COMMENTARY: Trump EPA transition team dominated by climate science deniers; nation and planet deserve better

When President-elect Donald J. Trump assumes office as the nation’s 45th chief executive in 15 days, he will gain the authority to determine, in large part, the extent to which the nation addresses the growing threat of anthropogenic climate change. His appointees to administer the nation’s Clean Air Act, the only U.S. statute available to force a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, will be in a position to continue the country’s recent progress in transitioning away from a destructive dependence on coal, oil, and natural gas for energy.

Unfortunately, the personnel entrusted by Trump to manage the transition to a new administration at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have instead demonstrated an eagerness to deny scientific knowledge about the impacts of human fossil fuel use on the planet’s atmosphere and oceans.

The chairperson of Trump’s EPA transition team, Myron Ebell, personifies the ignorance and stubbornness of the men and women who have invaded EPA’s offices in an apparent quest to turn the country’s anti-pollution agency into a booster of the fossil fuel industries.

Ebell, 63 and lacking any education or experience as a scientist, is fanatical in his denial of climate science. He has accused climatologists of being a “gang” that has “cooked the data.” He has said that the principal conclusions of climate science, namely that the atmosphere of our planet is warming and the oceans are acidifying, are “myths.” He has called advocates for a shift to clean energy “the forces of darkness,” intent upon “turning off the lights” on the rest of humanity.

Nor does Ebell’s hostility to knowledge end with climate science. He thinks EPA is too hard on pesticides, too. Ebell apparently endorses the fringe view that those compounds pose no significant health risks to humans and that they help wildlife, Rachel Carson and Silent Spring notwithstanding.

But Ebell is not the only anti-science radical who is even now plotting how to turn EPA into a cheerleader for more carbon dioxide and methane pollution and more pesticide poisoning of animals and man.

Amy Oliver Cooke, for example, is a former talk-show host who has said that her goal is “irritating the extreme eco-left.” Cooke works for the right-wing Independence Institute in Colorado, where she constantly cozies up to right-wing extremists in the Colorado General Assembly. Her Twitter feed is full of paens to fossil fuels, linking their use with patriotism, and attacks windmills as unaesthetic and useless decorations.

She then goes even further in her slavish devotion to the energy sources that are methodically damaging the planet’s hospitability to life. Cooke labels herself an “energy feminist,” as if helping to lower humanity’s capacity to grow food, increase floods in some areas and drought in others, and decimate biodiversity is something that represents womanhood at its enlightened best.

Then there’s Harlan Watson, a long-time Republican Congressional staff member and favorite of Exxon-Mobil.

Watson, who holds a doctorate in physics and a masters degree in economics, apparently never let his considerable education get in the way of obstructing an effective national climate change agenda. In 2005, as a State Department official, he told representatives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change gathered in Montreal that the U.S. saw no reason to do anything about greenhouse gas emissions. That followed appearances at other international conferences aimed at building cooperation in the quest to reduce the warming pollution of carbon dioxide.

Watson last worked as an actual scientist in January 1980, according to his LinkedIn profile. At that time, the clear and present danger of climate change was not as evident as it is now, or even as it had become by the time he became deputy assistant secretary of interior in 1989. Watson has worked for a whole slew of Republicans, in fact, including F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Sensenbrenner, the former Wisconsin representative, is known for his steadfast opposition to any international agreement to address climate change. A 2009 guide to Congressional staff quoted Watson as being in sync with Sensenbrenner’s stubborn refusal to address reality: it quoted Watson as saying that the Kyoto Agreement of 1998 was “a bad deal” for the United States. One must wonder whether Watson will broadcasting hostility toward the Paris Agreement to anyone in the new administration who will listen.

Next up is Christopher C. Horner, a lawyer with enough pretension to write not just one, but three, books that tell climate scientists they are all wrong. Those books, possibly facilitated with the help of the financial bounty showered on Horner by coal companies, have all been published by the conservative pillar Regnery. None acknowledge the cold – or should I say hot – reality of climate change: that humans are causing it, that it will severely impact our civilization, and that the extinction of all life on this planet is a possibility if we persist in our refusal to address it.

