In the shadow of regulatory mandates, one critical component often gets lost in the noise: the science, cost estimates, and data underpinning these decisions. It’s easy for Congress to declare that greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations are necessary—though, to be clear, I do not share that belief—but if they intend to delegate this decision to an agency, the law is clear: the cost of such regulation must not outweigh the benefits, and the common good must be the paramount concern. Too often, regulations miss the mark—environmental ones, in particular, standing as prime examples of failure. Dieselgate is a case in point. The issue was briefly raised in West Virginia vs. EPA but never tackled head-on. And that, in a nutshell, is the ongoing problem: regulation without meaningful accountability or clarity.
The calculations (machinations may be a better word) behind parameters like the "social cost of carbon" have always reminded me of the old physics joke about the physicist who has figured out a way to bet on the ponies. He passes his formula to a friend, who heads for the track immediately. He returns the next day and tells the physicist he lost all his money. The physicist is perplexed but allows he may need to redo his model. He says, "We'll start with the assumptions," and writes the first on a whiteboard. "Assume spherical horse."
The sooner we jettison these politically motivated findings, the better. Great post!
Thank you again for this overview of the current status of challenging the GHG debacle. Let's all hope that some balance begins to creep into this regulatory process.
So grateful for this. I really needed this help in understanding the history and process that got us here, and the encouraging description of how Trump/Zeldin & Co can get this mess over the finish line. Thank you!
The essence of your essay lies in these words: "We viewed the exchange as a signal that Zeldin’s challenge to the EF will rely as much on questions of law as on questions of science." News flash: it has never been a question of science, but always one of law and politics.
The science is, I think, pretty clear. Yes, the climate is changing. So what? But there is no agreement within science whether that change is even detrimental, much less existential. We argue to no avail over its causes, all while allowing the simple-minded in the media to shape the argument because fear sells much better than understanding. Those scientists who attempt to bring understanding are ignored, canceled, or at worst censored. Recall the seminal paper by Alimonti in 2021, that was removed from the record at the behest of those who claimed his results were incorrect: “In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.” (Alimonti, Sep. 2021). And yet, we’re endangered?
We persist with foolish laws, mindless policies, and empty rhetoric from politicians such as Markey, Kerry, Sanders, et al. Theirs is the loudest voice in the room; their expertise is law, and they know that law can, in many cases, obfuscate truths. Following the Greenpeace manual, they must find an “existential problem,” then find someone to blame for that problem. Why climate? Because they know they can find no one to blame for homelessness, for poverty, for drug use, for crime, for cancer or diabetes. Those problems lack a clear villain, rendering them useless for political careers.
The endangerment finding is founded in the precautionary principle. In itself, that principle is entirely political. Mr. Zeldin, Mr. Trump, Mr. Wright, and Mr. Burgum will need plenty of “big sticks” to strike this nonsense from our consciousness. So long as “scientists” like Oreskes or Mann, or the pseudo-scientists like Markey, Sanders, and Kerry, control the narrative, fear, rather than understanding, will rule the day.
You guys do great work. Please, please, please keep those hits coming!
Sorry, Barry, not sure how we failed to respond to this. Thank you for the comment.
Prevarication Principle, nailed it.
If we were going to find something to argue with regarding your comment, it would only be your answer to "why climate?"
In our view, it's because it is an impossible hypothesis to falsify (b/c all things equal GHG's absorb long-wave IR energy, they contribute to some warming - as you note, this doesn't answer the question how dangerous that contribution is or isn't. And too complex for the average voter.) Therefore, all GHG's cause dangerous warming and they're an existential crisis but ... wait for it .... government has the "solution". That's a much easier message, especially when government pays for science that says so (and the scientists in the grant funding wheel-of-fortune help keep contrary studies out of the literature).
This makes Markey, etal not only incompetent, but to some degree malevolent.
And, finally, thank you very much for the compliment. We want to do great work and we will not stop trying until the Western flotilla of energy absurdity is sunk.
The EF is just a bad regulatory finding that was preordained once SCOTUS ruled in Mass. v. EPA (i.e. once a Democrat administration got a chance to make such a finding).
Fish 🎣 on! That was great as usual. Thank you! Time to bring back the “Take a kid fishing “ campaign from decades ago too! Then we can fill their minds with thoughts and ideas of common sense and they will have a great time learning all of it🗽🇺🇸
From ruffed grouse in Northern Alberta, to sharptails and huns in Saskatchewan, to pheasants in South Dakota, to quail and doves in the plains states/southeast, to perdiz in Argentina.
