THE WAR

Where is the Trump Admin on Climate Change? I just watched Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, get eaten alive by Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace. Not only was it an ugly and painful sight but it was also a very dispiriting one. Here is the guy who was carefully selected to be in the vanguard of President Trump’s war on the Green Blob which, for decades, has been doing untold damage to liberty, the scientific method, and the economy. And he can’t even answer a few basic and obvious questions about why the job he is doing is necessary, important, and right. There should have been nothing complicated or unexpected about these questions. They are the kind of thing any half-way decent interviewer might have asked, be he a hostile one or a semi-friendly Fox News one playing devil’s advocate. And if Scott Pruitt had had even the most cursory briefing and media training in his new role, he should have been prepared for them. Wallace asked him about the UN’s view that it was 95 percent likely that more than half the temperature increase since the mid-20th century is due to human activity. Pruitt sweated, stuttered, and floundered. Wallace asked him about NOAA’s claim that 2015 and 2016 are the hottest years on record. Pruitt had no convincing comeback. Wallace asked him the age-old question beloved by climate alarmists: “What if you’re wrong? What if CO2 is causing dramatic climate change and we as humans are responsible?” Pruitt just didn’t know how to respond. There should have been nothing complicated or unexpected about these questions. They are the kind of thing any half-way decent interviewer might have asked, be he a hostile one or a semi-friendly Fox News one playing devil’s advocate. And if Scott Pruitt had had even the most cursory briefing and media training in his new role, he should have been prepared for them. Not only should he have known the most effective answers to give; but he should have been so confident in the rightness and truth of his cause that he should have been able to seize the moment and make the points that really need to be made about President Trump’s environmental policy: that it is being enacted for the good of science, for the good of the economy and the core mission of Making America Great Again. How could Scott Pruitt not do this? Any one of us on the skeptical side of the argument could have pointed him to dozens of leading scientists — and hundreds if not thousands of papers and articles — that could easily have enabled Pruitt to say what needed to be said. He could have noted the incompetence, corruption, and mendacity of the heavily politicized IPCC; the dishonest manipulation by organizations like NOAA — indeed especially NOAA — of the raw temperature data; the utter meaninglessness of the “hottest year evah” claims so often made in the liberal media. And he could easily have batted off the “What if you’re wrong?” question by making perhaps the most important point of all that needs to be made about the “war” on “carbon”: that what it all comes down to is cost benefit analysis. To whit: the trillions of dollars being spent every year on the possibility that there might be a problem, a) could be spent much more usefully elsewhere and b) are doing more harm than good. Pruitt was incapable of doing this though because, trained lawyer though he is, he is simply not on top of his brief. This is disgraceful. It’s an embarrassment and a shambles. Worst of all, it’s an entirely needless concession to the enemy. [FULL] The EPA is the leftist/s stealth bomber.  There can be no bigger prize in their globalization plan than to capture the right to  use climate to override damned near every constitutional right we have.  Say goodbye to property rights, and by extension every other right. And, as David Horowitz wrote in his book Big Agenda, " A small but determined disloyal group of Republicans are even joining Democrats to not only preserve the welfare state but expand it ..."  There you have it then.  The solution?  Kill them all.  Just kidding. But what, then? Skoonj

EPA SLUGS

The EPA - Making Their Own Law Since 1970

Awwwk-ward: EPA employees who called Senators to lobby against this nominee, meet your new boss! Some precious comments:

Scott Pruitt May Be Just the Guy ...

Time to Get Rid of the EPA? Oh sweet Jesus yes Scott Pruitt May Be Just the Guy to Do It The EPA’s expansive and ever-expanding regulations impose huge costs on American businesses and, ultimately, on consumers. An analysis by the Competitive Enterprise Institute estimated that the annual cost of compliance with EPA regulations alone is more than a third of a trillion dollars.    Actual Headline Americans now comprehend fully the disdainthe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has for truth-telling, therights of others, and the environment. What your grandparents expected would follow Now that can RIP. Several commentators have characterized the selection of Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt to become the next EPA Administrator as a sharp stick in the eye to the agency and its employees. They’re right — and seldom has any herd of federal bureaucrats been more deserving of it. For decades, in administrations Democratic and Republican alike, the EPA has been relentlessly ideological, politicized, corrupt, and incompetent. Next- the IRS?