Horner seems to think it appropriate to use his education and license to practice law as tools to harass scientists, too. The eminent climatologist Michael Mann said in 2015 that Horner “has been instrumental in orchestrating the attacks on climate scientists over the past decade in the form of vexatious and frivolous [Freedom of Information Act] demands [and] efforts to force scientists to turn over all of their personal email.”

Just for good measure, Horner has also gone after Dr. James Hansen with a blizzard of unfounded slanders.

In 2009 he said on national television that Hansen “clearly abused his platform provided to him by the taxpayer, principally by the way he’s been exposed of manipulating and revising data with the strange coincidence of him always found on the side of exaggerating the warming.” Among the many other rhetorical broadsides he has aimed at honorable scientists, he has even accused Hansen of committing a crime: In 2011 he wrote that Hansen evaded his income tax obligations, a claim with no evidence at all to back it up.

Of course, not one word in any of those attacks on scientists is factually accurate.

Another extremist, anti-science “think tank” – the Heritage Foundation – is also represented among the Trumpsters that will soon take over EPA.

David W. Kreutzer wrote in a Sept. 2016 “backgrounder” co-authored with Kevin D. Dayaratna and Nicolas D. Loris that he thinks it’s time for the U.S. to “unleash” oil and gas production. That would seem to put him in tune with Mr. Trump’s oft-stated commitment to lessen or eliminate barriers to more fossil fuel activity in the United States.

Kreutzer is quite specific about how he would do that. He has said that Trump “should open all federal waters and federal lands that are not part of the national park system or congressionally designated areas to exploration and production for all of America’s natural resources.”

I added the emphasis in that statement because that one word – “all” – highlights the extremism in this opinion. Kreutzer seems to believe that even national monuments, marine preserves, and areas of the continental shelf that Presidents have withdrawn from energy exploration should be made available to the oil industry.

But that’s not all. Kreutzer also believes, if one takes his Sept. 2016 “backgrounder” seriously, that “Congress should require the Department of the Interior to conduct lease sales if a commercial interest exists.”

Again, I have added emphasis to the word “require.” If the Republican-dominated 115th Congress takes this advice, and Trump signs a bill that writes it into the U.S. code, we would see rigs along every part of the American coast, even in areas where it is aesthetically or biologically unsound to engage in drilling and even in areas where energy exploration would likely be catastrophically unsafe.

Oh, yes, there is at least one more example of Kreutzer’s over-the-top view about how to encourage even more fossil fuel production: He wants Washington to give states the authority to decide whether energy exploration can occur on federal lands within their borders. I’m sure that we’d see a whole lot of responsible consideration of environmental impacts in madly pro-fossil fuel states like Wyoming, North Dakota, and Alaska!

Just in case you have any doubt that Kreutzer is a climate science denier, note his comments in an interview with Steve Scully of C-SPAN last year. “Global warming is for real in that we’ve had global warming since the end of the last Ice Age,” Kreutzer said.

Now comes David Stevenson of the Caesar Rodney Institute. That’s an organization with clear and extensive financial ties to the fossil fuel-loving, climate science-denying, billionaire Koch brothers.

Stevenson has a bachelors degree in agricultural economics. This apparently qualifies him, at least in his own ideologue mind, to declare (as he did in Nov. 2015) that health-protective air quality regulations in Delaware are unnecessary and that the First State’s commitment to enforcing them makes it an “outlaw” agency.

George Sugiyama is another of Trump’s EPA minions.

A former chief counsel (and, therefore, close advisor) to Congress’ most infamous climate science denier, James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, Sugiyama has also worked as a lobbyist for the National Mining Association.

Finally, there’s the college kid. Austin Lipari brings no apparent expertise in environmental law or policy, no obvious background in environmental health or toxicology, no known knowledge of climatology or any other scientific field that EPA considers as it applies the nation’s pollution laws.

