Outgoing EPA Chief: Trump has "Limited Room to Manoeuvre"

Gina McCarthy and Donald Trump

Gina McCarthy by USEPA Environmental-Protection-AgencyDay in the Life – April 4, 2014, Public Domain, Link. Donald Trump by Michael Vadon [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Outgoing Obama EPA Chief Gina McCarthy thinks President-elect Donald Trump will not be able to change EPA policy towards CO2, because it will be too difficult to undo her policy initiatives.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

EPA chief says Trump has limited room to scrap climate rules

McCarthy says any attempt must be scientifically justified under Clean Air Act.

The chief architect of President Barack Obama’s climate change policies has warned the incoming Trump administration that US law and the scientific evidence of global warming will constrain any attempt to overturn her work.

With the outlook for global climate action uncertain after the US election, Gina McCarthy, the top US environmental regulator, told the Financial Times that climate change sceptics led by Donald Trump would have limited room for manoeuvre.

“It’s going to be a very high burden of proof for them,” said Ms McCarthy, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, outlining why US law would ensure that Mr Trump could not easily abolish climate change regulations.

To replace Ms McCarthy, Mr Trump has nominated Scott Pruitt, a politician who has repeatedly excoriated the EPA and made it his mission to try to scupper her signature achievements.

Read more: https://www.ft.com/content/e4759fea-c491-11e6-8f29-9445cac8966f

I can’t help thinking Obama appointees like Gina McCarthy are in total denial about the magnitude of their loss of support. President-elect Donald Trump has an enormous mandate to liberate America from the shackles of bureaucrats like McCarthy. In a few short years, nobody will remember who she was.


429 thoughts on “Outgoing EPA Chief: Trump has "Limited Room to Manoeuvre"

  1. Gina McCarthy is one of those people that have not a mirror in her house, with her male hair, clothes, shoes, who does she think she is ?
    A White Obearma ?

    • a socialist/marxist
      This has been the democrats plan from day one…..ram as much through as you can…implement it as fast as you can
      …so when it comes time to deconstruct it, it’s too involved and can’t be deconstructed
      Obama care, illegals, EPA, solar, wind, etc etc and on and on
      In a sane world not one of these things would have happened this fast, become this involved already.

      • The obvious solution for Trump is to employ the same stratagem that Alexander did with the Gordian Knot. Sometimes elegant and clever just don’t get the job done like brute force does.

      • There is nothing that cannot be undone or simply not funded and allowed to die.
        They want to pretend and to convince everybody that it would do too much damage to undo their hugely damaging policies that harm everybody and everything. If they keep saying it over and over, they start to believe it’s true. Typical Hitlerian strategy.

      • The Obama Administration have used a similar strategy regarding the agendas of the abortion lobby and the LGBT lobby’. On abortion the Department of Health and Human Services released final regulations “to increase access to affordable family planning and preventive services” under Title X grants Dec. 14. The new rule takes effect Jan. 18, two days before the inauguration of Donald Trump. Title X is a federal program that promotes “family planning” through grants to various providers of health care through the states. In its new rule, the HHS says that states can’t withhold these grants to certain health providers if they provide the “family planning” services that Title X is based on: “no grant recipient making subawards for the provision of services as part of its Title X project may prohibit an entity from participating for reasons other than its ability to provide Title X services.”
        As Donald Trump begins to staff his administration, his appointees should understand how deeply the ideologically-driven LGBTs have burrowed into permanent jobs in the permanent bureaucracy and how dangerous they are.
        The new political appointees should also understand how this group and their allies have driven those who may disagree with their agenda either underground or from the federal bureaucracy altogether, and some even to jail.

      • To deconstruct the EPA rulings
        1) Hire, appoint new Scientists to key roles within the EPA department.
        2) Redefine the job roles and responsibilities of the existing EPS Scientists.
        3) Fund research into proving CO2’s critical role in Greening the Biosphere.
        4) Have CO2 declared a true noble gas and removed from the atmospheric pollutant list.
        5) Begin overturning and removing every EPA induced law regarding the CO2 = pollutant and thereby must be regulated rules and regulations
        6) Pass legislation through Congress affirming that CO2 is not a pollutant and cannot be labeled as such.

      • Australia had a female Prime Minister that said much the same, “buried in legislature” was one of the terms used, She’s gone now and so are her policies.

      • D. J. Hawkins December 19, 2016 at 7:07 am
        … Gordian Knot. …

        I’ll see your Alexander and raise you a Farragut.

        Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! link

      • ” commieBob & D. J. Hawkins ” – I’ll see your quotes and raise you a geek quote!
        When in doubt, use brute force! – Ken Thompson

      • Bryan A would it not be simpler just to shut down the EPA then reconstruct it under a new mandate?
        There is another simple path to this,
        1. Make the appropriate appointments to the supreme court.
        2. Take a case to the Supremes that the EPA failed to properly account for the dangers of LOW CO2 and send the endangerment finding back to the EPA.
        4. Prevent a new CO2 endangerment finding by making a congressional rule that no atmospheric component that is life critical (Generally CO2, O2 and H2O) can be regulated as a pollutant.
        Effectively this plan can have the EPA do all the undoing for him.

      • The Endangerment Finding could be overturned, it is the linchpin for all of the ensuing regulations under the CAA. Back in 2009, Alan Carlin of NCEE/OPEI produced a cogent, scientifically rigorous critique of the basis for the Endangerment Finding. There just has to be the political will to credit those comments. Unpack it, dust it off and you are 90% there.

      • Bring Gina McCarthy up on charges of malfeasance/misfeasance in office for not basing the endangerment finding on scientific evidence as the law required that she do. Then, not only will she be gone, but she also will lose her pension, etc benefits.

    • ROFLMAO!!! I Honestly thought to myself
      “Who is that man with the white hair” in the picture? I’ve seen a picture before, but never made the connection. That’s hilarious!

      • Stop. Just stop. There’s plenty of fodder for criticism, even ridicule. Lowering the bar to comments about appearance provides a weapon – a justifiable and effective weapon – against our disagreement with the outgoing bureaucrats. It devolves into an accusation of how deplorable you are instead of any substantive discussion about disagreements.

      • I agree with TomB. These sorts of comments are really childish. And no, they aren’t funny so it’s not about “getting a sense of humor.”

      • Maybe instead of looks, we should be concerned with education. What is: Bachelor of Arts in Social Anthropology and a further degree of Master of Science in Environmental Health Engineering and Planning and Policy? We are always being told that “scientists” have determined that CO2 is bad, and that if you are not a “Climate Change Scientist” you are not allowed to have an opinion. Are any Science courses involved in Environmental Health Engineering and Planning and Policy, or is it all courses in Geography like most environmentalist degrees?

      • “Lowering the bar to comments about appearance…” blah-blah…
        Appearance is everything. It is written on the face of a man or a woman, who he or she really is. Everyone knows this, wether they admit it or not, Those who insist that there should be no “comments about appearance” are hiding a lot of sceletons in their attic.
        Style of hair is also important. The more people care about what’s on the outside of their heads, the less they usually care about what’s inside. That gives me a hope that there is something substantial under Mr. Trump’s somewhat ridiculous hairdo.

    • Such a weird ad-hom comment I wonder if it’s a plant? Who cares what she looks like? Sinking to petty insults doesn’t win people round or convince them to question their beliefs, and it lowers the generally civilised tone of this blog.

      • Shouldn’t that be “ad mulierem“? Or is “ad hominem” meant as some sort of petty insult?

      • HItlert surrounded himself with top level people who was social outcasts or deviants, disaffected people who did not give a hoot about normal people of their country. That is why she is perfectly fine with imposing policies on which she has only done half the benefit/risk analysis and certainly skips the cost analysis.

      • JJB–I know it’s a tu quoque, but have you ever seen any of the running commentary about Donald Trump’s “orange” makeup and hair? Gina McCarthy looks like a bad parody of a woman’s studies professor.

      • Either a plant or someone who has not regularly visited WUWT. Sounds like something you would read on Reddit. In any event, such comments are not in keeping with the general quality of analysis here.

      • I agree with JJB MKI- It’s in poor taste to attack people based on appearance and beneath the important focus of this site. There’s plenty in her policies and ideological biases to attack. Go for it!

      • JJB,
        “its PAT” was a popular running skit on Saturday Night Live. It was accepted as humorous … and not that I listened back then, but did not hear anyone complaining about the “contextual insult” to people like “Pat” (or Gina).
        McCarthy puts a lot of effort (maybe not time, but consistent effort…) into cultivating that look. Although it is a PC approved look, It is not a normal look. She is trying to create a specific, outside the box, image for some reason.
        If she had a different abnormal look, say for example purple spiky hair, an orange adolph mustache, 32 face piercings, shaved eyebrows, and an anus tattoo on her chin would you think it is O.K. to take note of her appearance. If not where would you draw the line?
        And JJB, Happy Holidays.

      • JBB,
        From the Financial Times:
        “Ms McCarthy, a battle-hardened regulator with a shock of short white hair and a thick Boston accent, thinks not. She predicted that if confirmed by the Senate Mr Pruitt would find the reality of office to be sobering.”
        Obviously other media outlets thinks its O.K. to use her appearance (including accent) to describe her … they just think it is a positive spin.
        How ’bout ” Ms McCarthy, the ‘Boston wife’ regulator, complete with the short white hair & mannish attire, thinks not. She predicted….”
        Your right, petty insults don’t win (a lot of) people, it’s primarily propaganda and PC protections that convince most people. Second to that it’s knowledge of direct impacts & practical experience that change peoples thoughts. After that you can pick up the dregs with insults. Finally, some people will die thinking they are right when they are not.

      • Hi Don,
        While we’re geeking out on logical fallacy, your example might be dipping its toe into ‘argumentum ad absurdum’ ;-). I can honestly say though that I’d probably like her better for that, especially the anus tattoo on the chin – I believe it would show moral courage and an admirable independence of thought. But maybe I’m weird – I respect people who don’t care what anyone thinks. I don’t think anyone should be beyond criticism of their speech and behaviour though, particularly if they’re in positions of power.
        Happy holidays to you too!
        J Burns

      • Being a public official, she intentionally makes herself look like a man on the basis of her perverse ideology — and, therefore, her appearance, as well as her ideology, is a legitimate target for ridicule.

    • The key is to destroy the infrastructure. Recall how Obama destroyed NASA’s manned space program – by privatizing it. The money was then moved to other projects such as climate b.s.
      So eliminate departments dealing with CO2 pollution and claim it is better handled by the private sector. The money can be used on real projects, like cleaning up that mine disaster caused by the EPA.

      • A bit of enlightenment for you. NASA has never built a rocket or space ship. They are a contracting agency. Every rocket or payload that has been sent up into space was built and launched by private contractors hired by NASA. NASA “buys” rockets and capsules. BTW JPL is a Cal Tech Laboratory that is funded by NASA. NASA does maintain a huge standing army of test laboratories and facilities that are used to ENABLE others to design spacecraft, and they lease and maintain launch facilities.
        That being said the method that Obama used to back burner the space program is the same one being advocated by several commenters: Cut off the funding stream.

      • But first, demand to see the scientific proof that CO2 IS a pollutant. Publicly demand that the proof be printed in a public forum – something like whitehouse.gov and allow comments on it to be posted as well.

