Twelve States (Texas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota) today filed a petition to have the Supreme Court review the D.C. Circuit’s decision not to strike down EPA’s climate regulations.
The States argue that the Congress never intended for the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. The Clean Air Act was designed in 1970, in order to fight smog. The law’s tools and mechanisms are totally inappropriate for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, which are much more prevalent than the pollutants that cause smog.
(full petition follows)
The States allege that EPA has overstepped its legal authority as the Agency tries to square the circle of fighting global warming with a law that was written at a time when people were scared of global cooling.
The full petition is here: http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/States-GHG-petition.pdf
Submitted by James Wallace
Real quick, spelling in title – 🙂
The fact that Michigan is named in the petition kind of surprises me unless it has to do with the automobile industry. The other not so much as they are mainly energy producers.
It’s a nice thought, but they must know the Supreme Court isn’t going to decide to hear it. Wonder what they really hoped to accomplish by doing this.
NavarreAggie says:
April 22, 2013 at 2:02 pm
Hint.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/12/obama-approves-construction-for-new-detroit-windsor-bridge-estimated-at-3-5-billion/
Twelve States (Texas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota) today filed a petition …
———————————–
What, no California? I’m so surprised!
But seriously, what are they doing? They must realise that EPA is above the law.
It’s a nice thought, but they must know the Supreme Court isn’t going to decide to hear it. Wonder what they really hoped to accomplish by doing this.
—–
The same thing fake studies do.. Rally the troops with a little hope is never a bad thing.. It also ensures a more severe backlash when Obama kisses the ring with his legacy carbon tax.. So it would seem they are thinking ahead.. This is good.
Josh C said:
April 22, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Real quick, spelling in title – 🙂
————————————
Okay, here you go:
“Twelve States ask SCOTUS to challenge EPA on climate regulation spelling”
🙂
This is a serious constitutional challenge, similar to the one also filed today in California saying that carbon emissions permits are unconstitutional (in the state of California) taxes.
Don’t be so quick to dismiss it. The Roberts Court Struck Down the commerce clause jurisdiction for Obamacare, upholding only taxation. The scope of the Clean Air Act raises similar issues, except taxation is not a fallback. The ultimate wisdom of the Roberts opinion limiting (clearly, if not explicitly, the Commerce clause) may soon become much clearer.
Warning!
Twleve States
It was mentioned already that there is twlouble with spelling in the twitle.
Whhoops! Ya went and fixed while I was mistyping.
If you take the Act verbatum, and account for Human Resperstion, then every school with more than 2500 students will become a stationary object that emits more than 100 tons of CO2 per year and should require annual permits
Let me be clearer. I think (without any substantiation yet except having aced Larry Tribes second year con law at HLS) that Roberts deliberated emulated the famous opinion Marbury v. Madison. If so, that has enormously far reaching consequences, which would apply here. Hope I am correct.
Under any definition one might choose, it will be quite impossible to call a life-providing chemical
a pollutant, which they must accomplish to justify applying any clean air standard. The case seems pretty simple and straightforward.
@Bryan A, April 22, 2013 at 2:28 pm
Pedants Anonymous strike!
“Verbatim” and “Respiration”.
Sorry, just had to do it!
Rud Istvan says:
April 22, 2013 at 2:25 pm
This is a serious constitutional challenge, similar to the one also filed today in California saying that carbon emissions permits are unconstitutional (in the state of California) taxes.
Don’t be so quick to dismiss it…
———
I certainly hope you’re right and I’m wrong in this case. Sincerely. Guess we’ll wait and see. 🙁
The implication of the callout:
suggests there are those who think this represents concern. What is the driver behind this? Does someone in authority believe they know what the Earth’s current warmth should be rather than what it is and why they believe that? Does anyone have a mechanism for why it was this warm 1400 years ago given the unavailability of consumer-driven polution? There weren’t even Republicans to blame then. Should we be worried that warmth repeats? If so why? Is there something to explain why that previous warmth level is not a concern but the current identical level of warmth is? Show your work and don’t leave out the role of the sun and clouds or you get a FAIL.
CO2 can’t explain it, and there is no convincing evidence that feedbacks are at play, either. For all the billion$ spent this is becoming a tiresome “Boy who cried wolf” story.
SCOTUS is not interested in the science of the EPA’s ruling – SCOTUS is interested in the agency’s legal authority to make that ruling. It is one of the problems of the current system that there is no method of challenging the EPA cargo cult science.
