Arguments
Recent Comments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Comments 1 to 50:
-
nigelj at 16:08 PM on 22 February 2026Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
Bob Loblow: "You can argue whether the Clean Air Act and other legislation gave too much discretion (or not enough) to the EPA, but the EPA is expected to act according to the directions it was given by legislation..."
Yes thats precisely what I'm doing. I'm arguing the clean air act gives too much discretion to the EPA. For me the decisions on whether a chemical is an air pollutant and should thus be regulated should rest with elected politicians. At least in respect of substances where the implications would be huge like CO2. I accept you cant have politicians decide on every single chemical substance, as you say things would grind to a halt.
As I already said we elect politicians to make the major decisions, and surely what we do about CO2 is a major decision. The details of how regulations might be structured can of course be left to something like the EPA. Of course its really just my opinion so I wont labour the point further.
And this looks like its part of the rationale that has overtuned the endangerment finding, along with some sort of argument about the costs of the endangerment finding and regulating CO2 allegedly exceeding the benefits (Im not sure the EPA have proven that by a long way.)
Now I hope this overturning of the endangerment finding is challenged in court. The endangerment finding was the law, and even although I dont believe its the ideal sort of law to fight climate change, and was always at risk of coming unstuck, it was the law and it seemed to have reasonably wide public support. And it was helping promote EV's. On that basis its ok law in a democratic sense. And its better than nothing. Hope that doesn't sound contradictory.
The scientific community and lawyers did well undermining the CWG / DOE junk science report, on both the science and the lack of proper transparency of process. That had to be done for all sorts of reasons.
-
PollutionMonster at 12:53 PM on 22 February 2026Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
"It can also be argued that nuclear power has a key role to play in meeting emissions targets (Brook, 2012) for mitigating climate change" Abott 2012
The above quote shows that nuclear power can be arguged to help with emission targets.
The weakness with peer reviewed articles is they are technical and difficult to understand. I have seen people claim many peer reviewed articles support their claims and the opposite be true. It is easy to misunderstand.
As for uranium and the blog, both you and them are quoting the same peer reviewed article and coming to different conclusions. Sks is a blog within itself.
Personally, I am confused, I don't know if there is enough uranimum or not and I am just trying to figure this out. As for the answer I desire, I want the answer to be renewables. I don't want to have to pay extra money for nuclear let alone the risk of a meltdown. I personally had to pay the highest price in the country from PECO energy because of nuclear.
Nuclear is not cost competitive according to this article.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:50 AM on 22 February 2026Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
nigel: you say "... then defer major decisions on what becomes law..."
...but as I explained earlier at least in the Canadian sense, is that the technocrats (I don't really like that term, but "executive branch" or "administrative branch" doesn't really cover it, either) don't make law writ large. They just apply the law to create rules and regulations in a manner clearly delegated by the elected legislative branch.
It's not a case of "well, we're not going to deal with that; let's let the bureaucracy deal with it". It's more a case of "we've thought about it, and we've established the way we want it dealt with, but we will leave the details to the technocrats". The legislature is still responsible for what happens (you can't delegate responsibility), but the subordinate administration is given the authority (which you can delegate) to act.
In the case of the endangerment finding, the earlier legislation (Clean Air Act) determined that the EPA was responsible for regulating air pollution that had detrimental effects on people or the environment. AFAIK, the original legislation did not list every chemical that was considered a pollutant - it left that as a determination for the EPA. Then came the question of whether CO2 needed to be included on that list, and after several levels of court cases, the USSC said "yes, the science says CO2 is an air pollutant, and the EPA must take steps to review it and regulate it if necessary". The recent EPA position is that it is not a pollutant that is causing any harm. (I'm sure that lawyers will make more money out of this.)
So, it is not a case that the EPA decided that regulating air pollutants was something it needed to do - that decision was made in the legislative branch when the Clean Air Act was passed. The legislative branch delegated the authority to the EPA to determine what (or what not) is an air pollutant (with a little help from the courts).
What I am sure will be the legal process moving forward is questions as to whether the current EPA decision actually followed all the legal obligations set out in various legislation. The EPA was not told via the Clean Air Act to "do whatever you want". The EPA was told "you can make some decisions, but this is the process you need to go through to make your decisions".
In the case of last year's Climate Working Group (the gang of five that produced the hugely biased report), there were legal challenges in the works that took the EPA to task for ignoring the various aspects of the process that the various laws required. The EPA decided to withdraw the report and pretend it never happened - undoubtedly to try to avoid having their new decision challenged in court as a violation of process.
You can argue whether the Clean Air Act and other legislation gave too much discretion (or not enough) to the EPA, but the EPA is expected to act according to the directions it was given by legislation. The cabinet member at the top of the executive branch (Minister in Canada, or the Secretary in the US) can guide how the bureaucracy works, but he or she does need to work within the framework specified in legislation.
If you needed to get new legislation passed to decide if every new pollutant was indeed a pollutant, you'd never get anything done. (That's the current goal in the US, I think.) That's where delegating the decision to some form of expert review process provides flexibility.
-
nigelj at 09:16 AM on 22 February 2026Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
Bob Loblow @16, I must have missed that Dr Who episode ha ha.
I'm sure we ideally want decisions made by people with expertise in the subject area. We clearly need a whole lot of technocrats to decipher the issues and come up with recommended solutions. But that wasnt my point. Someone has to have the final say on whether a proposed regulation becomes law, so should it be the technocrats (which seemed to be the situation with the endangerment finding) or the politicians by way of voting on the regulation? You seem to be skirting around that. Or maybe I wasnt clear.
I'm not inclined to push for elected judges. I'm happy with Judges appointed by politicians for long periods, providing we somehow minimise partisan bias in those selections. Not all processes in society have to involve democratic decision making and votes or elections. Judges work is not policy as you rightly say.
But I think that we have a democracy where we elect politicians to come up with policies and decide on them, and to then defer major decisions on what becomes law to unelected government department technocrats seems undemocratic and at odds with electing politicians to make decisions, and so should be minimised. Even if it sometimes means politicians have to decipher complex technical arguments. Judges also have to do that. There doesn't seem to be an ideal solution.
---------------------------
OPOF @15, I'm inclined to agree with your rationale, but its up to the public to decide who they give power to. Unfortunately they then go and elect someone like Trump.