      • Dear Rocketscientist,
        “Built” or “engineered, integrated, and tested”? I’m not a NASA supporter insofar as its “goals” and purpose are concerned, but without doubt NASA engineered, integrated, and tested the Saturn V stack that went to the Moon, the Space Shuttle, and the International Space Station (ISS). The Apollo mission stack was successful, largely because Wernher von Braun was in charge of the Saturn V. But he and his Peenemunde crew were fired in 1972 and (in my opinion) it has been all downhill ever since.
        Recognizing a simple truth is no praise for NASA. The Shuttle was a terrible mission compromise for the sake of getting a sustainable public works program. After 20 years of operation and failed development programs (X-30, X-33), NASA arrived at the retirement of the Shuttle with no replacement. If this is stewardship, you might as well give them a forest and a box of matches. The ISS was a cute little tautology: “We need the Shuttle to build a Space Station. Now that we have a Shuttle, we must build a Space Station. The Space Station is built, so now we don’t need a Shuttle.” Can anyone name a single important scientific discovery resulting from the ISS operations?
        JPL is an anomaly, an organization that is driven by mission objectives. In that respect, it demonstrates a bit of the ethos that prevailed during the Apollo program. NASA need a housecleaning and a mission reset, and we should be willing to cultivate a free-market space transportation architecture.
        In the middle 1980s, I conducted a market analysis of the commercial, military, and NASA space transportation markets. Very high commonality between the commercial and military markets: reliability, availability, economy. Essentially no commonality between NASA and either of the other two: unique, low-production, extreme performance. The obvious conclusion is that selling anything to NASA was a matter of masochism, penury, or playing with the bleeding edge of things. Better markets were to be found elsewhere–as Space X is demonstrating.
        NASA: Space Travel by Post Office.

      • So Kevin, perhaps you can enlighten us. You said ” manned ” space program. That would at least have started with Apollo, which of course was actually Mercury / Gemini / Apollo.
        So what was the cost / benefit relationship for MGA.
        As to follow ons such as Space Shuttle. What was the cost benefit for say the part of the shuttle program that MANUALLY repaired (Twice) the Hubble Space Telescope.
        Is there a benefit to us (Humans) of the Hubble space Telescope; well it does make pretty pictures; but what good are they to us.
        As for the first Apollo moon landing. What a fiasco that would have been as a non man landed episode.
        The computer programmers; those imported silicon valley software brainiacs, had the thing set up to land on a pile of rocks and tip over. Well so what, some scrap metal left on the moon.
        ” At this point, what difference does it make ” ??
        So what particular aspect of the manned space program most sticks in your gut.
        Apollo came in well ahead of schedule and way under budget, but was a freebie in the end; and ONLY because it was designed as a manned project; not a google self driving car or better yet a Tesla model S that doesn’t recognize 18 wheelers as a hazard or limit to forward travel.

      • “Recall how Obama destroyed NASA’s manned space program – by privatizing it.”
        The shuttle was effectively killed by the Columbia investigation that required major changes if it was to continue flying more than a few years. Ultimately, those changes were not cost-effective, and the next shuttle lost would have killed the program anyway.
        NASA then spent about as much to put a fake upper stage on top of a shuttle SRB and launch it into the ocean as SpaceX spent to build a new rocket engine and two new rockets and launch them into space.
        Telling NASA to launch as much as possible on private launchers is one of the best things Obama ever did. Unfortunately the Republicans keep pushing for NASA to build the world’s most expensive rocket that just happens to keep many of the old shuttle contractors in business. Assuming SpaceX get their act together after their recent failure, they should be able to launch payloads for a tenth as much as the Senate Launch System will, if it ever flies.

    • Ziiex Zeburz, these types of comments are unacceptable and unwelcome on WUWT. Go troll somewhere else.

      • Patrick,
        Contrary to your opinion, in the political realm, which completely engulfs the climate change debate, Ziiex Zeburz’ comment is completely relevant.
        Those who have been paying attention to the words and actions of Ms. McCarthy know full well that she was not chosen to head the EPA because of any displayed competence in either science, or managerial skill. She was chosen as a symbolic prostration to gender identity politics. However righteous might be the claims of mistreatment under the law from anyone in that sphere, identity politics is primarily a weapon in an arsenal, deployed by those who have no one’s interest in mind, but their own. Those invaders make every effort to divide and confuse the populace at every turn; to drive a wedge between neighbors, to divide and conquer.
        It’s much more than mere symbolism over substance which has taken the ship of state into perilous waters and a course correction is long overdue.
        It’s beyond foolish to chastise a lookout for spotting the reef.

      • @Alan Robertson
        I disagree. His comment was strictly directed at her appearance. That’s hardly in keeping with the normal quality of analysis here.
        Now, if he wanted to claim that she is incompetent, lacks any hard science training (anthropology degree), and she was hired based on some ridiculous basis and not abilities and experience – fine.
        But he didn’t – he tossed out a remark you would expect from an 8 year old or a liberal.
        By the way, you do know she’s married with three kids, right?

      • Nope, I think Patricks right. This type of ad hom attack turned many sceptics like me off the alarmist mob because we couldn’t stomach the personal attacks. Personally, I was convinced to the sceptical side because no one here condemned me for asking stupid questions. I’m not clever, I’m not a scientist, I would just like to try to understand what’s going on. If I might be so bold to suggest, you guys need to keep that up and not make people feel threatened when they first visit WUWT, it’s a difficult enough site to come to terms with if you don’t know what your talking about never mind being faced with a hostile crowd.

      • Patrick and HotScot,
        Generally, I agree that it is bad form to use someone’s appearance as any sort of argument against their point of view. I’ve even come to the defense of Naomi Oreskes, in these pages, when her visage was made an issue. (I’ve never even laughed at pictures of W. Eschenbach. That I remember.)
        Is it the personal features of an individual which define the boundaries of genteel speech, beyond which no comment should be made, or does the range of acceptable commentary encompass the personal accoutrements with which people identify themselves? Does it become unacceptable to pillory John Cook of SkS, for his published appearance in a quasi- Nazi uniform? Is any sort of backlash acceptable against the politics of division which have recently manifested in such odious forms as edicts aimed at removing the societal and legal barricades between men’s and women’s bathrooms? Where does one draw the line?
        I may be completely wrong about Gina McCarthy, as being chosen and advanced throughout her career, not for personal competence, but as a representative of gender/orientation based politics. All versions of identity politics have been used not just to guarantee Constitutional rights to all citizens, but to foment the kind of hidden agenda which undermines personal liberty for all. Her appearance suggests that she fits the profile and her actions effectively indict her. She has spent her entire tenure at EPA making decisions far outside the limits of Federal authority, as delineated in the Constitution. Her most recent statements make clear that she is actively working to thwart the will of the people, as manifested through their elected representatives.
        I stand by what I said about the agendas of purposeful destruction of the Republic, which are woven throughout the various gambits of identity politics. My earlier statement may have unfortunately served to detract from the necessity of exposure of those agendas and of those who would implement them. Maybe not. There comes a time when niceties and political correctness deserve a sharp whack upside the head.

      • Patridk B., HotScot, et al,
        I just posted a reply, but WordPress suppressed it. It may appear at some point in future, should you be interested.
        It goes like this… you’re wrong, I’m right, so take that! Or maybe not… you’ll just have to come back and find out.

      • @Alan Robertson
        Interesting comments. I don’t know if by saying ‘she was chosen as a symbolic prostration to gender identity politics’, you are referring to her public pronouncements on certain issues, or claiming that she was chosen for her position simply because of the way she looks. If the former, your argument is logical and the diametric opposite of Ziiex’s statement. You’re playing the ball, not the man (or woman), but this is not what Ziiex did.
        It depends what you mean by ‘should’ and ‘acceptable’. In the context of what is morally right, that is something that is endlessly debatable, and I suppose depends on your feelings about the right to offend. In the context of forming a compelling argument on wider issues, perhaps personal features shouldn’t come into play at all? If the way person A looks has any bearing on the position to which they are appointed (or the respect they are afforded), it is an indictment of the feeble mindedness, impressionability and prejudice of a group who appointed them to that position in allowing appearance to take control of their judgement, not on person A for looking or choosing to look the way they do. If you allow your own opinions to be swayed negatively by personal appearance, you’re no less impressionable than a group who are swayed positively, regardless of the cultural associations of any particular ‘look’.
        Your John Cook example seems a bit far out – it’s unlikely he would dress in a Nazi uniform day in, day out. He deliberately wore the symbol of a despotic regime when posing for a photo to make a specific and provocative statement, and it is that statement that can be legitimately attacked. As there are plenty of people who look and might choose to dress like Gina McCarthy who wouldn’t share her views, I don’t think it would be reasonable to accuse her of being provocative in her attire in this way.
        “There comes a time when niceties and political correctness deserve a sharp whack upside the head.”
        In equating niceties to political correctness, are you throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Political correctness is a superficial display of acceptably righteous belief – virtue signalling with the sole purpose of gaining acceptance or advancing an agenda. For this reason it is a cynical quality which rightly engenders suspicion. Niceties can encompass a display of respect in putting forward a case which can ultimately beat an opponent by removing the emotional defence of offence.
        In the context of opinions expressed on this blog, I guess the validity of your argument boils down to where you’re coming from. If you’re angry at being labelled a ‘denier’ by people who have no understanding of their own position beyond the bleating of a fallacious ‘97%’ mantra, then maybe it’s a good forum to vent with like-minded people and let off some steam. If you think there is a possibility of ending the CAGW scam and its associated cults however, the only way is to change people’s minds – to bring them on side to the point where they will ignore the ‘danger, you are entering the land of unacceptable views’ signs and take a look at the abundant evidence of corruption, self-serving agendas, bad science, statistical mangling and cherry-picking in the whole mess for themselves. This will never happen if people (left, right, unusual haircuts, masculine clothing and all) feel aliened in a similar way to which the majority of the US public recently did. The Democrats inhabited a bubble, and ultimately lost because of this, regardless of the validity of their position. Abandoning niceties and engaging in the same sort of divisive polemic as the CAGW cheerleaders (who do so mostly just to keep their own from straying) feeds a tribalism peripheral to important issues on which people could potentially agree, and waters down the impact of sceptical argument, even if you might have some valid points.

    • She’s the very first Test Run from the ” B**** ” mold.
      Her and Nayomi Orestes would easily pass themselves off as twins.
      Come to think of it Elektra truly was a B**** .

      • Please stop taking advantage of Anthony’s absence to trash the civilized nature of his (our) blog.

      • When a public servant living off MY tax dollars has the temerity to tell the incoming President elect of the USA, to effectively screw off, and just try to untangle her mischief; that is not the comment of an administrator showing her science acumen in the furtherance of her job responsibilities.
        At that point she becomes disconnected from her functional responsibilities, and immunity to ad hominem comment.
        Reacting negatively to her ” just try to put my toothpaste back in the tube” tantrum becomes open season.
        So keep your moral indignation. My comment was unrelated to her job performance; just her catty demeanor in reference to the incoming administration.

      • So saying Obama was the first ‘black’ pres. is presumably also “racist”? We are supposed to say “oh, is he? I hadn’t noticed”.
        In case you didn’t get the memo , screw the PC bullshit.

      • See my previous post to Latitude December 19, 2016 at 5:34 am about Alan Carlin’s takedown of the Endangerment Finding. That’s all the justification needed.

      • No it must be legally justified. Science is PART of the legal requirements. There are other legal requirements that if not met make any rules null and void. I believe there is a reason lawyer will be placed in charge.

      • Iron Argonaut,
        You should be aware by now that the “Änthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis has never been scientifically acceptable and in fact is is soundly and continuously disproven by 1. Previous warmings before Anthropogenic CO2 could possibly be a factor. 2. Disproven because empirical data does not match up with temperature predictions.
        Take a little look at Richard Feynman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw&t=18s
        In real science, there is no need to proceed further than this. McCarthy must surely understand this but is fighting a last stand, (and possibly the end of her rewards for so avidly propagating such fiction). She may face some cost for her avidness soon, but time will tell.

    • She forgets that the easiest things President Trump can do to eliminate, or at least neuter, any of these rules and regulations is to instruct the Attorney General not to defend them in court, and instruct the EPA Chief not to enforce them.

      • She may crazy, but not necessarily stupid. Consider one fat target of Pruitt, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. This mandates an increasing percentage of renewable fuel (ethanol) in gasoline, impossibly high (according to the GSA) targets in fact by 2022. It’s why EPA are ramming E15 and E85 down our throats. But RFS will be almost impossible to repeal since it was actually created by Congress as the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and expanded under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. That’s right, under George W. Bush! (Here, let me help you stand back up again.) And then consider how many Republican senators from Big Corn states would have to vote against their constituencies in order to kill it. And Trump promised not to scuttle RFS when he campaigned in the midwest, but you weren’t paying attention.