Lipari does bring to the table membership in the Federalist Society, though. Apparently sympathy for a paranoid certainty that federal environmental laws are a threat to everyone’s freedom to get rich, a view trumpeted by that right-wing lawyer organization, is all it takes to be given a seat at the EPA destruction table.

I do not address here the awesome flaws of the man Trump has chosen to lead EPA – Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt. Suffice to say, Pruitt shares the ignorant, selfish attitude aimed at further filling the coffers of oil and coal companies, their executives, and investors, and which will do great harm to the rest of the American people, that is exhibited by the band of radicals assigned to the agency transition team.

The American people did not vote for this hostile takeover of the environmental policy-setting arena. They did not choose climate science denial, hostility to the public health and economic benefits of clean air, clean water, safe pesticides, and non-toxic industrial sites. They did not say that the future of this planet’s biosphere, the prosperity of our civilization, and the relationships among nations should be handed over to a band of belligerent enemies of knowledge.

Unfortunately, and despite the fact that a man who received only 46 percent of the popular vote should seriously consider the views of those who oppose him, we appear headed for the most severe crisis in federal environmental policy since the era of environmental law began in the 1960s. What timing, too, as scientists have made clear that the world must force an enduring decline in fossil fuel emissions within just a few years if it is to avoid the truly horrific consequences that human-caused warming of the atmosphere and oceans will otherwise cause.

COMMENTARY: Supreme Court’s Clean Power Plan order is partisan and a betrayal of the law and science

partisans

Tuesday’s shocking (and unexplained) decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to block implementation of the Obama administration’s signature program to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions is more than legally questionable. It indicates that the willingness of the five justices who supported the order to march in lockstep with the party of the Presidents that appointed them is so determined that even the growing evidence that anthropogenic climate change threatens this planet’s ability to support life, and the stability of human civilizations, does not deter them from their partisan, extra-legal loyalties.

It is not easy to get a stay of a challenged government action pending resolution of a lawsuit on its merits. In fact, until yesterday, it was thought by most legal scholars to be darn near impossible to get such an order without a clear showing that the party requesting it had suffered and would continue to suffer harm. U.S. solicitor general Donald Verrilli made this clear in the government’s response to the request for a stay. “Applicants identify no case in which this Court has granted a stay of a generally-applicable regulation pending initial judicial review in the court of appeals,” he wrote.

Texas and the other states that have petulantly objected to the necessary task of reducing reliance on coal for electricity generation have suffered none. The Clean Power Plan requires no actual changes in the make-up of the power mix for several years, at minimum, and the plan does not require states even to adopt a plan. They could choose to defer to the federal government. Nor has the coal or utility industries, since the Clean Power Plan allows the prospect of as much as six years before any changes to the generation mix are mandated and, in any case, the demands of the market are causing a shift from coal.

Apparently, the Supreme Court’s own direction, given in 2007, to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act also was thought by ideologues John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito to be irrelevant, even though the Court has previously and frequently held that a party seeking a stay must demonstrate a likelihood that they will win their argument on the merits.

So, too, did the five Republican justices, in thrall to their party’s utter refusal to acknowledge that human combustion of fossil fuels is changing our atmosphere and oceans, ignore the reality that mankind has a limited window in which to reduce and eliminate carbon pollution before the impacts of greenhouse gas accumulations become so potent that society will effectively lose the ability to control the outcome. Thus they twisted or ignored yet another requirement for a stay: that the public interest must be served by one.

Then, too, the Supreme Court’s ill-advised intervention has undermined the most significant achievement of international negotiators in all the years since the phenomenon of climate change has been understood – last December’s Paris accord. How long will it be before China and India, the world’s two other leading emitters, decide that there is no point in their nations undergoing the expense and turmoil associated with transforming the way electricity is produced and transportation is provided if the United States of America cannot keep its word?

So what’s next?

The Obama administration should, first, invoke section 115 of the Clean Air Act and re-issue the Clean Power Plan under the aegis of that provision. As a recent report indicates, section 115 provides a virtually unassailable basis for emission reduction mandates when international agreements dictate them.

