EPA to be challenged at SCOTUS over climate change

From Reuters (h/t to reader John)

U.S. justices to hear challenge to Obama on climate change

Tue, Oct 15 11:06 AM EDT

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – In a blow to the Obama administration, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a challenge to part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s first wave of regulations aimed at tackling climate change.

By agreeing to hear a single question of the many presented by nine different petitioners, the court set up its biggest environmental dispute since 2007.

That question is whether the EPA correctly determined that its decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles necessarily required it also to regulate emissions from stationary sources.

The EPA regulations are among President Barack Obama’s most significant measures to address climate change. The U.S. Senate in 2010 scuttled his effort to pass a federal law that would, among other things, have set a cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

More..

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE99E0GB20131015?irpc=932

About these ads

111 thoughts on “EPA to be challenged at SCOTUS over climate change

  1. The EPA regulations are among President Barack Obama’s most significant measures to address climate change.

    No… they’re among his most naked attempts to pander to the Democrat Party base.

  2. LeeHarvey says:
    October 15, 2013 at 10:45 am

    No… they’re among his most naked attempts to pander to the Democrat Party base.

    I’d go one further and quote the politician (whose name I cannot remember) in saying that the reason is the way it will generate the largest revenue stream ever for government.

  3. Nine people stand between America and destruction of the Constitution. Who will not cave in, that’s the question.

  4. Seems an excessively narrow focus. If CO2 is a “pollutant” that can be regulated in motor vehicles by EPA, as the Court seems to have ruled earlier, then of course that same pollutant can be regulated from stationary sources. EPA regulates both mobile and stationary sources now for emissions of particles, CO, NO2, etc., although the form of the regulations differs (e.g., mg/km driven for mobile sources vs. mg/kg burned from stationary sources). If the basic definition as a regulatable pollutant is allowed to stand, then it will be hard to argue that the pollutant is different somehow when emitted by stationary rather than mobile sources. Still, with the 5 conservatives there, they may be able to come up with a solution that will save the coal plants.

  5. If I was crazy I would look at how Europe has been wrecking their economies with stupid decisions based on the nefarious AGW scheme and look at how Obama is trying to establish the similar economy wrecking mechanisms and wonder who is pulling the strings of these idiots to wreck the western world’s power. Maybe China has perfected a form of mind control or then again maybe some people are just stupid money and power grabbers.

  6. I’m astonished. Glad I didn’t make any wagers against this, because at one point in the fairly recent past I recall I was confident enough to!

  7. From several paragraphs in one amicus brief:
    “Finally Massachusetts gives rise to a highly unorthodox consequence: climate change regulation on demand. One endangerment finding having been made, it is hard to see on the theory of EPA and the court below how EPA could decline to regulate in response to pending petitions for greenhouse gas controls from sea to shining sea. The construction of a nationwide regulatory system of unprecedented proportions ought to be left to Congress, not to an agency’s extra statutory, unguided improvisation. ”

    Could not agree more.

  8. elftone says:
    October 15, 2013 at 10:49 am

    I’d go one further and quote the politician (whose name I cannot remember) in saying that the reason is the way it will generate the largest revenue stream ever for government.

    Probably true. Although its kinda like killing the goose to get all of the gold eggs at once. They probably think if the economy gets worse through the higher energy prices that will give them an excuse to spend more and with more poor the Democrats will be in power for ever.

  9. Thirsty says:
    October 15, 2013 at 10:55 am
    SCOTUS should take a mulligan on Massachusetts v. EPA and overturn it.
    ————————————-

    Unfortunately, the linked article specifically indicates they will not revisit Massachusetts v. EPA. No mulligans this time.

  10. I’d like to think this had a chance of working. Seems like everywhere you look are people rabidly going down the green pathway and devil take the hindmost. Too many people out there without a clue as to what the climate data says or why we can’t have stored hydro power across the USA.

  11. I’m afraid Lance Wallace has it right. The difficulty here is that the court routinely defers to the “expert agency” and won’t question the phony science, which is how Massachusetts v. EPA got decided in the agency’s favor. Unless five justices can find some way in which the agency exceeded its authority, its war on carbon will be allowed to proceed.

  12. If C02 can be regulated as a ‘pollutant’, then the EPA would have would have power over people exhaling.

    imo, regulating ‘pollution’ should be limited to particulates and gases which of not part of the planets life cycles

  13. jorgekafkazar says:
    October 15, 2013 at 10:55 am

    Nine people stand between America and destruction of the Constitution. Who will not cave in, that’s the question.

    AMEN! The only cap needed is over D.C.

  14. Lance Wallace says:
    October 15, 2013 at 10:58 am

    Seems an excessively narrow focus. If CO2 is a “pollutant” that can be regulated in motor vehicles by EPA, as the Court seems to have ruled earlier, then of course that same pollutant can be regulated from stationary sources.>/i>

    I think this is a misunderstanding of the previous ruling which was the EPA had the authority to regulate pollutants. SCOTUS stayed away from the argument of whether or not CO2 is a pollutant.

    However, it is now apparent why there was so much pressure to have the AR5 SPM written (weasel worded) in the way that it was. There will now be indecent haste to remove the tabulated ‘extremely unlikely’s from the main body of the report.

  15. Clearly, the EPA has jurisdiction over the Supreme Court justices.

    Each of them is a “mobile source” of CO2.

  16. Eventually, even judges won’t need reader glasses to see the widening gap between settled science and real observations. But they will need a calculator to tally up the outrageous cost of their recalcitrant decision to turn a blind eye on that gap.

    There is precedence of such things eventually being turned around by case law.

    A child with autism used to be removed from a mother’s care because the condition was universally thought to be brought on by cold mothering. That piece of “settled science” was eventually overturned. But not until untold thousands and maybe even tens of thousands of children and mothers were irreparably harmed by “settled science”.

    Fast forward to today. These onerous CO2 regulations, wholly based on quite obvious to the naked eye faulty science, affect ALL of us! Staggering. Just staggering.

  17. …N2 and O2 will be next…then the dreaded dihydrogen monoxide! If the logic is pursued, then the case should be made that anything exhausting should be taxed and regulated. It’s always ok, as long as it is taxed and regulated. Same stream of logic.

  18. jorgekafkazar says:
    October 15, 2013 at 10:55 am

    Nine people stand between America and destruction of the Constitution. Who will not cave in, that’s the question.

    if only it were so – in reality conservative judges vote on the law as they understand it – but democrats vote on the party line as they follow it. Four of the nine votes are pre-determined and independent of law – so the judgement will be made by only five.

  19. I would have preferred the EPA to be questioned on its findings that CO2 is a pollutant in the first place. They claim they have evidence – let’s see it. It’s amazing that no one can ever find that evidence.