Top EPA Official ...

Top EPA Official Admitted His Yahoo Email Was A ‘Channel’ For ‘Offline Chats’ With Environmentalists Is this even news anymore?

EPA violated federal law - Again

The EPA - Making Their Own Law Since 1970

EPA violated federal law with covert propaganda [...] Apparently the EPA was so desperate to move public opinion in favor of its controversial regulation that it hid its identity in order to make it look like these communications were not organized from the top down, but were rather an organic grass roots uprising. The opinion states further, “EPA constructed a message to be shared by others that refers to the EPA in the third person and advocates support of the Agency’s activities.” These messages apparently reached 1.8 million users. The EPA certainly knew what it was doing, after all, it was the communications director for the Office of Water that engaged in many of these activities. The EPA’s activities encouraged the public to engage in lobbying activities. As noted by the opinion, “When EPA hyperlinked to the NRDC and Surfrider Foundation webpages using an official communication channel belonging to the EPA and visually encouraged its readers to visit these external websites, EPA associated itself with the messages conveyed by these self-described action groups.” In general, an attempt by a federal agency to convince the public to engage in lobbying is an activity that is prohibited by law. Thus, the conclusion from the GAO stating, “We conclude that EPA violated the anti-lobbying provisions contained in appropriations acts for FY2015 when it obligated and expended funds in connection with establishing the hyperlinks to the webpages of environmental action groups.” [...] During the 1991  Keating Five Senate Ethics Committee  hearings, a staff member testified for Sen Alan Cranston, who was excused because he was dying of cancer The New York Times first reported that in 2014 environmentalists Dan Lashof, David Doniger and David Hawkins—all with roots at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)—drafted a “blueprint” that “influenced” the greenhouse gas rules. That wasn’t the half of it. The emails, obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, show that this trio and other environmentalists essentially wrote the rule. (he died 9 years later).  There came a moment when she attempted to take the blame for some Cranston legislation, saying that it was she who had inserted "that language" during reconciliation process.  Bob Bennet, the Ethics Committee prosecutor, bemused, asked if it was her practice to write Cranston's legislative language.  She answered, yes, I do it all the time.  There was an audible gasp.  I'm not sure whether it was because the panel were unaware that staff members actually write law;" or because the secret was now public. Here's my point. If Congressional staffers can change the language in laws during the reconciliation process (where House and Senate versions are blended), consider how easy it is for members of regulatory agencies, like the EPA, to make their own law.  People can, and do, go to prison for violating the whim of some clerk's fanciful scribble.  My solution?  Do away with all regulatory agencies.  All of them.  Replace them with  legislation that specifically enumerates every single provision.  Then, let the D.O.J. handle violations of WRITTEN LAW. "But Rodge, that would add millions of rules and provisions to legislation!"  Do you mean like Obamacare? Yes it would, but it would also stop some GS-5 clerk from  making a pet peeve law that can cost you every thing you own.  It's bad enough that congressional clerks do it, but at least what they do is soldered into place. The EPA must die.

EPA MENACE

Actual Headline Americans now comprehend fully the disdainthe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has for truth-telling, therights of others, and the environment. What your grandparents expected would follow EPA DISMANTLED Seven indictments Flame Throwers and Huey Gunships Employed.