Of course, yesterday’s action by the Republican five, unaccompanied by any statement of the reasons that Messrs. Roberts et al. think justify their choice, indicates that not even a clear-cut statutory foundation of a regulation will be enough to sustain it if their partisan ideology and loyalty to the bottom line of oil and coal companies and the ideology of this country’s most politically backward states dictates they stand against it.

The real solution is going to have involve a replacement of at least one of the five Republican justices. Sure, given that Scalia and Kennedy are close to eighty years old, nature may provide an opportunity for that replacement sooner rather than later. But that’s hardly a sure thing and, in any event, even the contempt the Republican five has so richly earned does not impel a wish for personal bad fortune. No, wishing for a vacancy on the Court is not the right response.

Instead, the administration should start to play hard ball.

The U.S. Department of Justice should ask at least one of the Republican justices to recuse themselves from future involvement in the Clean Power Plan litigation on grounds that partisan loyalty and bias precludes them from making a fair decision. If that request is denied, the administration should use whatever legal tools that even remotely offer the prospect of a compelled recusal to force the issue.

Of course, that tactic has only uncertain prospects for success and so the administration should determine to step up the fight in the legislative branch, too. President Obama should explain to the grandees of Congress that none of the GOP’s priorities will be enacted into law, at least with his signature on any bills that reflect them, unless and until both chambers send him a bill that explicitly clarifies that the Clean Air Act authorizes the Clean Power Plan.

And, of course, the administration should be making the case to voters very clearly that the outcome of this fall’s election will, quite plainly, dictate whether humanity acts in response to the plain and overwhelming evidence that our addiction to fossil fuels is endangering our economic and social foundations. Famine, rapid and widespread transmission of tropical disease, and drought are, after all, no picnic. Mr. Obama should not hesitate to mention – often – the risks to Earth’s biodiversity and ability to sustain life.

As for the people of this country, they should take note. The future quite literally depends on their choice this autumn. If ever there was a time to learn about climate change, and to take seriously the most awesome environmental challenge of modern history, that time is now.

Commentary: Does the Michigan v. EPA decision doom the Clean Power Plan?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision that rejected a Clean Air Act regulation limiting mercury emissions from power plants looms over the Obama administration’s push to cut those facilities’ greenhouse gas emissions and, given the reasoning employed by the five justices in the majority, it’s possible that the Clean Power Plan could be at risk of a similar fate.

In Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency Justice Antonin Scalia concluded that the CAA provision at issue there requires EPA to consider the potential costs of an emissions limit to the polluter before it concludes that the limit is, in the words of the statute, “appropriate and necessary.” That decision, which was joined by fellow Republican appointees Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, could be understood as a departure from the way the Court has traditionally interpreted the environmental laws.

For the past thirty or so years, the Court has tended to uphold an agency’s interpretation of a statute that authorizes it to write regulations if that interpretation is “reasonable.” In the words of the majority opinion in a case called Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.:

“First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.”

Section 112 of the CAA does not say when EPA must consider the costs of a potential regulation, but instead requires only that EPA do so before issuing that regulation. In fact, EPA made clear that it would consider the costs of compliance with the Mercury and Air Toxics rule struck down in Michigan v. EPA before the regulation was finalized.

According to the Chevron rule that traditionally governs, the Court should have upheld the MAT rule against the attack leveled against it because the EPA’s administrator reasonably understood the statutory language to permit the agency to consider compliance costs after deciding that some limit on mercury and other toxic air pollutant emissions from coal-fired power plants is needed to protect public health and the environmental quality of the atmosphere.

But it didn’t. Instead, Scalia wrote that EPA had tried to “gerrymander” the Chevron rule by ignoring a part of the CAA. To Scalia and the justices that joined his opinion, the word “appropriate” necessarily includes consideration of compliance costs.

The Clean Power Plan, like the MAT rule, is based on a two-step process in which EPA first decided that limits on carbon dioxide emissions are needed to advance the goals of the CAA. This conclusion, known as an “endangerment finding,” preceded the agency’s consideration of the costs to industry; those costs were taken into account before the Clean Power Plan was announced in early August.