  20. If things don’t work out well for the executive orders over carbon dioxide mandate, they could move on to the issue of production of paper and books, water vapor, and electrons. The world is theirs for the taking and the natives just don’t know what lies ahead for them.

  21. The case at hand is about the charter of the EPA when it was first created, and if this charter is violated by regulation of CO2 from stationary sources. Mobile sources such as autos are certainly in the charter. Stationary sources such as power plants are arguably not. “The justices limited their consideration of the new case to one question: whether EPA’s regulation of motor vehicle emissions triggers new permitting requirements for stationary sources as well, such as power plants. Opponents had mounted a broader challenge to all EPA regulations of greenhouse gases.” The cases have been combined off of Texas v. EPA http://www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/releases/2013/041913_texas_v_epa.pdf

  22. Paul Murphy says:
    October 15, 2013 at 11:33 am

    jorgekafkazar says:
    October 15, 2013 at 10:55 am

    Nine people stand between America and destruction of the Constitution. Who will not cave in, that’s the question.

    if only it were so – in reality conservative judges vote on the law as they understand it – but democrats vote on the party line as they follow it. Four of the nine votes are pre-determined and independent of law – so the judgement will be made by only five.

    Is that why we have the obamacare?

  23. I believe it may be called a tailoring rule. I’m not certain, offhand, but the EPA is required to regulate any ‘pollutant’ over a certain specified quantity. The Obama administration, in having the EPA regulate CO2 as a pollutant, would be required by law (not to say they’ve respected that concept in the past) to regulate it far below what EPA is actually willing to. The EPA, under Obama, intended to only go after power plants and large scale industrial emitters by reinterpreting the tailoring rule, but by law, they’re required to go after much smaller sources such as schools, hospitals, even bakeries, if they’re willing to call out CO2 as a pollutant. Let’s see if the SCOTUS holds them to the letter of the law. They should because from a legal standpoint there’s technically no way around it. Then you’ll hear howls of protest from all its supporters when they too, face the absurdities of this administration.

  24. “… N2 and O2 will be next…then the dreaded dihydrogen monoxide! ” — highflight

    That’s silly. Everyone knows N2 is harmless. Now O2 is a far more serious pollutant than CO2. If we don’t do something about human driven gardening, the anthropogenic levels will increase until a simple spark can cause the entire atmosphere to combust at once.

    The is settled science based on physics, easily verfied by anyone with access to a gas range. And even infamously responsible for the death of Gus Grissom and the rest of the Apollo 1 astronauts.

  25. “Nine people stand between America and destruction of the Constitution. Who will not cave in, that’s the question.” — jorge

    Not the one of which is sober or familiar with a dictionary.

  26. New Prediction: There will come a day when the dependence on carbon tax revenue is so great it will not be feasible to unwind it, much like the marriage tax penalty or the Alternative Minimum Tax today. And it will be unfeasible to touch it even when the planet cools and CO2 and sea levels fall in lagged fashion. It will be for the children and other great program budget causes that it remains in place.

  27. Now, this one is important. I think the issue itself is a little silly, but the fact is that the real implications of the attack on carbon dioxide go far beyond a half a degree Celcius or even six degrees Celcius.

    The alarmists have attacked the very basis of Life and that needs to be addressed. Everyone who understands the chemical equation of photosynthesis understands that more carbon dioxide means more food and not just for people. What is not commonly understood, not even on this blog, though I have told you over and over and some of you “get it,” is that animal physiology also evolved under conditions of much higher carbon dioxide than today’s. Our bodies require carbon dioxide in the blood as a buffer to maintain a precise pH or we die. We probably have many other needs for carbon dioxide as well, and we just do not know about them, because this has not been studied.

    I have not been able to find as much peer-reviewed science as I would like (hardly any, in fact), but that little shows chicken embryos grow faster if carbon dioxide is allowed to build up around their eggs, and that the rodents with the highest carbon dioxide concentration in their burrows (naked mole rats, 200 times atmosphere) are also the ones that live the longest (19 years versus two or three). The upper limit of carbon dioxide in submarines is 100 times atmosphere. Premature human babies are incubated in 7% carbon dioxide to stimulate their lungs to mature faster. That is 175 times atmosphere. I learned about that from a peer-reviewed article that suggested this may be a bit much and cause eye damage in the infants. The quantities in this paragraph make the hysteria over the atmosphere look utterly ridiculous.

    I would love to communicate such things to the Supremes, and give them an inkling that their personal longevity, right along with everyone else’s, may well depend on increased, not reduced, atmospheric carbon dioxide. I have not received my Koch Brothers money any more than anyone else here, so it is a bit of a challenge to put a presentation together, but I am working on it.

    How does one communicate with the lawyers working on these cases?

  28. “Is that why we have the obamacare?”
    No.
    We have it because the Chief Justice who formerly described his job as one of an umpire (calling balls and strikes) now sees himself as a Chief Justice that must “save” every pitch as a strike.

  29. Jquip says:
    October 15, 2013 at 11:44 am

    ..had O2 been regulated by the EPA and upheld by science court … Gus would have been the first man on the moon…breathing… er ah….standby…adjusting my O2 flow….

  30. Perhaps they may take into account the social costs of people freezing in the dark or going hungry in order to pay their power bills. But I doubt it.

  31. I have not read the record in his case or the 2007 case, but if the record in this case has evidence showing no correlation between CO2 and warming then the Court may find that the 2007 case was discredited by subsequent empirical evidence, and overrule it.. The Court has done it before, most notably in 1954, in Brown v. Board of Education (Separate but equal is not equal)

  32. Tom,
    they will not hear argument on the 2007 case. Only whether EPA is operating outside the boundaries of that decision.

  33. As others have pointed out, the Court usually leans HEAVILY upon precedent, but on occasion SCOTUS has been known to overturn prior and infamously bad rulings:

    *Plessy v. Ferguson
    *The Dred Scott case

    So, there is a glimmer of hope this time that Roberts will have one of his few, lucid days.

    As for me, I’m holding out for the overturn of the two rulings that have led to untold damage to our representative republic:

    *Marbury v. Madison
    *Wickard v. Filburn

  34. I read the Reuters article and frankly find little to be optimistic about, as far as slowing the EPA’s
    march toward higher energy prices and continued economic stagnation. It most likely will take another 10-20 years of steady or cooling temperatures and a big shift in the scientific “consensus”
    to bring the subject up again before SCOTUS for another look at the disastrous 2007 Mass. vs. EPA findings, in light of new evidence.

  35. Considering the specific nature of what this hearing will address, I can see legalities, not science getting all the weight and the court ruling in favor of current EPA agenda and empowering it to enforce.

