EPA Chief concedes no climate impact from ‘climate rule’: It’s about ‘reinventing a global economy’


By: - Climate DepotMay 12, 2016 1:45 PM with 41 comments

Over a period of twenty months, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy repeatedly concedes that the Agency’s sweeping climate-regulation of America’s fossil fuel-fired power plants will have no impact on the Earth’s climate. McCarthy openly admits that the Clean Power Plan “is not about end of pipe controls.” Instead, she says the rule is about “driving investment in renewables…, [and] advancing our ongoing clean energy revolution”. McCarthy says, “That’s what… reinventing a global economy looks like.”

EPA ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY:

“The value of this rule is not measured [by its climate impact]. It is measured by showing strong domestic action…”
-US House Science Committee
-July 9, 2015

“[T]here is absolutely no reason to” measure the climate impact of the Clean Power Plan “because we know it will take a lot of efforts to actually make those reductions”.
-Senate Appropriations Committee
-April 20, 2016

“We don’t have to prove that any reduction [in greenhouse gas emissions] will actually make a precipitous difference” in global warming.
-IHS Energy CERA Week
-February 24, 2016

The “benefit” of the Clean Power Plan is “in showing sort of domestic leadership as well as garnering support around the country for the agreement we reached in Paris.”
-House Energy and Commerce Committee
-March 22, 2016

“[The Clean Power Plan] is not about pollution control. […] This is an investment strategy…”
-Senate EPW Committee
-July 23, 2014

“[The Clean Power Plan] is about advancing our ongoing clean energy revolution […] That’s what… reinventing a global economy looks like.”
-Council on Foreign Relations
-March 11, 2015

“[The Clean Power Plan] is a fundamental way of relooking at where the United States is heading and how to maintain our competitive edge… That’s what this is all about.”
-Council on Foreign Relations
-March 11, 2015


  • Will Haas

    It is not just that the “climate rule” will have little real effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere but that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmopshere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majoriety of the Earth’s surface is some form of water. Models have been generated that show that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Man has no control.

    The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.

    Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.

    The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.

    This is all a matter of science

    • Denis Ables

      The alarmists continue to insist even that the MWP was merely regional and not as warm as now. This, even in the face of numerous peer-reviewed studies (co2science.org), 6,000 boreholes, and recent exposure of splintered tree trunks, still standing in their original position at northern latitudes (Mendenhall in Alaska and in the Alps) where trees obviously cannot now grow (at least not until those glaciers continue to make room by receding north a few more miles.

      They never offer a rebuttal to the claim that there is no empirical evidence (even over geologic periods when co2 level was MUCH higher) that co2 EVER had any impact on the planet’s temperature. They will not make a statement, instead merely providing irrelevant links across the web.

      They ignore the fact that both NASA and NOAA make all their declarations based on data from terrestrial weather stations, which is dubious at best. Both also ignore conflicting data from our two weather satellites which show no additional warming since about 1998 (in spite of an El Nino which cranked up in mid 2015! and co2 level at its highest in recent history.)

      There are several ways to categorize these alarmists: (1) useful idiots (2) those arguing based on their agenda – either political or $$ (3) those “scientists” who are so incompetent that dismissal from practicing their profession may be the only practical option.

      • Will Haas

        What definitely cannot be denied if the fact that the previous interglacial period was warmer than this one with more ice cap melting and higher sea levels yet CO2 levels were lower than today. Yes the warm period cycling did not correlate to CO2 so the pushers of the AGW conjecture eliminated them yet they could not remove the evidence that such cycling did occur.

        I keep stating that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. I am still waiting for someone to come up with such evidence.

        I myself believe that trying to burn up Earth’s very finite supply of fossil fuels just as quickly as possible is rather foolish. I would like to add AGW an another reason to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but the AGW conjecture is just too full of holes.

        • Denis Ables

          … and your last paragraph demonstrates the position held by most skeptics. The alarmists, the true believers, have all dug themselves a deep hole which they must now defend, so only gets deeper. Now, to defend their ego / agenda / whatever they must continue to LIE.

          Soon enough they’ll all go down with that ship, no doubt with all flags flying.

    • Sam Pyeatte

      The primary purpose of atmospheric CO2 is to provide food for plants. As the planet warms, more CO2 is produced (probably from the warming oceans), to enhance plant growth. If the planet cools, a cooler ocean absorbs excess CO2 from the atmosphere because it is not needed due to receding plant growth. It seems to be a carefully designed system…

      • Will Haas

        Over hundreds of millions of years carbon that would be available for new plant growth has been sequestered in the form of fossil fuels and carbonate rocks. Burning fossil fuels helps to return some of the sequestered carbon to the atmosphere where it can be used for new plant growth. The current level of CO2 is still significantly less then the level of CO2 that is optimum for plant growth.

