On Monday, August 3, 2015, President Barack Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency released final rules designed to curtail coal-based power plant emissions. Called the Clean Power Plan, the goal is to reduced carbon emissions contributing to man-made climate change. The impact of this plan will surprise a lot of Americans.
The following video is only a little over 2 minutes and worth watching:
Reaction has been about what you might expect. The Republican candidates for president and their Republican colleagues in the House and Senate have falsely attacked the plan for the usual false reasons. The Democratic candidates and in Congress largely agree that the steps proposed are necessary to deal with the unequivocal science demonstrating humans are warming the climate system.
Media reporting of the Clean Power Act shows its critical importance. Time magazine says that the President is taking the lead on this “superwicked problem.” CNN says the President “unveils major climate change proposal.” To the New York Times this is a “crucial step on climate change.” Other media outlets also note the unprecedented action by the White House and EPA.
Of course, there are also the denial lobbyists saturating the blogosphere with anti-Clean Power Act rhetoric. All provide opinions based on a single negative “report” produced by, you guessed it, one of the denial lobbyist organizations in their network. That’s a common tactic of lobbyists – create a biased report and then get all your friends to cite your biased report as “unbiased.”
Meanwhile, the response from the scientific community has generally been positive, as might be expected given that nearly every climate scientist agrees that 100+ years of published science unequivocally demonstrates a need to address man’s contribution to climate change. There are some, like outspoken climate scientist James Hansen, who feel the Plan is merely a drop in the bucket and won’t in itself create significant progress in dealing with our changing climate.
Hansen is probably right.
So let’s assume that the Clean Power Plan is insufficient to deal with climate change….
[Read the rest on The Dake Page]
The above is a partial cross-post of a full article on The Dake Page. Please click on the link above to read further. Thanks.
David J. Kent has been a scientist for over thirty years, is an avid science traveler, and an independent Abraham Lincoln historian. He is the author of Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity and the e-book Nikola Tesla: Renewable Energy Ahead of Its Time. He is currently writing a book on Thomas Edison.
Follow me by subscribing by email on the home page. And feel free to “Like” my Facebook author’s page and connect on LinkedIn. Share with your friends using the buttons below.
First there was Nikola Tesla, and now there is Thomas Edison. Those who follow this page know that my book 
Historian Richard Wightman Fox employs a unique concept in discussing Abraham Lincoln: Lincoln’s body. His body – the physical, the figurative, the aura, and the memory – is used to trace how he was perceived at the time and during several periods since then to the present day. In doing so, Fox has successfully provided a mirror into not only Abraham Lincoln, but ourselves.
Thud.
Recently there has been a sudden surge in support for passing bills in both the House and Senate to modernize the four-decade-old Toxic Substances Control Act, i.e., TSCA. This post will explain why this is happening, why TSCA Reform can pass now, and why it should pass – even though it likely will do nothing substantial to make us safer.
The signal is given and you sit down across the table from your chosen target, the first of several you will try to impress with your talents, poise, and intellect. You have three minutes to amaze. Actually, it is more like a minute and a half to make your spiel and you either connect, or you do not. By one minute you are desperately looking for signs of interest – a 
We’ve talked about several of the tactics used by climate deniers to intentionally mislead the public. This past week provided a prime example of one tactic – intentionally lying about what a study says. Let’s take a closer look at how this works.