    Even though there is overwhelming proof of benefits to the biosphere and positive contributions to the vegetative health of our planet, including irrefutable gains in plant growth, crop yields and world food production from CO2…………..this may not matter.

    It could end up just providing the EPA with additional ammunition to regulate CO2 aggressively in any realm it chooses without being challenged.

    CO2 was framed a long time ago by our justice system and got convicted. This does not appear to be a retrial to determine guilt or innocence. ………..more like a determination of what powers that the corrupt judge(s)/(EPA) that convicted CO2 has.to sentence the fraudulently framed gas.

    Right now, the EPA/judges want the death penalty for CO2 and coal fired power plants and has already taken numerous steps to advance that agenda.
    My guess is that the Supreme Court will do like they did in 2007, when they had a split vote, 5 to 4 on CO2 and the EPA the first time. Conservative judges one way, liberal judges the other.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency

    “This case has become notable because of a widespread perception that the truth or falsehood of theories of global warming will be decided by the courts. While this could eventually occur in later proceedings, the questions before the U.S. Supreme Court here were much more narrow, and legal in nature.

    One of several reasons that the EPA Administrator declined to regulate carbon dioxide is uncertainty about whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming. This has attracted great attention to the case. However, the Supreme Court only decided whether the Administrator’s reason is a valid reason within the CAA. The Supreme Court did not explicitly decide if it is true or untrue that man-made carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming, although high-profile comments by Justices during oral argument are likely to affect the public debate.

    The Petitioners argued that scientific uncertainty is not a valid basis for the EPA Administrator to decline to regulate. The question before the Supreme Court “was not whether the causation is true or untrue,” but whether it is a valid reason for the Administrator to not regulate a pollutant”

  36. I suspect the political wind is in favor of more disastrous legislation followed by disastrous bureaucratic rules followed by disastrous fees followed by disastrous economic strife. The political wonks will point to, accuse, and detract from the real disaster…politics as usual.

  37. It might be just a start of many actions against stupidity! The trouble is often law is being translated by policy rather than truth!

  38. I”’m afraid Lance Wallace has it right. The difficulty here is that the court routinely defers to the “expert agency” and won’t question the phony science, which is how Massachusetts v. EPA got decided in the agency’s favor”

    If so clear cut, why did they agree to hear the case? Don’t know much about the workings of the Supreme Court though.

  39. Lady Life Grows — ” What is not commonly understood, not even on this blog, though I have told you over and over …”

    That is a ridiculously awesome set of trivia I’ve neither seen nor even considered before. Many thanks for putting it here. And be sure to keep telling this blog over and over, there’s new folks every day.

  40. @ jorgekafkazar at 10:55 am,

    There are not nine people standing between America and destruction, there is merely one.

    Massachusetts v EPA was decided 5-4, with the liberal Justices in favor while the conservatives opposed. Justice Kennedy provided the deciding vote.

  41. Don’t get excited folks. These are judges appointed by the pres, for the pres. No chance of a win.

  42. pokerguy: “… routinely defers to the “expert agency” and won’t question the phony science, ”

    Sure, doing so would put to much strain on the credibility of the institution itself. For example, that it took the people and States together to delegate legislative authority to the US Congress. But that the US Congress has, and has been allowed by the Judiciary, to simply abrogate that authority and hand it out to every random Joe Sixpack. The right sort of well-bred Joe Sixpacks, mind. The Judiciary would hardly suffer it if Congress handed out the legislative power to every guy with a mullet and Camaro.

    And the attendant problem that laws are supposed to be Necessary and Proper to carrying out Congress’ permitted powers. But the Judiciary can’t acknowledge that they’ve defined ‘Necessary and Proper’ as ‘because.’ Or, as it stands right now, you couldn’t randomly rip half the pages out of the Federal Register and fail to remove one thing specified in the Constitution.

    At this point, the only cover they have left is the same one Congress has been using. Shift the burden and blame to someone else. So when people complain they can take an Alfred E. Neuman stance of “What, me worry? They’re experts.” And when it all goes sideways they can blame the experts for the Judiciary failing to exhibit any competency at their job.

  43. I expect the warmists in power are rubbing their hands with glee at this freebie. SCOTUS will confirm the CO2 is indeed as wicked as claimed and we will have legal as well as scientific authority that we are all going to hell in a handcart. Evidence be damned.

  44. That is a very narrow question. This is an obscure legal procedural technical issue and not anything of substance. If the EPA loses it will simply make a separate finding about power plants – easily defensible since CO2 molocules don’t know where they came from and it has already declared CO2 to be harmful when emitted from cars.

  45. Jquip says:
    October 15, 2013 at 1:06 pm

    This comment is offensive and not characteristic of regulars on this blog.

  46. So, then how does one force the technical argument that CO2 does not cause the harm it has been ascribed?

  47. Let’s clear one thing up. The Supreme Court NEVER ruled CO2 is a pollutant. The court ruled the EPA had the power to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act — if the EPA desired to do so. The court did not order the EPA to regulate CO2.

  48. Tim Walker says:
    October 15, 2013 at 10:58 am
    If I was crazy I would look at how Europe has been wrecking their economies with stupid decisions based on the nefarious AGW scheme and look at how Obama is trying to establish the similar economy wrecking mechanisms and wonder who is pulling the strings of these idiots to wreck the western world’s power. Maybe China has perfected a form of mind control or then again maybe some people are just stupid money and power grabbers.

    One of the many dirty little secrets plebes and proles like us aren’t supposed to know is the American economy used to be the envy of the European national leaders. They would have killed to have our economic growth, our tax base, our unemployment levels. But instead of bringing them up to our standards, we have brought ourselves down to theirs.

    This is no accident. The cabal in power doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, they don’t want America to stand above any other nation. They want a multi-polar world and they think it’s fundamentally unfair that our people have it so good while so many others aren’t as well off.

    I’m torn between conflicting beliefs. Is Obama deliberately destroying the economy or is he just clueless?*

    * Technically, this isn’t really an either/or question. These progressives are enamored with theory and ideology. Reality and results don’t get past the pinko-colored glasses they’re looking through.

  49. A.D. Everard says:
    October 15, 2013 at 11:36 am

    I would have preferred the EPA to be questioned on its findings that CO2 is a pollutant in the first place. They claim they have evidence – let’s see it. It’s amazing that no one can ever find that evidence.

    =============================================================
    I might be wrong here but didn’t the court rule that, under the clean air act, the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 if it is a pollutant? That the problem is that the EPA declared it was without needing to prove it was? And no one is requiring them to prove anything?

