Court upholds EPA's greenhouse gas rules for autos – but lacks jurisdiction on stationary sources like power plants

Ah, an appeals court in Washington D.C. I get it.

Mantyla (11:22): “The finding that setting limits on CO2 emissions is “neither arbitrary nor capricious” is based on solid science as well as the EPA’s regulatory scope — which ought to be expanded. Clearly, the conservative anti-science agenda has been held at bay by the facts and established climate science in this ruling.”
Begging the Question. (“Solid Science”, “Ought to be expanded”)
Ad Hominem (“Anti-science agenda”)
Argumentum ad Verecundiam. A Judicial Opinion is a statement of the opinions of a Judge.
“CO2 IS a public danger — when produced in excess, due to its scientifically measured planetary effects on climate, as just about any chemical is in excess.”
False assertion. It’s “planetary effects” have yet to be measured.
“And note that, according to Wikipedia, “no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion” that human activities are causing most of the global warming.”
Argumentum ad Verecundiam. (Though, strictly, Wiki is an improper authority.)
“Now the charter or regulatory scope of the EPA should change in order to enable a broad-ranging, coherent, ecologically sensible US energy policy that covers not only vehicles, but everything that produces pollution and CO2.”
Begging the Question: Why should the scope of the Environmental Protection Agency change? And if it ‘should’ deontologically change then why should it cover plant food produced by mobile or stationary sources? Why should it cover only plant food produced by non-living sources, or some proper subset of living sources? Why should the Environmental Protection Agency take over the proper scope of the Department of Energy?
Tim Mantyla (12:19) — “1) Most Americans are not climate scientists. Most Americans are not ANY kind of scientist. They do not and should never decide what a pollutant is.”
Argument ad Verecundiam. Two side notes: Most American scientists are Americans. And, of course, are you a scientist?
“2) Climate science supports the contention that CO2 is a pollutant…of sorts. Clearly there are contexts and situations in which it is not. ”
Then it is contingent rather than necessary.
“CO2, according to any fifth-grade science textbook, is emitted as part of the natural carbon cycle by plants.”
Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Side note: Introductory texts teach the Bohr model of the atom also, which is vacuously wrong.
“But CO2, as I’ve said in an earlier post, IS a pollutant in the planetary context of global warming. It is causing and will cause even more massive, earth-shaking destructive results, which cannot be reversed for thousands of years, if ever.”
Argumentum ad Consequentiam.
“By analogy, water is a “pollutant” in the case of overdose, for example. Drinking too much water can kill you. Any chemical might be a pollutant in the proper context. ”
Points for humor: The planet is a pollutant in the proper context. While this is vacuously true it says nothing of LD25, LD50, or any other notion of dosage and detrimental health issues. Indeed, if you injested or inhaled enough CO2 this would certainly be true. Just the same if you ingested the planet. But if CO2 is a ‘pollutant’ in the traditional sense of the term then there are health effects that are primary. If it is simply a atmospheric trace gas then that is a differing question entirely.
“Of course, climate science denialism being a religion, I surmise that, “to a high degree of certainty” “it is very likely” that no amount of reason, facts or science will convince you to change your religiously held, rigid, dogmatic beliefs.”
Argumentum ad Homnem.
Tim Mantyla (12:34) — “As a body which reflects and assesses science, the IPCC is mandated to publish scientific findings to the best of its ability.”
A mission statement is an expression of purpose, not proof of the adherence to that statement. A worthy quote, from the immediately prior sentences: “This is an example of providing partial truth to support an untrue conclusion. Typical Fox News-style propaganda.”
Quite the contrary to your statement that the IPCC is to cowed to publish “science” it is noteworthy that it has relied on “grey literature” which, of course, falls afoul of your own appeal to the authority of random individuals employed in some relation to science as an occupation.
Tim Mantyla (1:14) — “Inhofe is a moron and in corrupt thrall to Big Oil/Coal/Chemical.”
Argumentum ad Hominem. This is, specifically, a cui bono issue. But if there is validity to cui bono then it should be noted that the ‘green’ industries survive on largess and subsidy alone, as they are otherwise not competitive in the market. And it should be noted, naturally, that AGW studies are likewise funded by largess and subsidy. Such that the people that seek control fund studies that give them ‘explanans’ and cover for exercising control. This is also used to fund pet industries and political connected individuals in a rather crass display of Cronyism. Or Nepotism, Corporatism, or Fascism; Pick the label you prefer. But if we are to grant any legitimacy to “Cui Bono” then it is certain that those that are most tightly connected and highly funded are those that are suspect. Which happens to be the AGW industry. You’ve shown a great regard for shoddy argument but this one from you soundly refutes even your own nonsense. You should polish your skills a bit.
Tim Mantyla (1:32) — “This post is germane here, based on the grim truth that few conservatives understand climate science. ”
Argumentum ad Hominem.
“Rohrabacher mused that previous warming cycles may have been caused by carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by “dinosaur flatulence.”[58][unreliable source?] ”
It should be noted that a recent paper was published that made precisely this claim. Such that since this was from scientists we should expect that you agree that it is authoritative and that Rohrbacher not only doesn’t misunderstand the issue, but was ahead of the curve.
“Hello, Congress! WAKE UP! READ THE SCIENCE TEXTBOOKS! Trees ABSORB CO2. Clear-cutting them WORSENS the problem.”
Numerous studies have shown that clear-cutting (and replanting) allows for a greater rate of carbon sequestration. I’m not sure here if you’re simply unfamiliar with the science in question or if you’re attempting a red herring. Though it’s always possible you’re just a science denier.
“The dumbest Congresspersons in this area, predictably, are Republican. What does this say for the wisdom of the American people? Why are they electing arrogant, ignorant morons?”
No argument. The EPA was signed into law by a Republican President. But then, of course, they voted for the current president also.
Tim Mantyla (1:44) — “And the climate computer models have been right. ”
Counterfacutal. You can find the recent papers that studied the computer models (The formalization of the climate theories) and found that they performed *worse* than a random walk. In the normal notions of science this denotes that those theories are strictly in error and that no valid predictions can be made on there basis. Indeed, a random guess has better predictive value then the current climate theories. Once again you’re either ignorant of science, the science at hand, or this is a red herring.
“Also, there is no “manipulation” of data in the nefarious sense at all in climate science. Data, if you understand the science behind it, must be manipulated for various scientific reasons. ”
Begging the Question. Data, by any normative sense of the term, is raw input. While post finagling it is a product regardless to any personally perceived emotional semantics. But if there is a ‘scientific reason’ that experimental data is invalid then the argument needs to be advanced as to how invalid experiments can provide valid results by the means of mathemagic.
Footnote: With all seriousness you need to produce less in the way of fallacious hand-waving and more in the way of empirically validated results. Indeed, your seeming allergy to anything approaching valid demonstration has you appear all the more like a True Believer in some fanciful Cargo Cult of Science then as an informed and knowledgable individual. You may keep your conscience on your own optimistic ignorance, however.

