Government Intervention in the Energy Markets Is the Main Danger, Not CO2

via Carlin Economics and Sciencehttp://www.carlineconomics.com

The rumors concerning the Trump Administration’s climate policies are not all favorable. The Daily Caller says that the Trump Administration will issue an executive order to rescind or revise the Obama Administration’s so-called Clean Power Plan (CPP) next week. I count that as a plus and consistent with Trump’s campaign promises.

But there is also a rumor that the Trump Administration will not rescind the EPA greenhouse gas Endangerment Finding (EF). If this should prove correct, it is widely believed by legal experts that the climate alarmists can force the Administration to issue a different regulation limiting CO₂ emissions through the courts. This new regulation may not be as strong as the CPP, but the alternative of rescinding the EF is a much better route since it would not only more accurately represent the current state of climate science, but would force some future alarmist-inclined Administration to first issue still another new EF justifying CO₂ reduction before it could re-rewrite the CO₂ emission control regulation. We need as much protection against future government intervention in energy markets as we can get.

And there are increasing signs that the Trump Administration may not end US involvement with the Paris “Treaty” or the UNFCCC, as previously reported. The latter would have the same effect since the UNFCCC is the umbrella under which the “treaty” was concluded, and withdrawal would end most US involvment with the UN on climate. UNFCCC withdrawal would be desirable, but the important thing is to end the US involvement in the Paris “treaty.” Mr. Trump even promised to do this if elected.

Why do I favor taking a stronger stand against climate alarmism? Because the scientific evidence is overwhelming that reducing CO₂ emissions will have no measurable effect on global warming, that increased atmospheric CO₂ is good, not bad, that moderate increases in global warming are good, not bad, and that there is no evidence that catastrophic increases in global temperatures will result if no action is taken. Hence there is no justification for government intervention in the energy markets on the basis of climate policy. The main danger is what government may do to disrupt the energy markets, not what catastrophic effects CO₂ emissions might have.

via Carlin Economics and Science http://ift.tt/1gVT2t3

March 9, 2017 at 02:58PM

Climate Institute runs out of money

via JoNovahttp://joannenova.com.au

The The Climate Institute is a private think tank set up in 2005. It got about $2m a year back in the heyday of climate panic. Today Planet Earth is still about to collapse, but it’s not important enough for the team to keep working without a salary. Amazing what someone, who really believes in what they do, can achieve with 1% of what they had.

No more propaganda surveys from them then:

Climate Institute announces closure, citing lack of funding to continue

After a decade of climate advocacy work, climate change research organisation the Climate Institute has announced it will be closing in late June.

The non-profit’s survival has until now been dependent on donations, and it has cited a lack of funding as the reason for its closure.

Best known for its Climate of the Nation reports, the organisation also helped, among other things, expand the renewable energy target in 2008.

The Climate Institute could be relied upon to pay for trite motherhood style surveys to score meaningless headlines about how 110% of Australian believe we have a climate.

My past posts:

Climate Institute Poll finds we are all […]

via JoNova http://ift.tt/1hXVl6V

March 9, 2017 at 11:23AM

Diogenes searching for honest energy policies

via Watts Up With That?http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

Renewable energy is defective solution in search of a problem, money and power Guest essay by Paul Driessen The Greek philosopher Diogenes reportedly carried an oil lamp during the daytime, the better to help him find an honest man. People everywhere should join Congress and the Trump Administration in search of honest energy and climate […]

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

March 9, 2017 at 07:56AM

From the No Schist, Sherlock Files: “On Climate Change, Pruitt Contradicts EPA’s Own Website”

via Watts Up With That?http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

Guest post by David Middleton EPA chief Scott Pruitt, speaking on CNBC Thursday morning, made one of his strongest statements yet rejecting the science of human-caused climate change. “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so […]

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

March 9, 2017 at 06:53AM