  50. “The Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990, requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR part 50) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act established two types of national air quality standards. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.” (http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html)
    The US Supreme Court ruled in April, 2007 that EPA had the authority to regulate the emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended. The Supreme Court decision was based on the potential endangerment which could be caused by climate change driven by CO2 and other GHG emissions, rather than on direct human endangerment resulting from exposure to these gases.
    EPA issued an Endangerment Finding regarding greenhouse gases in December, 2009. (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html) The language reproduced above states that EPA must now set an NAAQS for CO2 as well as the other listed greenhouse gases. The contemporaneous EPA Cause or Contribute Finding was limited to new motor vehicles, though they are obviously not the only sources of CO2 and other GHG emissions of concern. For example, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO) has determined that “the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport.” (http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html)
    EPA has already been petitioned to set the NAAQS for CO2 at 350 ppm. (http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/global_warming_litigation/clean_air_act/pdfs/Petition_GHG_pollution_cap_12-2-2009.pdf) Dr. James Hansen of NASA-GISS and others assert that 350 ppm is the maximum safe atmospheric concentration of CO2. This assertion is based on the outputs of climate models, rather than on any rigorous experimental demonstration of endangerment. EPA could elect to set the NAAQS at some other atmospheric concentration.
    Fortunately, the NAAQS process includes an “escape hatch” for exceedances resulting from “pollution” from non-state sources, including non-US sources such as China and India. Unfortunately, each US state would have to comply with the NAAQS, with the exception of “pollution” from non-state sources, even in the face of continuing increases in emissions from those non-state sources.
    An NAAQS set at 350 ppm would arguably require not only the total elimination of CO2 emissions by each US state, but also the installation of facilities deemed capable of reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations by ~40 ppm below current levels during the compliance period. Presumably, the capacity of the US facilities to remove existing CO2 from the atmosphere would be limited to the capacity to remove CO2 from “state sources”.
    Historic NAAQS compliance periods have been less than 10 years. A similar compliance period for CO2 would make the “83% by 2050″ touted by the Obama Administration pale in comparison. This would be the case, not only because the required investments would have to be made over an extremely compressed time frame, but also because many potential technologies, which might have become economically viable both for producing energy without CO2 emissions and for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, would likely not be commercially available during the dramatically shortened compliance time frame.
    Regardless, absent a dramatic change of course by the developing world, the actual atmospheric concentration of CO2 would continue to increase, though arguably at a somewhat slower rate than would otherwise have occurred. That means that an NAAQS set at 350 ppm could not possibly be achieved in reality without rapid and coordinated action by all of the nations of the globe to both halt current emissions and to install and operate facilities to remove CO2 already in the atmosphere. The discussions at COP 15 in Copenhagen in December, 2009 suggest that such action is highly unlikely, absent some cataclysmic event(s).
    The International Energy Agency (IEA) has estimated that the investment required to stabilize atmospheric carbon concentrations at ~450 ppm by 2050 would be ~$45 trillion over and above the business as usual scenario; and, could be more than double that amount if technology advances do not occur as rapidly as they project. (http://www.iea.org/techno/etp/fact_sheet_ETP2008.pdf) The investments required to stabilize atmospheric carbon concentrations at ~350 ppm by 2050 are not estimated, but would certainly be more than $100 trillion, since the emissions reductions required would double and additional investments would be required to remove carbon already in the atmosphere. A dramatically shortened compliance time frame would increase these investments significantly.
    I remain convinced that the ultimate intent of the AGW CO2 “mitigation” effort is the total elimination of anthropogenic carbon emissions. Should EPA actually establish an NAAQS for carbon dioxide at a concentration at or below ~400 ppm, that intent would be confirmed; and, the timeframe for compliance would be dramatically shortened compared with the timeframes contemplated in the various House and Senate bills proposed in the US.
    The FACT that the atmospheric concentration would not actually be stabilized at that level, since accomplishing that is clearly beyond the capability of the US, would have no bearing on EPA’s enforcement of the NAAQS. The only advantage of an NAAQS which is clearly unachievable in reality would be its susceptibility to being overturned by the courts, which still appear to retain the ability, if not the willingness, to separate fantasy from reality.

  51. Here is a taste of the intellectual prowess of PuffHost folks from the same basic article -

    Global warming……………………….the greatest manufactured crisis EVER.
    Permalink | Share it
    This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program photo
    Lavafalls
    In search of the unmoderated thread
    4196 Fans
    25 minutes ago ( 4:30 PM)
    Well, it was manufactured by man’s pollution of this planet.
    Permalink | Share it
    photo
    sean62965
    Do you really need my “micro-bio”?
    757 Fans
    25 minutes ago ( 4:30 PM)
    Based on all your knowledge? Or, Koch funded studies? At least base your opinion on the facts instead of your political leanings.

    Mr. Watts, there you go again with your funding from big oil….

  52. Speaking of “dangerous” CO2, my wife recently had a physical, and one of the ninety gazillion questions on the form was whether we had “CO2 detector”. I kid you not. Furthermore, during the exam, when going over the questions the LPN did not seem to know the difference between CO2 and CO, though she finally admitted they meant CO.

  53. Ian W says:
    October 15, 2013 at 11:19 am

    However, it is now apparent why there was so much pressure to have the AR5 SPM written (weasel worded) in the way that it was. There will now be indecent haste to remove the tabulated ‘extremely unlikely’s trom the main body of the report.

    I suspect the AGU’s recent alarmist finding was intended to sway SCOTUS.

  54. more solyent green — “The court did not order the EPA to regulate CO2.”

    Strictly true, sure. But that’s the blame game. Congress pushes it on the Executive. The Executive pushes it on the Judiciary. The Judiciary pushes it on scientists. And scientists can’t push it on reality, as reality pushes right back. So they push it on manufactured reality produced by people jiggering the instruments. Stating all the while that “Science cannot be denied!”

    If and when that comes for a reckoning the instrument jiggerers state: “Science is never right or wrong as such. It is a self-correcting process that attempt to better approximate reality by jiggering instruments. Every fool knows this as they were taught this in the government curricula in government schools.” Pushing it onto the teachers.

    The teachers take hearty note and blame the voters for being too ignorant to make an informed choice about the better candidate. And suggest that if you wish to make better choices, perhaps you should learn something. Have you tried attending a government university?

    It’s all enough to get a face palm out of Kafka’s corpse.

  55. Gee whiz America, what has happened to you? Once you let a government get the kind of control and expanded revenues that go with it, the impoverishment of the economy that follows leads to more control and an ever shifting leftward of the political spectrum. Soon, the government becomes the largest sector and most of the population comes to rely on it for its ‘wellbeing’. When they spout the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, they don’t tell you that once they choke out the productive sector, the expanding poor become even poorer and more reliant on the state.

    I’ve been a supporter of gun control when seeing that most of gun use has been citizens illegally shooting citizens for no good purpose. I’ve argued that the amendment envisioned the right as affording protection to the state after the excellent performance of the militia during the American Revolution, and that it was an anachronism in today’s USA with its mighty military. Is there a greater wisdom behind the second after all ?

