This thinking so called permeated the clerks at the Court that allowed that ridiculous finding that C0 2 was a pollutant get through this also underlay the phasing out of the incandescent light bulb for less efficient and toxic mercury bulbs and a host of anti competitive measures
Which probably led to the oil spike that popped the subprime bubble

It’s bad but not that bad, $4 to $5/gallon here in the Bay Area where it is usually higher than the rest of the state. Has been stable recently though some new state regulations were supposed to raise it on July 1. Of course would not be surprised if that kicks in and sends it skyrocketing. Maybe Gruesome senses it would not help his Presidential campaign?

TJ:

Great stuff. WUWT just ran Judith Curry’s personal take on the report, including her participation.
_________________________________

This Group was assembled in April. I decided to accept Secretary Wright’s invitation for the following reasons:

–Judith Curry
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/07/30/judith-currys-take-new-climate-assessment-report-from-us-doe/
_________________________________

The group of authors was a real Dream Team. I’ve long had great respect for Judith Curry, whom Scientific American once labeled a “heretic.”

Gasoline is now over $8 per gallon in CA, I’m told. And now, having run all of the refiners out of the state, they have a going-out-of-business refinery they’re desperate to find a willing buyer for. They’re wanting to broker the deal themselves !

I can see a tipping point for this model. I can see out-of-state refiners levying a tariff that encapsulates 100% of the refinery reconfiguration costs for an exotic CA formulation. I can see other states deciding, after all, that they no longer need to burn that formulation – that the actual science tells them there’s no science-supported benefit. Then what happens to CA’s leadership in manufacturing and consumables? $15 gasoline?

Once their manufacturing base is exported, the costs can reasonably be shifted. Let CA own their standards 100%.

Sea level rise: 2 examples – you don’t need a scuba outfit to visit Plymouth Rock. And Ephesus harbor is well inland now.

The 144 page report concludes “that U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays.”

The Climate Working Group producing this report includes John Christy, Roy Spencer, Steven Koonin, Judith Curry, and (from Canada) Ross Mckitrick — all solid senior scientists and anthropogenic climate change skeptics.

“A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate”
SUMMARY:https://www.energy.gov/topics/climate

FULL REPORT LINK at bottom of this page

Maybe. But in the case cited above (Massachusetts v. EPA, 2007) the state of MA was suing the EPA to *force* them to regulate greenhouse gases which at the time the EPA was not doing because it was not written into the law.

I looked into how this case was decided. First, MA’s “standing” to bring suit in the first place was based on its claim that greenhouse gases were reducing the land mass of MA due to rising oceans. Pretty far-fetched. Anyway the five who voted in favor of MA were Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg – two liberals, two “moderate” Republicans and a supposed conservative (Kennedy). The four who dissented were Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. It seems Roberts was more reliably conservative up until the infamous Obamacare decision.

Finally it should be noted the decision did not force the EPA to regulate GHG, but did require the EPA to prove why it should not regulate GHG. By the time that came about (2010) Obama had been elected, undoubtedly that had an influence on their reversal of position.

Here is good coverage: https://www.nasa.gov/earth/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/