A Bad, Bad Agency

Police State, EPA

[How EPA flooded the zone on water rule] ...  What McCarthy did not mention, and what was reported last week in the The New York Times, is that the EPA used government resources to coordinate with environmentalist groups in order to achieve this 90 percent support. Through an intense effort in what is known as "grassroots lobbying," the government worked to encourage people on one side of the debate to make their voices heard, so as to skew perceptions of public opinion. In addition to meeting behind closed doors with environmentalist leaders supportive of the rule, the agency used a social media tool called Thunderclap. It is like Kickstarter, but users donate social media shares instead of money. By getting just under 1,000 left-wing activists to sign on, the EPA was able to urge 1.8 million people in their political circles, all at once, to comment favorably on the proposed rule. This helped generate levels of support for the rule more appropriate to Saddam Hussein's re-election results than to any serious issue discussed in a democracy ......

The EPA HAVE a SWAT TEAM!

EPA  have eyes on your wieners s

EPA Have a Swat Team!

EPA Wants to Monitor How Long Hotel Guests Spend in the Shower $15,000 grant creating device to “modify” guests behavior

EPA, Figuratively Speaking

WESTERN UNION

MORE EPA

“

EPA STORM TROOPERS They found that the regulations would somewhat affect the climate — by eighteen-thousandths of a degree Celsius by 2100. The Environmental Protection Agency’s new proposed rules, which seek to limit carbon emissions from power plants, would cost the American economy $51 billion, as well as 224,000 jobs, every year through 2030, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates . With that significant of an economic impact, one would hope the EPA had a pretty good justification, right? Knappenberger and his colleague Patrick J. Michaels crunched the numbers using an EPA-developed climate-model emulator. They found that the regulations would somewhat affect the climate — by eighteen-thousandths of a degree Celsius by 2100. Where's RICO?“We’re not even sure how to put such a small number into practical terms, because, basically, the number is so small as to be undetectable,” Knappenberg and Michaels wrote when they released their findings . “Which, no doubt, is why it’s not included in the EPA Fact Sheets. It is not too small, however, that it shouldn’t play a huge role in every and all discussions of the new regulations.” That’s not the only time the EPA has used some suspect math. A new report from the Government Accountability Office found that the EPA was calculating how its regulations would affect employment using a study outdated by 20 years that had, even when current, looked at only four industrial sectors. You can read about even more about the agency’s number-fudging here. ONCE AGAIN: The Environmental Protection Agency’s new proposed rules, which seek to limit carbon emissions from power plants, would cost the American economy $51 billion, as well as 224,000 jobs, every year through 2030, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates .

”

EPA Marches On

GREEN NAZIS EPA goes (even further) from Environmental Protection Agency to Extremist Political Agenda “ A report from the EPA's public hearings on the proposed Clean Power Plan During the week of July 28, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held hearings in four cities: Atlanta, Denver, Pittsburgh, and Washington. DC. The two-day sessions were to allow the public to have their voice heard about the proposed rules it released on June 2 that will supposedly cut CO2 emissions by 30 percent. If the EPA’s plans were clear, direct, and honest, the public would likely revolt outright. Instead, the intent is hidden in pages of cumbersome language and the messaging becomes all about clean air and water—and about the health of children. Many, including myself, believe that these rules are really an attempt to shut down coal-fueled electricity generation and implement a cap-and-trade program that the Administration couldn’t get through Congress in 2009, when cap-and-trade’s obvious allies held both houses of Congress. Because I was in the area—speaking a few hours from Atlanta on Sunday—I took advantage of the proximity and signed up to speak at the hearing. When I first attempted to sign up, day one was already full. The EPA had so many people who wanted time to share their opinions, a second day was added, and I was put on the schedule. The first day, Tuesday, July 29, included competing rallies held in near-record low temperatures for Atlanta in July. Supporters of the EPA’s plan—many of whom were bussed in from surrounding states—gathered in Centennial Olympic Park. I spoke at the rally, made up of plan opponents, that was organized by Americans for Prosperity’s Georgia chapter held at the Sam Nunn Federal Center—where the hearing was originally scheduled (before a power outage forced a move to the Omni Hotel). I spent the rest of the day at the hearing. It had a circus-like atmosphere. With tables of literature, people carrying signs, and many of the plan’s supporters identified by their matching pale-green tee shirts emblazoned with: Protect our  etc, etc, I like the Busloads of plan supporters.  A group so dedicated to clean air that they lease luxury busses and wear coordinated uniforms.  What a bunch of pissers.   I doubt even one of them could tell you what E.P.A. is an acroym for.  ”

Kerry- What will we have lost?