    • I think McCarthy is going to be shocked at how fast scientific justification to reverse EPA BS will occur.

    Well, we know the President of the United States has enormous discretionary power, especially over an Agency under the Executive Branch, which includes EPA.
    As for “the scientific evidence of (human-caused) global warming” it is nonexistent and will not constrain President Trump. What she really means by “scientific evidence” is the Left has a consensus of agreement that it is real, but that is not science.
    Those on the Left are engaging in wishful thinking. They do that a lot.

    • I would not be surprised for her predecessor to find that all the original data has disappeared on NOAA servers and that all that is left is the adjusted data.

      • Well they can’t establish CMMGWCCC without any evidence can they. So disappearing the data, would a bitch of a ploy.

      • This might be good. Think of what data would show the day after she left office and after that. The sudden drop in temperatures going forward would look really awkward on a chart that starts in the 1890s. Remember Gavin has a really large hockey stick of a temperature chart now.

      • I think that if that is the case, the FBI should investigate that as abuse of office, at the very least. There is a concept in government contracting that could apply: An error so egregious as to constitute deliberate malfeasance.

      • Regardless of any potential disappearances of collected unadjusted data, original measurement data should still be logged at the site where the measurements originated.

    • @Ann Banisher,
      That’s all right cause it will be available on University of Toronto servers where the paranoid employees saved it from destruction by Trump? Oh the irony.

    • evidence of global warming will constrain any attempt to overturn her work
      clearly the EPA does not understand science. No matter how many positive examples of global warming are found, that is not scientific proof of ANYTHING.
      What matters in science is negative examples. For AGW to be true, there must not be a single example of similar warming in the past, before industrialization.
      However, there are plenty of examples of similar warming in the past. For example, 6000 years ago, for about 1000 years, the tree line in the Arctic was a couple of hundred miles further north than it is now.
      This is but one event that completely disproves AGW, because AGW rests on the requirement that:
      1. the present warming can only be explained by human activity.
      2. current temperatures are warmer than any time in the past.
      But the past shows us that the climate changes all by itself. That it has been warmer in the recent past (in climate terms) without any human activity being involved.

      • Seems to me that the only real way to Porve (AGW) Climate Change would be to show the past Climate Stagnation

      • Ferd,
        But the Trump Office must use irrefutable science to overturn current regulations, and MUST explain that science to the public all over the world in words that the public can understand.
        Then they have to persuade MSM to publish it. That may be difficult since MSM have painted themselves into a corner by agreeing with the concept of CAGW and now don’t know how to get out of the corner without looking gullable.

      • OSD, MSM may be less of a US process factor than you might think. Take SCC and endangerment finding. Former used too low discount rates. Latter relied on IPCC. The revision process is marshall unassailable facts (like OMB minimum discount rate, observational ECS) publish proposed revision for comment for typically 6 monypths), reply to comments, post proposed final rule in federal register, finalize rule, then litigate the inevitable lawsuits which object. With sufficient marshalled solid facts, responsive replies, and a pristine process, it is possible to eventually prevail in court. No MSM involvement. The problem is that this can take many years. We don’t have many years. We have at most four to permanently and irreversibly change things.
        Hence the order of my own process thoughts in comment below.

    • Remember this is the same document that claims the tropical upper/middle troposphere shows the fingerprint of CO2 induced global warming. This was a given in the scientific argument of the clean air act and much is based upon this. Since this is completely false the rest will fall like dominoes and easily IMHO. This was actually detailed here at WUWT a few months ago.

  3. Well he could stop importing from countries with worse environmental problems. China is an example.
    In accordance with clean air act.

    • In accordance with clean air act.
      much of the loss of jobs in the US heartland, with factory closings all across the rust belt, is due to the exporting of air pollution from the US to China.
      However, when China exports the resulting goods and service back in the US, they are actually importing the CO2 as well, because CO2 is well mixed.
      So, in point of fact the US is paying twice for Chinese pollution. First through the loss of jobs and secondly through the Chinese pollution that gets exported back to the US.
      The US would have been way ahead to keep the jobs at home using relatively clean US cola plants to produce power, than to export the jobs to China as a way of cleaning of US air, because in the end the dirty Chinese air gets carried back to the US, but the jobs do not.

  4. …Speaking in her wood-panelled office at the EPA — which is now abutted by Washington’s new Trump International Hotel — Ms McCarthy warned of the dangers of clinging to climate change denial like “a religion or a belief system”.
    (from the FT report)
    The priesthood of the Climate Change Religion do not see it for what it is:

    • clinging to climate change denial like “a religion or a belief system”.
      belief and denial are religious terms. skepticism is a scientific term.
      climate change is a political term with contradictory definitions. global warming is the scientific term.
      Why does the head of the EPA use a religious and political terms to describe a scientific debate?
      notice the change that results from correct terminology:
      clinging to global warming skepticism like “a religion or a belief system”.
      no scientists would regard skepticism as “a religion or a belief system”. suddenly the sentence is revealed for what it is. An absurd statement made to look acceptable through the replacement of scientific terms with political and religious terms.

      • Ms. McCarthy’s limited knowledge and understanding of science, as evidenced by her positions and actions, seems to have been derived similarly as “learned” religious doctrine. All rote dogma and no critical thinking that questions inconsistencies. The anathema against “heresy” is a hall mark. As such she is also prone to be swayed by charismatic speakers who appeal to her limbic brain, and seems confused or annoyed by deductive reasoning. Much better suited for the seminary than the science lab.

      • rocket, “Much better suited for the seminary than the science lab.” Also suited for a university department employing critical theory (so-called).

      • ‘Why does the head of the EPA use a religious and political terms to describe a scientific debate?’

  5. Firstly, it is ludicrous to demand that Trump’s team must now disprove something that isn’t proven to be happening in the first place and, even if it was, there is no proof that the incredibly expensive measures we are undertaking will have any beneficial effect at all..
    Secondly, Brits over a certain age will be reminded of when Thatcher took power and was told “no, don’t take on such-and-such (eg the miners’ union), you can’t win”. The rest is history, although sadly so much of it has since been diluted or reversed by pathetic governments on both sides of parliament.

    • Kind of like everyone telling Trump “haha, you’re an idiot to be running for President, no one like you can possibly win!”

    • Ian,
      what people also forget is that were it not for Thatcher, we would be limping along, burdened with nationalised industries controlled by the unions.
      She was a woman with bigger balls than all the male cabinet members put together. She forced us, kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, it was everyone else following her that screwed up her good work, notably Labour’s Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
      Labour’s Liam Byrne even had the cheek to write a note to his successor saying “The money’s all gone” as though it was a joke; but it wasn’t, Brown even sold the effing gold.
      I hope to God Trump cares as little for his personal popularity as she did and gets the job done. And I sincerely hope he persuades May to go along with him otherwise I’m voting for Farage next time, even if he’s not part of UKIP!

    • “Firstly, it is ludicrous to demand that Trump’s team must now disprove something that isn’t proven to be happening in the first place”
      Such a good point!

  6. Doesn’t have room to maneuver? Methinks Gina is whistling past the graveyard on that one.
    In a Q&A session I once asked Ms. McCarthy to explain the source of scientific inquiry upon which her agency relied to make carbon regulation. Her answer, “…why the IPCC of course, the most preeminent body on the topic.”
    As they say in these parts, “…Nuff said”.

      • Depends of what the definition of “research” is. Here’s one:
        n. The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.
        So it could just mean digging into the IPCC’s materials and “discovering” all the tidbits that support your policy goals. After all, how does one really “research” the effects of CO2 concentration on global climate 100 years from now?


        Hard to consider anything from the IPCC as research or citation worthy as their very charter forces them into a conclusion.

    • This is why Trump should just cancel all USA involvement with the UN climate organizations. Gone- nada-fin! I would like to see him redirect climate research monies solely to “natural causes” of climate change for the next 4/8 years as a counter-balance to the last 28 years of IPCC looking only for “anthropocentric causes” of climate change. Government scientists will do what they are told just like they have under Obama. Anything he does, however, should be legally cleared – the green blob has lots of money and lawyers, and could tie things up forever if this isn’t done carefully.

      • Too bad you have to buy the book to see all the detailed evidence. Will the MSM read the book and report on it? – no. Will the Obama EPA people read the book? – no. will Al Gore, Mann, etc. read the book? – no. Will the 50% who believe in “Climate Change”, “Global Warming” read the book? – no. Will the CAGW “scientists” read the book? – no. Just us/we will read the book…

  7. The administration just needs to come up with a valid scientific reason for dumping the regulations. Just declare any finding that doesn’t have data and methods archived “non-science” poof all of the justifications for the regulations are gone and the regulations can be sent to the dustbin of history.

    • Well I guess if Trump doesn’t attemp but actually achieves then bang goes her scientifically justified theory.

      • Senator Joe McCarthy was pilloried by the same people who he was calling out; the facts, as revealed over the decades, were that our government was riddled with communists. “McCarthyism” is another gem of “fake news” invented by those who control our press, our banks, our politicians.

    • So we have to prove that CAGW doesn’t exist when they can’t prove that it does , with scant factual evidence if any CAGW would not stand up in a court where evidence is required and claims or computer games would not be seen as evidence at all .
      Let’s hope the green blob do start some court action it may once and for all rid us of these parasites.

    • I.e. “You cannot possibly refute The 98%”. And she may be right, I’m afraid, especially with Ivanka whispering in The Donald’s ear.

  8. ‘McCarthy thinks President-elect Donald Trump will not be able to change EPA policy towards CO2’
    If he doesn’t, there are going to be millions of pissed off voters.

    • hocuspocus13,
      No disrespect intended, but is English a second language for you? your comment makes no sense.

      • It can be parsed, but the use of “equal on” is non-standard. And no, we don’t know that Believers and Unbelievers are about equal in number. Unbelievers have been threatened sufficiently to shut up, and Believers have been paid to create Lysenkoist rubbish. There’s no way to know what the relative numbers are.

    • The question of AGW centers around demonstration, hocuspocus, not around equal numbers of authorities.
      In any debate, the scientists who dispute the evidence of a human effect on climate will carry the argument, even if the team membership is 1 disputer to 10 insisters, because there is no good science whatever showing an impact of CO2 emissions on global climate.

  9. The arrogance of the outgoing cabinet is astonishing. Is it really possible she is so deluded that she thinks she, a presidential appointee, can tie the hands of the president himself? I am watching the British House of Cards right now and I can’t help picturing Prime Minister Urquhart grimly laughing in anticipation of the punishments he will inflict on this woman arrogant enough to think that SHE controls HIM.

    • They believe their own propaganda. She really thinks 97% of scientists believe in CAGW caused by CO2, despite all the evidence against it. This is what happens when you live in a cultural bubble and talk to no one outside your circle: a closed mind.

  10. If it takes “a massive amount of evidence” to undo the regs, how did they get installed in the first place? From viewing Al Gore’s fictitious film?

  11. The Clean Power Plan is already dead, all Trump need do is refuse to defend it against the suits from 24 states. As for McCarthy, she’s been clueless about most everything from the start, Gold King, Flint, budget appropriations, an on and on.

      • “Sue the EPA, let the EPA admit their error and settle the case.”
        Who wins? Certainly not US taxpayers. All that action does is feed the lawyers.

      • Ya don’t say! Democrats standing in the way of clean water, again, and still blaming Republicans for the mess they created. I am shocked, SHOCKED, I say!

  12. There is something wrong with a system that allows an unelected bureaucrat to publicly take pride in thwarting the will of a future elected-government.

    • I’ve noticed that sentiment echoed throughout the comments above, and I sympathize, but I think it’s also important to remember just how low on the list of public priorities cAGW is; dead last as I recall?
      It’s easy to think that means there’s public support for dismantling the EPA and the Clean Power Act, but an old associate of mine once reminded me that “No news is just no news” when I used the old saw. The fact the subject polls low doesn’t mean the public supports actively repealing all the nonsense that’s been done by the EPA and DOE over the past eight years. It just means they aren’t all that concerned about it.

  13. I think what McCartthy was saying was that her allies in the green blob would tie everything up in court. However, given a bit of judicous venue shopping. . .

