[JR: I have discussed this many times. The answer is EPA could mostly regulate new sources easily, but existing sources only with great difficulty after many years of litigation.]

There are a collection of deniers who specialize in appearing rational while intentionally undermining public understanding of climate change and confusing the hapless media.

The Pielkes, the BTI folks, Lomborg among them. They are especially pernisicous precisely because they have learned to use the rhetorical technique of appearin to embrace the postition they argue against. How much more credible is the argument if it comes from a supporter? How much more acceptable is it?

Think of Marc Antony’s speech in Julius Caesar — he “came to bury Caesar, not to praise him.”

But praise him he did.

And the Pielkes of the word come to accept the science, not to deny it.

But deny it they do. Subtly, skillfully, but that makes them all the more dangerous.

A: THAT’S NOT FUNNY!!!

[Snip.]

[JR: I can't speak to his "sin." I can only report on what the scientific literature and actual observations say. They say he is grossly misleading the public, as RealClimate has shown definitively. Given his background, it is difficult to see how this could be anything other than willful. That makes him a denier by any reasonable definition of the word.

For someone who purportedly wants to replace fossil energy, you hold an odd set of beliefs.]

[JR: I grant that if one just reads as their stuff without actually knowing how cleverly they abuse the science or their long history of intentional ambiguity, they do "seem very reasonable." And they long ago figured out that the best way to get media coverage is to claim to believe in climate science, while spending all of their time slightly eviscerating it and trashing the integrity of all scientists (and others) who tried to explain the real science to the public.

If you don't get that, well, all I can say is that if the nation and the world actually listened to their recommendations -- which are essentially, take no serious action whatsoever to reduce greenhouse gas emissions -- then much of non-populated Australia will indeed turn into a permanent Dust Bowl, and what you folks are experience will become the norm for maybe one third of the habited planet by century's end, or at least that's what the science says.]

Can you cite language in the bill intended to prevent pernicious profiteering? Why must Taibi read the bill when none of the congressmen who voted for it did either?