  56. It will be a tough fight. Liberals run:

    * The media
    * Hollywood
    * Education, Kindergarten through College
    * The banks
    * The Democratic party
    * 2/3s of the Republican party
    * Most major corporations (GE, Comcast, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook, etc.)

    The strongest defense citizens have against being forced to choose to pay for electric or food is the fact that if Obama and company actually got their way it would cripple the Democratic party for decades.

    That’s a major reason cap and trade failed 6 months *before* climategate, even though the Dems had supermajorities in both houses and held the White House.

  57. Let’s hope that those legal savants don’t decide that H2O is also a dangerous GHG, even more powerful and scary than that evil CO2, and needs to be regulated by the EPA, sequestered, taxed, etc.

  58. Gary Pearse: ” Is there a greater wisdom behind the second after all ?”

    No more nor less than any insurance policy. Though to put it back on topic we ought argue it in the Pascal’s Wager of modern science. Every society trends towards anthropogenically induced tyranny. This is destructive not only of human rights and dignity, but of the environment and bounty of nature. Therefore we must pass legislation to recuce anthropegnic legislation. This is settled science with a high consensus amongst Historiians and Poli Sci types.

    So much so that science deniers should be taken out and shot.

  59. milodonharlani says:
    October 15, 2013 at 2:15 pm

    Lady Life Grows says:
    October 15, 2013 at 11:49 am

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101114255

    “But a lawyer for some of the business groups involved in the case said the court issued a more sweeping ruling.

    “Read in sense, it arguably opens the door to whether EPA can regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources at all,” said Roger Martella, a partner with the Sidley, Austin law firm in Washington.”

  60. @Jay Davis says:
    October 15, 2013 at 1:43 pm

    “If the court rules the EPA can regulate CO2 from stationary plants, what is next for the EPA -requiring us all to wear CO2 filtering masks?”
    ===========================================================
    Nah… we’ll all be OK so long as we keep walking and don’t stand still.
    .
    .
    .
    I haven’t seen any recent news of UFO sightings. I’m guessing the aliens have moved on to other galaxies as there is obviously no intelligent life on earth… nothing but a species of highly evolved bureaucratium parasitus who will soon die out after bleeding the hosts dry. Move along, aliens, warp 11. Nothing to see here.
    .
    .
    .
    It is incredible that we have come to the point of even having this discussion, let alone spending multi-millions of dollars just to waste the Supreme Court’s time. (By golly! The warmists might just be right. We really are doomed.)

  61. Theo Goodwin says:

    Jquip says:
    October 15, 2013 at 1:06 pm

    This comment is offensive and not characteristic of regulars on this blog.

    I almost always agree with Theo’s comments. But I did not find Jquip’s post offensive. In fact, I will probably steal his comment:

    The Judiciary would hardly suffer it if Congress handed out the legislative power to every guy with a mullet and Camaro.

    That one’s a keeper! ☺

  62. jorgekafkazar says:
    October 15, 2013 at 10:55 am

    Nine people stand between America and destruction of the Constitution. Who will not cave in, that’s the question.

    ====

    don’t kid yourself. I give you 99-1 odds that you can successfully predict the votes of Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer right now. I give you 70-30 odds that you can successfully predict the votes of Alito, Scalia, and Thomas right now. So, if I am right, the decision is going to come down to 2 people not 9.

  63. The EPA, under the direction of the Obama administration, seeks to regulate CO2 under the provisions of the Clean Air Act. One of the original authors of that act, John Dingel, congressional rep. from Michigan, stated quite clearly, after the EPA indicated its intention to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, that the CAA was never intended for that kind of purpose. That’s the potential straw that breaks the EPA’s camel’s back if its opponents are willing to hold their noses and use it.

    I’m not certain what the maximum volume of a pollutant is before the CAA
    kicks in and the EPA is required to regulate it. Just for sake of argument let me speculate that it’s 25 tons. Now CO2 is not really a pollutant in the classic sense of the word so that 25 tons (?) proves to be a very low threshold to hold it to. That is the Achilles heel for the EPA: Heck, animal life releases more CO2 in toto than industry. Because the 25 ton (?) threshold – as required by law in the CAA – would’ve been so onerous it would’ve forced the EPA to regulate, literally, thousands if not tens of thousands of sources (including office buildings, farms, schools, hospitals, churches, and so on), the EPA chose to rewrite the law, calling it, I believe, the EPA’s tailoring rule. They tailored the law to only restrict sources exceeding – I’m speculating here again – 250 tons annually, which only would’ve involved large industrial sources such as coal fueled power plants and others.

    From a legal standpoint that is, as stated, the Achilles heel for the EPA. They can enforce a law written by Congress, they can interpret it, but they CAN’T REWRITE IT. That should be the principal argument before the SCOTUS. Federal agencies are not allowed to legislate: In our Constitutional system only elected representatives are.

    It sounds counter productive: arguing that the EPA is not sufficiently enforcing their own onerous interpretation of a law but that’s how you strike the stake through its heart, and the legal argument is solid. For the EPA to selectively enforce its interpretation of the Clean Air Act is not only illegal, it’s discriminatory. It must be argued that they must enforce the 25 ton (?) rule.

    Think about that. The NCAR’s computer facility in Wyoming will probably get clobbered; Hollywood will get hit hard; I’ll bet even some of those mansions won’t be in compliance; Oprah can relinquish her private jet; Travolta can relinquish all five of his; Obama’s campaign VoiceOver, Morgan Freeman, can say goodbye to his too; Gore can give up the highlife; Air Force One can fall under scrutiny particularly in regards to its Bermuda, Idaho, and Hawaii vacation use; the DOE can reconsider its 15,000 vehicles; and the schools that teach AGW can learn the true ABC’s of AGW; the Universities can learn their’s too. The list is endless. And it’s exactly the kind of tactic Obama, having learned from his community organizing days, is well versed at. Make your opponent live by his very own creed, and watch them howl when they have to. That’s how you defeat them – with the very own trump cards they’ve given you. A lowly two can beat an Ace. The EPA’s deliberately letting them off the hook. Draw your trump – pull their Ace.

  64. Ed Reid says:
    October 15, 2013 at 1:51 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/15/epa-to-be-challenged-at-scotus-over-climate-change/#comment-1449001

    ===================================================================
    Thank you.
    I seem to recall that a law was passed that required EPA regs to pass a review by a scientific body. (Which was why the water in Ohio didn’t need to be tested for an herbicide only used on pineapples in Hawaii.) Maybe the law has been rescinded or the scientific body ignored or hijacked? Again, I’m asking, not implying. (Although the implication is there. 300 lbs canary stuff.)