    • No need.
      Trump can simply de-fund the EPA, or simply disband the entire organization.
      There might also be the possibility of prosecutions over a certain mine cleanup and EPA officials who think they are off the hook for their mismanagement.

        • Right after the President asks them to. Separation of powers is a beautiful thing. Glad we appear to be returning to it.

      • Well over due for some prosecutions for EPA telling everyone all cement dust and asbestos covering Lower Manhattan in 2001 was not dangerous.
        How many first responders died from that?

      • Better to pare the EPA down to a maintenance level to oversee necessary regulations and permitting. I’m thinking about 10% of what they are now.

      • Shut it down, and redirect their minimal permitting etc to another department. Bury the head of the New Environmental Protection Unit at least three levels deep under it’s new department head (DOE maybe).

  14. “McCarthy says any attempt must be scientifically justified under Clean Air Act.”
    Gina clearly doesn’t understand what a null hypothesis is and what it takes to refute one. In terms of scientific justification for regulatory change, she also apparently doesn’t understand that the entire edifice is built on unvalidated modeling incorporating base assumptions with no empirical evidential support. The whole modeling ‘effort’ is like the One Ring and once it is destroyed, all the evil that was wrought with its power will crumble into ruin and blow away in the wind.

  15. The losers here are the common folks who blindly bankrupt themselves for these charlatans.
    Like McCarthy will care if anyone remembers her lol she will be home richer.

  16. “It’s going to be a very high burden of proof for them (climate change sceptics) ,” said Ms McCarthy, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency,

    “YUP”, it sure would be “a very high burden of proof?, ….. that is iffen any learned scientists or “climate change sceptics” really cared about or gave a Tinker’s damn about un-radicalizing the highly partisan believers and supporters of the Religious cult of CAGW Climate Changers.
    Of course, iffen you cut off their “free” money supply …… they will most likely become “un-radicalizing” in a heartbeat and without being told to.
    HA, it would be a lot easier to convince all the Bible believing Creationists ….. to forget their beliefs.

  17. Today is a huge hurdle for President elect Trump. And a huge challenge to our nation. McCarthy and her ilk seem to really believe that they are the rightful owners of the American agenda. They only succeed if they are permitted to
    If they can abort the election results today it is likely that her vision will be made reality
    Those of us who want a free America based on rational political policies should not underestimate how hard those like McCarthy will fight.

    • The US system requires that in no candidate has a majority (270 EC votes) it goes to the congress.
      The states get to choose the new POTUS.
      Each state gets one vote.
      I believe the state count was like 29 to 21 in favor of Trump.

  18. Won’t pay for that FT paywalled sh*te Eric. Get the drift though. Think the following might disable the current EPA and throw its entrails in the bin?

    • Ex-expat C
      Try googling “EPA chief says Trump has limited room to scrap climate rules”
      That gives me access to the page without a paywall.

      • Interestingly they’ve shut down comments in less than a day. Rough count suggests they were running 2-1 against the warmunist narrative.

      • The comments to the Financial Times article on this are just hilarious. When are the media going to understand that everyone – with the exception of a few fanatics – is now laughing at every lying word they print.

  19. How did that Jaded boston cop get the job of EPA chief anyways? She’s a complete idiot, lackey line towing bureaucrat who doesn’t even know where the most of earth’s ice is.

  20. To undo regs, the evidence used to put them in place is all the evidence you need to remove them, now that fuqface is gone that dodgy work that was shielded is now unprotected. Real analysis can now take place

    • May not be that hard to do, I remember, Gowdy grilling a NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan about failing to comply with a subpoena for records;

      The Environment Subcommittee today held a hearing to examine the administration’s Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) budget request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan provided testimony and fielded questions about a number of issues, including the agency’s failure to comply with a lawfully issued subpoena for information surrounding a controversial climate change study published last summer. Republicans Press NOAA Chief on Weather Forecasting, Climate Alarmism

      never a good strategy to piss off a Congressman, they may not sign her paycheck, but they write in how much it is for. Close down GISS’s redundant Earth climate department and transfer them and their duties to NOAA, don’t increase NOAA funding for Climate studies, then when some one testifies “No significant Warming for 18 years on satellite data, mission accomplished, we’ll call you if it starts warming up again”, there be no hysterical rebuttals.
      Another thing I’m waiting for is for the Feds to rein in these Departmental Email servers and place them under centralized administration, tighten laws on electronic communications and to centralize data retention similar to what the SEC does to inhibit insider trading.

  21. Trump needs to hold a livestream public debate on the facts and figures, lets thrash it out and then make the alarmists look like fools in the public’s eyes

  22. Really? And yet her a$$ is in the street and facing investigation for malfeasance. Wonder how much evidence she ordered destroyed in the last few weeks?

    • Perhaps the landing team will ask about the status of the NAAQS for CO2 required under the CAA subsequent to the issuance of the Endangerment Finding. I realize that the concept of a NAAQS for a “globally well-mixed trace gas” is irredeemably silly, but the law is the law and 7 years is a long time.

  23. If I look at the reactions to the Trump election and the reactions to today’s electoral decision, some reactions resemble a whistle in the very dark forest. For protection from the very bad wolf. Instead of going to Trump positive, he is “warned”. This will certainly make him (in an ironic reading), as I know the Donald. These people overlook these facts: Trump has won the election, the Republicans are in both houses in the majority and can turn the EPA into one One-man authority. Laws or regulations. The president has the power to do it. In addition, he is supported by a majority of deputies in the houses. In Germany there is also a decline in the intellectual capacity of left and AGW-friendly personalities. Thus, it is hoped, at least in the headings of many press articles, to enter the case that the electors will still prevent the election of Trump. Sick, undemocratic thoughts. But the mask has fallen, the enemies of democracy are suddenly clearly recognizable.

  24. Okay, I am not an American, so I will simply pose a few questions that I think would apply in any country like the U.S. that operates under the rule of law and a legislative system. Does the U.S. Constitution not give the Executive broad discretionary powers to set policy and to implement or not implement programs that accord with that policy? Is the approval of the U.S. Congress not needed for authority to spend on programs, and the staffing of public institutions like those that implement programs and enforce regulations? If such spending authority is withdrawn, how can those programs and regulatory structures continue to operate? Is the approval of the U.S. Senate not needed to ensure ratification of international treaties and other agreements that provide authority for programs like those intended to reduce GHG emissions? Is the “endangerment finding” of the EPA with respect to GHG emissions, subsequently validated by the Supreme Court, not subject to revision if a different group of experts and a different group of Justices find otherwise? What makes an appointed official, no matter how senior, think that the policies she favours cannot be overturned by the decisions of the legally elected people?

    • Gina McCarthy displays overweening hubris on the “science,” as does most of the environmental left. This is evident in their constant scoffing and mocking of those who notice the gaping holes in the “consensus” view of climate science.
      The Endangerment Finding rests on very shaky premises. The attribution of warming to human emissions is based on (1) physical understanding of climate (2) temperature records and (3) models.
      All three are extremely dubious at best. In combination they are nonsense.
      A new administrator could rightfully conclude (1) that the physical understanding is inadequate for attribution purposes, (2) that temperature records are too short, too incomplete, are of very low quality, and have been corrupted beyond recognition, and that we are clearly within the scope of natural variability, and (3) that models are worthless for attribution, prediction of climate, and for policy judgments. There is copious support in the scientific literature for each of these conclusions.
      That finding would be entitled to a very high level of deference in court. The enviros would have a hard time overthrowing under the applicable standard of review it unless the Courts changed the legal standard in order to get the result dictated by the judges’ personal political preferences, which could certainly happen.
      It’s not that hard to put these arguments together. What’s required is the courage to do so.

      • I read this as maintaining the lie.
        Some people, maybe she even knows how many, will believe it. They will then scream “Foul” when Trump does move.

    • The Constitution does not give the President broad power to do anything. The authorizing legislation needs to come from Congress. The problem is that many Presidents, and Obama has been the most egregious example, use that authorizing legislation as a power grab.
      A couple small items.
      1) Any money spent on anything must be part of a budget that comes from the House of Representatives. Unfortunately the House has a tendency to write sloppy budgets, which allow lots of slush money to move around in the Executive Branch, and used for moronic stuff.
      2) “Endangerment findings” are not validated by the Supreme Court, the Federal Courts have, historically, tried not to judge the scientific content of anything, but merely judge the regulatory process as codified in law. It’s up to the Agency to pass judgement on the scientific findings, and they are easily un-done by simply reviewing the evidence.
      3) Finally, your question “What makes an appointed …. ???” many of Obama’s appointees are not very smart people, they are merely political activists, Gina McCarty, in particular, is clueless about most everything, I’m sure she believes what she says because she is not intellectually up to the task of objectively evaluating the work of her own agency, and she just listens to the echo chamber that exists in D.C.

      • If I remember correctly, when the endangerment finding was being litigated, one of the points i thought would in the day was that EPA had ignored there own mandates for requirements for the science supporting a ruling. But the Supreme court didn’t look at that. They just said that the EPA had authority to make the finding if they followed all the rules. EPA’s reply was “oops we’ll do more next time but this one is done for now.” I believe any revisiting of the endangerment finding that enforced the rules for the science would fail. The new Wallace paper finds error in every aspect of the “proof” that was used improperly without independent validation to support the finding.

      • All that SCOTUS did was to find that EPA had authority to regulate CO2 if they so wish.
        Under Bush they did not wish to do so. Under Obama they did.
        Under Trump they could just as easily reverse their course.

      • Mark, I was disturbed that during his second term he continually used executive powers to circumvent congressional resistance. He was apparently hoping that HRC would be able to make all of it permanent. There is much undoing to do.

    • Bob
      As I understand it, in the supreme court “endangerment finding,” the court said it would not (or could not) rule on the science. Thus, to the court, the science is whatever the EPA says it is. If the EPA changes it mind on the science, then the new view of the science is what the court will accept. The CAGW crowd can’t argue the science in court. At least that’s the way I understand it.

      • That is directionally correct. Judicial deference to regulatory authority What the court rule on is whether the process to ‘redo’ the science was itself legal. And, in the case of CPP, whether the CAA eber gave regulatory authority to the EPA in the first place. (The SCOTUS CPP stay is because the majority found it likely NOT.)

    • For a non-citizen, you pose very valid questions that, unfortunately, most of our citizenry would not be able, or willing, to ask, given the current state of (mis)education here. The President can do what he likes with agencies within his branch of government, including dissolving those he feels are not relevant or useful. Actually, according to the Constitution, most of those executive agencies under fire now are misappropriating responsibilities that properly belong to the States, or to the People.

      Ordinarily, Yes, but the latest agreement from Paris was claimed to be a modification of a ratified treaty from 1994, so it was claimed that no new Senate approval was necessary.
      I expect Trump to send that agreement to the Senate and let them vote NO.


      • The President has no such power to dissolve agencies created by law passed by Congress and signed by any President, current or previous.

        • “The President has no such power to dissolve agencies created by law passed by Congress”,,,, The EPA was created by Executive Order and although the Senate and House approved it there was no “law” passed creating the EPA. Am I wrong?

        • Ah, yea, he does. Perhaps you should take an elementary school level civics course and learn how it all works.

    • I Australia, it is common practice for legislation to give the responsible minister (the secretary in US practice) the ability to enact regulations that cover the actual operation of the act. These are usually (but not always) subject to veto by the Senate.

  25. I hope these idiots have been updating their resumes. Trump could just do away with the EPA all together and start over from scratch.

  26. I have to think that among all the many hundreds of people working at EPA and other organizations there have to be a few honest ones who need their jobs so stay below the radar. We may see them revealed after the inauguration. Hopefully, they are busy keeping copies of incriminating emails, memos, and un-adjusted data to hand over to their new bosses.

    • There is no need to keep copies of emails as the systems are multiply backed up. You can not delete an email from the records. That is why Clinton went to her own server. That is why so many of Obama’s department heads went to outside email accounts. In those ways, and in those ways only, are their emails to those outside of government “delete-able.” I am sure McCarthy, like her predecessor, emailed Obama and Clinton through outside email accounts to THEIR outside email accounts. This whole administration had been very good at avoiding the government controlled and backed up email systems. There is nothing that anyone needs to save since they are already saved.

