Maybe. But we'll have to see how actual vs. projected plays out.
And either way, not one that can be solved by any of the ruinable energy technologies proposed, or all in combination, certainly not in the advanced industrial countries, and not likely even in the developing.
Half the nitrogen in 4 billion bodies is from the Haber Bosch process and natural gas. And that's just for starters. So, unless you got a 1,200 year stash of bird guano, we need the natural gas for food production.
For several decades, I have been advocating a "concentrate on the science" approach to fighting the climate charlatans. I thought that because their fundamental premise about CO2 (allegedly, that it is harmful) was faulty, a clear public examination of the science behind greenhouse global warming would reveal that climate alarmism was "turtles all the way down," thus worthy of only public scorn and rejection. My approach proved to be practically useless. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence refuting climate hysteria, the "sound science" approach had, at best, a glacial effect. Now comes Lee Zeldin, who has a quite different strategy. He saw how to win the battle by not attacking the scientific enemy, but its fragile legal foundation. Seeing his strategy unfold successfully, it now seems so obvious, but I was blinded by the intellectual dishonesty of people like Al Gore and Michael Mann, and thus could not see the easier way forward. I believe this is because there is much greater public confidence in the law and the regulatory structure than in sound science. Zeldin brilliantly saw this. My hat is off to him. If he is ultimately successful, his efforts will be one of the greatest contributions to civilization in my lifetime.
Excellent points, all around. I believe what we have seen happen over the past 25+ years is science being even more corrupted than the law and legal logic. If true, this is a sad comment on true science, more so than on law and legal logic.
Well, I am neither "modern" nor "conservative." It's interesting that you equate "thinks carbon dioxide is not harmful" with "Nazi." Let's keep it civil, shall we?
Not true. Nazi’s invade other countries and send people into death/slave camps.
You are brainwashed by the Radical Left to think the Republicans are evil. First the Radical Left does character assassination, then real life assassination. You’ve fallen for it hook and sinker.
Mr. McKie: If you were to use the ad-hominem attacks you have used in your responses to Jim Brown on the GreenNUKE Substack, you would be banned and your postings would be deleted.
The CAFE standards, given what carmakers are doing to comply, will kill us long before the endangerment finding could. EF recision is great, but need to choke off CAFE asap.
Great point. One would like to think that a successful effort here would kick the NHTSA to rethink the CAFE standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
Doubtful a DC Circuit Court judge would ask the question, being already inclined to defer to the Supreme Court's decision in Mass v. EPA as answering your question.
We model the whole point of this exercise is to get the question of whether the 2007 Supreme Court erred in that ruling in front of the current Supreme Court. Which has not showed timidity in reviewing prior rulings (read: Roe v. Wade).
“The EPA’s repeal of the endangerment finding violates my first amendment right to practice my faith and my fifth amendment rights to life and liberty.” 🤣🤣🤣
If one ever needed proof that “climate change” is a religion, the statement that repealing the endangerment finding violates first amendment rights (religion and speech) proves it.
A very well done summary of the strategy used to end this ridiculous abuse of science and law.
Keep up the good work environ!
Thanks!
Great analysis. But we still have a real problem (though not an existential one) with accelerating climate change, no?
Maybe. But we'll have to see how actual vs. projected plays out.
And either way, not one that can be solved by any of the ruinable energy technologies proposed, or all in combination, certainly not in the advanced industrial countries, and not likely even in the developing.
Half the nitrogen in 4 billion bodies is from the Haber Bosch process and natural gas. And that's just for starters. So, unless you got a 1,200 year stash of bird guano, we need the natural gas for food production.
I do love my ammonia
For several decades, I have been advocating a "concentrate on the science" approach to fighting the climate charlatans. I thought that because their fundamental premise about CO2 (allegedly, that it is harmful) was faulty, a clear public examination of the science behind greenhouse global warming would reveal that climate alarmism was "turtles all the way down," thus worthy of only public scorn and rejection. My approach proved to be practically useless. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence refuting climate hysteria, the "sound science" approach had, at best, a glacial effect. Now comes Lee Zeldin, who has a quite different strategy. He saw how to win the battle by not attacking the scientific enemy, but its fragile legal foundation. Seeing his strategy unfold successfully, it now seems so obvious, but I was blinded by the intellectual dishonesty of people like Al Gore and Michael Mann, and thus could not see the easier way forward. I believe this is because there is much greater public confidence in the law and the regulatory structure than in sound science. Zeldin brilliantly saw this. My hat is off to him. If he is ultimately successful, his efforts will be one of the greatest contributions to civilization in my lifetime.
Mr. Brown,
Excellent points, all around. I believe what we have seen happen over the past 25+ years is science being even more corrupted than the law and legal logic. If true, this is a sad comment on true science, more so than on law and legal logic.
Both could use a good de-lousing. ;)
Amen!
Well that's the plan of attack here.
We wish we shared your optimism about public confidence in the law vs. science.
But we're old enough to have seen both go pretty badly in the last three decades so forgive us.
You get one warning, Scott. Don't conflate the two again, or denigrate the death of 6 million people. Or come within a country mile of it.
I detect the slightest bit of that again, you're gone. Got it?
Well, I am neither "modern" nor "conservative." It's interesting that you equate "thinks carbon dioxide is not harmful" with "Nazi." Let's keep it civil, shall we?
Not true. Nazi’s invade other countries and send people into death/slave camps.
You are brainwashed by the Radical Left to think the Republicans are evil. First the Radical Left does character assassination, then real life assassination. You’ve fallen for it hook and sinker.
Mr. McKie: If you were to use the ad-hominem attacks you have used in your responses to Jim Brown on the GreenNUKE Substack, you would be banned and your postings would be deleted.
The CAFE standards, given what carmakers are doing to comply, will kill us long before the endangerment finding could. EF recision is great, but need to choke off CAFE asap.
Great point. One would like to think that a successful effort here would kick the NHTSA to rethink the CAFE standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
But, alas, hope is not a strategy.
If I were a judge tasked with deciding this case, I would ask this question of the plaintiff. Is CO2 a pollutant?
Doubtful a DC Circuit Court judge would ask the question, being already inclined to defer to the Supreme Court's decision in Mass v. EPA as answering your question.
We model the whole point of this exercise is to get the question of whether the 2007 Supreme Court erred in that ruling in front of the current Supreme Court. Which has not showed timidity in reviewing prior rulings (read: Roe v. Wade).
certainly, my fingers are crossed the administration is successful
The briefings and arguments before the DC Circuit will be telling. As will its decision.
We will have written another year's worth of articles before all this plays out.
and I will read them all!
“The EPA’s repeal of the endangerment finding violates my first amendment right to practice my faith and my fifth amendment rights to life and liberty.” 🤣🤣🤣
If one ever needed proof that “climate change” is a religion, the statement that repealing the endangerment finding violates first amendment rights (religion and speech) proves it.
That was the point of including it, Brother.
But, of course! 😁