        • rhjames

          I agree, it’s interesting that people assume that there’s something wrong with higher CO2 level. At about 30% of the current level, life on Earth as we know it would cease to exist. I’d be concerned if CO2 was dropping.

          • bmatkin

            30%??? 99.8% of all life ceases at 180 ppm in the atmosphere. All food, except deep water vents is a result of atmospheric CO2.
            In fact, plants also use less water when CO2 levels are higher, therefore it would save California’s water problems too.

          • rhjames

            I stand corrected. I thought it was about 120ppm. I’ve read different values for this from different reports. Certainly we are now enjoying the benefits of higher CO2 levels, with higher crop yields, and higher tolerance to drought conditions. It seems well established that if CO2 level returned to past levels around 280ppm, we’d be in trouble. Indications are that around 600ppm could be better for the planet.

          • bmatkin

            At 800 ppm the vast deserts would shrink and places like Saudi Arabia would be tropical paradise.
            Also, CO2 doesn’t act like a normal greenhouse gas, first it is in the 17 angstrom range while most greenhouse gases are 7-11 angstroms. This means that it doesn’t work with other gases. It would take a large temperature rise caused by CO2 to trigger other warming >2 C.
            The IPCC concedes that isn’t likely to happen ever.
            CO2 is not distributed in the atmosphere evenly, it is found in larger quantities very close to the surface because it weighs more. (The propaganda illustrations show a “greenhouse roof” of CO2 up in the sky, this is simply false and an intentional lie) Therefore, any radiation above that is somewhat blocked from going through just as radiation that gets through is somewhat blocked returning. It works both ways unlike water vapor. (A blanket will keep either cold or hot in)
            As plants use more CO2, they increase the biomass which actually cools the atmosphere. They also shade the soil retaining water etc.
            CO2 will absorb radiation up to a saturation level, and no more. It is my understanding that the excess radiation is released in the form of a photon, but that isn’t my area of expertise.

        • Greg Henry

          This is a great deal for plants and people… the burning of fossil fuel means more oil spills, more mountain top removal, more refineries… but since fossil fuels are really dead stuff from a zillion years ago, all the waste products from exploration, refining and burning is really just more fertilizer for plant growth. Also, the jobs created totally out weigh the environmental damage cause by fossil fuel use…. and it helps line the pockets of big energy and greases the skids in congress. Clean air and water are over rated anyway. Marc Morano for President!

    • rhjames

      Excellent summary, and along the same lines that I’ve been screaming for years now. I believe that cloud effects will prove to be a major driver of climate for whatever reason.

      • Will Haas

        I read an article recently where the author pointed out that the basic calculations the Plank effect climate sensitivity of CO2, that is the climate sensitivity of CO2 ignoring feedbacks are too much by a factor of 20. The calculations assume that adding CO2 will not change the lapse rate in the troposphere bu that assumption is wrong. Doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a decrease the lapse rate, a convective cooling effect, that will almost counteract any radiative effects that CO2’s LWIR absorption bands might have. For the Climate to have been as stable as it has been over the past 500 million years, H2O feedback has got to be negative. So the true climate sensitivity of CO2 has got to be close to zero. Despite the fact that H2O is a better LWIR absorber than CO2. adding more H2O to the atmosphere lowers the lapse rate which is a cooling effect. The wet lapse rate is significantly less then the dry lapse rate.

        In their first report the IPCC published a very wide range of possible values for the climate sensitivity of CO2. In their last report, they published the exact range of values. There is nothing more important for the IPCC then to determine an accurate value for the climate sensitivity of CO2 yet after more than two decades of study the IPCC has learned nothing the would allow them to narrow the possible range one iota. They also refuse to acknowledge estimates of the sensitivity of CO2 that is below the range of values published in their reports for fear of losing funding.

    • cardigan

      True, but as McCarthy shows, they are not interested in science, the agenda rolls on regardless.

    • FreemenRtrue

      Great post – whole thing in a nutshall
      than, not then

      • Teknikid

        nutshell, not nutshall

        • FreemenRtrue

          Ha!

    • Agreed.
      There exists not a shred of empirical, reproducible, hard scientific evidence that Man’s activities have had any measurable effect on the climate.
      So how did we get to the point where AGW was used as the vehicle for what is now obviously the roll-out of a new global economic order based on a now-abandoned AGW claim?

  • Vindaloo Bugaboo

    The government doesn’t need to do anything if the mousetrap really is superior. Free markets will do that for them. Considering the heavy subsidies they receive to get people to use the technology as well as the intermittent nature of generation, it’s easy to conclude that it’s not a superior form of energy production. Case closed.

    • klem

      Exactly, it’s a lot like electric car subsidies. If the government has to pay you to buy something, you know it’s going to suck.

    • Barbara

      The people of Canada and the U.S. have enjoyed the abundance of North America and have been self-governing.