    • I too am looking forward to the twin ‘defenses’ of “it wasn’t me” and “I was only following orders”. I’m quite sure it will rapidly come to resemble the trial of senior Schutzstaffel officers at Nuremberg during the second half of the 1940’s. Much like then the vast majority of guilty perps will escape punishment but the EPA in its current embodiment, like the Schutzstaffel before it, will be no more.

      • 15,000 useless eaters. Yep, huge up tick in minimum wage job applicants in the coming months. Hope that college education included how to operate a cash register and deep fryer, snowflake.

  27. [It’s going to be a very high burden of proof for them,” said Ms McCarthy]
    – We know that carbon is necessary for carbon based life forms (i.e. all life on Earth).
    – We know that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is the unique, single point of failure in the Carbon Cycle of Life.
    – We know that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is the base of the food chain for all life.
    – We know that without the chemical transaction of extracting carbon from atmospheric CO2 via photosynthesis and phytoplanton, the carbon cycle of life ends.
    Your turn Ms McCarthy, would you please provide your science? You can start with your working definition of “Carbon Pollution”.

  28. How about Trump give grants to investigate the science to see what is wrong with it. Even Mike the hockey stick maker would reverse his field for cash if his university starts running short. The newly created NCEI would change it’s name to No Climate Emergency Indicated.

    • I want to see a bit given to make highschool and undergraduate level experimental demonstrations teaching the most basic physics of heat transfer , particularly radiative transfer for colored bodies . That should end the nonscience that somehow an optical phenomenon “traps” the greater heat at the bottoms of atmospheres than their tops which still is the analytically and experimentally baseless claim for this entire GHG paradigm .
      Anybody who disputes that please point me to the crucial equation .

      • Once scientists are allowed to publish their results without being tortured by the present guardians of climate change dogma I would think there would be all kinds of papers published that refute the stupid AGW nonsense. Might find some young shining stars that have been held back by threats of losing their positions. Also, would hope they have some stories to tell.

        • The problem I see is the near universal acceptance by all sides of the GHG cause for the temperature gradients in atmospheres without any analytical or experimental foundation . There is constant “studies” even here on just what the “sensitivity” to additional , eg : CO2 , is as if that is a virtually open ended effect beyond and separate from the small effect it may have on our spectrum as seen from the outside — that somehow it can change the gradient from the planets computed radiative equilibrium temperature and the surface . I have never seen an analytical derivation as I would expect at the undergraduate level in any other branch of applied physics .
          I claim it’s not possible because any such phenomenon would violate the distinctly undergraduate Divergence Theorem . This is the mathematical expression of what many point out as the obvious violation of basic thermodynamics .
          And at the same time , the obvious massive ( pun intended ) force , with its concomitant energy , gravity , is , almost with prejudice , omitted from consideration or equation . There is discussion of “lapse rate” , etc , but not direct acknowledgment and computation in terms of the force which maintains it . It can’t be left out of the energy balance equations .
          It’s beyond just good guys vs bad . It’s a Kuhnian Paradigm where both sides play in their obviously incomplete and never analytically nor experimentally justified box .

  29. It is one thing to have an agenda. it is another to be sucked in by your own propaganda! The evidence is against her. She had to suppress most of it in order to justify her actions! All her replacement needs to do is bring out the “rest” of the evidence.

  30. Simple, declare that the flimsy document that the EPA wrote justifying CO2 is a pollutant does not come to the level required by their own regulation. Then cancel all affected rules. Then let the Greenies sue and provide the PROOF.

  31. There is also the matter of the Federal rule changes requiring an Economic Justification Study. Even a back of the envelope study would prove that these rules cause an adverse economic impact.

  32. It appears McCarthy is not familiar with the Clean Air Act, which is what gave her the authority to designate CO2 a pollutant in the first place. From SKS’s “advanced” analysis of CO2 as a pollutant:
    “””[Clean Air act] Title 42, Section 7408 states that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator must publish a list of certain air pollutants:
    “In his judgment” can clearly change when a the administrator changes his mind, or the administrator changes.
    The designation of CO2 was a judgment call, balancing the proven benefits of CO2 listed by the EPA (increased forest/marsh growth) with potential costs (risk of increased temperatures and thus risk of damage to society). That judgment was questionable, the scale tipping the other way is not unreasonable.

  33. Collecting evidence is an art form, as both sides of the CO2-climate-change debate have well demonstrated.
    If your “evidence” collectors change, then your research base changes, hence your foundation for proof that leads to laws changes .
    … new people, new evidence, new amendments to laws. If, as a new leader, you know where the limits are, then you can change them to make the necessary “room” to maneuver. When limits can be changed, they are NOT absolute limitations, therefore.

  34. From today’s Washington Times, as posted in http://www.FreeRepublic.com
    Obama rushes out 11th-hour regulations targeting coal mining
    Washington Times ^ | December 19, 2016 | Ben Wolfgang

    At virtually the last possible moment, the Obama administration on Monday rolled out new regulations making it even more difficult and more costly to mine coal in the U.S., a final shot against the already beleaguered coal industry as the president leaves office.
    The Interior Department’s Stream Protection Rule will go into effect 30 after its official release and publication in the federal register, meaning it likely will be implemented Jan. 19 — one day before President-elect Donald Trump takes office. Mr. Trump has vowed to undo much of his predecessor’s environmental regulations, including rules that target coal mining.
    The regulations will add significant new costs to coal-mining companies, many of which are already struggling to stay afloat. Critics, including leaders in the energy sector and Republicans on Capitol Hill, have said the proposal surely will lead to even more layoffs in the sector.

    (Rest of story at site.)
    So, the EPA continues its dictatorial extremism and attacks on the US economy, industry, and energy.

    • It’s amazing that they think the best thing to do is scramble to pass all these regulations in the final hour, despite the fact that it’s this exact type of behavior that the citizens are pushing back against at the ballot box. That hole they’re continuing to dig is so deep they might just start mining coal themselves.

    • I’ve suspected for some time that an objective was for the coal mines to end up in the hands of China. We have huge coal reserves for future use…unless they are sold out from under us.

  35. As these matters are not, as declared, “settled” and the evidence of the IPCC reports is weak to non-existent, it is not going to be the “high burden” Gina longs to see. If Pruitt is worth his salt, matters will be settled in a way McCarthy doesn’t like at all.

  36. FT <>
    Most of the rest of the world pledged to accept financial assistance. China pledged to increase pollution for 15 years. As a US taxpayer I would have felt very lonely indeed.

    • MIssing FT text – Noting that most of the rest of the world had pledged to keep cutting fossil fuel pollution despite Mr Trump’s vow to quit the Paris deal, Ms McCarthy said: “We’re going to be in the back. And we’re going to be in a very lonely place. I think it’s only us and Nicaragua that would be there. It’s sort of not the company you want to keep.”

  37. Just require Validated Models and use the Scientific Method with the highest integrity
    NASA’s Apollo program required using ONLY VALIDATED models.
    Validated Models
    Ex Apollo engineers and scientists formed The Right Climate Stuff
    Since the IPCC models are NOT validated, The Right Climate Stuff formed and validated TRCS climate models.
    A Report of The Right Climate Stuff Research Team
    Lead Author: Harold H. Doiron, PhD, February 2014, Houston, Texas
    Presentation at:
    An Objective Look At The Global Warming Controversy (University of Louisiana-Lafayette) Sept. 21, 2015
    Scientific Integrity
    Fully apply Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman’s high standard of scientific integrity so eloquently explained in:
    Feynman, Richard P. (1974) Cargo Cult Science. Engineering and Science, 37 (7). pp. 10-13. ISSN 0013-7812 http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechES:37.7.CargoCult


  38. She displays the same type of elitist arrogance that caused Hillary and the Democrats the election. I imagine there will be plenty of wiggle room and creative engineering that goes into dismatling her programs. Shes not as smart as she would like us to believe.

  39. The solution would be to get ride of the EPA in it’s entirety then start again with a clean sheet. Drain the swamp completely.

  40. Look at all her rules.
    The Clean Power Plan etc.
    She lost a court case where she refused to study and furnish a report on economic impact and job loss.
    This new regime can freeze a lot of rules by declaring they are not backed by science studies, just IPCC rhetoric and have not posted the costs/reports of thousands losing their jobs.
    She also is not an economist and able to justify the nasty impact of much higher energy costs on poor, retired and small business. She has no problem with granny’s water pipes freezing because she did give granny clean water and the Republicans don’t like clean air and water.

    • Hmm, now that I think about it, she may not even be smart enough to realize that the junk they’ve been jamming through has no scientific backing. They are, afterall, still pushing for higher ethanol mandates even now that the only ones left in that corner are the corn farmers and ethanol industry themselves.

  41. The mission of the EPA is to protect human life and the environment. And how does it go about achieving that noble mission, you may ask? Well, “When Congress writes an environmental law, we implement it by writing regulations.” Too bad for Gina et al because most of the regulations the EPA has written/enforced over the past 8 years have no Congressional laws behind them. So, her point is moot. No law, no regulation. Buh-bye, Gina

  42. Go do some extended community service work for the Navajos Gina. You harmed them with EPA stupidity, and ineptitude.

  43. All he has to do is to have EPA withdraw the endangerment finding.
    It may be difficult, because EPA’s Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act is a 52 pages long document, while the Technical Support Document is 210 pages long.
    However, it is not impossible, because both documents are bogus. Therefore the first thing to do is to request EPA to produce an executive summary of the Technical Support Document, not longer than a single page (currently it is 7 pages), with all external references to scientific sources attached.
    Summary reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and U.S. Global Change Research Program and National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences are not legitimate scientific sources, they are political documents.
    It is also ridiculous to include 6 different gases in their analysis, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
    So they are requested to restrict themselves for now to a single gas, carbon dioxide.
    Also, any danger to public health and welfare they may envision, has to be quantified.
    The document itself has to be subjected to extensive peer review, before any regulation based on it could be issued.
    I’m confident, that following this procedure carbon dioxide in ambient concentrations will be taken off of the list of pollutants.

  44. Reading McCarthy’s comments make my irony alarm sound off with a deafening screech. Her “scientific evidence ” is based on computer models which have been shown to have no predictive skill, hypotheses concerning CO2 which have never been proven and supported by a “consensus” which has no place in a scientific discussion.

    Ummmm, excuse me, but doesn’t see have that bass ackwards? I though that, in science, the burden of proof was on those who are pushing and supporting a scientific theory.
    It should not be hard to shoot down the CO2 regulation if Trump just brings together a panel of scientists that can show everyone the problems with the CO2-climate-change theory. Give Ms. McCarthy a series of questions on the CO2-climate change issue that she probably cannot answer–something like what they did with the Dept. of Energy.

    • Agreed CD. Exactly what science did Ms. McCarthy employ to establish the climate change regulations over at the EPA?

    • My thoughts exactly. They’ve been putting the cart before the horse for so long — they now believe it belongs there! As a matter of fact, it was never even a horse, just a stubborn ass.

  46. Not sure what is more breathtaking, her ignorance of climate science or her ignorance of how her own government works?
    Gina really must be up all night burning the stupid from both ends!

  47. A dispassionate cost/benefit study of the EPA and the effectiveness of its regulations, showed even thirty years ago, that the EPA policies, cost hundreds of thousands of more lives than they have ever been able to save through their draconian regulations. That alone should justify its abolishment as it exists today. A gentleman called Ralph Keeney did such a cost/benefit for society. Another by name of ‘Tengs’ and his co-authors, did it even more effectively.

  48. I’m fairly confident enough documentation can be turned up that the CO2 endangerment finding was based on studies and data that violated EPA and legal constraints on quality, sourcing, and review, and that if this is the case it’s possible the finding can just be voided on that basis.
    The correct end-game of course is Congressional action to amend the Clean Air Act to remove CO2 and climate change from the EPA’s remit absent further specific Congressional action on that front.