Will the Supreme Court apply the reasoning of Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency in the inevitable challenge to President Barack Obama’s signature program for limiting the damage coal combustion does to the atmosphere? Or will it conclude, instead, that its interpretation of “appropriate and necessary” is irrelevant because a different section of the CAA authorizes the Clean Power Plan?

We cannot know that until litigation that aims to eliminate the Clean Power Plan reaches the justices. But there may be cause to worry. For one thing, Justice Thomas wrote, in his concurring opinion in the Michigan case, that he thinks deference to agency interpretations of statutes might violate the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine. Justice Alito seems to think the Chevron doctrine has to go, too, and Scalia himself has indicated some skepticism about the degree to which courts refrain from second-guessing an agency’s understanding of a statute’s meaning. The Court’s most senior justice, Scalia has voted not to defer to an agency statutory interpretation in nearly half the cases that raise the issue since John Roberts became chief justice ten years ago.

It is not clear that Chief Justice Roberts outright opposes the idea of deferring to agency interpretations of statutes, but he has indicated a willingness to limit the circumstances under which that deference is due.

Because the Court’s four justices appointed by Democratic presidents (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia M. Sotomayor, Elena Kagan) have not indicated any inclination to overrule the decision in the Chevron case, the fate of much of the country’s environmental regulatory apparatus is in the hands of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

The cacophony surrounding the 2016 Presidential election will be laced with arguments over issues big and small. The question whether EPA, or for that matter, the agencies that manage everything from our food supply to wildlife and the public lands, will have their decisions subjected to scrutiny by politically conservative judges who are inclined to favor the interests of industry or instead whether the expertise those agencies have shown will be granted the respect it deserves is one that the justices who replace 82-year old Ginsburg, 79-year old Scalia, 79-year old Kennedy, or 77-year old Breyer should keep in mind when they cast a ballot for the candidate who will appoint them.

COMMENTARY: New Colo. Sen. Gardner’s votes on climate change amendments are proof of unwillingness to lead

Cory Gardner, Colorado’s brand-new Republican U.S. senator, has had a charmed career. The “cherubic” legislator from the Centennial state’s eastern plains rose in about nine years from obscurity to one of the state’s most powerful politicians.

He got there because he’s likable, because he had the good fortune of running against an incumbent U.S. senator who ran a less-than-stellar re-election campaign, and because he promised Coloradans that he would be a different sort of Republican – one more attuned to the changing priorities of a politically moderate Western state than are many of his GOP colleagues in Washington and elsewhere.

This week, as the Senate debated a bill to green-light the controversial KXL oil pipeline, Gardner had the chance to prove that his words were sincere. He failed to do that and, in the process, reinforced fears that he will give more priority to the desires of fossil fuel interests than to the imperative of a cogent national response to anthropogenic climate change.

Gardner had four chances to acknowledge, with his vote and, maybe, with his voice, that humans are causing Earth’s climate to change. When he had the opportunity to vote for amendments to S.1, the KXL pipeline bill, offered by Sens. John Hoeven, R-N.D., Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., Brian Schatz, D-Haw., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that forthrightly recognized that indisputable fact, Gardner blew it. In each case he voted “no.”

To be fair, few of his GOP colleagues voted any differently and, during his campaign last year, Gardner never took a clear stand on climate change. Nevertheless, the senator represents a state that stands to be severely impacted by climate change, with a serious potential of lower winter snow pack, earlier snow melt that reduces summer flows in the state’s rivers and streams and the volume of water in its reservoirs, and increasing drought on the senator’s native Great Plains. Colorado is a state that depends heavily on tourism, as people from all over the world travel to its mountains to ski, snowboard, and otherwise revel in the wintry white, and its burgeoning high technology sector draws talented employees who value the state’s equable climate and four-season playground far more than they do the parochial desires of oil company executives for increased profits at the expense of a warmed planet.