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:35 AM on 22 February 2026Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
nigel:
I want to see decisions made by people with expertise in the subject area, who have sufficient background to understand a wide variety of issues related to the decision, and who have a track record of seeing some reasonable number of their predictions come to pass. And who have a track record of making decisions that are in the interest of a wide variety of people other than themselves and their close friends/business partners.
...but the trick is figuring out who those people are. In the case of a professional public service, one hopes that the hiring and promotion process is reasonably accurate in determining who has real expertise, and who has the best skills for collecting evidence, analyzing it, and interpreting it. And one hopes that management has enough knowledge and skill to be able to figure out who is worth listening to.
One of my favorite Dr. Who quotes is one where he has flown the Tardis into the president's office, with security all over the room ready to shoot him and his friends. One lowly fellow says:
Mr President, that man walked in here with a big blue box and three of his friends, and that's the man he walked past. One of them is worth listening to.
Ultimately, the professional public service is still working for the politicians. Unlike academic research, the scientists I knew understood that the reason they were hired to do research was because government needed the knowledge they could bring to the table. All the "technocrat" work is guided by politicians through legislation and policy. It is not independent rule.
Ultimately, the politicians need to know who they can get good advice from, and when to listen to it. If the politicians are not interested in good advice - only confirmation - then the people that elect them need to do a better job of choosing their politicians.
Except that a lot of current politics does not involve trying to make sure that voters are well-informed on issues and can make good decisions. It is based on the ability to manipulate voters emotions, and stop them from learning and thinking about the issues. Holding referenda to decide things opens the door to huge amounts of emotive manipulation - both by politicians and other third parties.
Here in Canada, some people want to see elected judges, under the argument that they don't want policy done by unelected people. Judges don't make policy, they interpret laws. Laws that were passed by elected politicians. Politicians are supposed to control the judicial system through legislation (and constitutional amendment, if needed), and the same goes for the executive branch that performs regulation. I want judges with legal training. I want regulation done by people with suitable scientific background. (I'll include the social sciences here.)
I agree that current politics are badly influenced by money - especially in the US, where it seems to be a case of "one dollar, one vote". Too many of the people in power seem to be only interested in more power. Voters are just there to be manipulated and provide the illusion of democracy.
...and no, I don't have a fix.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:29 AM on 22 February 2026Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
nigelj,
A better question is Should decisions with the potential for harm to be done to Others be made by:
Type 1) People who diligently and rigorously pursue learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others, and who will change their mind as they learn more.
Type 2) People who want the freedom to Believe and Do as they Please.
I would argue that Type 2 people need to be kept from influencing decision-making that potentially affects Others. They need responsible governing by Type 1 people to limit the harm done to Others.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:52 AM on 22 February 2026Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
A followup to my comment @460,
The US leadership-of-the-moment’s push to deploy massive amounts of small nuclear reactors without rigorous proof that it will be safe continues as described in the following report:
US military airlifts small reactor as Trump pushes to quickly deploy nuclear power, reported in NPR, by Associated Press, Feb 21, 2028.
This is an example of misleading marketing abused by gamblers (inventor/investors) who will try to harmfully maximize their benefit from potentially bad bets (or bad ideas). The harm will be discovered in the future (because the innovator is not required to rigorously investigate potential for harm). And it is likely that the promoters of the ‘innovation’ will obtain benefits that cannot be taken away from them in the future when the harm they benefited from causing becomes undeniable – like the fossil fuel climate impact issue.
Selected quotes from the article:
Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Undersecretary of Defense Michael Duffey, who traveled with the privately built reactor, hailed the Feb. 15 trip on a C-17 military aircraft as a breakthrough for U.S. efforts to fast-track commercial licensing for the microreactors, part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to reshape the country's energy landscape.
...
Skeptics warn that nuclear energy poses risks and say microreactors may not be safe or feasible and have not proved they can meet demand for a reasonable price.Wright brushed those concerns aside as he touted progress on Trump's push for a quick escalation of nuclear power. Trump signed a series of executive orders last year that allow Wright to approve some advanced reactor designs and projects, taking authority away from the independent safety agency that has regulated the U.S. nuclear industry for five decades.
...
The minivan-sized reactor transported by the military is one of at least three that will reach "criticality" — when a nuclear reaction can sustain an ongoing series of reactions — by July 4, as Trump has promised, Wright said."That's speed, that's innovation, that's the start of a nuclear renaissance," he said.
...
Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the transport flight — which included a throng of reporters, photographers and TV news crews — was little more than "a dog-and-pony show" that merely demonstrated the Pentagon's ability to ship a piece of heavy equipment.The flight "doesn't answer any questions about whether the project is feasible, economic, workable or safe — for the military and the public," Lyman said in an interview.
Rapid scale-up to power AI data centres could see 1000s of these ‘potential disasters’ in operation by 2030. The expected global power demand for AI data centres by 2030 is over 1000 TWh. Assuming a 5 MW generator, like the one reported to have been shipped by the military on Feb 15, 2026, operates at full power 24 hrs a day every day it would produce 5 x 24 x 365 = 43,800 MWh = 0.0438 TWh. (Also note that a typical AI data centre requiring 100 MW would need twenty 5 MW generators).
Poorly regulated, unrestricted, innovation in pursuit of personal benefit has a history of producing harmful results that Others have to deal with. New Nuclear appears to be rapidly becoming a New Future Disaster promoted by Master Misleading Marketers.
-
nigelj at 06:09 AM on 22 February 2026Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
Actually thinking about this some more the issue is really a choice between rule by politicians and rule by technocrats, and which is preferable. Amplifying this do we prefer 1) decision making by politicians or 2) leaving decisions up to unelected technocratic groups within government. We do the former with many things, for example politicians vote on spending bills and changes to criminal laws and on social policies etc,etc. We do the later with Reserve Banks where they are given total discretion to decide the official cash rate independent of politicians, because politicians literally cannot be trusted to make good decisions in that area. I'm not arguing against this with the cash rate, its virtually commonsense, but from a philosophical perspective I would argue democracy is ideally best, so politicians should decide on everything. because its the most democratic approach. Even better perhaps is public referenda.