_Jim says:
“where he basically adverts the fact he is a “motivational writer” …”
The aim of ANY motivational writer is to mislead the listener into believing the truth.. about themselves 😉
Its all purely a call to EGO. and misplace belief.

My guess is that one of the ScepticalScience web crew is chucking a sickie.

Smokey said:
“IMO Mantyla is a certified nutcase, crazier than a cat in a rocking chair factory. ”
As I said, a humanities or art lecturer during uni break. 🙂
(its Uni break down here, and I suspect he is linked to the SS mob.)

beesaman says:
June 26, 2012 at 3:43 pm
What we really need is a law that states that no un-elected body can make law and that elected bodies are not permitted to deligate law making powers to unelected bodies.
___________________________________
AMEN!
I did a bit of research on that a while ago. The problem traces back to FDR (again) FDR was also the president who issued Executive Order 6102, confiscating all gold coins, bullion, and certificates, requiring they be surrendered to the government by May 1, 1933 in exchange for currency. Congress also passed a joint resolution cancelling all gold clauses in public and private contracts, stating such clauses interfered with its power to regulate U.S. currency. In other words he confiscated US citizen gold and gave it to the private bankers in exchange for their bank notes so they could settle their overseas “Gambling Debts”
(And yes _Jim you can trace FDR’s New Deal back to the Fabians link )
from the left:

The US Supreme Court, after initial showdowns with Roosevelt, routinely approved federal agency rulemaking and regulatory and adjudicatory powers, subject to certain checks, such as court review and Senate confirmation of agency heads. The Court also determined in a string of cases that US federal agencies, while authorized by congressional legislation, would function as part of the executive branch and answer to the president—that they were not courts or part of the judicial branch of government….
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/supr-j17.shtml

From the right:

…Starting from 1937, the increasingly Democrat Supreme Court reversed most of the anti-New Deal decisions, and effectively eliminated all constitutional restraints on federal economic regulation. This culminated in the 1942 Wickard v Filburn decision which held that if an economic activity might affect interstate commerce the federal government can regulate it.
Wickard is the foundation on which not only Obamacare, but almost every other modern federal economic regulatory scheme is based. It is the basis for allowing the EPA to regulate the use of tiny parcels of land and to stop any economic activity which might affect a single obscure species found in only one state. It is the basis for preventing a local farmer who only sells locally from calling his produce “organic” unless she or he complies with reams of federal paperwork. The examples go on ad nauseam. At the end of his presidency, FDR boasted that, although he had lost the battle over his court-packing plan, he had won the war of bringing the Supreme Court into line with his New Deal philosophy of vastly expanded federal power….. http://www.timelyrenewed.com/?p=334

More on Agency Regulation ~ The Federal Register

How Was the Federal Register Established?
The idea for a centralized publication system for executive branch documents began during the Great Depression, when Congress began enacting a host of legislation that gave executive branch agencies increased authority to regulate. With this flood of new regulations, it soon became apparent that, because there was no standardized repository, it was difficult for the public and federal agencies to know which regulations were effective and enforceable.
This situation was dramatically highlighted when the Supreme Court decided a case involving an agency that tried to enforce a regulation that had actually been revoked by an executive order. No one—not the government, not the defendants, not the lower courts—was aware that the regulation had been eliminated.1 In response, Congress enacted the Federal Register Act (FRA) in July of 1935. The FRA created the Federal Register as the official daily publication for presidential documents and executive agency rule and notice documents and established a central location for filing documents for public inspection.
The documents that the Federal Register Act requires agencies to publish in the Federal Register include:
* executive orders and proclamations;
* documents of general applicability and legal effect;
* documents that impose a penalty;
* any other documents that Congress requires.
The act also requires that these documents are made available for public inspection at least one day before they are published in the Federal Register…..
Proposed Rules
This third section contains documents that announce possible changes to the CFR and solicit public comment on the proposal, such as notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and preliminary rulemaking documents, including advance notices of proposed rulemaking and petitions for rulemaking…..
http://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/fr_101.pdf

So the idea the Executive Branch could usurp the Constitution power of Congress only goes back to the 1930’s and was initially declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court until FDR threatened to Pack the Court.

Tim Mantyla says:
June 26, 2012 at 11:22 am
==========================================
Tim says a lot of BS defending CO2 as the BIG demon of pollution. Bottom line Tim, CO2 emissions are ABOVE Hansen’s “A” worst case senario. Temperature are BELOW his “C” greatly reduced and eliminated CO2 emissions level. The only LOGICAL conclusion, CO2 is not a problem.
BTW, could you be more condecending, pointing out that even water can be a poison. Humm? but wait, maybe you signed that petition also.

In the end this may be great news if Congress decides to act and re-write the Clean Air Act that will take the EPA completely out of the process. For Industry, the battle lines are clearly drawn which means that if your business depends on affordable electricity to prosper and be profitable you must act to be sure that Obama and Lisa Jackson will be sent packing in November.

Hopefully this isn’t the end of this story. We’ll see. In the meantime I am seriously considering burning some vacation to peacefully picket our regional EPA office. I envision a donation jar on the sidewalk labeled “Travel Expenses” and a sign or placard saying, “Hey, hey, EPA, how many jobs have you killed today?” Sounds fun, no?