Environmental policy is central to Colorado’s economy, quality of life, and culture. Gardner’s votes this week indicate a surprising willingness to overlook that reality. It is difficult to believe that Gardner is not familiar with the clear scientific consensus that climate change currently causing rapid and dramatic change all over the planet is anthropogenic in origin. It is likewise difficult to believe that Gardner does not know that the widespread and ever-growing combustion of fossil fuels accounts for the heating of  our atmosphere and oceans.

The senator’s votes this week are a sad reminder that even those politicians who cannot count on a consistent trend of support for one party or the other are willing to disregard their constituents’ justifiable and genuine concern for the future of their state, the nation and civilization itself. They also tell every Coloradan that Cory Gardner is not a leader. He has not shown a willingness to be honest about humanity’s impact on the air we breathe and the oceans upon which we depend and, apparently, is comfortable with policies that will only add to the harm caused by our society’s intentional and destructive chemical experiment in the atmosphere.

COMMENTARY: Inhofe’s distortions and ignorance demean Senate and debate over oil pipeline

That famous climate change-denying curmudgeon James M. Inhofe is at it again, and this time his willful denial of facts and slander of scientists is casting a sad shadow over the U.S. Senate as it starts a new Congress with a debate over the controversial KXL oil pipeline.

Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, is well-known for his refusal to accept that human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases are changing the climate of Earth. Among the greatest hits of this man’s obtuse failure to recognize reality are these memorable comments:

  • “[T]his 97% [of climate scientists accepting human-caused global warming], that doesn’t mean anything. I named literally thousands of scientists on the floor…and these were top people.” – Source
  • “Regarded as the ‘greatest scandal of our generation’ by the UK Telegraph, “Climategate,” as the scandal is called, discloses what scientists over the years had been telling me: the so-called ‘consensus’ is simply wrong.” – Source
  • “In short, some parts of the IPCC process resembled a Soviet-style trial, in which the facts are predetermined, and ideological purity trumps technical and scientific rigor. ” – Source
  • “The claim that global warming is caused by man-made emissions is simply untrue and not based on sound science.” – Source

During the 114th Congress, which started earlier this month after an election in November that saw Republicans gain control of the Senate and expand their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, Inhofe will chair the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee. He is, therefore, in an influential position and one might expect that, as such, he might choose his words more judiciously. Unfortunately, the 80-year old from Tulsa continues to display both both belligerence and ignorance.

Last week, Inhofe added to his infamy. During a debate on a proposed amendment to ban the export of oil carried in the KXL pipeline, Inhofe marred the Senate’s deliberation by lambasting scientists and by, again, raising the false accusation that climatologists are lying about mankind’s impact on the planet’s climate. He also misrepresented the meaning of a scientific paper to give credence to his misguided beliefs.

“[E]ven if someone is a believer that the world is coming to an end, that global warming is going to kill everybody and it is all due to man-made gas, if they truly believe that still, even in spite of that, it is not going to reduce worldwide emissions. I guess that is what they want to do, so we hear about the consensus,” Inhofe said.

“I remember at that time I made a speech on this floor questioning the science. I said, ‘I assume there are scientists out there are not part of the IPCC – that is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – and that those scientists know better. They know what the reality is,'” Inhofe continued. “I started getting phone calls. I got phone calls from scientists.”

Inhofe explained that 58 “recognized scientists,” including climate change denier Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, had contacted him.

He later explained that there is no consensus in the scientific community that climate change is happening because “63 percent of weather-casters believe any global warming that is occurring is the result of natural variation and not human activities.”

Inhofe also claimed that a paper published in Nature during 2013 casts doubt on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

“Nature journal, which is a well-respected journal, in their 2013 paper said that there is considerable uncertainty as to whether [increases in extreme climate variability] is occurring,” the Oklahoman said.