If there's regulatory capture of politicians lets minimise that by minimising the influence of money in politics. So on that basis ideally the endangerment finding should have been voted on by politicians. But coming back to my own comments it would be onerous for politicians to have to evaluate and vote on every little regulation so some of this has to be left to the discretion of technocrats as a practical sort of thing. Bobs right that they can be subject to regulatory capture as well but then you can minimise that.
I'm not entirely comfortable with rule by technocrats, but I accept its needed in some cases.
-
michael sweet at 04:14 AM on 22 February 2026Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Pollution Monster,
I do not think that you understand the quoted section of the paper correctly. In that portion of the paper Abbott is arguing that breeder reactors will not be practical. He points out that breeder reactors are even more complex and expensive than conventional reactors. The breeding of fuel does not make up for the extra complexity . I note that there are currently no reactors running world wide that breed fuel. Upthread RitchieB1234, a nuclear engineer, stated that the US Nuclear Reguatory Agency thinks breeders are not practical.
Abbott says:
"The World Nuclear Association (2011) conservatively projects 80 years of economically extractable uranium at the current rate of consumption using conventional reactors. The 2010 figure for installed nuclear capacity worldwide is 375 gigawatts. If this were to be scaled up to 15 terawatts, the 80-year uranium supply would last less than five years." my emphasis.
After the ecconomical supply of uranium is extracted there is no remaining ore that is worth mining. If nuclear generated 10% of All Power the uranium would run out in 50 years, way before the claimed life of the reactors. Nuclear supporters hope that more uranium can be found.
Think it through: if there was enough uranium, nuclear engineers would not be talking about extracting uranium from the ocean (which Abbott shows takes more energy than you get from the uranium) and extremely complex breeder reactors which are difficult to build and run.
In addition, Abbott lists 9 other reasons why nuclear reactors cannot provide a significant amount of power. Abbott does not even list that reactors take too long to build and are too expensive. Nuclear supporters have never attempted to respond to these reasons.
I note on your favored blog site that you are sympathetic to their unsupported arguments. Abbott 2012 is a peer reviewed paper. Your blog is written by someone who does not even understand the basic vocabulary of energy systems and appears to not know that proposed renewable systems provide All World Power. Who seems like a more reliable source of information?
Jacobson et al 2022, linked above, describes a system to provide All World Power. Electricity, heating, transportation, trucks, agriculture, industry and any other energy requiring activity. Your blog discusses nuclear providing 20% of current electricity. To be frank, that discussion was resolved in 2010. If nuclear could provide 20% of current electricity in 2050 it would be less than 4% of the energy that Jacobson's system would provide.
In addition, nuclear energy does not add to renewable energy well. A mostly renewable system requres backup that can provide more than 10% of daily power on the days it needs backup. Most of the time there is extra power being stored for the occasional slow days. Nuclear plants cannot provide cheap power to store for the slow days.
Nuclear is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium.
-
PollutionMonster at 20:26 PM on 21 February 2026Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Thank you for continuing the discussion. I have read the previous comments. Let's talk about Abbott 2012.
"What this means is that the industry would only have to increase its mining costs by 30 percent in order to increase the amount of accessible uranium for fueling conventional nuclear reactors by sixtyfold" Abbott 2012
If I understand correctly this means there is plenty of uranium. Sixtyfold would be more than enough uranium to get us through the next 50 years for a nuclear realist point of view about 20% of all electrcity.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:57 AM on 21 February 2026Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
nigel:
"...leaving regulations to the technocrats within government agencies..." is not that easy. As usual, the devil is in the details.
In your and my systems, handed down from our previous existence as British colonies, there is a blurring of lines between "executive" and "legislative" branches of government. Our Prime Ministers are not elected directly - they gain office through having the support (confidence) of Parliament. They are expected to have won seats in Parliament as MPs representing an individual riding. And their cabinet members are selected from the group of elected MPs, too. The PM and cabinet then become the ministers at the top of the executive branch. Thus, the executive branch is under the guidance of elected members of the governing party in Parliament. (In Canada, unelected senators also sometimes get appointed to cabinet, but it is rare. And you can be PM or in cabinet without a position in the house or senate, but it is expected that you attempt to win a seat ASAP.) Virtually all bills of substance are introduced by the governing party.
That is in stark contrast to the US system, where the election of the head of the executive branch (the President) is independent of the elections of people to the House or Senate. And the president can pick his cabinet from anywhere (although appointments do need house and/or senate approval.) Bills can be presented by the president, by congress, or by senators.
In either system, it is common for the executive branch to guide the development of legislation, but this connection is much stronger in a parliamentary system than it is in the US. The most beneficial arrangement is when the executive branch has access to people with expertise in the relevant areas - in particular, access to professional civil servants that set aside political motivations when doing their jobs.
In Canada, I am familiar with cases where the governing party had motivations to go in one direction, but professional civil servants were able to convince them of real problems if they carried through with their plans. And the politicians (cabinet members) listened to those professionals. This is not always the case, though. Some civil servants are more motivated to keep the minister happy, regardless of consequences. Problems develop when civil servants no longer perform a challenge function - when told to jump, they just ask "how high?". They are unwilling to stick their neck out and say "that's not a good idea".
The current US administration has largely lost any challenge function at all. Senior administrative staff (maybe all staff) are expected to act in the political interests of their masters. We see this in who is placed in cabinet, the threats and firings of lower level staff, etc. The EPA decision in this OP is a prime example (as is the "report" that was prepared by the gang of five that questioned climate science in general). The executive branch is expected to ignore anything that goes against the White House political goals, and provide justification no matter how weak.
The current US administration largely rejects any sort of expertise that goes against their goals. They don't want to listen to it, and they want to actively prevent anyone else from listening to it, too. As far as developing legislation is concerned, you get laws put in place that were developed by outside political interests such as the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Administrative regulatory bodies can also be affected by regulatory capture. You need these things to be set up to get broad input from concerned parties, with an overall attitude that balanced interests, proper evidence, and science-based policies are all "good things". (Instead of policy-based "science".)
-
John Hartz at 00:39 AM on 21 February 2026Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
Recommended supplemental reading:
Trump’s Move to Demolish Demolish Greenhouse Gas Standards Is Based on a Lie by Richard L. Revesz*, Slate, Feb 20, 2026
*Richard L. Revesz is a professor and dean emeritus at the New York University School of Law. He is the co-author of Struggling for Air: Power Plants and the “War on Coal.”