NavarreAggie says:
April 22, 2013 at 2:02 pm
The fact that Michigan is named in the petition kind of surprises me unless it has to do with the automobile industry. The other not so much as they are mainly energy producers.
————————
Maybe Michigan recognizes when the feds have reached too far?
The amazing thing is that it’s not all 50 states demanding the feds back off in this and many other areas where they act beyond the law. The feds are trouncing on the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments, they’re selling guns to Mexican drug dealers and doing everything they can to cause world wide energy poverty. The US Federal Government is way out of bounds.
cn
Twelve = two left
count to ten on your fingers, two left over.
Alfred
The title may be fixed but the link, which I just shared on FB, still reads, “Twleve” and looks dorky. That’s a technical term.
How does this case square with Mass. v. EPA (2007) in which the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority (and obligation) to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act?
Is this simply a challenge against the particular rules the EPA has adopted?
Friends:
I am not an American and I am asking this question from pure curiosity in hope of understanding what – if any – importance this issue has.
Several people have suggested the US Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case.
Why would the petitioners put the case to the Court if the Court would be unlikely to hear the petition, and why would the Court not hear it?
Please understand that I am genuinely perplexed by this and I suspect it will be incomprehensible to other non-Americans, too.
Richard
In the US, the Supreme Court takes only a tiny number of cases that are referred to it for full hearing. Much more common is to deny certiorari and you’re stuck with whatever the lower court has ruled. There are so many cases coming at them that they generally dodge and avoid ruling on every issue they can possibly avoid. It took decades to find a case that the USSC would take regarding the 2d amendment and it is possible it’ll be decades more before it takes another one. It is, however, a step which everybody takes a chance on because if 4 justices believe that there are constitutional issues, you get a shot at winning your case definitively.
The court has been nibbling around the edge of the commerce clause, hinting that a reworking might be in order. This might be a case egregious enough to get 4 justices on board to cert the case.
richardscourtney says:
April 22, 2013 at 3:45 pm
…Why would the petitioners put the case to the Court if the Court would be unlikely to hear the petition, and why would the Court not hear it?…
———–
I’ve no answer to the first part of your question, I’m wondering the same thing myself.
As to the second part, I think the court will probably refuse to hear it because they already ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate GHG’s under the Clean Air Act in 2007 as EM pointed out above. But now that I’ve had more time to think it through, I believe the situation is actually worse than that. President Obama has appointed two (Kagan & Sotomayor) justices since then. I hope they elect not to hear it, because I fully expect that if they do decide to hear it they will rule in favor of the EPA. Strictly the politics of the judges.
beg pardon, I meant that two Obama nominated candidates have been appointed, not that Obama appointed them. Sloppy speaking on my part there.
@richard;
not American either, but at least the Supreme Court will need to consider the demand, and maybe some media attention will result. I find it in any case very heartening that 12 US states dare to challenge the seemingly almighty EPA. It is a sign of the times, it would not have happened 4-5 years ago, and it shows that the times they are a-changin’, to the better.
Whether or not the court will accept the case is maybe not the primary question? Twelve states have spoken, the equivalent of twelve small countries in Europe, and if nothing else happens, at least the Supreme Court attracts attention, and I suppose many cases are submitted to this court with not only the legal issue in mind, but at least a certain consideration of the publicity value too?
This is a powerful message! Congratulations, America.
ConTrari says:
April 22, 2013 at 4:27 pm
… at least the Supreme Court attracts attention, and I suppose many cases are submitted to this court with not only the legal issue in mind, but at least a certain consideration of the publicity value too?
——————–
I think so too. I’m no lawyer, but this
sounds more like rhetoric intended for public consumption than the basis of a serious constitutional challenge to me. ~shrug~ But what do I know?
From the petition:
“EPA’s decision to replace the numerical
thresholds in the Clean Air Act with targets of its
own making is not and cannot be based on any
intelligible principle provided by Congress. The Act
envisions that EPA will either comply with the
numerical thresholds or seek corrective legislation
from Congress; as a result, it does not supply any
intelligible principle for the improvisation project
that EPA has undertaken in the Tailoring Rule. So
even if EPA could conjure up a non-arbitrary
justification for choosing 75,000 tpy CO2e and
100,000 tpy CO2e as the “new” threshold levels for
greenhouse-gas emissions, it cannot link these
decisions to any guideline provided in a federal
statute, and it therefore cannot characterize the
Tailoring Rule as anything other than agency
legislation.”