He was referring to an August 2013 paper that concluded only that, in a warmed world, the range between high and low temperatures would not necessarily expand. The paper articulated no conclusions about the impact of climate change on mean temperatures. As lead author Dr. Chris Huntingford, a climatologist at the Center for Ecology and Hydrology in the United Kingdom, explained in an email message:

“Our Nature paper strictly analyzes only year-to-year variability (fluctuations) in temperature, and demonstrates that in some parts of the world, this is actually going down. Elsewhere it is going up. This may be seen in both direct measurements and in supporting climate model simulations. This goes against the view
that maybe, as general global warming occurs, everywhere will additionally see larger year-to-year swings in temperature.

“However, we do not at any point offer evidence against a general on-going background and upwards warming trend. Detection and attribution statistical studies show that the observed average increasing temperatures are almost certainly a consequence of the burning of fossil fuels.”

Inhofe also invoked the discredited “Climategate” claim that climatologists have fabricated research. Multiple reviews have concluded that such claims are false.

“Climategate was when they analyzed some of the things IPCC had said and they had all these quotes and emails that totally debunked the credibility of IPCC,” Inhofe asserted. “Still today they are talking about it.”

These arguments, steeped in a deeply flawed understanding about the nature of science and a willingness to deceive the American people about what scientists know about our changing climate, are despicable. The question whether the Obama administration should grant the permit needed to build the KXL pipeline across the Canada-U.S. border is an important one; some members of Congress who support the pipeline argue that constructing it will result in lower overall greenhouse gas emissions than blocking it. Others make the point that the oil that would move through it is filthy and likely to further delay a needed transition away from fossil fuels. Whatever their perspectives, many contributors to the debate on KXL that has happened in both chambers of Congress this month have made their arguments cogently, honestly, and intelligently.

That is, unfortunately, not the way that Mr. Inhofe has done it. He’s not the only one, of course, but here’s the thing that bears emphasis: Members of Congress have a privilege to say whatever they want on the floor of the Senate or the House of Representatives, but they should not abuse that privilege by making comments that are utterly foolish and that do nothing to advance an intelligent discussion of either energy policy or an American response to the growing climate change crisis.

Mr. Inhofe should do the people of this country the courtesy of learning what science is, how it works, and why it indisputably teaches that the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will change the climate before he knocks the efforts of climatologists. And is it too much to ask that he, or at least his staff, read a scientific paper before, yes, lying about its conclusions on the floor of the United States Senate?

Commentary: Senate rules action allows respite in partisan tug-of-war over DC Circuit ideology

When U.S. Senate Democrats moved Thursday to alter the right of the chamber’s minority party to block executive and some judicial nominees, it made a decision that, on the surface, promises an easier path for all of President Barack Obama’s judge candidates.

From an environmental law perspective, the changes to the Senate’s filibuster rule are likely to mean that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will soon have all of the judges authorized by law.

Right now, there are three vacancies on the 11-seat court. Of the eight sitting judges, four were appointed by Democratic presidents and four were appointed by Republican presidents. However, the court also has six senior judges, five of which are GOP appointees. Those senior judges do sit on panels and decide cases. As a result, the real partisan divide on the court is 9-5 in favor of Republicans.

This divide has significant implications for environmental law. For example, the Congressional GOP, and many of the party’s governors, have opposed the Obama administration’s efforts to use the Clean Air Act to combat climate change. One of those efforts – the recently proposed and critical regulation that would cap the greenhouse gas emissions of new power plants – is likely to be challenged in the DC Circuit.

Having a full complement of active judges will mean two things: first, that the mostly-Republican senior judges will not be as likely to play the central role they now occupy in the court’s deliberations and, second, that the far-reaching decisions on regulatory matters, including those indicating the administration’s policy response to climate change, that come before the court will be more likely to get an even-handed evaluation.

This is to be applauded, but it is not the only benefit of today’s landmark Senate action. There are 93 vacancies in the federal judiciary, including dozens in the U.S. district courts. It is those federal district judges who decide everything from criminal cases to huge commercial disputes. They also handle citizen suits to enforce the country’s bedrock environmental laws. Now that President Obama will not face the seemingly perpetual Republican blockade of his judicial nominees, perhaps those seats can be filled in short order, which will lead to faster, and maybe fairer, resolution of critical environmental cases.