-
prove we are smart at 17:06 PM on 20 February 2026Climate Adam - Climate Scientist Reacts to AI Overlords
Well said Adam. These tech billionaires are the wealthiest in the world www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-top-20-billionaires-in-2026/ . They stay cosy with political leaders for a mutual quid pro quo gain- with citizens being the losers. Becoming an elite seems to require a loss of ethics but some are calling out and showing us courage and a way to fight back. www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZOoT8AbkNE&t=49s
-
nigelj at 05:27 AM on 20 February 2026Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
Thanks Bob. You create a persuasive case for ultimately leaving regulations to the technocrats within government agencies and to the executive branch. Regulatory capture of politicians in congress and parliament is very real.
-
bobmaginnis at 09:05 AM on 19 February 2026Climate Adam - Climate Scientist Reacts to AI Overlords
I agree, A.I. isn't a magic fix.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:40 AM on 19 February 2026Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
nigel:
I don't know the internal workings of legislation in the US, but in Canada the process of legislating federal regulations goes something like this:
- Parliament decides that there needs to be regulation in some broad area (or maybe not so broad). This can be due to advice from the executive branch (administrators, scientists working for the government), industry, NGOs, academics, the general public, etc. It does not matter much what sort of pressure motivates Parliament to take action, but at some point the Minister and governing party decide "yes, we need to do something about this" and write legislation to "make it so".
- The legislation will assign the duty to regulate to one or more ministries - e.g. Environment, Agriculture, etc. The legislation can enable that ministry to create new regulations (within specified limits), or modify existing ones, or both.
- The legislation will typically outline the processes that the ministry must follow to exercise those powers. That will typcially include public consultation, industry consultation, evaluation of alternatives, costs of implementing the regulations (both to government and industry), the cost of doing nothing (i.e. what damage will result), etc.
- The ministry does not need to go back to Parliament to get approval for new regulations or changes to existing ones - as long as the original act of Parliament delegated the authority to the ministry to do those actions.
- The question of whose advice the ministry follows is an important one. A common form of corruption is regulatory capture.
As a crude, simplistic example, when a province delegates authority to the Ministry of Highways to set speed limits on the provincial roads, the decisions on what those limits are will be done by administrators within the ministry, under the advice of people that understand traffic. (Well, sometimes it might also be under political pressure. If the politicians want to force such limits, they need to pass legislation to do it. Let's not go there.)
The idea that there are large sections of government that are creating regulations willy-nilly, completely independent of Parliament (AKA "elected representatives"), is bollocks.
IMHO, the push to disallow regulation management by the administrative branch and force it back on legislatures is driven by special interests that simply want to eliminate regulation. By refusing to delegate any authority down to levels where they can be managed by subject experts (i.e., lower than the legislature), they can assure that their political goals can be reached simply by buying managing the politicians.
-
nigelj at 17:38 PM on 18 February 2026Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
Why not leave it to congress to decide whether the most important pollution regulations should become law, and obviously that would include CO2, and leave it to the EPA to have authority to decide on whether the smaller pollution ssues become law. Surely criteria can be agreed on what issues fit in what category. That way congress dont get overwhelmed with dealing with minor issues that are quite technical
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:43 AM on 18 February 2026Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
John @ 5:
They may have dropped that horribly-biased document from their formal evaluation report, but it's effect lingers on.
It's like a Law and Order episode, where the lawyer makes an outrageous statement or leading question, knowing that there will be an objection and the judge will rule it out of order - but the jury can't unhear it.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:37 AM on 18 February 2026Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
Eric:
Your bottom line of expecting Congress to act looks like a dead horse to me. Two years ago, the USSC reversed the Chevron deference precedent (as discussed on this SkS repost in July, 2004). This has the effect of barring the executive branch from being pro-active. The expectation that Congress will react to each and every new pollutant and set new limits on old ones when science says it is needed is beyond their skill set.
Enacting legislation that empowers the executive branch to regulate allows for efficiencies in dealing with unexpected issues and new problems. Of course, that regulatory power needs to be clearly limited in the legislation that grants it, but expecting Congress to revisit the legislation every time something changes a bit (e.g. new science, new risks, new pollution limits) is a dog that won't hunt.
...but I think that is part of the plan. Sell the "we can't let unelected administrators make decisions, we need to leave that to Congress" story, knowing that Congress won't (or can't) get their act together. End result: no regulation at all, and industry is free to pollute in any way that makes money for them. That approach made lots of money for the robber barons of the 19th century. I'd hoped we were past that.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 06:01 AM on 18 February 2026Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
Bob, I agree with you but have more sympathy for the USSC which was asked to decide a scientific / regulatory question with a 5-4 vote in 2007 but would vote 6-3 the other way today. That's not their fault, it's Congress shirking its responsibility to act. The can do it, and have with Diesel Emissions Reduction Act which also lowers CO2 and is bipartisan and continues to be reauthorized. Also the HFC act in 2020. DERA is incentive based, like the bipartisan infrastructure act which some republicans, especially in the Senate, signed onto. Spending more money on whatever is an easy way to buy those votes.
The 2007 case at the USSC is not very general or valuable as precedent. As the Roberts dissent points out it is "special solicitude". Massachusetts cannot enumerate how the loss of vehicle standards will affect their loss of coastal property. Nor can they link how the proposed vehicle standards will save their coastal property, because there are too many other factors not under our control. He states 'The good news is that the Court’s “special solicitude” for Massachusetts limits the future applicability of the diluted standing requirements applied in this case'.
Bottom line Congress needs to create specific numeric targets like CAA did with carbon monoxide. Let industries and/or states decide how to meet them. Or just spend a lot more borrowed money (I do not endorse that approach).
-
michael sweet at 03:03 AM on 18 February 2026Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Pollution Monster,
It appears that you posted at your link asking how they made their conclusions. Questioning people is a good way to learn.
At your link they claimed that I used motivated reasoning to skew data and conclude nuclear cannot generate more than 5% of all power and pointed out that nuclear currently generates 9% of electricity. Another poster pointed out that electricity is only 20% of all power. 9% of electricity is only 2% of all power. Who is using motivated reasoning?
