After all the caterwauling from Hansen about coal “death trains”, and his defense of criminal mischief at a power plant in the UK, this is a real “mud in your eye” moment and an affirmation that no one industry can be singled out as a scapegoat for global warming, climate change, climate disruption.
The supremes have spoken:
Supreme Court rejects climate nuisance suits
The Supreme Court today unanimously rejected the effort by some states to sue utilities for greenhouse gas emissions on the basis of the nuisance doctrine, holding that the Clean Air Act pre-empts federal common law.
…
In our favor, SCOTUS did say that the EPA could refuse to regulate GHGs as long as the refusal is not arbitrary and capricious. So skeptics will take today’s win and work toward the next (non-Obama) administration rolling back the endangerment finding.
Click here for the Court opinion in AEP v. Connecticut.
Full story at junkscience.com
This WUWT post by Indur Goklany is also worth reviewing:
U.S. Life Expectancy in an Era of Death Trains and Death Factories
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Common sense prevails, how peculiar
Amongst us attorneys, this was a loser case from the getgo. The only interesting point is the degree to which the environmental activist law groups have abandoned the environment for political nonsense. There are plenty of federal tort actions they could take with regard to water quality and fisheries and actual harm to not merely ecosystems, but productive systems upon which mankind relies. Those cases, however, don’t result in central planning and control of our lives. Thus those of us who actually care about the environment will take them up while the wealthy birkenstock boys play political games.
Since correlation is usually causation, we need a nice graph showing the growth in use of coal matched to increases in lifespan. So then we can rename them “Life Trains”. And sue Hansen into penury for interfering with them.
The decision finally defines who the opponent is, the EPA, and makes it easier to corral the discussion.
Good. Another victory for commonsense in the courts.
Glad we have 3 branches of government. Now if we can hit the brakes on the EPA, things may improve.
David Schnare says:
June 20, 2011 at 10:27 am
Good to hear this. Maybe, eventually, things can go slooowly back to normal. But there is a problem; All the children, being brainwashed at school, day in, day out. One day, some of them will be lawyers, politicians, teachers…. I guess it will die out exponentially, like everything else in nature does, when the forcing is gone…..
tallbloke – this is largely the same court that ruled that CO2 is a pollutant, so don’t assume common sense will prevail every time.
Instead of worrying about Death Trains, Mr. Hansen should be worried about what he is personally doing about the Death of Integrity of Science and Scientists.
Because his brand of climate scientology is devastating to real science and scientists everywhere.
It is appalling he does all this on the taxpayer’s dime, representing a government entity.
This is a double edge sword here. The court with this ruling gives the power to the fed to regulate CO2 and takes it away from the states. This in the long run is bad because it says that the feds have the power not the states. When the feds (EPA) rule that CO2 is bad and must be reduced, the states must comply because the feds have the power. Federal CO2 regulation is on the way and the EPA can do this without congressional approval.
Brian Hall says:
June 20, 2011 at 10:28 am
“Since correlation is usually causation, we need a nice graph showing the growth in use of coal matched to increases in lifespan.”
Snicker… okay.
http://i54.tinypic.com/33y19gn.png
(Note, this is a very short period and not a sound correlation… the plot is mostly for amusement value, though it uses real data)
JEM says:
June 20, 2011 at 10:58 am
tallbloke – this is largely the same court that ruled that CO2 is a pollutant, so don’t assume common sense will prevail every time.
Fair point. Hopefully this is a sign of positive change in court attitudes, rather than a ploy to advance the cause as Paul Revere fears. I don’t know much about the US court system, so I’ll butt out and watch.
“EPA could refuse to regulate GHGs as long as the refusal is not arbitrary and capricious.”
But the EPA can choose to regulate GHGs even if the choice is arbitrary and capricious?
“So skeptics will take today’s win and work toward the next (non-Obama) administration rolling back the endangerment finding.”
Nope. The next administration will be Obama (80% odds) or Romney (20% odds.) Both are hard-line Wall Streeters and hard-line Gaians. The chance of a non-Gaian reaching the presidency is exactly zero.
SSam says:
Perhaps a graph plotting power generation against life expectancy would yield a better correlation.
DaveE.
The EPA is a great thing when the regulate actual pollutants, but C02 in the atmosphere will not kill anyone directly. I am for clean drinking water, and safe products.
The problem is that when you hire people to write regulations, that is just what they will do regardless whether the new regulations are connected to either reality or the world as we know it. We are long past the point of diminishing returns with new environmental regulations; maybe 20 years past. Cheers –
Sean Peake says: June 20, 2011 at 10:28 am
The decision finally defines who the opponent is, the EPA, and makes it easier to corral the discussion.
*********************************************************
I would beg to differ. The EPA is only the tool presently being used to subjugate this country. Much like the KGB and the GRU were only the tools used by a much deeper evil.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
It appears the Supreme Court has chosen to extricate itself from this matter by claiming it is a legislative issue and is to be handled by the Environmental Protection Agency. With this ruling they have tossed the hot potato of green house gas emissions out of the judicial branch and over to the auspices of the EPA. Since it was a unanimous decision, it shows the handwriting is on the wall for the demise of CAGW.
From: Whistleblower Outs NASA for Hiding Data of Global Cooling found here:
http://co2insanity.com/2011/06/20/whistleblower-outs-nasa-for-hiding-data-of-global-cooling/
>”A solar scientist insider who wishes to remain anonymous gives us the scoop that government officials are falsifying solar data to suit a political agenda. Below is his damning indictment of how deeply entrenched and desperate is the climate fraud. We see how observational data is being deliberately faked to hide the decline in sunspot activity; an event which independent scientists say could trigger a new ice age if it is prolonged.”<
Death trains. Deniers. It’s obvious that there are powerful malign forces attempting to use the genuine debate over climate science to legitimise Holocaust denial by association. If one uses a term previously reserved for Hitler’s genocide-enabling cattle-trucks to label something that plainly isn’t a deliberate attempt to kill people, it is implied that Hitler never intended the Final Solution; that the Holocaust is a lie.
I am completely [exdel] fed-up with the lefty-liberals who are so easily duped by the neo-Nazis. They have a duty to be less credulous.
At Nottingham Crown Court, where Hansen gave *evidence*: “The defence case also involved climate scientist James Hansen, director of the Nasa Goddard Institute, who told the court the only way to stabilise the climate was to phase out carbon emissions.”
The 20 protestors were found guilty by unanimous verdict
paul revere says:
June 20, 2011 at 11:10 am
“This is a double edge sword here. The court with this ruling gives the power to the fed to regulate CO2 and takes it away from the states.”
Did you read this? It seems we can now do something about it.
http://jurist.org/paperchase/2011/06/supreme-court-individual-may-challenge-federal-law-for-violating-states-rights.php
Understanding is a three-edged sword: your side, my side….and the truth.
David A. Evans. says:
“…Perhaps a graph plotting power generation against life expectancy would yield a better correlation.”
How about life expectancy vs retail residential electricity sales?
http://i55.tinypic.com/ws63qr.png
Why wait? The current House should roll back funding for GHG regulation by EPA.