  65. Whatever method was used to get Roberts to agree that a fine is a tax, and a tax originating in the Senate is legal, will be the same method to get Roberts to agree that we are heading into world catastrophe, that the earth will melt in 100 years, and the EPA has carte blanche to do what it wants.

  66. Seems to me its not about what the Supreme Court says, as much as the extent the Supreme Being will listen and abide by it. There are many routes around a stubborn root, even if that root is known as freedom. One way or the other, US EPA will have its way over the rest of us.

  67. Gunga Din: “I seem to recall that a law was passed that required EPA regs to pass a review by a scientific body.”

    Assume that’s true. Now assume that Climatology is a science.

  68. Who knows what the ruling of SCOTUS will be. Probably will see some of the Justices sticking their fingers in the air, to see which way the winds of public opinion are blowing. (Sigh)

  69. The whole agw crusade more and more reminds me of Atlas Shrugged. Maybe it will take an all out crash and burn before we come to our senses again.

  70. Tom J: “From a legal standpoint that is, as stated, the Achilles heel for the EPA.”

    From a logical standpoint. From a legal standpoint you can get away with anything as long as you hide your sophistries behind enough poetry about penumbras emanating from a contradiction. Or a thorough trip through the Humpty Dumpster redefining words.

    But the real trick is to start with a sophistry as the premises and then extend it with further sophistries to the conclusion. Keeps the uncritical or motivated well in the land of Oz. The both of whom are convinced that clear thinkers are completely daft when the original sophistries are pointed out. After all, it’s settled law.

  71. Gunga Din says:
    October 15, 2013 at 1:48 pm
    =============================================================
    I might be wrong here but didn’t the court rule that, under the clean air act, the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 if it is a pollutant? That the problem is that the EPA declared it was without needing to prove it was? And no one is requiring them to prove anything?

    *

    Sounds about right, Gunga Din. I keep thinking, all it would take would be ONE judge to say, “What is all this evidence that CO2 is a danger and that it’s forcing the world to heat up? There must be plenty of evidence as it is quoted everywhere. I would like to see that evidence. Show it to me.”

    I would like more people right across the board to ask for evidence. It will come, but right now I’m dreaming and I know it. In the future, though, when we look back on this event, the big surprising/shocking thing will be that very point – that no one in authority thought to ask to see the evidence (not counting those pesky evil skeptics of course).

    Right now those in authority are trying hard not to reveal their ignorance (it’s difficult to stand up and say, “I don’t know – show me” when all around you seems up-to-date with the news and are pretending knowledge). But this is all getting so ridiculous now. People are waking up to it and getting angry. Politicians everywhere would be wise to see this and begin climbing down before fury takes charge of the mob.

  72. Jquip says:
    October 15, 2013 at 3:44 pm

    Gunga Din: “I seem to recall that a law was passed that required EPA regs to pass a review by a scientific body.”

    Assume that’s true. Now assume that Climatology is a science.
    =============================================================
    I’m not ready to assume that until it has been proven to be science and not politics. The models don’t bode well for the CO2-based science. CO2-based politics has done better than is good for any of us.

  73. I doubt that the elite Supremes in their Washington world have much knowledge of the real world or of the effect of their rulings. Thus, I see little room for optimisim.

  74. Could be better if the EPA wins in the long run. If the EPA is overruled then they will try to push this through congress which will become a bigger issue with every politician having to take a public stance. Politicians will just go with whatever’s popular because politicians want votes which means more alarmists get elected.

    At this point the issue is so big we need to let the news sink in slowly. As it is most people and politicians simply don’t care, and those that know its junk science are under the radar. We may need to follow Australia’s example and elect someone President in a few years (after even more papers show the science as junk and sensitivity low) and let him quietly dismantle the whole CO2 regulation business while this issue fades away.

  75. Everard: “I would like more people right across the board to ask for evidence.”

    They’ve been asking, and the evidence is routinely shown. That is, the sheep knuckles thrown by the ensemble mean of the models. Now we can be a bit Neanderthal and state that it should be empirically demonstrated utility and validity of the fortune telling all we like.

    But that’s not part of practical science anymore. And really cannot be unless you’re willing to discard a huge numbers of theories and research subjects. Which is, perhaps, the greatest ignorance in wedding the law to science. When philosophers of science state that unproven and unprovable, even unmeasurable, notions are science if scientists simply like the notion. (Formalized by Popper, but goes back earlier.) then ‘science’ is completely indistinguishable from Random Religion A. It’s a bunch of people that like some idea, but aren’t terribly concerned with that whole ‘proof’ idea.

  76. Does anyone have the links to the specific public documentation associated with this case?

    I would really like to read the complaint for specifics of subject matter.

    We would know better if climate science is on a precipice or not. Just remember the ruling that was not expected from the Obamacare case. The rule of law does not follow perception/expectation sometimes.

    It is not often that this type of thing gets challenged at this level. 6 years running, no?

    The ramifications could be very significant to the future of policy and the science associated with such. Exposure may be at hand.

    I know there are many legal professionals who visit this site. Step up and share! :-}

  77. “Maybe China has perfected a form of mind control…”

    “Manchurian Candidate” starring Frank Sinatra & Lawrence Harvey.
    The movie was banned from being shown on TV for many years, after JFK’s assassination.

  78. shenanigans24 says:
    October 15, 2013 at 4:25 pm

    ——————————-

    The EPA is not elected. They don’t get their approvals via congress for new regulations that I know of… They answer to nobody but the courts on policy and regulations. They are currently implementing a form of cap and trade that is pushing up energy costs via a pollution status of CO2 ,essentially on their own as directed by the Whitehouse.

    Activism via regulation. IMHO

  79. “Activism via regulation. IMHO”

    When you’re talking about law, punishment and sin taxes, based on anti-empirical notions of virtue, vice, and various apocalyptic scenarios? You’re talking about the establishment of a state religion by some no name department housed in the broom closet next to the boys room.

  80. The EPA regulations are among President Barack Obama’s most significant measures to address climate change.

    No,

    The EPA regulations are among the totalitarian elites’ most significant measures to gain control over … almost everything… where “elites” is a relatively small set of ego and power driven individuals … that does not include the elite wannabes, the bureaucratic (do what gets me a promotion) tools, and certainly not the army of absolutely ill informed emotive propaganda targeted useful idiots who too often are your next door neighbors…

  81. Lance Wallace says:
    October 15, 2013 at 10:58 am
    You wrote: “If the basic definition as a regulatable pollutant is allowed to stand, then it will be hard to argue that the pollutant is different somehow when emitted by stationary rather than mobile sources.”
    ++++++++++++++
    By the good logic you present, all 320 million people in this country must be regulated. That is, there must be a limit to exercise… it drastically increases the CO2 we breath out, same with taking walks, singing… and everything we do including sleep. Fatter people are net stores of CO2 and so, we need reward people who gain weight and therefore sequester that dreaded pollutant from the air. Do I really need a sarc tag here?

