Global Cooling. The sky is falling.

[Alan Klein]

It's generally best to ignore Hollywood even in (semi-)serious discussions.

As for your WSJ reference, it's interesting how respectable the main stream media becomes when it tells you what you want to hear. As fas I know, the WSJ is not the final arbiter on whether or not "climate change has run its course", which is a bizarre headline at best.

The WSJ is addressing climate change from a business standpoint.  I wouldn't call WSJ the main street media.  Since Trump, a lot of the hype about climate change and warming seems to have died down.  The world may be moving on to its next big issue, whatever that may turn out to be.  Maybe a new ice age?    It seems to be a little colder lately.   

[Kevin Gallagher]

Relax, Alan. I can pretty much guarantee that I shan't ban anyone for silence.

Jeremy

 Aww, does someone need a cup of cocoa??

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Aww, does someone need a cup of cocoa??

Only organic, responsibly grown and fair-priced

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

"Judge orders EPA to disclose any science backing up Pruitt’s climate claims
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/judge-orders-epa-to-disclose-any-science-backing-up-pruitts-climate-claims/

In March 2017, Scott Pruitt, the new administrator of Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency, appeared on CNBC and said that carbon dioxide was not known to be a major factor in climate change. “I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” Pruitt said, adding, “there’s a tremendous disagreement about the degree of the impact” of “human activity on the climate.”

Based on what?"

"On Tuesday, a US District Court Judge for the District of Columbia issued a memo (PDF) saying that the EPA must comply with PEER’s request by July 2, offering any EPA documents that helped Pruitt come to the conclusion that he shared on CNBC last year. If certain documents can not be provided, an explanation for their absence must be provided by July 11."

This is going to be interesting ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Tim Lookingbill]

Interesting situation with Pruitt. Didn't know judges could do that, but glad to see they can.

On the subject of temperature especially concerning the 100 degree weather we're having down here in Texas, I questioned why we're so concerned and worried about hot temperatures that go up 5 or so degrees above our core body temp of 98.6 degrees but don't seem to mind or be affected that much when the temp drops 50 degrees below core body temp in the Winter.

I mean we have the Polar Bear group of elderly folks diving into frigid water much colder than 40 or so degrees and no one is concerned they could die of cold exhaustion vs heat exhaustion in the Summer.

Hey, it's just a number to a certain degree, right?

[Robert Roaldi]

Interesting situation with Pruitt. Didn't know judges could do that, but glad to see they can.

On the subject of temperature especially concerning the 100 degree weather we're having down here in Texas, I questioned why we're so concerned and worried about hot temperatures that go up 5 or so degrees above our core body temp of 98.6 degrees but don't seem to mind or be affected that much when the temp drops 50 degrees below core body temp in the Winter.

I mean we have the Polar Bear group of elderly folks diving into frigid water much colder than 40 or so degrees and no one is concerned they could die of cold exhaustion vs heat exhaustion in the Summer.

Hey, it's just a number to a certain degree, right?

Sort of like slowly bringing a frog to boil, they don't notice till it's too late. 

[LesPalenik]

We can take those temperature extremes only for a few minutes, whether cold or hot.
I swam both in freezing water (after coming out of a very hot sauna) and in 110F hot water in Chena, Alaska and the freezing water was much more pleasant.
In Chena, the hot water comes out of the ground at 165F (73C) and they mix it with cold water to keep the main pool at 106F, but when I was there, they had a problem with the cold water intake, so the resulting water temperature was just too hot to stay there for more than a minute. You would boil very quickly.

[Alan Klein]

"Judge orders EPA to disclose any science backing up Pruitt’s climate claims
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/judge-orders-epa-to-disclose-any-science-backing-up-pruitts-climate-claims/

In March 2017, Scott Pruitt, the new administrator of Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency, appeared on CNBC and said that carbon dioxide was not known to be a major factor in climate change. “I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” Pruitt said, adding, “there’s a tremendous disagreement about the degree of the impact” of “human activity on the climate.”

Based on what?"

"On Tuesday, a US District Court Judge for the District of Columbia issued a memo (PDF) saying that the EPA must comply with PEER’s request by July 2, offering any EPA documents that helped Pruitt come to the conclusion that he shared on CNBC last year. If certain documents can not be provided, an explanation for their absence must be provided by July 11."

This is going to be interesting ...

Cheers,
Bart

The whole law suit is silly.  Pruitt gave his opinion.  To force government officials to present documentation to back up everything they say would tie up the entire government.  Can you imagine Trump having to prove everything he says?  In fact, any politician or government official?   Even if they did present documentation, then what?  Is the judge going to review all the info and judge whether the official is correct in his opinion.  The judge isn't an expert in the environmental field, so he'd have to call expert witnesses.  And then what?   So let's say the PEER group does get a bunch of papers.  Then what?  The whole thing has no point and wastes government time and money. 