This shows me several points:
1) The OP did not read Abbott 2012. Nuclear supporters generally do not do their homework.
2) The OP does not know what all power is. They do not even know the basic vocabulary of energy systems. Nuclear supporters do not discuss all power since it is obvious that nuclear cannot provide a significant fraction.
3) Most nuclear posters do not know much beyond nuclear industry propaganda.
There is no data showing modular reactors are safer. Upthread I link a report from a national nuclear regulator (French I think) stating this fact. Modular reactors produce more radioactive waste than conventional reactors. Cost will probably be higher. Links upthread.
In 2006 modular reactor designers said they would have running reactors in 2020. Few have even a design now, much less an approved design. When will their designs be ready? Why should I think they will be built faster when nuclear designers have promised faster, cheaper builds for Fifty Years and not delivered on their promises?
Bob Loblaw and I have followed nuclear for a long time. Nuclear designers are very long on promises with very few successes.
Nuclear is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium
-
John Hartz at 00:32 AM on 18 February 2026Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
Recommeded supplemental reading:
The final EPA rule explicitly omitted the report commissioned last year to justify revoking the endangerment finding, citing “concerns raised by some commenters.”
by Dennis Pillion, Inside Climate News, Feb 13, 2026
Introductory text:"When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rescinded its bedrock endangerment finding Thursday, it explicitly excluded a controversial report issued last year by the U.S. Department of Energy that argued the dangers of human-induced climate change were being overstated.The EPA cited the report in announcing its intention to rescind the endangerment finding last year, but those citations were not part of the final rule.Instead, the EPA argued that the Clean Air Act 'does not authorize the Agency to prescribe emission standards in response to global climate change concerns,' despite the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA that the agency does have that authority.In its rule issued Thursday, EPA stated that the 'legal interpretation finalized in this action means that we cannot resolve remaining scientific controversies in this regulatory context'.”To access the entire article, go to: -
Bob Loblaw at 00:25 AM on 18 February 2026Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
Eric:
The key point in your comment is the statement "this will be litigated". That, of course, will take time.
The current political/legal/constitutional situation in the U.S. (I consider all three of those words to be equivalent today) is that the executive/legislative/judicial branches are pretty much in a mode where they think they can do anything they want - or at least, anything they think they can get away with.
Legal precedent means very little in a Supreme Court that looks at precedence as a minor inconvenience that can be ignored at will. Far too many lower court decisions are being decided along party lines (who appointed the judge). The executive branch has an attitude that it doesn't matter what the courts say as long as they can break things they want to break before the long legal process plays out. And the legislative branch is refusing to take back the powers that the constitution gives them - content to let the executive branch act like a bull in a china shop.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:10 AM on 18 February 2026Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Pollution Monster:
In your own link, the statement is that "Nuclear energy now provides about 9% of the world's electricity..." [emphasis added]. The world uses a lot of energy in forms other than electricity (Michael's "all power"). Beware the denominator.
As for the comments policy, there are two relevant statements:
- "Though we believe the only genuine debate on the science of global warming is that which occurs in the scientific literature..." [in the opening paragraph]
- "Comments consisting of simple assertion of a myth already debunked by one of the main articles, and which contain no relevant counter argument or evidence from the peer reviewed literature constitutes trolling rather than genuine discussion." [In the "No sloganeering" section]
Although those sections are not a "thou shalt under all circumstances" rule, there is an expectation that opinions expressed here need to have more evidence and support that just a reference to another opinion.
-
Eric (skeptic) at 23:07 PM on 17 February 2026Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
This article or another article should discuss the legal basis for the endangerment finding or its rescission. Regardless of opinions of scientific merit it is worth going over the history.
The current administration's EPA states "The agency concludes that Section 202(a) of the CAA does not provide EPA statutory authority to prescribe motor vehicle emission standards for the purpose of addressing global climate change concerns". Is that correct?
In 2009 the EPA based their endangerment finding on this 2007 Supreme Court case: Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) that ruled 5-4 on the merits of GHG regulation, that in fact GHG were an "air pollutant" causing actual harm to the litigants, including the state of Massachusetts. The ruling also maintained that GHG fell into Congress's definition of "air pollutant" due to the wording "including" in the statute. But the CAA or amendments through 1990 did not "include" GHG. The IRA passed in 2022 amended the CAA to give EPA authority to regulate GHG under the CAA. The BBB in 2025 reduced that authority through funding cuts and and a rescission of the GGRF authority. Also in 2025 Congress rescinded the authority of EPA to grant waivers to California. That is being litigated. Congress probably did not have Congressional Review Act authority over waivers.
The recent rescission of the endangerment finding will also be litigated and the inclusion of EPA regulatory authority over GHG by the 2022 IRA will be weighed against some reduction in that authority by the "Big Beautiful Bill" in 2025.
It's fair to say that looking at both of those purely partisan bills, that Congress needs to write GHG laws that are unambiguous to avoid the major problem the 2007 decision, namely USSC justices opining on science. Science is not in their jurisdiction as the 5-4 decision shows. Congress also has to include laws on limits to GHG authority for states to preempt federal law in either direction. Science can inform Congressional action and all the details can be left to the regulators, but obviously the outlines of the scientific mandate and specific scope of regulation must be part of the law.
Otherwise we end up with what we just saw which is the executive branch bouncing between extremes on regulatory questions. Legally the executive branch controls the EPA and has the authority to make those regulatory decisions, unless the regulations are clearly specified in law.
-
John Hartz at 22:05 PM on 17 February 2026Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
Recommended supplementary reading:
Q&A: What does Trump’s repeal of US ‘endangerment finding’ mean for climate action? by Multiple Auhors, Carbon Brief, Feb 16, 2026
-
PollutionMonster at 18:21 PM on 17 February 2026Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
@michael sweet 455
"To me, the most important issue is there is not enough uranium to generate more than about 5% of all power To me, the most important issue is there is not enough uranium to generate more than about 5% of all power"
Nuclear enegy already generates 9% of all power. Where are you getting the 5% number?
No problem about the typo.
"The comments policy at Skeptical Science asks for strong references to support your position. Most blogs do not count."
Ok, still kind of new here thanks for pointing this out, I just looked over the comments policy didn't see that. I do understand the scientific method, but I am new to the entire nuclear angle of climate change. I plan for this to be my last comment here for a while until I read your previous comments as suggested, been busy at work so may take awhile.