    • The finding can be voided on the basis that it does not account for the incontrovertible dangers of LOW CO2 and the failure of the EPA to establish what an optimal range of CO2 partial pressure is. That alone is enough to bounce the finding back to the EPA where it can be killed by Trump himself. It is easy to show that the optimal CO2 is far above today’s low levels, the disagreement among scientist over what an optimal CO2 is will be enough to stagnate any finding forever.

  49. Rational Societies usually rank their societal risks, showing what is most likely to directly kill, injure, or cause the premature deaths of people in their society. Rationally, they then spend money toward the top of that list to relieve the most serious problems which are usually to do with education, energy, jobs and the habits of ignorance and poverty. The EPA has consistently spent its billions, toward the bottom of such a ranking. That, is money flat-out wasted to no good purpose.
    The two biggest and interconnected problems that humanity and the environment have faced for the last few hundred years and still today, are IGNORANCE and POVERTY, both of which stand a chance of being beaten by EDUCATION and affordable, assured ENERGY.
    Rant over.

  50. So very interesting and so very similar to one of our local politician’s quotations. This local pol was quoted when asked what would happen if her party would lose the (municipal) election.
    She replied that it wouldn’t matter because the things her party had executed, (Local Agenda 21, that is) were constructed so as to have deep roots and would be very difficult to remove.
    I remember thinking how antidemocratic that is. Your populace votes you out for the things you have been doing, but you purposely (and stealthily) design so as to counteract an unfavorable democratic outcome.
    I guess our pol was talkin’ bike lanes and other ‘Greenest City’ crap, but on a whole other political level it’s the same deep left, deep green refrain and strategy.

    • For the greenies, Democracy is just a code word for “absolute rule.” They think they know it all – just ask them.

      • When leftists say “power to the people,” they mean dissipate the power of states (Gaue) and most mid-level institutions among so many people that it becomes diffuse, disorganized, and ineffective. At the same time, the State (Reich) acts like a sponge, absorbing all meaningful power. As an example, the Third Reich represented the elimination of political parties as “unification,” when it was the opposite. Carried to its extreme, and it soon was, there was nothing to stand between the individual and the State, no protection, no rights, nothing at all.

  51. I don’t think anyone knows who she is now, either. She’s an archetype of a highly educated person who has zero common sense. Goodbye and good riddance.

  52. The main problem I see with the scientific backing for McCarthy’s position is that institutional science itself is now thoroughly corrupted – as exposed by Hal Lewis. She – or at least someone on her team who understands such things – can simply pick from the virtual infinity of ‘peer reviewed’ papers to support any conclusion whatsoever.
    Virtually all of these papers will have been generated using some form of GCM or other models and the conclusions reached on the basis of them is presented as some sort of irrefutable concrete evidence. It doesn’t seem to matter that none of these models has passed any sort of even rudimentary validation and are shown to be wildly in error over and over by the data. The climate industry, including the once prestigious institutions and journals, all accept the models as being more real than reality itself. Everyone with even the most basic of science educations knows that this is pure pseudoscience but nevertheless that is how things have tragically gone.
    So when the EPA present screeds of this voodoo science as defense, even though the landing team will know and say that it’s pseudoscience, how would a court find since this is how badly the whole of science has been corrupted?
    And on that note – how is it ever going to be possible to drain the academic swamp?

      Here is one way, and here’s a second version.
      If I manage to publish the paper, the EPA CO2 endangerment finding is out the window.

  53. It should not be difficult as the whole CO2 thing was not based on science. Consensus is not science. Just ask someone to measure the heating by CO2.

  54. “President-elect Donald Trump has an enormous mandate to liberate America from the shackles of bureaucrats like McCarthy”
    Mandate? You must be kidding; Trump doesn’t have a mandate for anything, except to leave – gracefully before he’s impeached; all he has is a sharply divided country. In fact HRC won the popular vote by 2,833,220 votes and still counting and we’ll see just how successful he is in 6 months, let alone 4 years.
    And on the topic of “Swamp Draining”, he’s filling it up with the worst swamp dwellers imaginable: Mnuchin for Treasury, Tillerson for State, Perry for Energy, Stallone(!!!) for Chair of the NEA, Linda McMahon (!!!) for SMBA!! It’s a veritable circus and a who’s who of idiots and imbeciles just like him. The only respectable member of his cabinet-to-be is Nikki Haley as our Ambassador to the UN (until 1/21/2017, he’s still a private citizen and should remember that before he embarrasses himself and the nation even further with anymore tweets to or about China, drones or anything else). He is a babbling idiot of the worst kind.
    Climate change notwithstanding, the whole thing is joke and an international embarrassment!

    • 1. He is inheriting a sharp(ton)ly divided country.
      2. The electoral vote system was crafted to prevent domination by the big states/cities. Thankfully.
      3. You may rest easier if you accept that the other team has the ball for a while. Oh, acceptance isn’t in your lexicon? pity….

      • 4. Thus far the only election fraud discovered has shown precincts with more votes for Hillary than the precincts have voters, and this is after minimal investigation.

      • The Democratic Party offered the choice between a totalitarian fan-boy and an unashamed liar and unindicted felon. And in the course of the election, revealed itself to be corrupt through-and-through.
        Your team is a bad joke, T. Madigan, and an embarrassment to American society, to the Constitution, and to US politics.

        • The theme that Hillary Rodham Clinton won a popular vote majority is due almost entirely to California. I lived in California for nearly fifty years, and voted for over thirty, and was never once required to show positive ID. Skanky votes from one state, who might be dead, nonexistent, currently living in another state, or non-citizens should not count. That is also not counting the very interesting classic ploy from Detroit, where some 250 precincts showed more votes than voters. (But the New York Times states authoritatively that there was almost no f r a ud)sarc

      • @T Madigan:
        “….What facts are you referring to? HRC did win the popular vote by almost 3M……..”
        Get this through your head if that is possible T Madigan: Selectively cherry-picking your facts does not get HRC into the White House.
        Adding together the vote totals from the states to get nationwide totals is really (IMHO) a pointless exercise because the popular nationwide vote DOES NOT and NEVER HAS decided who goes to the White House. The Electoral College electors decide who gets there based on which candidate won the most states. This is because our Founding Fathers didn’t want a handful of large states and/or urban areas (California, the Northeast, Chicago, SE Florida, etc.) dictating to the rest of the nation.
        The value and significance of the nationwide popular vote totals is exaggerated and overblown for political purposes. It’s sad and pathetic to see so many people in this country who don’t seen to realize and understand that.

      • Yes, I will; he will make for great satirical fodder, just like the fictions many of you cling to on this blog. And, with a mouth like his, it will be a laugh a minute – I actually don’t think he listens to what comes out of his mouth. 8 years, I think not. He will be lucky if he survives 6 months before he’s impeached.

      • The only joke fodder here is you.
        You must be HURTING so, so bad. !!
        Funny to watch a rabid dumbocrat getting so off his face ranting 🙂

    • Actually, Trump has already begun uniting what Obama sharply divided beginning 8 years ago. People across all spectrums of age, race, income and education came together to vote for Trump and vote out the corrupt, elitist, globalist agenda.

    • He has had many investments. Some have been successful, and some have not. He has learned to spot a fraudulent business proposal, before investing too deeply in it. The key is to not get in too deep, before you can see how well it is performing, and not trust data given to you, by those with a vested interest in the success of the enterprise. Those are the exact skills that we need to evaluate the success that the “climate change cabal” has had in wisely investing taxpayer funds, and the results the public has received for those investments.
      Any reasonable analysis of this political gambit, will result in its rapid de-funding. It is not as complicated as Gina would like us to believe. The climate changes, and so do the political winds. Adjustment is preferable to denial of what is obvious.

    • HRC actually lost the popular vote if you consider the 4 million cast for the libertarian. How many of those votes would have gone to HRC? I doubt that any would have. So, yeah, she got more votes than Trump, but she did not win the majority..

      • Good point, Just as relevant is Trump ran against (1) the GOP establishment (2) the Dem establishment (3) the most insider candidate ever (Hillary), and (4) the mainstream media. And Won! This while spending about 1/2 as much money as Hillary. That type of efficiency is badly needed in Washington. While I am not willing to defend all Trump’s positions (hell 6 months after he makes them, often in a reactionary tweet, he is no longer defending many of his old positions). That does not bother me one bit … it just says he is not a professional politician (a class of societal leaches unfit for the office of president) and showing the ability to learn and adjust. I did not vote Trump but am VERY pleased with what I have seen so far.

    • Clinton benefited from rampant fr@ud. No one knows how many votes she got from live, legal voters who voted only once, but three million fewer than reported is a reasonable estimate. Not just in CA, but in OR, WA, CO (which vote by mail), NV (the Dinghy Harry machine), MN, IL, NY, NH and VA, for starters. It also occurred in states that Trump managed to win in spite of the dirty tricks, like MI and WI.
      Because there are so many rotten precincts in so many states, we need the Electoral College more than ever, in order to lessen the effect of so much corruption.

    • T. Madigan “he’s filling it up with the worst swamp dwellers imaginable: …, Tillerson for State”
      At least most of the other names you mentioned are clearly skeptics.
      But, as far as Rex Tillerson, I wouldn’t stoop to calling him a “swamp dweller,” but all the rationalizations and epicycle style explanations for his OWN WORDS, Tillerson is clearly Paris Accord pushing warmist”

      Rex Tillerson Oct 2016:
      Rex Tillerson Oct 2016: “At ExxonMobil, we share the view that the risks of climate change are serious. Addressing these risks requires broad-based, practical solutions around the world. Importantly, as a result of the Paris agreement, both developed and developing countries are now working together to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.”
      And the Sec of State will deal with the Paris Accord.

    • oooops, another proggie fail
      There is no national popular vote for president. Each state has a popular vote to decide the number of electoral college votes the candidate will receive.

    • Around 3 million out of a total US population of over 300 million. You act as if it’s a massive margin when it’s actually tiny. Even only counting the 120 million or so that voted, it’s tiny. With only a few historical exceptions, the popular vote has split more or less evenly between the main candidates every election. Roughly half the voters are voting for the loser each time. It makes any claim of “winning” the popular vote dubious at best. The margin of victory is consistently miniscule by comparison to the total voter turnout.
      In short, the Mob Vote is a meaningless metric. Those who pretend it means something are no friends of democracy. They are friends of mobocracy. In a mobocracy, the biggest mob wins. And nigh invariably it’s the Left who stir up a mob when they cannot have their way.

  55. She’ll be lucky if her and ilk aren’t investigated for collusion with special interest environmental groups, and who knows what other crimes have been committed at the EPA in the last eight year. The next month couldn’t arrive soon enough.

  56. It was always hard to get a barn out. Not only because of the crap, but also because of the cattle that is in it.

  57. Gina is bluffing, and she knows it. Thre are several simple routes to undoing CPP and Wotus.
    1. Easiest is for Trump,to carefully vet his SCOTUS nomination, as SCOTUS has already stayed both until the cases reach it, on grounds they are both likely unconstitutional. Opinion concerning CPP by none other than Larry Tribe, foremost US con law scolar, at Harvard Law. 2. With control of both chambers, Congress can clarify the definitions in CAA and CWA with simple legislative amendments. The former to make clear congressional intent on air pollution did not include CO2. Such a bill has already been introduced in the House. The latter to make clear federal authority does not stretch beyond navigable waters, appropriately redefining navigable. 3. More problematic, longer lead time is redo SCC, a required input under CAA and other existing laws about regulations. 4. Most problematic is to redo the endangerment finding pursuant to Mass. v. EPA, because that will get tired up in endless litigation by greens.
    Oklahoma AG Pruit was a leader on (1) and knows about (2).

    • According to current law, “navigable waters” include a tiny ravine with enough flow to float a toy boat.