Petitioners argue that EPA can adopt their “tailoring rule” only if Congress provides a guiding principle, which they have not.
Ian is correct that SCOTUS would not get into scientific arguments; and I assume that is why this petition is very narrowly aimed at the EPA’s “tailoring” rule, and whether or not court decisions that enabled EPAs regulation of CO2 applied only to tailpipe emissions vs stationery plants.
BUT, one legal argument not included (as Virginia AG Cucinelli has championed) is that the SCOTUS ruled that the EPA could regulate CO2 IF they conducted an endangerment finding that concluded that CO2 was indeed a pollutant. They did no such study and instead only referred to IPCC reports. (There exists very specific procedures for such EPA findings and EPA clearly violated their own requirements for such findings.)
Maybe the AGs are purposely keeping some bullets in reserve.
Sometimes when I pointedly speak my mind [frequently insultingly] about certain “climate scientists” and warmist journalists {?} Anthony spanks me and snips me. If I spoke my mind about the EPA the would not only snip me, but he would probably ban me from commenting. Although I think Anthony is a peaceful man he might hunt me down and do me bodily harm.
The epa [no caps intended] is the outstanding example of what is wrong with our current federal government. If I spoke freely about obama and democrats………….
Seems to me the Tailoring Rule would fall under Administration Discretion, the question for the court would be whether it’s an abuse of discretion.
38 states did not challenge the EPA. Easy to see where the majority of Americans are on this subject.
Now the Boston bombing is used to make the case for a carbon tax rebuilding America. Read the BS from Friedman in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/opinion/sunday/friedman-how-to-put-america-back-together-again.html?pagewanted=all
In support of its finding that CO2 emissons are an endangerment to public health and safety, the EPA claims that this finding is a consequence from scientific research. However, under the Daubert standard of the federal courts of the U.S., the methodology of this research was not “scientific.” Thus, the EPA’s finding was illegal under U.S. law.
38 states did not challenge the EPA. Easy to see where the majority of Americans are on this subject.
The majority of legislators. It says little about anything else.
And wrong is still wrong, no matter how many support it.
sceptical says:
April 22, 2013 at 7:57 pm
38 states did not challenge the EPA. Easy to see where the majority of Americans are on this subject.
========
It may simply be that “sceptical” is taking the “Easy” way out of challenging the out-of-control EPA. Being the assertive minority doesn’t mean the non-assertive majority doesn’t agree with the minority, it just wasn’t as momentarily assertive. The majority of U.S. citizens do not believe in CAGW.
Re: “administrative discretion”: a United States administrative agency can act in two modes: 1) judicially, like a court; or 2) rule making, like Congress. In the rule making mode, as the EPA was, here, the agency has little discretion. They must follow Congress’ guidelines in its enacting legislation and its amendments.
The science might come into play if the EPA argues that CO2 “science” justifies its rules, that is, that its rulemaking was not arbitrary and capricious, but, rather, “based” on “facts” (ha). Given that the court agrees to hear the case (and I don’t see why it would not, except for problem of the usual enormous number of petitions for certiorari), it may limit argument to exclude all science, declaring the science to be too unsettled for expert testimony to be of any substantial benefit to the justices’ deliberations.
On the other hand, argument from scientists as expert witnesses might be allowed to establish whether or not the science is, indeed, unsettled. My guess is that the burden of proof would shift to the Climatology Cult (a.k.a., “the Respondents”) to establish climate science settledness once OUR SIDE (Go team!) created a rebuttable presumption by producing enough evidence of disagreement among scientists on the issue. Since the Climatology Cult cannot prevail on that issue, for the science is CLEARLY not settled (but, wait-a-minute, hmm, there is Roberts…. with him, you just never know… he might join the 4 Party apparatchik justices (Stevens, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan) and hold the “science” to be “settled” in which case, the science “facts” would be part of the argument with OUR side having to prove the “science” doesn’t justify the agency’s rulemaking). That Congress did not mention CO2 specifically would not prevent an argument that it falls within Congressional intent for the Clean Air Act.
“Oh, but, your honor, CO2 IS air,” Ratfink Lye, Counsel for Respondent said, blinking rapidly.