GREEN NAZIS                                     “ We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth’s climate by burning fossil fuels. The problem with their theory is very simple: It is NOT true. Kerry: If We're Wrong on Climate Change, 'What's the Worst That Can Happen?' What if '97 percent' of scientists are wrong? Duplicitous wording and mendacious babble Insidious plotting by  dishonest rabble, White paper cunning by dishonest turds These are a few of my favorite words to describe John effing Kerry, a man whose entire public life is bereft of even a single example of selflessness or humility.  What will we have lost?  Another great chunk of our freedom, that's what.  Ceded to this cunningly deceitful organism called the Obama Administration.  Scientists Respond to the Obama Administration’s 2014 National Climate Assessment The National Climate Assessment - 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm. This is a rebuttal drafted by 14 independent meteorology and climatology experts. As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of “Climate Change,” however scary, is not proof of anything. Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of “Global Warming,” “Climate Change,” “Climate Disruption,” or whatever their marketing specialists call it today. We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth’s climate by burning fossil fuels. The problem with their theory is very simple: It is NOT true. Here we address the administration’s basic thesis and the essential evidence that they claim support extreme concern. The theory of ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ (CAGW) is based on a string of inferences that begins with the assumptions that carbon dioxide is a ‘greenhouse gas’ and that we are slowly driving up the atmospheric concentration by burning fossil fuels. It is therefore claimed as self-evident that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has already risen significantly and will continue to do so. Higher GAST is then presumed to lead to all sorts of negative consequences, especially Extreme Weather. They promote their ‘Climate Models’ as a reliable way to predict the future climate. But these models dramatically fail basic verification tests. Nowhere do they admit to these well-known failures. Instead, we are led to believe that their climate models are close to perfection. This document is structured around a “fact-check,” where we quote a number of the government’s key claims in the NCA and show each to be invalid. The first three claims involve their three crucial scientific arguments (Three Lines of Evidence or 3 LoE), which, if valid, would satisfy a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for making their case. But each is easily shown to be false; and because each is crucial, their entire theory collapses. That means that all of the overblown “Climate Disruption” evidence that they mention, whether true or not, cannot be tied back to man’s burning of fossil fuels. Hence, efforts to reduce or eliminate Extreme Weather by reducing the burning of fossil fuels are completely nonsensical. NCA CLAIM #1: “First ‘Line of Evidence’ (LoE) – Fundamental Understanding of GH Gases” Go to What's Up With That for a step by step and real scientific examination.  And henceforth  post this— http://tinyurl.com/lh2hw27— as your comment to any and all  further AGW gibberish .  Sheesh ”

A Morning Prayer

“

EPA continue to stonewall; lie;prevaricate Obama too Podesta: Congress Can't Stop Obama on 'Global Warming'...  President to talk climate with meteorologists... Fed report presents dire picture... Obama Biographer: 'The World Seems to Disappoint Him'... My morning prayer is that slow to react—but once pushed too far, impossible to control—American people do not lose their cool and descend upon Washington and lynch the entire city even though it might be justified.  Amen.