      • Which is why I said suitably redefine navigable. Not intermitent. Not toy boat flow. Maybe not even permanently canoe-able, although that gets close to where I would draw the line for true pollution control purposes. All that oyher water stuff gets left to the states.
        My farm has a ~ one surface acre dammed stock pond in a natural watershed coming off the neighbors back fields. 8 foot designed max depth when full. When it rains heavily, or during spring melt, it overflows out a carefully designed concrete and corrigated steel culvert system into Penn Hollow Creek in front of the farmhouse, itself intermittent until about 2 miles down valley. Penn Hollow Creek from there is toy boatable not canoe-able (it mostly a meter wide and six inches deep in summer. It flows into Otter Creek, which sort of is canoe-ableif you don’t mind portaging around snags and a beaver dam. It is about 5 meters wide and a meter deep except at the beaver dam, and used to support real fish otters before they were trapped out in the 1880’s. About three miles further on down, Otter Creek empties into the Wisconsin River at a state sponsored fishing boat launching ramp for the River (one of several at a local state park and at state maintained slough access points, all about 40 miles upstream from the Mississippi. Trailerable outboards for walleye, bass, catfish, waterfowl hunting. That state launching ramp is where, IMO, Wisconsin River navigability stops as does EPA regulation of waterways, and Wisconsin takes over. Wotus would have EPA regulating my Wisconsin permitted, dam design approved, stocked fish licensed farm pond. NUTS.

  58. Clearly McCathy is of the mind that the science is settled, which is why she believes that changing the laws will be hard to do. She is going to be in for a big shock once she realizes how politicized the science has become under her watch and how easy it will be to get to the balanced science.

    • Let’s see:
      Power of an appointed EPA administrator vs power of an elected president.
      I think I know which side I’m voting on…

  59. I think the AGW movement does not correctly appreciate just how much of their success is due to intimidation. A whole slew of Republicans have run away rather than risk being called a “climate change den1er” or “anti-science”. One thing Trump has shown is he is not afraid to be called names. We are indeed in for interesting times.

  60. All agencies are required to have Data Quality Standards. The EPA has them.
    These, among other things, require the EPA to determine that data it uses meets quality standards. “Objectivity focuses on whether the disseminated information is being presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner, and as a matter of substance, is accurate, reliable, and unbiased. “Integrity” refers to security, such as the protection of information from unauthorized access or revision, to ensure that the information is not compromised through corruption or falsification. “Utility” refers to the usefulness of the information to the intended users.” (Pls. pardon all the quotes, they were in the text).
    Like most regulations now, the whole thing is a conglomeration of CYA in multiple documents, but from what I have been able to wade through the information and data in the Endangerment Finding, which incorporates and disseminates outside information such as that from the IPCC, doesn’t meet this standard. The IPCC reports are not accurate, clear, complete and unbiased. Nevertheless, the EPA accepted the conclusions and so violated its own standards. This alone ought to invalidate the whole finding.

    • A 2 step approach is needed.
      Yes, the CO2 Endangerment Finding will fall in a new review that will be ordered by Scott Pruitt, the soon-to-be EPA Chief. The Clean Power Plan is already DOA in the courts for violation of Separation of Powers. But killing the endangerment finding will hobble states like California who use it to give cred to their own state rules and laws.
      But then Congress must amend the Clean Air Act to restrict and prevent a future Democrat administration from acting beyond the intent of the law passed by Congress.

  61. I used to think that another vehicle for getting a rule pulled would be for it not to go thru the formal rulemaking process. If the pdf at the link is correct, the process is whatever the agency claims it is.
    OTOH, this allows the following administration to change the process on last minute rule making after the fact. I don’t think McCarthy and the green blob is going to enjoy what is about to happen a lot. The rest of us will, though. Cheers –

  62. I don’t think it is going to be ” a high burden of proof” to scientifically prove that human- caused global warming is false. There is reams of evidence, provided by many credible scientists and others. It just goes to show that Gina McCarthy has never read the arguments on the other side of the debate. She just chose the side that supports her world-view and makes her feel morally righteous.

  63. Ok, up to now the Alarmists acted like they were Evolutionists combating Creationism. They refused to engage in debate.
    That ends now.
    Require them to rationalize their retooling of the world economy.
    Force them to prove that Solar and Wind energy are dependable and cheap for residential and industrial customers.
    Force them to demonstrate an alarming and unprecedented increase in global temperatures.
    Make it a condition of their funding.

  64. Which is why the Perry-run DOE and the Scott Pruitt-run EPA will first target the one-sided, fraudulent Social Cost of Carbon study.
    Two major flaws in the EPA’s CO2-SSC study will be its downfall in the revision.
    The SCC:
    -It uses a set of unrealistic (too low, and violates GSA-CBO-WH budget rules on discount rates) discount rates to calculate future costs.
    -It focuses solely on costs and not the benefits of more atmospheric CO2, like enhanced biological productivity and moderating temperatures to save lives (from hypothermia-cold) and heating costs.

  65. oddly such approaches may make the nuclear option more not less likely for the EPA , after all it may be easier to take the lot out then spends endless amount of time fighting small wars .

  66. I don’t know what turnip truck she fell off of, but she sure doesn’t understand how the government of the USA works. THE PEOPLE just made it loud and clear they want that crap she has been peddling to go away. And go away it will, her delusions not withstanding. There can be no question there is a strong backlash against people just like her, and if this election doesn’t fix it, we got a bigger problem. By it’s very nature our government is designed to undo oppression. Sheesh!

    • Steve,not a turnip truck, but Gina McCarthy is a poster girl, I mean person, for the failures of the US government and education system. Her undergraduate degree is in Social Anthropology (not just regular Anthropology?) with two senior SJW bureacrat masters degrees from Tufts–Environmental Health Engineering and Planning and Policy. My best guess is that none has any real science education (I was an Anthro minor, and it was very loose even 40 years ago).

  67. Ms. McCarthy thinks that US law will constrain President Trump in overturning her work. What if the law was changed?
    Years ago I used to be a member of a local community council. Whenever our discussions came up against “the law says” roadblock, another member would always say, “We can change the law.” His day job was lobbyist.

  68. As a British person i do wish you well in your endeavours to rid your dear country of the vile left and all the total bull that they have inflicted on you via the EPA, this nonsense has been inflicted on us to via the EU our politicians have been in thrall to olbarmy and his global warming gloop.

  69. I agree that it should be relatively easy to scientifically and legally rescind the more “noxious” EPA rulings and to dismantle a significant part of the EPA/NASA climate bureaucracies.
    But there is a YUGE PR component to this.
    The challenge for DJT will be to do it in a way that does not open him to being labeled by the Green Blob as being “anti-science”, a “den***”, “working in the interests of the rich” etc. A huge part of the US population would be more than ready to believe such nonsense. (see the opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline because of the alleged violation of “Sacred Indian Grounds”, or continuing credibility given to Al Gore ). This tendency to emotion over logic unfortunately is characteristic of current and recent college grads. And of course the “opposition” can rally many “sciency” people to their side (Nye, Mann, Oreskes et al as well as most of the MSM).
    I believe the Trump transition team can do this, but they have to be very careful in how they proceed.

    • The best way to deal with that I believe is to get fully tooled up with the right people and the whole squad hit the floor running from day one. A silent tsunami of change spreading out in all directions simultaneously – which the people have voted Trump in to enact – without fanfare or fuss. Hit everything at the same time. All of the useless departments and agencies including DoE and EPA, immigration, pipeline projects, drilling, fracking, nuclear … The press won’t know which way to turn and will hoot and holler and meltdown and generally look even more like the hysterical leftist nut jobs they have been for some considerable time. By the time the dust settles it will all be a fait accompli.


      If Trump follows my advice, he and his appointees will 1) call for a series of detailed scientific debates on the dozens of contested aspects of AGW and CAGW, similar to the Dutch site already doing that, Climate Dialog; 2) they will ask for universities to provide a forum for such online debates by setting up unofficial “climate courts” for this and other scientific heterodoxies; and 3) they will call for a half-dozen two-hour oral debates, to be broadcast to the public, at a less detailed level.

  70. You cannot run away from people. You have to make decisions, not based on politics, but based on what your people are demanding of you, or you will be the shortest-lived municipal servant in the history of mankind.
    EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, National Press Club, 21 Nov 2016

    Sounds like a threat. Play ball with EPA employees or you’ll lose your job.

  71. Gina, it is people like you who helped elect Mr. Trump. Thank you very much. You are “the swamp” we have heard so much about that will now be drained, including all your “work”….Trump has a phone and a pen…

  72. The guy we said would never win the Republican nomination and would never become President will NEVER be able to do anything now he is. Hmm, I see a pattern here.

  73. Guys, this is not a joke, this is exactly how it will be played by the left, they are in survival mode and this is their final gambit, as I said yesterday with 97% certainty in the “Can the Left Adapt to the Trump Era” topic, the left will assert the green infrastructure is in place and cannot be dislodged, we may need it someday so it is now up to TRUMP to prove CO2 is a sham or shut up. Scientifically, it can be proven it’s a AGW is a sham, but politically and thru the social media is another matter. The left has used this gambit many many times in the past to save their pet projects and it usually works. The green infrastructure will survive Trump unless he is truly willing to do battle.
    I am a Trump voter and am now up to 99% certainty this is how it will be played.

    • While I am profoundly relieved that he was able to dispatch the unspeakably loathsome Hillary, there are nonetheless things about Trump that worry me. Being unwilling to do battle is not one of them.

  74. Trump could turn his IG loose on the EPA and investigate McCarthy and her senior staff for collusion with the Green Lobby, as well as falsification of internal studies, etc… Those findings could be used as a “big stick” to keep the permanent bureaucracy in line. Nothing puts fear into a bureaucrat than a federal prosecutor with a hunting license. A RIF (Reduction in Force) is sorely needed at the EPA, an organization that has over 15,000 employees.

    • Trump named Oklahoma State Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the EPA. That nomination prompted some Green wienie in Fairfax Co., VA to editorialize, “Scott Pruitt heading the EPA is akin to hiring a pyromaniacal Fire Chief”.
      Fairfax County is one of the Top 3 richest counties in the US, being home to tens (hundreds?) of thousands of highly paid bureaucrats. I’d say that Trump’s message to the trough feeders was akin to news of an outbreak of hog cholera.

    • Right. A few examples must be made, with the lid nailed down tight, chapter and verse, photographs with circles and arrows and paragraphs on the back.

  75. “…the scientific evidence of global warming will constrain any attempt to overturn her work.”
    It should be a piece of cake to overturn her work then, seeing how there isn’t much to constrain them.

  76. My understanding is that the U.S. Supreme Court looks to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine what a “pollutant” is. So, the Supreme Court itself does NOT decide this – the EPA does, and the EPA has to justify its determination with evidence that supports whether a substance in the air poses public health threats or not.
    A given regime at the EPA, then, can put forth “evidence” that CO2 poses public health threats. A different regime at EPA seemingly could refute this “evidence” by putting forth counter evidence showing that CO2 does NOT pose public health threats. EPA fine tunes the law, and so EPA can change or amend the law, and still be within the Supreme Court’s approval.
    Is this correct ?
    If so, then the “room to maneuver”, seems to be in gaping spaces left by firing people at the EPA who put forth shoddy evidence as justification for its ruling on CO2.

    • You are generally correct. It is called the doctrine of regulatory deference. Even trial courts are supposed to defer to regulatory agency determinations of fact. But those can still be attacked if it can be shown the agency did not consider all evidence, did not follow process, or is just wrong. However, the greens can walk down that two way street also, countering with the IPCC.

    • . ..seems to be in gaping spaces left by firing people at the EPA . . .

      It’s nearly impossible, and very time-consuming, to fire a federal civil servant.

      • Nearly impossible for a president who’s catchphrase was until recently “Your’re fired”? It’s just Carter era legislation that makes it difficult to fire a federal employee, and the GOP now has the full monty to change that legislation. It would be a fight but definitely winnable.

  77. One new entity with staff is going to be needed and that is the Truth and Reconciliation Court to look into all of the warped science, admin., grants and lending, “news”, and policy over the last eight years.