And, waterfowl on both continents, from Northern Alberta through Saskatchewan and Manitoba, through South Dakota, into Illinois, through the Southeast and down in Argentina (and next year, probably perdiz and ducks in Uruguay).
Labs for waterfowl. GSP's and English pointers for upland dogs. Have hunted over some pretty good Brittany spaniels, too. (Own a lab).
I took my first trip to run in a few trials in Washington State and see a former field trial customer in Idaho in fall 2023. It was incredible. I hope to get back in the fall to chase some birds with those guys. I’ve never seen any wild Chukar and I’d love for the dogs to get a crack at them. Haven’t been to AZ either, that is also on my list. I had the privilege to hunt near McCook TX on former Senator Lloyd Benson’s ranch in 2014. It was quite a thrill. We probably moved 60 plus coveys in 2 days and we only hunted from daylight until about 11 AM we went from there to Freer TX and ran and judged in a few field trials. Not as many birds but some incredibly rugged country. That ranch was giant, something like 200k acres. Owned by David Killiam. I’ve been fortunate to have met some amazing people on my journey. All of them mostly just loved dogs and horses and the spirit of the competition.
I’m a pro dog trainer. Trained/handled horseback field trail dogs since 1998 turned pro in 2006 ( mostly all GSP as that’s what we breed and sell) I hung up my spurs in December and now I’m just training gun dogs and hunting whenever I had time. Make several trips to various locations to hunt from horseback or foot depending on the location and group I’m hunting with. I just broke a PP she was really nice. We’re in Georgia but ironically most of my best wild bird hunting has been in other states…. We don’t have too many wild birds here. I did get several woodcock this winter on the Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge. Also found a few coveys but not any significant numbers. My best trips have been in Oklahoma, Kansas, The Dakota’s and eastern Montana.
There are few experiences as sublime in nature as hunting upland birds behind a good dog(s) by horseback. The number of humans who ever get to experience that is vanishingly small.
Only in America 🇺🇸 and we all need to fight, fight, fight to protect this country! You guys have the knowledge, I just have a passion to preserve America for future generations! Substack is a most powerful platform, like nothing I’ve ever experienced.
Dennis Prager used to say: "you either fight or you help the fighters." By subscribing to the Substacks you do, you're doing BOTH. Good on you. Western civilization can thank you later.
Holding a trout in the water after catching it and watching it swim away is a magical experience everyone should participate in! It’s so great I’d even go as far to say it’s spiritual. I feel the same way with great dogs pinning down a covey of birds….. once it’s experienced you just want to watch it one more time! Wash, rinse, repeat….
I loved fly casting. When I got good at it, I started to catch fish. I hated catching fish. I released them. Nevertheless, I gave it up and accompanied my husband. I hiked, bird watched, etc.
Try it again, this time only using barbless hooks. You won't have any problem releasing them. And, if you don't fish on hot summer days, you won't stress the fish much if you release them quickly using barbless hooks (as one should fly fishing, regardless of regulation).
Once you get good at casting, and you learn to control fly line on the water so you don't get the fly "dragging" cross current/unnaturally, you'll catch fish and there are few things as good at connecting humans to the natural world while forgetting the problems that humans create as fly fishing.
I gave it up years ago. My husband died 7 years ago and wasn't able to fish as much for the last 5 before his death. Of course the flies had barbless hooks. I just didn't like catching the fish. I would not make a very good "prairie wife". haha. My mobility is challenged as well. I'm 83 with a short leg/bad back. I get around OK. But when I visited a stream last fall with a friend. He had to help me get down to the stream and then get back up after I sat there for a while. Ah, the indignities of old age.
Ditto. A Lab's 300 yard blind retrieve on a winged teal in cattails delivered to hand is a similar spiritual experience.
Too many to list. Gun and rod. Dog hair, feathers, fins.
Too many humans measure life in dollars and material goods. Having these types of experiences in nature, over and over again for decades, is a value that cannot be measured in dollars and cents. Sounds trite. For those who understand, it's anything but.
Just because the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) that CO₂ is a pollutant does not make it science.
CO2 is the only “pollutant” that that I know of that is required for life. Every time you exhale, you breathe out 40,000 ppm of it. A human creates a out 1 kg of CO2 a day, and plants and the ocean uptake CO2.
