when it suits you, which is just like me. The lesson here is — embracing an ideology and set yourself up for being a hypocrite.

      • Not sure what capitalism has to do with public funding of research but greed exists in all political/economic systems.

    • I wonder how many private patents get filed on the results of publicly funded research?

  23. Rising Sea Level

    People are afraid of rising sea levels due to AGW.
    However, I looked at the past, and it seems to me sea level will rise whether or not we are more careful about CO2.

    This PSU document shows sea level during last inter-glacial at 8 meters higher than now.

    This Texas A&M document shows Gulf of Mexico sea level 550,000 years ago at 40 meters higher than now. (I think it is about page 21.)
    http://gulfsealevel.org/Davis,%20Richard.pdf

    This holocene sea level document implies sea level might continue to rise by small amounts.

    Are the AGW scare-people using a naturally occurring phenomenon to bolster an agenda?

    • Cynthia Marler,

      Those pesky sea levels must bob up and down something fierce. Marine fossils found at heights above 6000 metres? Sea level obviously dropped by 6000 metres. Fossilised plant remains in the form of coal 1000 metres below sea level? Sea levels obviously rose by 1000 metres!

      And foolish climatologists refuse to accept facts, claiming to measure world wide sea levels to the thickness of less than a human hair – by magic, as no remote measuring instrument known to man can do this from space! Ah, the miracles of averaging the averages of averages, and then applying a correction factor to produce the answer you want.

      Continents bob up and down endlessly – rising here, falling there. Moving on the surface at up to several centimetres per annum. Do the bearded bumblers have any conception of plate tectonics, and the concept of the conservation of mass (let alone the conservation of momentum!)?

      No, to a climatologist, the Earth is a flat featureless circle, with no temperature of its own, perpetually illuminated by a fixed diffuse energy source, and possessed of a fixed and uniform albedo.

      Any seas are unchanging, and absorb hidden heat, which somehow expands the oceans, without being detectable by radiating its energy – in other words without having a temperature. What complete and utter rubbish!

      Sea levels are relative. On a perfect sphere, there would be no land above sea level at all. As the sphere deforms, some land is elevated, and a corresponding volume is lowered, somehow, somewhere. Hey presto! Measurable sea level!

      This is obviously a complete mystery to the endlessly recalculating pseudo- scientists who call themselves climatologists!

      Interesting, isn’t it?

      Cheers.

  24. From the American Conservative: Why calling people names (like Don Monfort does all the time) when you disagree with them is so bad:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/what-would-tocqueville-say-about-trump/

    • You blitterphloster.

    • You are just an inconsequential and crushingly boring whiner, stephie. All you do is whine. Except when you are trying to promote that non-entity loser jonny huntsman as the second coming of Jesus Christ. Get your head out of your –snip– and stand up straight. Like a man.

      • As usual, Don Monfort replies with nothing technical but a sophomoric, boorish, diatribe of name calling.

      • Do you imagine that you deserve anything else, stephie? Have you noticed that your reply is just more inconsequential whining? Carry on little –snipper–snipper.

    • What I don’t see in that article is any empirical evidence that the United States is becoming a courser society. Just the opposite is true, unless we put form (subjecivity) over substance (objectivity).

      Violent crime in the United States has trended down since the 18th century.

      Trump’s rhetoric pales in comparison to what was common a mere 50 years ago. To get a feel for what it was like 50 years ago, try watching this:

      The Freedom Riders
      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/freedomriders/watch

      And if we want to turn the clock back to the 18th century, this is what we find:

      [T]he absence of the social question from the American scene was, after all, quite deceptive….

      [A]bject and degrading misery was present everywhere in the form of slavery and negro labour….

      As it is, we are tempted to ask ourselves if the goodness of the poor white man’s country did not depend to a considerable degree upon black labour and black misery — there lived roughly 400,000 Negroes along with approximatley 1,850,000 white men in America in the middle of the eighteenth century, and even in the absence of reliable statistical data we may be sure that the percentage of complete destitution and misery was considerably lower in the countries of the Old World.