  82. As Daniel Yergin wrote today in the Wall Street Journal:

    Despite enormous growth in the U.S. economy since 1973, oil consumption today is up less than 7%.

    The crisis also set the stage for the emergence of new importers that have growing weight in the global oil market. In 1973, most oil was consumed in the developed economies of North America, Western Europe and Japan—two thirds as late as 2000. But now oil consumption is flat or falling in those economies, and virtually all growth in demand is in developing economies, now better known as “emerging markets.” They represent half of world oil consumption today, and their share will continue to increase. Exporting countries will increasingly reorient themselves to those markets. Last month, China overtook the U.S. as the world’s largest net importer of oil.

  83. OssQss says:

    “The EPA is not elected. They don’t get their approvals via congress for new regulations that I know of… They answer to nobody but the courts on policy and regulations. They are currently implementing a form of cap and trade that is pushing up energy costs via a pollution status of CO2 ,essentially on their own as directed by the Whitehouse.

    Activism via regulation. IMHO”

    I’m aware, but if they lost then Obama would try to push the regulation through Congress where it would be legal.

  84. “EPA!!! EPA!!! A thousand eyes !!! A twisted tail” EPA!!! EPA!!!” – Grandpa Simpson

    Lady Life Grows. Was moved by your post. The vast majority of people that post here are skilled with language, but that was truly authentic. Well done. Although my approval is irrelevant, I still wish it to be known. Cheers.

  85. Tom Stone says:
    October 15, 2013 at 12:05 pm

    I have not read the record in his case or the 2007 case, but if the record in this case has evidence showing no correlation between CO2 and warming then the Court may find that the 2007 case was discredited by subsequent empirical evidence, and overrule it.. The Court has done it before, most notably in 1954, in Brown v. Board of Education (Separate but equal is not equal)

    Let’s say the Plateau continues for 100 more years. It’s certain that the Court will find that the 2007 case was discredited by subsequent empirical evidence, and overrule it.
    Ditto if it continues 50 more years.
    Ditto if it continues 25 more years.
    Very likely if it continues 12 more years.
    Maybe if it continues 6 more years.

    If it noticeably cools during those periods, the tipping point would be even closer.

  86. See the amicus curiae brief for the plaintiffs in the suit against the EPA at the CFACT website.

    @more soylent green -

    Obama isn’t clueless – he IS setting out deliberately to destroy the economy.

    Obama is determined to establish a one-party dictatorship and crush the Republican Party altogether. This is why he is being so stubborn about Obamacare – it’s a crucial part of the infrastructure he intends to use to exercise dictatorial powers (the other legs of this are the IRS, NSA and EPA). It also explains his war on coal and on cheap energy in general. As others here have pointed out, controlling carbon is controlling every detail of people’s lives

    Obama often comes across as an airhead, but that’s part of his strategy, to lull opponents into thinking he’s weak. Hitler thought and operated the same way. Obama’s tactics closely parallel Hitler’s: lying shamelessly and repeatedly; intimidating political opponents, making law without the legislature; manipulating elections (intimidation by his IRS against the Tea Party is what “won” him the 2012 election); creating an artificial crisis – the government shutdown, much like Hitler’s Reichstag fire; and ordering people killed without trial (four American terror suspects and several of their family members, including children, executed by drone strikes).

    Obama, like Hitler, is driven by deep-seated hatreds and similarly lacks inhibitions concerning acting on those hatreds. His creed is Jeremiah Wright’s “God damn America,” and he is acting on it. He knows full well that his agenda will destroy the country, and that is exactly what he wants.

    The loss of jobs and working hours due to Obamacare is NOT an unintended consequence – it was foreseen and calculated, and is a key part of Obama’s scheme to destroy the middle class, to reduce it to poverty and dependency. Another part of this is the grossly excessive premiums (which actually are mostly taxes, not going to care providers) and deductibles in Obamacare, which will take huge bites out of people’s incomes.

    And of course there is his energy policy – the sky-high electricity prices he boasts of achieving, and high energy costs generally, will reduce many from middle class to poor, both directly and by killing millions of jobs. He throws his billionaire crony capitalist buddies like George Soros and Jeffrey Immelt the bones of profiting from “renewable” energy, just as Hitler let Krupp and I.G.Farben keep their monopolies in Germany.

    If he isn’t stopped I believe it is possible that Obama may soon do things like issuing executive orders to shut down Fox News, the climate skeptic blogs like WUWT, and other dissidents. I believe he might attempt to cancel the 2014 elections and declare himself president for life, like Chavez did in Venezuela. He is certain to have studied closely what Chavez did. And it is clear to me that neither the courts – especially the Supreme Court – nor Congress have the will to put a stop to him.

    I hope like hell that I’m wrong about all of this.

  87. OssQss says:
    October 15, 2013 at 8:07 pm

    Does anyone remember seeing this?

    He is honest in this example, for once.

    When it’s good news, Obama is lying. When it’s bad news, Obama is telling the truth.

    What you REALLY have to worry about is all that stuff he’s saying nothing about.

  88. OssQss says:
    October 15, 2013 at 8:07 pm
    Does anyone remember seeing this?
    +++++
    I love showing this to liberals who swear Obama is doing his best to keep down prices of energy. Then I show them the information related to his energy secretary Chu at the time… where he specifically says that the problem is that until we have gasoline prices as high as they are in Europe, Americans will not do the right thing. Uggh! And they still don’t believe me that energy is under attack so that so called renewables would look more palatable.

  89. Lady L. G.,

    – Good information! While it is too late to help those filing the petition for a writ of certiorari or the amicus briefs in support of the petition (they were filed last May or so), you may be able to help with oral argument preparation (or prep. for future cases).

    1. Petitioners: Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc. (website: http://www.southeasternlegal.org/) filed the petition (view here: http://www.southeasternlegal.org/storage/SLF%20et%20al%20v.%20EPA%20SCOTUS%20Petition%20for%20Writ%20of%20Cert%20Filed%204-19-13.pdf)
    Counsels of Record include:
    EDWARD A. KAZMAREK
    KAZMAREK GEIGER & LASETER LLP
    One Securities Center
    3490 Piedmont Road, N.E., Suite 350
    Atlanta, GA 30305
    (404) 812-0839
    Co-Counsel for Southeastern
    Legal Foundation, Inc.