The only time where making the EPA release their studies makes sense is if the EPA changes a ruling that effects a person or company.  Then if the person or company sues in court, and there is a trial, then the EPA would have to present documentation that would show how they came to their new conclusion and rule.  That would be decided at trial. 

Forcing government officials to back up what they said would have a deleterious effect on democracy.  It would force them to say nothing on TV and just make the change.  That would defeat the whole purpose of open and free debate in a Democracy.  The way to handle it is to let others contradict Pruitt.  Then the people can decide who they want to believe.

[RSL]

The judgment will be reversed on appeal. It's obviously an absurd ruling.

[Robert Roaldi]

The whole law suit is silly.  Pruitt gave his opinion.  To force government officials to present documentation to back up everything they say would tie up the entire government.  Can you imagine Trump having to prove everything he says?  In fact, any politician or government official?   Even if they did present documentation, then what?  Is the judge going to review all the info and judge whether the official is correct in his opinion.  The judge isn't an expert in the environmental field, so he'd have to call expert witnesses.  And then what?   So let's say the PEER group does get a bunch of papers.  Then what?  The whole thing has no point and wastes government time and money. 

Maybe it was some alternate science that Pruitt learned about inside his "cone of silence" (https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/pruitt-sound-proof-booth/index.html), so naturally the rest of the climate research community would not know about it yet.

But I get your point. Imagine holding government officials to account, what kind of democracy would that be?

[Alan Klein]

Maybe it was some alternate science that Pruitt learned about inside his "cone of silence" (https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/pruitt-sound-proof-booth/index.html), so naturally the rest of the climate research community would not know about it yet.

But I get your point. Imagine holding government officials to account, what kind of democracy would that be?

Government officials are held to account during an election. 

Can you imagine what would happen to this forum if every time someone posted their opinion they had to provide three corroborating links to science reports to prove their point?  The moderators would be napping all the time.

If the PEER group has an issue with what the EPA does, let them sue the EPA and show the harm that was done to them by their new or revised ruling.  That's how things are settled in court.  Russ is right that this will be thrown out on appeal.  You can't force people to provide evidence to what's going on in someone's mind because they gave an opinion. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Taking people to court for having an opinion against a prevailing consensus... not so unique or unusual. Just ask Galileo.

[Alan Klein]

Taking people to court for having an opinion against a prevailing consensus... not so unique or unusual. Just ask Galileo.

Interesting.  But I think Pruitt also disagrees with Galileo.

[Alan Goldhammer]

The whole law suit is silly.  Pruitt gave his opinion.  To force government officials to present documentation to back up everything they say would tie up the entire government.  Can you imagine Trump having to prove everything he says?  In fact, any politician or government official?   Even if they did present documentation, then what?  Is the judge going to review all the info and judge whether the official is correct in his opinion.  The judge isn't an expert in the environmental field, so he'd have to call expert witnesses.  And then what?   So let's say the PEER group does get a bunch of papers.  Then what?  The whole thing has no point and wastes government time and money. 

You are wrong on this.  A lot of what EPA has done in the past 18 months is in gross violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (I have a number of good friends who are environmental lawyers and working on various lawsuits against what Pruitt is trying to do).  This is the primary reason why I'm pretty comfortable about why a lot of what has been proposed will never come to pass.  The rulemaking process is very complex (in my work career I managed comments on more notices of proposed rulemaking than I can count) and attempts to change a rule already in effect have to go thorugh the same process; it has to be re-proposed, comments gathered and evaluated, and finally then can the new rule go into effect.  the lone exception(s) to this are rules proposed late in the administration which can be undone by the review process that was already employed.  However, the number of rules in this case are very small.

The only time where making the EPA release their studies makes sense is if the EPA changes a ruling that effects a person or company.  Then if the person or company sues in court, and there is a trial, then the EPA would have to present documentation that would show how they came to their new conclusion and rule.  That would be decided at trial. 

Again, this is not necessarily true.  The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) can be used to get a lot of this information.  This has been used by both industry and environmental groups over the years.  We regularly filed FOIA requests with FDA when I was still working in the pharma industry.

[Robert Roaldi]

Government officials are held to account during an election. 

Can you imagine what would happen to this forum if every time someone posted their opinion they had to provide three corroborating links to science reports to prove their point?  The moderators would be napping all the time.

If the PEER group has an issue with what the EPA does, let them sue the EPA and show the harm that was done to them by their new or revised ruling.  That's how things are settled in court.  Russ is right that this will be thrown out on appeal.  You can't force people to provide evidence to what's going on in someone's mind because they gave an opinion.

Pruitt was appointed, not elected.