After knocking out the single pillar via legal remedy, we desperately need a blitz of scientific studies countering the climate change nonsense in order to shut up our dimwitted acquaintances and family members screaming how the scumbag Republicans are ignoring scientific consensus and destroying the world.
Yup. It would at least be nice if they did not attempt to keep them out of scientific journals by pressuring editors and crapping on the peer review process.
Buy them all copies of our friend Judy Curry's book "Climate Uncertainty and Risk".
She's not "a Republican".
She's the former head of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, and a climate scientist with nearly 200 research studies in the peer reviewed literature on the subject.
I’ve had the good fortune to get to know her a bit. Going back to 2009. Right before ClimateGate broke, and her views evolved.
Just emailed her the other day. Have tried to help her and Peter Webster by introducing them (CFAN) to some potential clients. Ditching GA Tech was a good call given how she was treated in academia after about 2011.
History will judge her as a scientific hero. Mann, Jacobson, and others will be viewed harshly.
I'm old enough to remember (maybe not comprehend) William F. Buckley debates on TV. Instead of the 5 minute talking over argument segments currently featured on the cable channels, possibly there could be moderated scientific debates. They should be moderated in the sense of not allowing one side to interrupt and talk over a debate participant when they get too close to the truth.
In the shadow of regulatory mandates, one critical component often gets lost in the noise: the science, cost estimates, and data underpinning these decisions. It’s easy for Congress to declare that greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations are necessary—though, to be clear, I do not share that belief—but if they intend to delegate this decision to an agency, the law is clear: the cost of such regulation must not outweigh the benefits, and the common good must be the paramount concern. Too often, regulations miss the mark—environmental ones, in particular, standing as prime examples of failure. Dieselgate is a case in point. The issue was briefly raised in West Virginia vs. EPA but never tackled head-on. And that, in a nutshell, is the ongoing problem: regulation without meaningful accountability or clarity.
The calculations (machinations may be a better word) behind parameters like the "social cost of carbon" have always reminded me of the old physics joke about the physicist who has figured out a way to bet on the ponies. He passes his formula to a friend, who heads for the track immediately. He returns the next day and tells the physicist he lost all his money. The physicist is perplexed but allows he may need to redo his model. He says, "We'll start with the assumptions," and writes the first on a whiteboard. "Assume spherical horse."
The sooner we jettison these politically motivated findings, the better. Great post!
Nine? Wow, congratulations!
Thank you again for this overview of the current status of challenging the GHG debacle. Let's all hope that some balance begins to creep into this regulatory process.
Was over two afternoons! But he learned to read chutes and pools and cast nicely and by 2nd afternoon was doing it all by himself!
“Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed his soul for a lifetime.” - ‘Mental
Beautiful!
Congrats on the catch!
All in a day’s work!
So grateful for this. I really needed this help in understanding the history and process that got us here, and the encouraging description of how Trump/Zeldin & Co can get this mess over the finish line. Thank you!
So grateful for your comment, Judith. What you wrote is exactly what we set out to do. The more you know….
Great post, folks, thank you.
The essence of your essay lies in these words: "We viewed the exchange as a signal that Zeldin’s challenge to the EF will rely as much on questions of law as on questions of science." News flash: it has never been a question of science, but always one of law and politics.
The science is, I think, pretty clear. Yes, the climate is changing. So what? But there is no agreement within science whether that change is even detrimental, much less existential. We argue to no avail over its causes, all while allowing the simple-minded in the media to shape the argument because fear sells much better than understanding. Those scientists who attempt to bring understanding are ignored, canceled, or at worst censored. Recall the seminal paper by Alimonti in 2021, that was removed from the record at the behest of those who claimed his results were incorrect: “In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.” (Alimonti, Sep. 2021). And yet, we’re endangered?
We persist with foolish laws, mindless policies, and empty rhetoric from politicians such as Markey, Kerry, Sanders, et al. Theirs is the loudest voice in the room; their expertise is law, and they know that law can, in many cases, obfuscate truths. Following the Greenpeace manual, they must find an “existential problem,” then find someone to blame for that problem. Why climate? Because they know they can find no one to blame for homelessness, for poverty, for drug use, for crime, for cancer or diabetes. Those problems lack a clear villain, rendering them useless for political careers.
The endangerment finding is founded in the precautionary principle. In itself, that principle is entirely political. Mr. Zeldin, Mr. Trump, Mr. Wright, and Mr. Burgum will need plenty of “big sticks” to strike this nonsense from our consciousness. So long as “scientists” like Oreskes or Mann, or the pseudo-scientists like Markey, Sanders, and Kerry, control the narrative, fear, rather than understanding, will rule the day.