  78. The Endangerment Finding rests on a supposition, that does not hold. Namely, the warmer it is, the greater the danger for human health or welfare.
    Now, life expectancy is an excellent proxy for human health or welfare. The US is a large country, there is enough state by state variation in both average annual temperature (Alaska: 26.6°F, Florida: 70.7°F) and average life expectancy (Mississippi: 75 years, Hawaii: 81.3 years) to determine dependency of the latter one on the former variable, if any.
    Turns out life expectancy does increase by increasing average temperature, by 0.001 years/°F. In other words, there is no dependency at all in a temperature range an order of magnitude larger, than anything projected by climate scientists for the next several centuries, the trendline is utterly flat.
    Therefore average outdoor temperature has no effect on human health or welfare whatsoever under the current lifestyle of the American population. This is why it does not matter, if climate projections have anything to do with reality or not, the Endangerment Finding is false anyway.

    ST temp life pop (million)
    AK 26.6 78.3 0.74
    AL 62.8 75.4 4.85
    AR 60.4 76.0 2.99
    AZ 60.3 79.6 6.73
    CA 59.4 80.8 38.80
    CO 45.1 80.0 5.36
    CT 49.0 80.8 3.60
    DE 55.3 78.4 0.94
    FL 70.7 79.4 19.89
    GA 63.5 77.2 10.10
    HI 70.0 81.3 1.42
    IA 47.8 79.7 3.11
    ID 44.4 79.5 1.63
    IL 51.8 79.0 12.88
    IN 51.7 77.6 6.60
    KS 54.3 78.7 2.90
    KY 55.6 76.0 4.41
    LA 66.4 75.7 4.65
    MA 47.9 80.5 6.75
    MD 54.2 78.8 5.98
    ME 41.0 79.2 1.33
    MI 44.4 78.2 9.91
    MN 41.2 81.1 5.46
    MO 54.5 77.5 6.06
    MS 63.4 75.0 2.98
    MT 42.7 78.5 1.02
    NC 59.0 77.8 9.94
    ND 40.4 79.5 0.74
    NE 48.8 79.8 1.88
    NH 43.8 80.3 1.33
    NJ 52.7 80.3 8.94
    NM 53.4 78.4 2.09
    NV 49.9 78.1 2.84
    NY 45.4 80.5 19.75
    OH 50.7 77.8 11.59
    OK 59.6 75.9 3.88
    OR 48.4 79.5 3.97
    PA 48.8 78.5 12.79
    RI 50.1 79.9 1.06
    SC 62.4 77.0 4.83
    SD 45.2 79.5 0.85
    TN 57.6 76.3 6.55
    TX 64.8 78.5 26.96
    UT 48.6 80.2 2.94
    VA 55.1 79.0 8.33
    VT 42.9 80.5 0.63
    WA 48.3 79.9 7.06
    WI 43.1 80.0 5.76
    WV 51.8 75.4 1.85
    WY 42.0 78.3 0.58

    • Think of the children…er, the snail darters, the purple-throated wombat, the lesser tit, Grossinger’s iguana–there must be something that’s harmed by higher temperatures, even if it’s a bacterium. That will suffice for the EPA’s purposes.

      • Nope. The Clean Air Act is about human health or welfare, other creatures are not even mentioned. EPA can’t possibly operate outside the law.

  79. Simples. Use all the same tactics to undo what was done. Nuclear option? Sure. Executive order? Why not? Declare something a pollutant? Undeclare it. The difference this time with control of the House, Senate, Executive Branch, AND SCOTUS we should be able to make it permanent. Easier said than done but possible. The hubris of the outgoing administration in thinking they made permanent policy changes will soon be demolished. If anything Trump loves a challenge and to prove he’s right he loves even more.

  80. EPA Chief’s strategy sounds familiar. I had read it before in “Comstock Lode”, partial review here:
    Louis L’Amour – 2004 – ‎Preview – ‎More editions
    “Look about your room! Here there is a chair, there is a table, a lamp! Study your room and the house where you live! Learn to know every room. Tip a chair in front of your pursuer, then hit him with anything when he falls! You can throw wine into the eyes! Or hot tea! . . .”

  81. If she is referring to the same “standards of proof” required for the green blob then it should be a doddle!

  82. Where was the enormous “burden of proof” that supported the current EPA regs?? I dont think she should go down that path. I am no scientist but the manipulation of data and the amount of ideology injected into the scientific process is not healthy.

  83. Quick call 199 we need a waambulance! The Electoral College just elected Trump! Only one last hurdle, Congress has to count the votes next month. Quick! Write your congressman and offer money to have the sum changed. Why not, Michael Moore offered money to electors to change their vote…(Huffpost) Ummm, is that a bribe? Oops!

  84. Actually she is wrong. It will be very easy for Trump to “disassemble” CO2 legislation…. and even easier to defund the EPA.

  85. “EPA chief says Trump has limited room to scrap climate rules” Easy. Have congress declare Co2 a non-pollutant.

  86. the EPA was created by executive order, and thus it can be eliminated the same way.
    President Trump just needs to sign one Executive Order and whole EPA goes away.

    • The whole EPA isn’t rotten. It’s how do you cut the rotten parts out without affecting the good parts. We enjoy a clean environment in the US in a good part because of the EPA. When it became politicized it developed the spots of rot.

      • “The President has no such power to dissolve agencies created by law passed by Congress”… The EPA was not a “law passed by Congress” as near as I can tell from my research. It was an agency created under the Executive Branch approved by the Senate and the House which means nothing legally. What are you referring too?

      • Really? I actually remember when EPA was created, by Executive Order. Do you remember? I remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth over that particular President over reaching his authority. Do you remember who he was?

  87. I’m sure the CIA hasn’t given up their regime change plans. If all else fails, they’ll use the method they used to stop JFK.

  88. Well knock me over with a feather. McCarthy says any attempt to change EPA policy towards CO2 must be “scientifically justified”? Like the existing policy was? She wouldn’t even know the meaning of the term. In fact, does she know what CO2 is?

  89. Myron CEI does a snappy job of explaining. Much of the BO style of governance has been to create policy procedure and guidance which does NOT have the weight of statute. Mr Pruitt is separating the wheat from the chaff as we speak. A lot of Ginas style was overreach and he knows it.
    Gina is waxing poetic much in the projectionist style of a drunk with power Marxist.

  90. @ Bryan A,
    “To deconstruct the EPA rulings
    1) Hire, appoint new Scientists to key roles within the EPA department…………………….”
    Keep it simple…………abolish the EPA and return its powers to the states as the tenth amendment to the US constitution says.

  91. According to the law quoted earlier, the co2 endangerment finding depends only on the Opinion of the administrator. New administrator, new opinion. No science required. As I recall, DDT was banned by the administrator without the backing of the scientific staff.

  92. A starting point has to be not funding research into proving CO2’s role in climate change as the way qualifications are awarded makes the proof likely to be produced. Instead fund research into proving that CO2 is NOT the cause of any climate change and into the weakness of the science to date. Firstly we need an assessment of what is the normal progression of climate change as the trend produced by by the climate scientists is inadequate given the clear cut cyclical nature of all weather and climate patterns. Secondly there needs to be proper assessment of the reliability of the subsequent conclusions based on the error range of measurements and ignored data. If the top and bottom quartiles do not produce very similar projections then the case is clearly based on a wrong assumption unless proved otherwise beyond question to an outside test group.
    Finally since climate scientists are pre tested to find the case proven they should only be allowed to produce evidence with the examination and conclusions overseen by other professionals from engineering and other professions that use similar techniques in their work like quality control departments and marketing professionals.

    • Exactly. the morons now fully accept the premise that CAGW is the null hypothesis – you know because of the overwhelming scientific case for it. That the ‘overwhelming case’ consists of nothing more than computer models written expressly to demonstrate an a priori conclusion seems to entirely escape them. It will not escape those who come now with questions though.

    • Yep.
      “cephus0 on December 20, 2016 at 5:47 am
      Exactly. the morons now fully accept the premise that CAGW is the null hypothesis.”
      What’s left only is to defeat CAGW – again and again.

  93. The EPA is an executive agency which operates under specific laws passed by congress and signed by the President. All of it’s authority is subject to laws which can be changed or eliminated at any time by new laws. The US Senate has rules which can make changing or eliminating laws difficult; but not insurmountable. The President and congress can effectively kill EPA in it’s tracks if they want to.

  94. The delicious irony will be if the Trump administration uses the sue & settle tactic to gut the Alarmists agenda.

  95. The EPA erroneously asserts GWP is a measure of “effects on the Earth’s warming” with “Two key ways in which these [ghg] gases differ from each other are their ability to absorb energy (their “radiative efficiency”), and how long they stay in the atmosphere (also known as their “lifetime”).” https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gwps.html
    The EPA calculation of the global warming potential (GWP) of a ghg erroneously overlooks the fact that any effect the ghg might have on temperature is also integrated over the “lifetime” of the gas in the atmosphere so the duration in the atmosphere cancels out. Therefore GWP, as calculated by the EPA, is not a measure of the relative influence on average global temperature of a ghg. The influence (forcing) of a ghg cannot be more than determined by its concentration.

  96. There is a quote from the 19-century literary croitic, Vissarion Belinsky, well-known in Russia:
    “The advantage of a scoundrel over a decent man is that a scoundrel treats decent people like scoundrels, while a decent man treats scoundrels like decent people.”
    Why should we give this advantage to those who oppress us, who steal fruits of our labor and time of our lives? Why remain “civil” while discussing scoundrels? I hear many voices on WUWT saying, in essence, that “we must remain civil because…” [add your favorite argument]. Moderators here also seem to uphold this appalling, erroneous notion.
    Civil to each other? Yes, by all means. But are our persecutors, all those green socialist multiculturalist unelected bureaucrats drunk on power, civil to us? No, they are not. They are robbing us blind, they are feeding us lies, they insult us in any which way they want.
    I disagree with the one-sided “civility” requirement. You hurt me? I’ll hurt you twice. That’ how civilization works. Civility toward criminals is submission to criminals.

  97. Thermite. If it can make its way through an engine block, it’ll probably get through those climate initiatives in no time.

  98. There a several legal ways to abolish some CO2-Theory-founded laws. But for the public it should not be an act of simple politcal power.
    There must be an open scientific discussion.
    Serious schentists like Dr Roy Spencer state that we just don’t know. Donald Trump says he is open to science. So the discussion process is to prove it, that CO2 is dangerous.
    CAGW proponents have to prove:
    – that there is any observalble influence of CO2 to temperature.
    – that computer models are able to reflect reality
    – that the present state of a slightly higher temperature is dangerous to humans.
    – that short hot temperatures say anything about climate
    -that the slight warming is not to natural influences.
    NOOA and NASA Giss should explain in detail how they came to their much higher temperatures than satellites, weather baloon und former surface temperate data show.
    And than is there the problems that people are waving with some data sheet to prove something. It proves only something, if the data are explained in detail.
    On both side of the discussion there is often the attempt to explain everything in one round-up action, with any possible arguments.
    Better there would be a discussion for some weeks about only one point. So even the media have to stick to that point and to discuss only this, and not other topics.
    It should possibly shown that the shortened IPCC reports for decision makers are not made from scientists, but from activists and politicians.
    It would be good, if the public will get a deeper understanding, how complicated it is and,that scientists often have no clue. The discussion should be done from scientists of both (or morse) sides, and the administration just waiting to get a prove in all this points, or an agreement of both sides.

    • Absolutely!! An educational process, and a discussion process, are proper. And they’re necessary in this political environment.

  99. The leaders of the EPA illustrate why the Democrats lost the election . They bi- passed the public to serve green lobbyist’s and their hedge fund banker puppet master . In doing so also they sold a lot of honest hard working EPA employees down the road .
    Democrats were so so arrogant they thought executive orders and fake treaties were going to last because they assumed they were going to win . Now they and their bag men can’t even accept responsibility
    for a historic screw up . It’s the Russians , it’s the FBI , it’s Podesta’s E mails ,
    Podsesta is right about one thing … this isn’t over . …. Just for at least 8 years .
    Maybe the Russians have been running the EPA ?

  100. Trump has limited room to maneuver.

    There are narrow aisles in a china shop too; but they don’t matter to a bull.

  101. The burden of proof that McCarthy mentions is very simple: there are no hard-data studies that support global warming theory, period. All proponents of the theory should be challenged on this.

Comments are closed.