      From this, we can only conclude that the institution of slavery carries an obscurity even blacker than the obscurity of poverty; the slave, not the poor man, was ‘wholly overlooked’.

      — HANNAH ARENDT, On Revolution

      One need only imagine what would have happened had one or a few unarmed blacks in the 1950s tried to disrupt the campaign speech of a presidential candidate to understand the absurdity of the talk about how course American society has become.

  25. OIL 38.28
    BRENT 40.30
    NAT GAS 1.798
    RBOB GAS 1.4508

  26. “A brilliant read on Obama’s foreign policy, via @TheAtlantic: [link]”

    Brilliant is not the word I would use. Goldberg is an apologist for Obama and his foreign policy: selective hearing if you will.

    Obama is spun as calm in the face of storm; measured in the throes of conflicting extremes; and steadfast in his aims.

    And yet, I got a distinct feeling that Goldberg’s access to the President for these last 8 years is more in keeping with how Obama wants his Presidency to be seen historically as essentially favorable and in a good light.

    After so many many pages, Obama’s foreign policy boils down to fighting climate change as an existential threat that is foundational to all the world’s current and future difficulties.

    For those who might be interested in validating some of my utterances, I recommend reading the last 1/3rd of the article. It may take you some 20 to 25 minutes or so, but you will get my observation.

    A weak President justifying a do-nothing foreign policy which has ramifications in its own right.

    • I like the way Obama stands up to all those around him and makes the hard choices,
      That’s what I call leadership. I wish he could run for a third term. The GOP nominee wouldn’t stand a chance.

    • Obama lost me at “Gee, I thought the French were going to tidy up after us”. Actually, he lost me well before that, but when you are destabilising a continent, it’s best not to count on Pepe Le Pew to put it together again. I speak as a redneck francophile – one of the few, and against better judgement.

      French foreign policy:

    • Obama’s foreign policy is influenced by his father’s hatred of the Europeans, who went around in their boats with their firearms messing up a pristine world filled with idyllic little peaceful villages filled with plump little hippies with flowers in their hair. And the commie friends of his moms, who tutored him when they were visiting moms. And the Rev. J Righteous Wright’s black liberation theology. His commitment to dim witted left-wing radicalism earns big ears the Nobel Peace Prize out of the freaking gate, before he got his hands on the drone joystick. Too late to take it back.

      He will be most remembered by the soldiers and spies who served under his feckless command as the self-serving political creature who wasted a lot of good Americans’ lives with his half-hearted and half-stepping exercise of U.S. power.

      • By the way, I bet that none of you civilian types are aware of this:

        http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/687786/af-senior-leaders-brief-state-of-the-air-force.aspx

        After the lady Sec of AF bragged about the AF being controlled by women and being a haven for downtrodden LGBT, she dithered around with some other crap and finally got to the part about the AF losing 19 pilots in the last 6 months. She doesn’t mention that they are still flying around in harm’s way only to come back, if they survive their missions, with bombs still hanging from the wings, due to insanely restrictive rules of engagement. We need new management, folks. Someday you will call for the soldiers and they won’t come.

      • under his feckless command as the self-serving political creature who wasted a lot of good Americans’ lives with his half-hearted and half-stepping exercise of U.S. power.

        Don, I think we waste American lives when we put our troops in harms way when it isn’t required.

      • That’s correct, yoey. A first for you.

        The civilian authorities, the Commander in Chief and the Congress, put our war fighters in harm’s way. We would like it to be for good reason, but that is not always the case. Regardless, our people have always gone and have done the best they can with whatever leadership and support they have been given to do the job.

        I have had personal experience serving the C in Cs from LBJ to Reagan and have close friends who have served under the rest, up to and including Obama. Prevailing opinion from personal knowledge and what I have been told by military and intelligence folks I know.

        LBJ was a well meaning bumbler who got a lot of our people killed unnecessarily, due to poor judgement. Strictly by the numbers he is the worst C in C, in modern times. However, Obama is the least respected by the troops because he has gotten a lot of people killed for ideology that doesn’t serve American interests and for self-serving cosmetic political expediency. And it will continue until he is replaced.