@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@!@
It would be so GREAT if the SCOTUS overruled Mass. v. EPA, but, we really need for Congress to Amend the Clean Air Act to reflect reality (i.e., hard science). Congress also needs to completely re-do the E.S.A. (Endangered Species Act). So long as the Socialists, a.k.a. Democrats, control the Senate AND the Executive Branch, the “White House,” there is only a tiny (but real!) chance that this will be done.
Aaarrgh! Our entire country’s governmental arteries are CLOGGED WITH ENVIRON–AZ– — SOCIALIST SLUDGE!
Almost enough to make me want to move to Texas, almost. Sigh, my lovely state is overrun by pot-smoking ignoramuses, but I LOVE it here.
Janice Moore:
In a peer reviewed article ( http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/15/the-principles-of-reasoning-part-iii-logic-and-climatology/ ) I prove that the methodology of the research underlying the EPA “endangerment” finding was neither logical nor scientific. The methodology was made to look logical and scientific through applications of the equivocation fallacy on the part of climatologists. Through uses of this fallacy, climatologists gull people into reaching improper conclusions about the methodologies of their studies. Under federal law is it OK for an agency to reach a conclusion via a fallacious argument?
The EPA seems to take any change it can at a power grab so it needs to be slapped down. Sorry I meant struck down and buried.
Why did these states do it?
It is obvious for everybody who is a businessman.
If you want to create a business in the US today and need an energy price that will not spiral out of any control, you have a LIST of business friendly states.
Clearly whatever the court says or doesn’t say, these 12 states have sent a very powerful signal towards those who create jobs, wealth and growth.
I am doing busines in Asia right now but if I considered US, I would clearly choose Texas or Florida and in any case absolutely avoid California.
Just a perception from somebody outside of US.
The Feds are the new Nazis.
The unconstitutional regimes are still early in their rampage for the history books, so stay tuned. The fiasco in Iraq was clearly a war crime without the goods, and perhaps a million Iraqis died thanks to us, although I don’t mind the deaths of Saddam and offspring. The fiat money campaigns are now challenged by the states seeking to enforce, “nothing but gold or silver”, but again we’ll see. Gunpoint medicine and socialised medicine are greasing the slide for Boomers as unnecessary eaters in a few years…
John, the administration does have some discretion in enforcement. However, they are still bound by law. The tailoring rule uses the “Step by Step” justification, where first the large quantity generators will be permitted and then the medium, and smaller, and smaller, and then eventually, they will comply with the law as written.
It’s a valid justification, and would be legal, if it wasn’t a complete fiction. Both Obama and the EPA have stated openly and officially that they have no intention of ever taking steps to make the clean air act completely enforced. This would be the same as a police department making official policy to not enforce drug laws, or crimes committed against minorities. It’s effectively rewriting the law, which the administration is not allowed to do.
sceptical says:
April 22, 2013 at 7:57 pm
38 states did not challenge the EPA. Easy to see where the majority of Americans are on this subject.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Maybe those 38 states depend on handouts from the FED and are afraid to speak up. Silence does not “correlate” with agreement. Silence does not tell you what the majority think,
Dear Mr. Oldberg,
Wow! You are an impressively dedicated and intelligent scholar (re: 7:21 AM comment). You are correct in the assertion implied by your question: “Under federal law is it OK for an agency to reach a conclusion via a fallacious argument?” No. It is not okay. Fraud and lying are not okay. BUT, nevertheless, unfortunately, slimeballs like those running the EPA might argue and might persuade a judge that their argument is not based on lies and prevail in court. Disgusting. Sad. But, true. It is amazing to me how MANY (not that any exist, but the large number of occurrences — still NOT the MODE of the judicial data sample, though, I believe, heh, heh) blatantly biased, ideology-driven (as opposed to truth and justice under the law AS WRITTEN and in the spirit intended by the law’s authors), judges there are out there.
Your paper would make excellent evidence (if the court allowed argument on that issue).
So, I agree with you, but, … .
BTW I am honored that someone with your experience and knowledge of the scientific complexity underlying this case would even respond to someone like me who is only speaking to surface-level, strategic, simple, issues. I need FAR MORE to be taught by you, than you by me.
Janice Moore:
Thanks for the kind words.