      Two basic reasons why European style ideas could not be sold here.

      Now this may be about to change with sustainability and world government being put-over on/ or sold to the people of both countries.

      • Barbara

        Liberal Party/Justin Trudeau campaign (2015) co-chair was Dan/Daniel Gagnier who has been Board Chair. of IISD/Internatonal Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Use internet search for more information.
        ——————————————————————

        Clinton’s campaign manager is John Podesta, founder of the Center for American Progress and on the Board of the ClimateWorks Foundation, San Francisco, Calif.

        ClimateWorks Foundation is a “pass through” foundation that funds NGOs.

        Also check out who funds The Center for American Progress which reveals where the big money is coming from to fund this organization.

  • ScienceABC123

    So if it’s about “reinventing the global economy” then why is it call a “climate rule?” Why isn’t it call the “reinventing the global economy” rule?

    Ahh, I get it. It’s something Obama wants to do, but Congress won’t pass legislation to let him do it. So lying about what it really is is the only way Obama can do it. Sounds like it will be just like the “Affordable Care Act.”

    • feellikeastranger

      yep … Occam’s Razor.

      Obama is traitorous lying marxist ==> therefore this is all a big con to support his “transformational” efforts

  • Gregson14

    A great video by Dr. David Evans of Australia – it captures the essence of the skeptical argument through the use of Satellite, Weather Balloon and the Argo System. this 12-min presentation uses IPCC graphs and data to demonstrate the truth – that the Alarmist theories on CO2 are not compatible with the data.

    Very nice Production Values too!…

  • Dew Free

    Another bureaucrats that need s be tried and convicted of crimes against the constitution

  • PhD

    Thank our lucky stars that we have such incredible people like Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Pelosi and McCarthy re-inventing the global economy ….. I think the term “megalomaniacs” does come to mind. I believe every eco-venture backed by these genii will end in bankruptcy. So far the count is not favoring the companies designed by government officials. I an including the ludicrous Musk at Tesla. He is no Steve Jobs.

  • Dew Free

    so you shut down Global works to reinvent Global works in the Direction of Clean energy,are you Stupid?

  • Dew Free

    There have been many Clean energy products over the years that show absolute promise,but all of them were shout out the door and you want us to believe that you are doing this for clean energy,you are a nut and have a very short cake .

    • DCW16

      Name ONE ! ! !

  • 4TimesAYear

    “This isn’t about pollution control”
    “This [GHG rule] is about leadership. This is about US being a leader on this issue and we believe and we already know it’s going to leverage a much better opportunity for a global solution”
    “It’s actually about providing (Americans) more opportunities to reduce waste. Under the EPA’s demand-reduction scenario, Americans can retrofit their homes and buy more energy-efficient appliances”

    Let me say that the EPA has no power or legal authority to enact rules for any of that except pollution. And the one thing the CPP is NOT about is pollution. It’s fraud.

  • Frederick Colbourne

    What more is needed to establish that this is a rogue administrator following the orders of a rogue president in making new law beyond the discretionary powers delegated by Congress, in blatant disregard for the separation of powers.

    By their abuse of power, what this administrator and this president demonstrate is utter contempt for the Constitution of the United States.

  • FreemenRtrue

    We must be mindful that the Supreme Court unconstitutionally sanctioned this Federal Agency abuse of executive power. Here we have a poorly educated head of EPA smugly determined to remake the world economy into something some authoritarian globalist thinks is better?

  • ALightFromAbove

    How to control masses 101. Create a fictitious problem, force everyone to follow laws that you create under threats of prison or death, bring down the economy of the nation to make all people equally miserable. Socialism 101.
    I suggest everyone give her the finger and immediately shut down the EPA for being a terrorist organization who’s goal is to usurp our constitution and the US’s sovereignty and forcing us to be bound by a one world government body of socialists.
    EPA doesn’t care about the environment anymore. They care about controlling your economy. Power corrupts, Greenies lie, government over reaches.

  • far2right

    She is so toast when POTUS The Donald assumes his reign.

  • feellikeastranger

    the solution solves no problem … “investment” … Oh yeah, windmills .. hell of an investment

  • How do we stop these global fascists/criminals in their tracks they have a corrupt UN, Supreme Court and President pushing them?

  • Jackie Puppet

    Christina Figueres has admitted this over a year ago, saying that 150 years of capitalism has “failed”.

  • Steve Harris

    I may be stating the obvious here but CO2 = plant air….

  • jrdeahl

    We never get the truth from the NWO. They are always trying to con us into something that only benefits and
    their agendas !!! I say we should destroy every system they use, and have used to control us. Banks, corporations, political systems. We could could get rid of bankers almost overnight……but the public is to ignorant to do it !!!

    We pay for our own demise !!!!

  • PierceEye

    Congress needs to put this whack out of a job