I don’t want to dwell on the headline above from the Times, but this is just another example of how, as in democracy’s death of a thousand cuts, our journalists deceive, confuse and manipulate public opinion. They also think they are clever about it, just as they think they are smarter than they are.
“President Trump on Thursday announced he was erasing the scientific finding that climate change endangers human health and the environment, ending the federal government’s legal authority to control the pollution that is dangerously heating the planet,” the Times piece begins. “The action is a key step in removing limits on carbon dioxide, methane and four other greenhouse gases that scientists say are supercharging heat waves, droughts, wildfires and other extreme weather.”
Well.
Ethics Alarms 
It’s a great thing the the EPA to withdraw that finding.
First, it will make it harder for a future EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as though it was a pollutant.
Second, it’ll be appealed and with any luck the Supreme Court will reverse its decision to let the EPA classify carbon dioxide as a ‘pollutant’. On Major Questons alone, I think it’ll fail — if Congress wanted to include carbon dioxide, it could have done so.
Bully!
Jack wrote: “Wait, the government has the power to regulate the climate, and still let the weather in my part of the country hit the lowest temperatures in over a century?”
Yup. Climate control is just like the thermostat in your house. You can dial it up or down, above or below St. Barack’s 72 degrees, depending on your privilege and economic tolerance.
jvb
“(Where are all those hurricanes?)”
To paraphrase the former texagg04: After 2005’s Katrina, 2006 will be the Year Of The SUPER HURRICANES!
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017: see! We told you so!!!!
PWS
It’s so strange to see the way the mainstream press is talking about this. They speak of Trump rescinding a scientific finding, as if scientific findings were established or rescinded by decree. They also speak of him erasing the government’s authority to fight climate change, as if the limits of government authority were likewise set by executive decree.
I love the classic misdirection of that headline. There are eight billion people living on this planet. If the average lifespan is seventy-five years (and that might be slightly high for the world average, but it’s nice for the math, so…) then 1.5% of the world’s population dies every year, give or take. That’s 120,000,000 people dying each year from all causes.
So guess what?…every 8-9 years, a billion people die.
Billions of people are already dying, and climate can’t do a thing about it one way or the other.
I suspect that every country (e.g., Western Europe) which has shown any progress toward cutting the emissions of carbon dioxide has done so by exporting their heavy industry to India and China, who go on to pollute without restraint. By buying steel, instead of ore, they outsource the blast furnace. By buying appliances, instead of steel, they outsource the forging, rolling, stamping, plating, and painting of the components. And then they complain that other countries don’t care about the environment as much as they do. And then they wonder why they can’t build weapons to defend themselves from their favorite natural-gas supplier.
Lathechuck
That Gina McCarthy woman that Obama put in charge of the EPA was evil. Obama let her and her minions run amok for eight years causing immeasurable damage. The “endangerment finding” preposterously declared CO2 to be a pollutant that the EPA could regulate. What a joke. A naturally occurring, inert gas comprising .04 percent of the atmosphere. The idea that trashing the endangerment finding strips the EPA of all its authority is ridiculous.
“(Where are all those hurricanes?)”, 2.0:
(bolds/caps/italics mine throughout) BBC (January 2018): “A warmer world IS BRINGING US a greater number of hurricanes and a greater risk of a hurricane becoming the most powerful category 5.”
Paul Homewood at notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com informed them of their ascientific assertion, and POOF that sentence mysteriously disappeared.
Seems they forgot to add the necessary ingredient of COULDIFMAYMIGHT.
Anywho, in its stead: “Scientists are still analysing what this data will mean, but a warmer world MAY bring us a greater number of more powerful category 4 and 5 hurricanes and could bring more extreme rainfall.”
And: ”Correction 29 January 2018: This story has been updated to clarify that IT IS MODELLING RATHER THAN HISTORICAL DATA that predicts stronger and wetter hurricanes.
Retraction of an unsupportable claim by Global Warming, Inc?
PWS