-
michael sweet at 10:10 AM on 17 February 2026Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Sorry for the typo in yiur name, my phone is correcting my typing.
-
michael sweet at 10:06 AM on 17 February 2026Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Pollytion Monster:
Perhaps you do not understand the scientific method. Scientists spend much time measuring and experimenting to learn new information. Then several experts write a paper about what they have learned. They submit the paper to a scientific journal where an editor who knows about the subject finds several unbiased experts who review the article for errors. Then the article is published. An article is not necessarily correct, but it has been written by experts and screened for errors.
Your blog post is written by a neurosurgeon who claims no experience in energy systems. It accepts nuclear industry propaganda as fact. Bob Loblaw has identified several serious errors in it. There are more errors that he did not bother to point out.
If your doctor tells you that you need surgery do you ask your barber whether you really need it?
The comments policy at Skeptical Science asks for strong references to support your position. Most blogs do not count. Your blog does not address the issues raised in Abbott 2012.
For example, there is not enough uranium to generate a significant amount of world power. Money spent on nuclear is wasted, it should be used to build out renewable energy.
Read the rest of the posts in this thread, all of your questions have been addressed.
Nuclear power is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium.
-
anthonyrdavis1947 at 09:53 AM on 17 February 2026The future of NCAR remains highly uncertain
MA Rogers comment shows the hypocricy of the current administration, regarding this subject matter.
-
anthonyrdavis1947 at 09:50 AM on 17 February 2026Trump just torched the basis for federal climate regulations. Here’s what it means.
The revocation of much of the regulatory systems in the USA seems to be akin to banning common sense. Of course we all know who is supposed to benefit from all this, and it is NOT Joe Public.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:13 AM on 14 February 2026It's not bad
Eclectic's point about how people respond to death numbers is a good one.
For example let's say that I have a new invention that will give people greatly increased personal mobility and freedom to travel long distances at considerable speed. It would cost them a fair amount of money as an initial outlay, plus perhaps a few thousand dollars per year in annual costs, but it would save them many, many hours per week/month/year compared to other forms of travel. Time they can spend with family, friends, working to earn a living, etc. The investment in $ seems a good trade-off to many people.
...but my invention has a slight flaw. Every five years, on average, something goes horribly wrong, and a city of 200,000 people gets completely obliterated and everyone dies. Would that invention of mine still be worth it, given that cost of lives?
Now, compare that to the modern automobile. It does not obliterate cities in one fell swoop, but in the US there are roughly 40,000 traffic fatalities per year. Is the emotional reaction to vehicles killing people off in ones and twos the same as the emotional reaction to killing off the same number of people in a single devastating event at occasional intervals?
Society has made an effort to reduce traffic fatalities, and the rate of fatalities per vehicle miles travelled has dropped substantially over the past century (see the Wikipedia link I gave earlier). But a lot of that has come as the result of regulation of vehicle design and driver training. (Note that fatalities per capita has not dropped anywhere near as much as fatalities per mile - people are obviously driving a lot more than they used to.)
Certain parts of society seem to be unwilling to make any changes to lifestyle to avoid fatalities occurring in dribs and drabs due to climate change. It would seem that they might not be willing to act unless we start losing people a city at a time.
-
Eclectic at 11:18 AM on 13 February 2026It's not bad
Jlsoaz @431 :
Figures like 250,000 deaths are a distraction.
They may, or may not, be true . . . and anyway may rely on a very rubbery basis of disputable semantics or on disputable interpretations of overlapping causations.
Also, they sound "alarmist" enough to raise doubts & suspicions within the minds of ordinary citizens ~ who in general are not seeing people dying in the streets, nor seeing everyday news reports of devastated & depopulated villages. The attenuating effects of distance has a large influence on politics & psychology. [e.g. Looking from the Anglophone world, the "news impact" of 500 deaths in a major train wreck in northern India . . . is probably much less than that of 5 deaths occurring in Euston Station, London, or occurring in Penn* Station, New York.]
( * At time of writing, "Penn Station" is correct: though next week it might be "Trump Station".)
For those who take AGW seriously, it is the slow long-term build-up of consequences which is the real threat. Namely the gradual loss of rich productive farmland in the deltas and other coastal areas of the world ~ and for the wealthy temperate regions, getting the "in-your-face" pressure of immigrant refugees who are fleeing from the increase of damaging heatwaves in the more tropical parts.
-
jlsoaz at 08:10 AM on 13 February 2026It's not bad
Hi Bob and Eclectic,
Thanks for your constructive responses from half a year ago.
Also, I just stumbled across this "cross-sectional study" from February 2024.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10862342/
BMJ Med
. 2024 Feb 10;3(1):e000627. doi: 10.1136/bmjmed-2023-000627
Published research on the human health implications of climate change between 2012 and 2021: cross sectional study
Victoria L Bartlett 1, Harry Doernberg 1, Maryam Mooghali 2, Ravi Gupta 3, Joshua D Wallach 4, Kate Nyhan 4,5, Kai Chen 4, Joseph S Ross 2,6,7,✉
PMCID: PMC10862342 PMID: 38352020--------
Some useful looking quotes:
"What is already known on this topic."Climate change is one of the most pressing public health threats of the 21st century, contributing to more than 250 000 deaths each year."
and
"...Eligibility criteria"Inclusion criteria were peer reviewed, original research articles that investigated the health effects of climate change and were published in English from 2012 to 2021. After identification, a 10% random sample was selected to manually perform a detailed characterisation of research topics and publication information.
Results"10 325 original research articles were published between 2012 and 2021, and the number of articles increased by 23% annually...."
------
My additional comments to this study and to your comments:
Bob, thanks for the points about the logical fallacies, that helps put this in perspective.
Both, I didn't realize it was a volunteer effort exactly.... though that makes some sense now.
As to the 250,000 deaths per year number they cite, I am not sure where they are getting that (I have only stumbled across the summary today and haven't read the study itself, and doubt I will understand much of it if I do).