You guys do great work. Please, please, please keep those hits coming!
Sorry, Barry, not sure how we failed to respond to this. Thank you for the comment.
Prevarication Principle, nailed it.
If we were going to find something to argue with regarding your comment, it would only be your answer to "why climate?"
In our view, it's because it is an impossible hypothesis to falsify (b/c all things equal GHG's absorb long-wave IR energy, they contribute to some warming - as you note, this doesn't answer the question how dangerous that contribution is or isn't. And too complex for the average voter.) Therefore, all GHG's cause dangerous warming and they're an existential crisis but ... wait for it .... government has the "solution". That's a much easier message, especially when government pays for science that says so (and the scientists in the grant funding wheel-of-fortune help keep contrary studies out of the literature).
This makes Markey, etal not only incompetent, but to some degree malevolent.
And, finally, thank you very much for the compliment. We want to do great work and we will not stop trying until the Western flotilla of energy absurdity is sunk.
Nailed it, guys. Thank you!
The Endangerment Finding is law fare at its' worst.
You could say Mass v. EPA was lawfare.
The EF is just a bad regulatory finding that was preordained once SCOTUS ruled in Mass. v. EPA (i.e. once a Democrat administration got a chance to make such a finding).
Fish 🎣 on! That was great as usual. Thank you! Time to bring back the “Take a kid fishing “ campaign from decades ago too! Then we can fill their minds with thoughts and ideas of common sense and they will have a great time learning all of it🗽🇺🇸
Thanks! We agree. But, we never needed the campaign.
It's like bird hunting and dogs, Dave.
It's just what we do. No campaigns needed.
I have 2 Pudelpointers and enjoy bird hunting.
What are you guys into?
From ruffed grouse in Northern Alberta, to sharptails and huns in Saskatchewan, to pheasants in South Dakota, to quail and doves in the plains states/southeast, to perdiz in Argentina.
And, waterfowl on both continents, from Northern Alberta through Saskatchewan and Manitoba, through South Dakota, into Illinois, through the Southeast and down in Argentina (and next year, probably perdiz and ducks in Uruguay).
Labs for waterfowl. GSP's and English pointers for upland dogs. Have hunted over some pretty good Brittany spaniels, too. (Own a lab).
Lot's of action and spectacular country !
Fair dinkum and good onya, livin the dream!
Pudelpointer is a cross with English Pointers and German water poodles. Versatile.
Keep huntin = stayin healthy.
Affirmative. That, 2-3 miles/day behind the Lab, long walks in the woods and in streams/rivers with a fly rod, some vigorous yard work. Keep moving…
I took my first trip to run in a few trials in Washington State and see a former field trial customer in Idaho in fall 2023. It was incredible. I hope to get back in the fall to chase some birds with those guys. I’ve never seen any wild Chukar and I’d love for the dogs to get a crack at them. Haven’t been to AZ either, that is also on my list. I had the privilege to hunt near McCook TX on former Senator Lloyd Benson’s ranch in 2014. It was quite a thrill. We probably moved 60 plus coveys in 2 days and we only hunted from daylight until about 11 AM we went from there to Freer TX and ran and judged in a few field trials. Not as many birds but some incredibly rugged country. That ranch was giant, something like 200k acres. Owned by David Killiam. I’ve been fortunate to have met some amazing people on my journey. All of them mostly just loved dogs and horses and the spirit of the competition.
Quail, dove and turkey can be spectacular in TX for those good water years!
TX is one of the few states where your bird dog can get bitten by a water moccasin in one part of the state and a rattlesnake in the another part.
A few cactus spines available as well
I’m a pro dog trainer. Trained/handled horseback field trail dogs since 1998 turned pro in 2006 ( mostly all GSP as that’s what we breed and sell) I hung up my spurs in December and now I’m just training gun dogs and hunting whenever I had time. Make several trips to various locations to hunt from horseback or foot depending on the location and group I’m hunting with. I just broke a PP she was really nice. We’re in Georgia but ironically most of my best wild bird hunting has been in other states…. We don’t have too many wild birds here. I did get several woodcock this winter on the Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge. Also found a few coveys but not any significant numbers. My best trips have been in Oklahoma, Kansas, The Dakota’s and eastern Montana.