    HARRY W. MACDOUGALD
    CALDWELL & WATSON, LLP
    Two Ravinia Drive, Suite 1600
    Atlanta, GA 30346
    (404) 843-1956
    Co-Counsel for Southeastern
    Legal Foundation, Inc.

    SHANNON LEE GOESSLING
    Counsel of Record
    SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL
    FOUNDATION, INC.
    2255 Sewell Mill Road,
    Suite 320
    Marietta, GA 30062
    (770) 977-2131
    Shannon@southeasternlegal.org
    Counsel for All Petitioners

    STEVEN G. BRADBURY
    DECHERT LLP
    1900 K Street, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20006
    (202) 261-3483
    Co-Counsel for Southeastern
    Legal Foundation, Inc.

    (There are more listed in Petition, but this is just for your convenience)

    2. Go to the SCOTUS site and find out who filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the writ of certiorari by Southeastern in this case. On the first page or so, the attorney of record’s name and address are given.

    3. CFACT was one of the amicus curiae brief filers:

    In May, CFACT submitted a brief in support of the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari. Read CFACT’s legal brief here – See more at:

    http://www.cfact.org/2013/10/15/supreme-court-accepts-challenge-to-epa-emissions-regulations/#sthash.T6c0kEqr.dpuf

    From the CFACT brief, the attorney of record’s information:

    Paul D. Kamenar
    Counsel of Record
    1629 K Street, N.W., Suite 300
    Washington, D.C. 20006
    (202) 603-5397
    paul.kamenar@gmail.com

    *******************************
    I hope this answered your question to the point that you (and others from WUWT, too!) be able to get your powerful facts and excellent research to the attorneys as you said you wished to do.

  90. Here is a reprint of my mock interview with (former) Energy Secretary Steven Chu:
    Tongue in cheek, but I think it captures the essence . . . .

    WOZNIAK: Mr. Secretary, how will your proposal to raise gasoline prices to $10 a gallon benefit low-income Americans?
    CHU: It will save the planet for their grandchildren.
    WOZNIAK: But Mr. Secretary, a lot of low-income people are raising their grandchildren right now and just barely getting by. If these grandparents have to pay so much for gasoline, how will they be able to afford to feed their grandchildren and heat and light their homes?
    CHU: Uh, the price of eggs in China is the important issue here. It’s been going up because of global warming.
    WOZNIAK: Mr. Secretary, please answer the question.
    CHU: I did, and you are out of order.

    About says it, methinks – Moniz is no different.

  91. Those who want the courts to adjudicate on scientific arguments should be careful what they wish for. Your average judge is scientifically illiterate. It would not be a good precedent at all. What’s more, you can’t get rid of them at the next election.

    The lower courts have only ruled on the legal powers of the EPA, not the substance of their actions. If the EPA breaches its own rules in how it makes decisions, that is a legitimate matter for them to rule on, but the substance of the decisions is rightly a matter for the EPA and the legislature.

    The only way for the EPA to be reined in is for the legislature to revisit the enabling legislation. Their unwillingness to do so is the real problem here.

  92. Lance Wallace says:
    October 15, 2013 at 10:58 am

    Seems an excessively narrow focus. If CO2 is a “pollutant” that can be regulated in motor vehicles by EPA, as the Court seems to have ruled earlier, then of course that same pollutant can be regulated from stationary sources.

    It might not be of course. Is it possible that EPA properly put it’s vehicle rules in place, but improperly put stationary rules in place?

    The justices limited their consideration of the new case to one question: whether EPA’s regulation of motor vehicle emissions triggers new permitting requirements for stationary sources as well, such as power plants. Opponents had mounted a broader challenge to all EPA regulations of greenhouse gases.”

    The verb “triggers” has me scratching my head. Did EPA assume that their vehicle rule could automatically trigger rules for stationary without proper comment period, documentation, etc?

    Someone else mentioned something about EPA’s charter. Has anyone read the arguments against EPA?

  93. Chad Wozniak says:
    October 15, 2013 at 8:41 pm
    =================

    Dude …… put the cap back on the glue. FFS

  94. One of CFSCT’s three main argument points in its amicus brief is:

    “EPA Impermissibly Failed To Consider The Adverse Impacts That Its Endangerment Decision And Greenhouse Gas Regulations Will Have On Human Health And Welfare, And On Wildlife And The Environment. ”

    This is the issue of failure to do a complete benefit-to-risk assessment; failure to do both risk evaluations and benefit evaluations. The EPA only looked at benefits of restricting CO2 emission from fossil fuel use. This mirrors the IPCC only looking at the risks of not restricting CO2 . Two sides of the same ideological coin used by the activist CAGW movement. The ideological coin has a false ‘a prior’ premise that burning CO2 must be a net harm to the point of eventually being dangerous.

    CFACT is presenting a good point to the SCOTUS. I can only see it bearing on a potential SCOTUS concern that such failure to evaluate risks of restricting CO2 means the EPA actions have been the result of a fundamental lack of constitutionally required congressional oversight on such government bodies. By oversight I mean direct explicit hands-on oversight.

    Why did SCOTUS decide to take the case? That is the most important question to me. Is taking this case a warning flare that signals to BIG government proponents that things have gone too far? I do not know.

    John

  95. It’s possible the court is going to hear this issue as it relates to existing plants and the enforcement as a taking of assets unjustifiably.

  96. @Chad Wozniak says: October 15, 2013 at 8:41 pm

    I really agree with you. How could anybody be that clueless? Just look at his background. Who were his fellow travelers during college and beyond. Marxists, communists, and various other assorted radicals — socialists all. You can tell a lot about a man by the company who chooses to keep and those he seeks out as friends.

    We have a dangerous radical in the White House and we should all be very, very afraid.

  97. @TomR,Worc,MA,USA -
    Your insult is very revealing of your character, or rather lack thereof – and places you squarely in the camp of a fascist dictator.

  98. John Whitman says:
    October 16, 2013 at 7:45 am

    This is the issue of failure to do a complete benefit-to-risk assessment; failure to do both risk evaluations and benefit evaluations. The EPA only looked at benefits of restricting CO2 emission from fossil fuel use. This mirrors the IPCC only looking at the risks of not restricting CO2 . Two sides of the same ideological coin used by the activist CAGW movement. The ideological coin has a false ‘a prior’ premise that burning CO2 must be a net harm to the point of eventually being dangerous.

    This is what I was thinking.

    Does anyone think that a “50 to 1 Project” type of analysis can be used in this case? Seriously, it seems like someone can generate some economic risk numbers associated with restricting CO2. Maybe the economic costs that Germany is now experiencing in having to reverse their trend of their energy infrastructure?

  99. johanna has it right. Lawyers should not attempt to
    do science. When they do attempt to do science, they sound ridiculous–
    think of a cow attempting to play the violin.

Comments are closed.