Still, the optimistic main thing that I get from this study is that there have been many peer-reviewed studies by now, and taken together, there is growing strength in the claims that have been made as to how many deaths scientists are telling us climate change is "contributing to". I'd have to get to it later to see what exact wording is used in the report. -
One Planet Only Forever at 05:06 AM on 10 February 2026Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Regarding PollutionMonster’s comment @454, and the comments since then, I add the following comment with related recent news items related to the context of my earlier comments @450, @428, @413:
The Trump administration exempts new nuclear reactors from environmental review, NPR, Geoff Brumfiel, Feb 2, 2026.
The Trump administration has secretly rewritten nuclear safety rules, NPR, Geoff Brumfiel, Jan 28, 2026.
Trump's rush to build nuclear reactors across the U.S. raises safety worries, NPR, Geoff Brumfiel, Dec 17, 2025.
It appears that some people who made significant bad bets (investments) trying to develop small modular nuclear reactors have gotten the USA leadership-of-the-moment to weaken developed requirements requirements for evaluation and understanding of the risks and harms of new nuclear reactors.
The people who placed those losing bets appear to understand that the new nuclear systems being developed would be more expensive than the renewable alternatives if they had to be as safe and publicly well understood as the developed requirements for nuclear power plants would require.
One tragic argument in favour of small modular nuclear power plants is that the magnitude of the harm is limited because the plants are smaller than the large scale plants. The (il)logic appears to be that the damage done by a small nuclear plant would be less than the damage done by a large nuclear plant … therefore smaller plants can be riskier and be more harmful per unit of power generated than a large one.
The reality will be that the risks and harm of these new small modular nuclear reactors will become known after there are many of them in use. And, after the attempts to limit public awareness of the risk and harm, it will likely be argued that correcting what has been developed will be 'too harmful'. After all, it is unlikely that the powerful people pushing for benefits from the harmful unsustainable activity will suffer significant harm.
I will repeat the closing part of my comment @450 (with its pointing back to my comment @428):
Also, in the future, any energy system that is unsustainable will be unable to be continued. Unsustainable activities either use up non-renewable resources or produce accumulating harm. Nuclear power systems consume non-renewable resources and produce accumulating harm.
Therefore, no future energy system will include nuclear power generation. And since it is also a very costly way of generating electricity it should be unpopular.
However, humans have a tragic history of regionally developing popular support for harmful costly misunderstandings, as I implied in my comment @428.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:17 AM on 10 February 2026Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
PollutionMonster @ 458:
Expecting to be "100% sure" is an impossible goal.
Reading over that link you provide, I see a few unqualified assumptions:
- "I also think we need to add fusion to the mix,..."
- I'm old enough to have heard the "fusion is just around the corner" argument for several decades. I am strongly in the "I'll believe it when I see it" camp.
- "We can, however, build nuclear almost anywhere"
- No, we can't. Nuclear plants, with current technology, require lots and lots of cooling water. He does say "We can swap them in, one-for-one, for retiring coal plants." Since coal plants also require large cooling capabilities, this is probably true - but we don't have coal plants "almost anywhere".
- Building nuclear plants "almost anywhere" will also require overcoming resistance to placing nuclear in peoples' back yards, and resistance to transport of nuclear fuels and waste "almost anywhere".
- He goes on to state "...the newer designs are safer, more efficient, and more dispatchable", but when it comes to newer designs such as small modular reactors, these designs are still not being built and added to the grid in operational situations. It has not been shown that they can be built in short time frames and at reasonable cost (compared to renewables).
- "Nuclear can potentially give us the 30-50 years it will take to advance our technology and build all that renewable infrastructure."
- Nuclear can't be built on short notice. How much nuclear can be built in that 30-50-year time frame? Nuclear built at the end of that time frame won't help.
- He goes on to talk about the time it will take to build panels and batteries and upgrading and expanding the grid for renewables. He ignores the time it will take to build nuclear plants, expand the production of uranium, and update and expand the grid to handle the nuclear power generation.
So, I see that blog post as yet another marketing presentation, rather than evidence that nuclear provides a quick and reliable way of adding energy to the grid. It's an opinion piece, not a rigorous analysis.
-
PollutionMonster at 20:21 PM on 9 February 2026Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I read the links provided and I am still not 100% sure who is correct. The author of the blog posted a new post again promoting nuclear as part of the solution along side renewables.
I see this as a puzzle I am trying to figure out. Basically the author still makes many references to nuclear while also promoting many renenwables including solar. Seeing nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric as a stepping stone before we go to fully renewable.
So who is right? Do we eliminate nuclear entirely or do we use nuclear as a stepping stone until we can go fully nuclear?
Thanks for your time and energy in advance.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:51 AM on 8 February 2026The future of NCAR remains highly uncertain
Tragically, the desire to eradicate developed knowledge and understanding and restrict the development of improved awareness and understanding is understandable.
Many people develop a diversity of reasons to dislike increased awareness and improved understanding of how to be less harmful and more helpful to Others. Those self-interested anti-woke people can be found in every nation on this planet. And history is full of cases of the harm done when those type of people can significantly control or compromise the actions of collective leadership.
The anti-woke types detest pursuits of learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others. That learning is biased against their interests. It leads to collective restrictions and corrections of harmful unsustainable developed ‘self-interests’.
Those anti-woke types understandably want to dictate what is to be believed. Reasonable common-sense evidence-based improved understanding harms their ability to ‘believe and do as they please’.
-
nigelj at 05:47 AM on 6 February 2026The future of NCAR remains highly uncertain
MAR: "One aspect of this issue with Trump is whether he was ever actually believed his climate-change denial or whether he was just banging that particular drum as a politician because it was something that gained him political support."
We will probably never know for sure what Trump really thinks on the science. He might accept the science but bangs the denialist drum for political reasons as you suggest, or he might be a denier and just signed the NY Times ad to be popular at the time. He might not even know himself or he may chop and change his mind depending on who he listens to. He's a very mercurial personality who also loves attention.
But his actions and words are certainly consistent with climate science denial, so perhaps he should be treated as most likely being a denier. "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck." This would be a reasonable working assumption.
-
MA Rodger at 01:23 AM on 6 February 2026The future of NCAR remains highly uncertain
One aspect of this issue with Trump is whether he was ever actually believed his climate-change denial or whether he was just banging that particular drum as a politician because it was something that gained him political support. Perhaps he was being insincere back in 2009 when he added his name to this full-page ad in the NY Times (appearing in second-last row).