”

EPA's Operation Mengele

Ahem, erm, Achtung

EPA DECLARES WAR ON USA

“ EPA  gives Wyoming town to Indian tribes Riverton Massacre Obama’s EPA has declared that the city of Riverton, Wyoming, with over 10,000 people is no longer part of the United States and have given it to the Indians.  In essence, all Americans living in Riverton are no longer living in the United States and are not eligible for state or federal services.  They can also be tossed off land they bought and paid for since their deeds do not have to be recognized by the Indians.  The Indians have argued for years that they should get full ownership of 1 million more acres of land because it should be part of their reservation. The problem is that congress decided the borders in legislation passed in 1905.  If this ruling is allowed to stand, the EPA can arbitrarily take land away from its owners and give it to anyone they choose to.  The governor of Wyoming, Matt Mead is threatening to refuse to recognize the EPA’a authority.  [Duh?] [Story] Once again, an outrage perped on us by the increasingly brazen-about-it Obama Administration;  so bizarre as to demand disbelief. And once again, I will conclude that the goal of this, many think  illegitimate  government, is to incite insurrection, and thus provide "justification" for suspending the constitution and turning everything over to the creepily named Dept. Homeland Security.  In order for them to get away with this, they must first move to neuter the military command structure that would be prone to resist, and at the same time have an adequately formed armed force to maintain the coup.  If Americans continue to act as irresponsibly as they have recently, by going along with the herd, and ignoring glaring acts of preparation, e.g.,  buying billions of rounds of ammunition,and arming government agencies  (EPA Swat Team!?!) , then so be it.  I've had my day in the sun.  If they want to fight, I'll be with them to best of my (substantial) abilities to fire a very tight group, and without fear for my own life.   USA. * So where's the pictures?  Retweet   Favorite  PowWeb ‏@PowWeb2h We are currently experiencing an issue in our data center. Our network team is working to restore services. Updates to follow. Expand ”

Climate change expert's fraud

The EPA; GREEN NAZIS                                 “ Climate change expert's fraud - Beale The EPA’s highest-paid employee and a leading expert on climate change deserves to go to prison for at least 30 months for lying to his bosses and saying he was a CIA spy working in Pakistan so he could avoid doing his real job, say federal prosecutors. [...] Beale’s lawyer, while acknowledging his guilt, has asked for leniency and offered a psychological explanation for the climate expert’s bizarre tales.[FULL} This is actually major  big deal in my opinion.  Under Obama, the EPA have become, after Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services (Obamacare), the most ambitious and dangerous( to American freedom) agency in the nation (see EPA SWAT TEAM).   The foremost reason why  leftist pols,  Obama in particular,  love the issue of climate change, is its potential for regulatory power over the world economy, and as (the UN in particular) a cash cow.  That's the pool from which Dems stock EPA management.  That the EPA's "leading expert on climate change" has  been living a Walter Mitty  existence as  CIA spy  (and who knows what all?) seem to fit the profile I described.  A liar, a crook, and control freak with the power to set policy, and dangerous. If the good  Senator McCarthy  was alive today, he'd die of a shit-hemorrhage, instead of alcohol poisoning.  [Book excerpt Link] ”

RECYCLED TANKS

“

Smartass Viet Congs In case you were wondering what happened to all those fuel tanks we jettisoned from our aircraft in Southeast Asia…… I admire their ingenuity, but at the same time imagine we'd do the same thing,  given the opportunity.  Except.  Except the EPA (still a greater threat to the USA than them Congs ever were) would declare them hazardous material and order them  ground up and stored in sealed barrels in  some salt mine. And make the manufacturer pay for it. Am I right? via Metzger

”

The Lawless EPA -

The EPA -Obama's 'Civilian Army' Storm Troopers? One of 70 fed agencies with armed divisions “ “Imagine coming up to your diggings, only to see agents swarming over it like ants, wearing full body armor, with jackets that say "POLICE" emblazoned on them, and all packing side arms,” gold miner C.R. Hammond told the Alaska Dispatch. The other federal agencies participating in the operation were the FBI, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and the Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Park Service.  [This story] Click Click More EPA MUST DIE, ”

EPA SMACKDOWN #6

EPA Smack-Down Number Six A federal court cashiers another illegal Obama regulation.