    • The magazine “The American Conservative” has a much different take than RiHo08:

      http://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/im-gonna-miss-this-president-when-hes-gone/

      • Stephen Segrest

        Noah Millman says:

        “The foreign policy that President Obama describes in his extraordinary series of interviews with Jeffrey Goldberg is pretty much exactly the foreign policy that I would support – far more so than the foreign policy that the Obama Administration has actually followed.”

        I think Millman drank the cool aide. He claims that Obama’s foreign policy legacy will be reflected as in Goldberg’s Atlantic article. That is pure spin for both journalistic creatures. As does Real Climate leave important contrary information out on climate change, so Goldberg leaves important information out of his narrative, and then…and then, there are a few unsupported “dashes” of quiet behind the scenes diplomacy: Putin and Obama taking a quiet and secluded walk together and all of a sudden Syria’s chemical weapons were revealed and turned over to the US for disposal. Would only that be true. Alas….

        History is largely written by the winners and Obama wants to go out as a foreign policy winner, so he is having written for him, how he won the West. Ain’t so.

        To succeed in foreign policy it takes lots and lots of experience, being interested and working in foreign policy. Bush the Elder is the only recent President who had lots of experience and interest, and, we had: Desert Storm: 100 days in and out leaving the battle tanks in Saudia Arabia if Mr. Bagdad decided to over running his neighbors again. It was Bush the Younger who surrounded himself with the Washington crowd without any grasp of what he was doing: Enduring Freedom indeed.

        The above is just a brief sample of where the legacy of Presidential foreign policy will lie, scrutinized by others as the paper trail becomes declassified. Obama is neither the first nor the last to try to write his own history, and his legacy, in a favorable light.

      • The dialogues that Goldberg describes in that POS are obviously not spontaneous, but highly contrived and bogus. When have we heard stammering, lispy Obama or that dim–snip– Kerry sound so composed, deeply thoughtful and articulate without the aid of a gaggle of professional speech writers and freaking teleprompters? Even with all the contrivance and writing skill of Goldberg, the story is still easily recognizable Obama legacy aggrandizing BS.

      • What’s in this for Goldberg? Well, his cozy access to the big man will make him the go-to chronicler of the first black President’s legacy. Several books with multi-million dollar advances.

  27. Often many here at CE (probably non-Farmers) talk about CO2 “just being plant food” — as they deride folks concerned about AGW.

    I’m in Agriculture, and while I’ve not made it a major mission to understand “ALL” aspects of AGW and Ag — this topic appears to be complicated over such things like C3 and C4 crops (and I could list many other things):

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/more-carbon-dioxide-air-makes-some-crops-less-nutritious-180951356/?no-ist

    The point being a person can be concerned about things like this (trying to get their hands around technical issues) and not be a liberal, socialist, worshiper of Gaia, etc.

    • Stephen Segrest,

      From your link –

      “Scientists have now discovered that an increase in carbon dioxide levels could cancel out the beneficial effects of dwarf varieties.”

      Reading the article indicates that sufficient CO2 overcomes the artificially induced growth restrictions creating dwarf varieties. And you think that this is bad? More food and water (supposedly evil GHGs) for plants has overall negative results?

      If you are going to complain that fast growth may result in a lesser percentage of a particular component, I prefer 1% of something to 100% of nothing.

      My derision continues unabated, I guess. More CO2 good, no CO2 positively fatal! Tell me, what would you consider a world wide optimal level of CO2 and gaseous H2O? Why?

      Cheers.

      • “Hypercapnia is generally caused by hypoventilation, lung disease, or diminished consciousness. It may also be caused by exposure to environments containing abnormally high concentrations of carbon dioxide (usually due to volcanic or geothermal causes), or by rebreathing exhaled carbon dioxide.”

        That’s it, Flynn has OD’ed on his own halitosis. Gawd, what a revolting thought.

        I forgot , but I think the quote is from Wiki.