With the availability of the findings of my research that are reported in my peer reviewed article, fossil fuel producers can prove the endangerment finding to be a consequence from a deceptive argument on the part of certain climatologists. Thus, it makes sense for those who have suffered financial loss as a consequence from this finding to sue these climatologists and their employers for damages. Do you agree? If so, how would we get the ball rolling?
EPA Endagerment finding link:
http://epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Federal_Register-EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-Dec.15-09.pdf#page=16
Just read it, and try not to weep. Did a search for the word “concensus” and did actually have a tear come to my eye.
Michael C. Roberts
Mr. Oldberg,
My reply to you is mysteriously in moderation (perhaps it is because I used the term “slimeballs”? or several times used all caps? I know I didn’t say H*i-t|-r. I just wanted you to know I responded to your very worthy point. Essentially, I agree with you. My speculations likely will prove to be mistaken.
One could make reference to that ‘paper hanger’ who spent 264 days beginning in 1924 at the Landsberg prison dictating his book (“… K a mpf”) to his deputy Rudolf while incarcerated for treason and insurrection ‘committed’ at a ‘beer hall’ and mean quite the same thing …
Maybe. We’ll see. I am going to click “Post Comment” now.
.
Hi, Terry Oldberg,
You’re welcome.
I agree that equity demands that liars (intentional told what they knew or reasonably should have known to be false) should be punished for the damage caused to those who reasonably relied on their lie. Whether or not a LEGAL cause of action for the tort of Fraud (there are 8 or 9 elements and all must be satisfied, including that the plaintiffs did not know nor reasonably should have known what the truth was, i.e., it isn’t enough that the liar lied, but the victim must have reasonably relied and if the victim was negligent in investigating the facts, the liar can get off the hook AND another element is that the liar knew or should have known that the victim would so rely…. well, you get the idea, Fraud is not a simple case to prove) or some other cause of action, exists is not necessarily the case.
My suggestions:
1) contact the Pacific Legal Foundation (website — I’m going to type it using “DOT” for the . so this post won’t go to the spam bin due to this site’s software turning the site name into a url — pacificlegalDOTorg). On home page, click on “About PLF” THEN, click on “Request Legal Assistance”. There is also a phone number local, it appears, to Sacramento, CA at the bottom of the home page. Ask them also about the possibility of a cause of action under the C.P.A. (Consumer Protection Act) — this would be more likely to be a good option if there is a substantial likelihood that more consumers in the future will be harmed by the deception BUT, the liars probably will not be deemed to be acting in the scope of a trade or business, so the CPA would not apply… ANYWAY, just ask the PLF people (you might do a little detective work on who was damaged and what the damages were before calling PLF).
[See the 4/22/13 or 4/23/13 or thereabouts WUWT post re: Pac. Legal helping California farmers sue CA (I think the case was filed as Morningstar ?? v. State of California?)]
2) find out potential plaintiffs for your case, people who have suffered actual, provable, damages due to, i.e., CLEARLY caused by, the above lies, for you cannot sue on their behalf, i.e., an injured party is necessary to satisfy the standing requirement. Ask these folks if they want to contact Pacific Legal for advice and if so, do that together.
Without researching ANY of the relevant law, I’ll just say: Unless the plaintiffs REALLY REALLY want to file a lawsuit and/or Pacific Legal (or another like group of attorneys) is eager to take it on, do not do it. While people often deserve damages, the years of litigation with its distress to you and your family and expense (travel, lost time, etc, even if not legal fees) is, unfortunately, often NOT WORTH IT. Of course, there is the deterrence of future fraud (or whatever you get a conviction on) and that can be worth it. But, sometimes, it is best to just leave punishment up to God and do our best just to publicize the lies and, thus, warn the public. We must carefully pick our battles and, while a noble cause, your fight here might not be worth the agony it would bring into your life. Sorry to be SO discouraging.
Let me end by saying that I think you are SUPER wonderful, Terry O.. You have been gifted not only with an exceptionally fine mind, but with a GREAT heart.
Janice
Janice Moore:
As my stake in federal policy is relatively small, my thinking is that the list of plaintiffs in lawsuits against climatological fraudsters should not include me but should include deep pocketed companies whose investors are seriously disadvantaged by federal policy, including ExxonMobil (oil and natural gas) and Peabody Energy (coal). I’ve written to the upper managements of some of these companies recommending lawsuits without receiving responses from them. Any ideas on how to proceed in enaging the managements of fossil fuel providers in the salvation of their share holders’ equity?