What do the posting standards of an online forum have to do with what's expected of someone in high office when speaking in public? Would it be ok, do you think, if Pruitt's opinion was that coal miners did NOT contract black lung disease in the mines? Would it be ok, for someone in high office, who is supposed to be making decisions for the protection of citizens came out against blood transfusions or the use of latex by surgeons? Do you really think it's ok for someone in high office with those "opinions" to voice them?

The most astounding thing about Pruitt is that he still has his job, considering all the other controversies he has been involved in. But maybe this is how Trump is going about clearing out the swamp, by putting such clowns in charge (or leaving positions open) that those offices become, in effect, completely useless.

You may be correct about the specifics of this specific court case. I don't understand the details of the law suit to begin with, seems nuts to me at first glance, but lots of things that happen in courts mystify me.

[EricV]

Pruitt is not being forced to justify his opinion or to back up his statement.  The suit is a Freedom of Information case asking the EPA to produce any existing documents which Pruitt relied on to reach his opinion.  Pruitt is perfectly free to state that there are no such EPA documents.  In fact, that is probably the result the suit hopes to obtain.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Would it be ok, do you think, if Pruitt's opinion was that coal miners did NOT contract black lung disease in the mines? Would it be ok, for someone in high office, who is supposed to be making decisions for the protection of citizens came out against blood transfusions or the use of latex by surgeons? Do you really think it's ok for someone in high office with those "opinions" to voice them?...

Yes.

[Alan Klein]

There's a difference between a personal opinion espoused on the TV and an official ruling. If Pruitt says climate change doesn't exist, that's an opinion.  He doesn't have to prove it. 

If the EPA on the other hand officially changes EPA procedures that coal plants no longer have to meet emission standards because it doesn't effect the environment, that's a ruling that people can sue on.  The EPA would then have to provide documents showing how they came up with their ruling in a court of law.  Even then, I'm not sure they have to prove anything as they are granted a lot of leeway.  During Obama's term, many conservatives felt the EPA had gone too far with regulating the environment.  The courts didn't stop him or the EPA because the EPA is granted wide latitude in deciding.


What it comes down too is political.  The EPA makes many decisions that have nothing to do with studies or research but who's in charge and what the voters want them to do.  Also, decisions are not only made based on science.  There are other factors such as the economic cost to implement which the voters may feel override the scientific problems.  So even if you could prove that climate change is real, voters may not want to spend their tax money to do anything about it.  That's a political decision.  You can't prove that Pruitt is wrong.  Based on the vote, he is right.  That's why elections have consequences.


Regarding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that requires release of information.  That's fine.  I have no problem with that. It's the law. In fact I support it.    But to ask for information based on how someone came up with a personal opinion espoused on a TV program but isn't  an official government ruling, doesn't seem legal to me. 

[Alan Klein]

Pruitt was appointed, not elected.

What do the posting standards of an online forum have to do with what's expected of someone in high office when speaking in public? Would it be ok, do you think, if Pruitt's opinion was that coal miners did NOT contract black lung disease in the mines? Would it be ok, for someone in high office, who is supposed to be making decisions for the protection of citizens came out against blood transfusions or the use of latex by surgeons? Do you really think it's ok for someone in high office with those "opinions" to voice them?

The most astounding thing about Pruitt is that he still has his job, considering all the other controversies he has been involved in. But maybe this is how Trump is going about clearing out the swamp, by putting such clowns in charge (or leaving positions open) that those offices become, in effect, completely useless.

You may be correct about the specifics of this specific court case. I don't understand the details of the law suit to begin with, seems nuts to me at first glance, but lots of things that happen in courts mystify me.

Pruitt was appointed by and works for the President who was elected.  So the government Administrators are ultimately responding to the people.  That's what democracy is all about.  During the Obama administration, I didn't hear you supporting conservatives  who complained the EPA was going too far in regulations.  They were doing what Obama's voters wanted from them.  No one cared about "proof". It's all about policy.  I guess it depends whose ox is being gored.

[Alan Goldhammer]

What it comes down too is political.  The EPA makes many decisions that have nothing to do with studies or research but who's in charge and what the voters want them to do.  Also, decisions are not only made based on science.  There are other factors such as the economic cost to implement which the voters may feel override the scientific problems.  So even if you could prove that climate change is real, voters may not want to spend their tax money to do anything about it.  That's a political decision.  You can't prove that Pruitt is wrong.  Based on the vote, he is right.  That's why elections have consequences.

As per my previous post, this is factually incorrect.  EPA has to obey all parts of the Administrative Procedures Act regarding Agency rulemaking.  They must provide a justification for the proposed rule and provide ample time for interested parties to comment.  When they publish the final rule they must address all the received comments in going forward with the rule.  It's also not uncommon for there to be changes in the final rule based on comments received.  The same thing goes when they are changing an existing rule and this is where the Pruitt EPA is in a boatload of trouble.