There are few experiences as sublime in nature as hunting upland birds behind a good dog(s) by horseback. The number of humans who ever get to experience that is vanishingly small.
We are fortunate, are we not, Dave?
Only in America 🇺🇸 and we all need to fight, fight, fight to protect this country! You guys have the knowledge, I just have a passion to preserve America for future generations! Substack is a most powerful platform, like nothing I’ve ever experienced.
Thank you for being a fighter, Dave.
Dennis Prager used to say: "you either fight or you help the fighters." By subscribing to the Substacks you do, you're doing BOTH. Good on you. Western civilization can thank you later.
Super cool Dave, a hat tip in your direction. I do the usual with my boys: dove, quail, pigeon, turkey, invasive misc in CA and TX.
Come join us this season somewhere?
Fewer and fewer dads each year.
Good for you. That makes you a Super Dad in our book!
Holding a trout in the water after catching it and watching it swim away is a magical experience everyone should participate in! It’s so great I’d even go as far to say it’s spiritual. I feel the same way with great dogs pinning down a covey of birds….. once it’s experienced you just want to watch it one more time! Wash, rinse, repeat….
I loved fly casting. When I got good at it, I started to catch fish. I hated catching fish. I released them. Nevertheless, I gave it up and accompanied my husband. I hiked, bird watched, etc.
Try it again, this time only using barbless hooks. You won't have any problem releasing them. And, if you don't fish on hot summer days, you won't stress the fish much if you release them quickly using barbless hooks (as one should fly fishing, regardless of regulation).
Once you get good at casting, and you learn to control fly line on the water so you don't get the fly "dragging" cross current/unnaturally, you'll catch fish and there are few things as good at connecting humans to the natural world while forgetting the problems that humans create as fly fishing.
I gave it up years ago. My husband died 7 years ago and wasn't able to fish as much for the last 5 before his death. Of course the flies had barbless hooks. I just didn't like catching the fish. I would not make a very good "prairie wife". haha. My mobility is challenged as well. I'm 83 with a short leg/bad back. I get around OK. But when I visited a stream last fall with a friend. He had to help me get down to the stream and then get back up after I sat there for a while. Ah, the indignities of old age.
🗽🍑 83 years of knowledge!
Ditto. A Lab's 300 yard blind retrieve on a winged teal in cattails delivered to hand is a similar spiritual experience.
Too many to list. Gun and rod. Dog hair, feathers, fins.
Too many humans measure life in dollars and material goods. Having these types of experiences in nature, over and over again for decades, is a value that cannot be measured in dollars and cents. Sounds trite. For those who understand, it's anything but.
Just because the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) that CO₂ is a pollutant does not make it science.
CO2 is the only “pollutant” that that I know of that is required for life. Every time you exhale, you breathe out 40,000 ppm of it. A human creates a out 1 kg of CO2 a day, and plants and the ocean uptake CO2.
You are right. My like button doesn't work.
Absurd ruling.
Absurd finding resulted.
Correction in the works.
Will it succeed? Hard to say.
After knocking out the single pillar via legal remedy, we desperately need a blitz of scientific studies countering the climate change nonsense in order to shut up our dimwitted acquaintances and family members screaming how the scumbag Republicans are ignoring scientific consensus and destroying the world.
Yes.
They won't read them, or if they read them they won't believe them. This is a religious faith to some.
Yup. It would at least be nice if they did not attempt to keep them out of scientific journals by pressuring editors and crapping on the peer review process.
There is that.
Buy them all copies of our friend Judy Curry's book "Climate Uncertainty and Risk".
She's not "a Republican".
She's the former head of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, and a climate scientist with nearly 200 research studies in the peer reviewed literature on the subject.
GREAT book, by the way.
I’ve had the good fortune to get to know her a bit. Going back to 2009. Right before ClimateGate broke, and her views evolved.
Just emailed her the other day. Have tried to help her and Peter Webster by introducing them (CFAN) to some potential clients. Ditching GA Tech was a good call given how she was treated in academia after about 2011.
History will judge her as a scientific hero. Mann, Jacobson, and others will be viewed harshly.
I'm old enough to remember (maybe not comprehend) William F. Buckley debates on TV. Instead of the 5 minute talking over argument segments currently featured on the cable channels, possibly there could be moderated scientific debates. They should be moderated in the sense of not allowing one side to interrupt and talk over a debate participant when they get too close to the truth.
That’s not how The Green Church rolls…
Fantastic news
Thx!