Hey, Jim, heh, heh, how did that go? Did you get tossed into the spam bin?
I just fell in AGAIN! (with my, if they post it, 8:31 PM, 4/23, post — I even was careful to write “DOT” so my citing a website wouldn’t (by the software turning it into a link) send me dooooowwwwwwn — PLUNK! — into the Spam pit. Sigh. It might be simply that my post of 8:31 is just too dang long (I wouldn’t have done that but I wanted to give T.O. a decent answer). Well, I hope that THIS little post makes it.
It did! 8:35 — no “awaiting moderation”! Hurrah!
Hi, Terry,
Good for you to try so hard to urge the arrogant (not even the courtesy of a form letter response!) to step up to the plate and fight for truth. I think you can count on most major shareholders of any large company to vigilantly watch their investment. Why do these companies not file the lawsuit you recommend? I have no idea, but, it could be that their legal departments along with financial management concluded that the cost of the lawsuit, at least for now, significantly outweighs the benefit. They probably are more focused on trying to get Congress to fix bad law.
I believe most of the Big O’ companies (and other energy co.’s) are with you in spirit, but it only takes one defector from a band of allies to ruin it for all. They may join to fight against, say, ethanol gas, but, there will always be some unprincipled defector who will go along with the Environ-z-is and sell the bogus product; the defector will gain huge market share and that is hard to chip away at. And, if they are ordered to on penalty of imprisonment or fatally huge fines, they must obey or close their doors. [Unocal 76, God bless them, held out on the 10% ethanol gas (at least, in my state) until March, 2013, then, apparently, they were forced to join the rest of their competitors. The 76 station was where all of us went for our ethanol-free gas until then.] GE Corp. and T. Boone Pickens’ organization are two examples of unprincipled opportunists who have cynically but fervently pushed for “Green” [aaack! when-EVER I see that (or “organic”) on a product, I try to find another brand! — sometimes, impossible to do], to promote their curly fry light bulbs and windmills.
It is a big RISK to tell shareholders, “Sorry, folks, sales will be pretty bad this quarter; we just couldn’t morally justify peddling in deceit.”
The rules of the game, the laws, need to be fixed. Until then, anyone who wants to play must go along.
Your point about “deep pockets” is a good one; it may explain why no one (e.g. Pacific Legal) will file such a lawsuit. If the defendants are only the lying Cult of Climatology priests or some pseudo-science propaganda machine like the IPCC, they are, essentially, judgment-proof (practically speaking — not much net worth there). The punitive and deterrent value of a lawsuit such as you mention are worthy goals, BUT, sigh, who is going to pay for the legal fees and costs to make it happen? And, as I mentioned above, whether or not the law has a remedy is doubtful (as to the liability of the priests and/or their clubs of chicanery). Companies with shareholders have to be good fiduciaries of the shareholder’s investment. Perhaps, there is a noble, super-wealthy individual or two out there who might pay for such a lawsuit both for the purpose of publicizing truth and deterring further lies, but, not likely.
Educating the public to put pressure on their legislators to CLEAN UP ENVIROMENTAL LAW is the key. That is an apparently long, grim, and rocky path, and the view from here looks dismal, but, let’s keep plugging away. We may not get to see it in our lifetime, but, in the end, TRUTH will win.
Remember Galileo and Harrison (longitude clock) and Curie and G. W. Carver and Einstein. Their roads were steep and rough, BUT THEY WON OUT IN THE END. Many others didn’t live to see their own triumphs, but, TRUTH won. You are in good company, Terry Oldham.
Take heart and take care,
Janice
P.S. And remember, the need is not always the call. It’s okay to refrain from a battle that is not yours to fight (tough as it is to watch and as willing and eminently able as you are). Trust. GOD IS in control.
Janice;
Galileo won out in the end, but he didn’t live to see it. Posthumous triumphs are Pyhrric.
Good point, Bryan. Yet, vis a vis the battle for truth, ITS triumph, even if they do not live to see it, is why scientists fight the long, hard, battle for victory.
The humility of Galileo and Einstein and MOST bona fide scientists, would, I think, lead all of them to say quietly, “I wanted so much to see truth prevail, but that it prevails is all that really matters.”
And, personally, I think Galileo did see it, just from a much higher perspective. 🙂
Dear BRIAN, please forgive my misspelling your name. I don’t even know any “Bryans.” head shake