As we are dealing with a congenital liar (and a remarkably ignorant one to boot), it's difficult to know which.And now he is slipping into his dotage, there is also the issue of him giving license to actions suggested to him by the "plucky band", those fawning actual climate-change deniers he surrounds himself with.
-
prove we are smart at 21:10 PM on 5 February 2026The future of NCAR remains highly uncertain
Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.
America is not the way it is because of Trump-Trump is the way he is because of America. To Trump, the Constitution isn't an ideal, it's an obstacle.
Your Trumpstein administration will probably be jailed for their crimes and just before that probability, they willingly will burn the country down with them and try to hide in the ashes. Dismantling NCAR is just another straw on the camels back.
The world is watching the USA with very different eyes and your nearest neighbouring countries are taking self preservation tactics like the rest. Electing this leader twice has shown a people out of touch and lacking critical thinking. Fascism is rising and democracy is falling in the USA.
That "plucky band" has poisoned many-maybe too many.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:40 AM on 5 February 2026The future of NCAR remains highly uncertain
nigelj:
Having lived through my own share of governments shutting down monitoring and research programs, the shocking thing about the way the Trump administration is doing things is the extent to which they wish to make all the existing work disappear.
It's one thing to say "no new work". It's another thing to say "nothing new, and destroy the old". Vandalism seems an entirely appropriate term.
-
nigelj at 05:12 AM on 5 February 2026The future of NCAR remains highly uncertain
The proposed break up of NCAR is scientific vandalism. I don't think you can stop this by playing nice with the Trump Administration, by being polite and constructive and by compromising and appeasing them. This clearly hasn't worked in the past. The only thing that will work is when you stand up forcefully to these people and spell out severe consequences, as Europe has discovered over the Greenland issue. Its the only language Trump understands and its not just Trump: Vance will be around a long time and he is just another version of Trump.
-
John Hartz at 03:19 AM on 3 February 20262026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #04
Michael & Bob: I posted a link to the CNN article about Ramanathan on the SkS Facebook page. It went live about 3 hours ago. It will of course be included in the Weekly News Roundup for this week.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:43 AM on 30 January 20262026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #04
Michael:
I saw that article this morning - it was actually (maybe briefly) highlighted in my main viewing page at CNN. It's not there now (at least, not as far as I can see), but here is a link to it:
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/29/science/climate-crisis-crafoord-prize-veerabhadran-ramanathan
Ramanathan is a well-known name in climate science. The story mentions that he has just been awarded a Crafoord Prize. The story includes some reaction from Spencer Weart, who wrote The Discovery of Global Warming.
-
michael sweet at 05:46 AM on 30 January 20262026 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #04
CNN has a nice article about Dr Ramanathan who was instrumental in determining the effect of trace gasses on global warming. In rhe 1980's he showed that global warming would cause warming to proceed much faster. Before that scientists thought only CO2 would cause significant warming. Search the title on CNN
"The accidental climate scientist who uncovered an unexpected force of global warming"
-
Eclectic at 07:44 AM on 22 January 2026Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
Moderator ~ I am sorry to hear that JPostma has chosen to exit the scene. I felt there were other points where his erroneous ideas could have been highlighted for his attention. But these two threads have already looked into some of his misconceptions.
Nevertheless, we should always look for the wheat among the chaff.
Those great innovators Galileo and Einstein were well known for their frequent vulgar and obscene comments ~ so we probably should simply accept such outbursts as the mark of genius.
-
Eclectic at 23:11 PM on 21 January 2026Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
JPostma :-
An interesting disquisition [including the other thread] by you ~ and one which, I must confess, I have not seen published in any of the reputable scientific journals. Could it be that you have failed to recognize flaws in your work?
For example, you say: "However, the lapse rate differential is only as that calculated from adiabatic thermodynamics. This is actually enough to refute the climate greenhouse postulate."
~ But what you have stated is a logical non-sequitur. [Discuss.]
Moderator Response:[BL] The user JPostma has chosen to respond with vulgar, obscene comments. Due to the extreme nature of his violations of the comments policy, he will have to find some other venue for his opinions.
-
JPostma at 13:14 PM on 21 January 2026Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
The average mass location of the atmosphere is already above the height of the effective temperature or average emission. If there were a greenhouse effect shifting things above the averages, then -18C should be found above the average mass location, given respect to average analyses. The greenhouse effect neither modulates the lapse rate, which it should, and it doesn't shift -18C higher than the average location, which is claimed to cover for the former failure.
There simply is no evidence for the climate alarm greenhouse effect. Details can be found in "Introduction to the Climate" by Joseph E. Postma.
Moderator Response:[BL] Your ramblings bear no resemblance to how climate science actually explains lapse rates or the greenhouse effect. Your use of "average mass location" in your argument makes no sense whatsoever. The observed tropospheric lapse rate is largely the result of convection, not radiation. Despite attempts over decades, your understanding of conventional climate science remains sadly lacking.
Until you show some ability to learn the science you claim to refute, your attempts to simply make stuff up are a waste of time.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
-
JPostma at 13:06 PM on 21 January 2026Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
The greenhouse effect should produce a differential effect on temperature since there is a differential effect on radiation scattering and absorption. However, the lapse rate differential is only as that calculated from adiabatic thermodynamics. This is actually enough to refute the climate greenhouse postulate.
Even if we go beyond what is plausible and grant that a differential influence does not produce a differential effect, then, if the height of emission changes such that it induces higher near-surface temperature, then this means that the temperature of the emitting region has also moved up the gradient, and now we have a violation of conservation of energy because a larger emitting shell is emitting at the same temperature as before. In fact, the height of emission can change without affecting the temperature. The absolute temperature profile of the atmosphere remains the same, the average height of emission simply moves up. But in any case, the primary logic already refutes the greenhouse effect: the lapse rate is caused by adiabtic thermodynamics, and there is no sign of the greenhouse effect.
[snip]
Moderator Response:[BL] Yet again, you have posted an image with no discussion of how the image relates to your "argument".
Your argument is also a meaningless ramble of assertions with no evidence. Your arguments are refuted in the main OP, and in the many comments to your earlier postings made here over more than a decade. This constitutes sloganeering, which is not allowed according to the Comments Policy.