      • Reading the article indicates that sufficient CO2 overcomes the artificially induced growth restrictions creating dwarf varieties. And you think that this is bad? More food and water (supposedly evil GHGs) for plants has overall negative results?

        Of course it’s bad. More energy spent growing extra, unneeded stems and leaves (and the roots to support them) means less energy growing fruit (grains) that’s what the crops are for.

        Why do you suppose dwarf varieties were bred in the first place?

  28. max10k,

    As is usual with Warmists, unsubstantiated assumption accompanied by sciencey stuff, is substituted for fact. Just like climatology, really.

    It is impossible to OD on halitosis, as halitosis is not scientifically demonstrated to have toxic effects. It’s just a made up sciencey word to describe breath odours which some individuals find unpleasant.

    Maybe you confuse halitosis (a made up word), with elevated CO2 levels.

    CO2 is not toxic under roughly 40,000 ppm. If you are American, the following may be of interest –

    “CO2 is a naturally occurring atmospheric gas that is considered safe at levels below 0.5% according to OSHA standards”

    That’s 5000 ppm. Safe. US Government. EPA. And Warmists worry about 500 ppm? Tell the US Government! All panic! Doom, doom!

    More CO2 (to a point) – good! Less CO2 – bad.

    Cheers.

  29. David L. Hagen

    Ideas have consequences
    25 years later: When the world united against climate change

    The Paris climate deal was the latest chapter of a story that started a quarter of a century ago, and owes much to US Republicans and UK Conservatives . . .

    Yet another existential threat was brewing. Throughout the 1980s research papers on the build-up of greenhouse gases started to appear.. . .
    A “precautionary principle” held that conclusive scientific proof was not necessary for countries to take steps to attack the causes of environmental degradation.

    A “polluter pays principle” boldly stated those responsible for causing damage should fix the mess, regardless of whether they were a developed or developing country.

    States had “an obligation” to protect the climate, it said. Fossil fuel subsidies must be stopped. Activities within national borders must not cause damage to other states, it added. . . .
    “When the US submitted it to the Senate, it basically said this agreement is mostly about transparency and reporting.”

  30. David L. Hagen

    Disastrous Capacity Factors

    Using data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) and EurObserv’ER, Ed Hoskins of the UK, makes some rough comparisons of capital costs needed to generate one Gigawatt (GW) of electricity from onshore wind, offshore wind, and solar photovoltaic (pv) on grid. The variance in estimated capacity factors is striking. The EIA estimate of onshore wind is 36%, offshore wind 38%, and solar pv on grid is 25%. The EurObserv’ER measured capacity (2014) is 21.8% for combined onshore and offshore wind, and 12.1% for solar pv. The Renewable Energy Foundations measured capacity factor for the UK (2002-2015) is 22.4% for onshore, 24.9% for offshore and 9.8% for solar pv. . . .
    Although his analysis could use refinement, Ed Hoskins demonstrates that with today’s natural gas prices and actual capacities measured in Europe, onshore wind, offshore wind, and solar pv are roughly 16, 45, and63 times more expensive than combined cycle natural gas, respectively. See link under Questioning European Green.

    Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #218

  31. In the kiddies versus the US government, plaintiff alleges:

    “This Court should order Defendants to swiftly phase-down CO2 emissions aimed at atmospheric CO2 concentrations that are no more than 350 ppm by 2100, develop a national plan to restore Earth’s energy balance, and implement that national plan so as to stabilize the climate system. Plaintiffs come before this Court to secure their fundamental rights under the Constitution, before it is too late,”

    Is there any recognition there that, whatever the US does, it is only 5 percent of the world’s population?

  32. Danny Thomas

    Founded 2013 by a Republican. Stephen Segrest (et al) might find this of interest in a search for (some?) areas of common ground. Sharing as it’s a new find for me via Breakthrough, Ted Nordhous, and CSM.

    https://clearpath.org/our-principles/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearPath_Foundation
    http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy/2016/0310/Can-Republicans-learn-to-love-clean-energy