EPA Said Global Warming Unproven To Obtain A Legal Ruling For Their Climate Regulations

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

Courts will not sit in judgment of scientific disputes. A lawyer told me it becomes “your paper” against “my paper” and courts argue they’re not qualified to make the required scientific judgments. This is a reasonable position and causes some to advocate for “scientific” courts, but that is not normally necessary. Application of the scientific method of hypothesis, skeptical analysis, publication, and peer review, do the job. It is precisely the failure of these applications that cause false climate science to exist. Because of the court’s position, including the US Supreme Court, they are vulnerable to exploitation. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used the vulnerability to achieve a political goal. It seems that proof they did it deliberately is in the position they took about global warming. In the EPA machinations to establish regulatory and bureaucratic control over CO2 they had to argue that global warming was unproven.

Here is the orchestrated scenario, based on a form of argument proposed by White House Science Advisor John Holdren, in the book EcoScience, Population, Resources, Environment. Writing about action on the false claim of overpopulation he said,

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

He says, “it has been concluded”, but who reached the conclusion? He did. Who decides when the crisis is “sufficiently severe”? He does. Not only do you build the straw man, but you also control the fire.

It is possible the EPA arranged for Massachusetts and a few other states to file a petition against them for failing to regulate CO2 as a harmful substance. Of course, it was the EPA who determined it was a harmful substance. The EPA rejected the responsibility, and that led to a series of legal actions. The EPA wanted the case to end up before the US Supreme Court. Here are the Facts of the Case. (You can listen to the oral arguments at the web site).

Massachusetts and several other states petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), asking EPA to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming from new motor vehicles. Massachusetts argued that EPA was required to regulate these “greenhouse gases” by the Clean Air Act – which states that Congress must regulate “any air pollutant” that can “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

EPA denied the petition, claiming that the Clean Air Act does not authorize the Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Even if it did, EPA argued, the Agency had discretion to defer a decision until more research could be done on “the causes, extent and significance of climate change and the potential options for addressing it.” Massachusetts appealed the denial of the petition to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and a divided panel ruled in favor of EPA.

The EPA argued the Clean Air Act does not authorize them to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. It is here they had to argue that the information is insufficient about global warming to reach a conclusion and requires more research. They said they had the authority not to act.

…the Agency had discretion to defer a decision until more research could be done on “the causes, extent and significance of climate change and the potential options for addressing it.”

This contradicts the certainties of the IPCC. Their Summary For Policymakers (SPM) written specifically for agencies like the EPA, states.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

IPCC defines Extremely Likely as 95-100%. It appears either the EPA believes their statement to the Court is true or the IPCC is wrong, or they misled the Court.

Analysis of the Supreme Court conclusion provides some evidence.

 

By a 5-4 vote the Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and ruled in favor of Massachusetts. The opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens held that Massachusetts, due to its “stake in protecting its quasi-sovereign interests” as a state, had standing to sue the EPA over potential damage caused to its territory by global warming.

This argument uses the IPCC bias that warming is only a cost – there are no benefits. It was the argument Patrick Michaels made well recently before the Committee of Natural Resources.

The Court rejected the EPA’s argument that the Clean Air Act was not meant to refer to carbon emissions in the section giving the EPA authority to regulate “air pollution agent[s]”. The Act’s definition of air pollutant was written with “sweeping,” “capacious” language so that it would not become obsolete.

This outcome is precisely what the EPA wanted. They acted to lose and thus have the power of the US Supreme Court to justify their action.

Finally, the majority ruled that the EPA was unjustified in delaying its decision on the basis of prudential and policy considerations. The Court held that if the EPA wishes to continue its inaction on carbon regulation, it is required by the Act to base the decision on a consideration of “whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change.”

Now the Court provided the second leg the EPA sought. They must act because CO2 is both a pollutant and is causing climate change.

The dissenting opinions are revealing.

Chief Justice Roberts’s dissenting opinion argued that Massachusetts should not have had standing to sue, because the potential injuries from global warming were not concrete or particularized (individual and personal).

 

Justice Roberts apparently knows enough about global warming to realize the impact on Massachusetts is not easy to determine and speculative.

Justice Scalia’s dissent argued that the Clean Air Act was intended to combat conventional lower-atmosphere pollutants and not global climate change.

 

Justice Scalia correctly identified the difference between pollution and climate change. This indicates he knows CO2 is not a pollutant.

It was not difficult for the EPA to mislead the Justices because they avoid sciences cases. Also, the Justices were hampered because the public didn’t know that the case was primarily a decision of Administrative Law.

Federal administrative law primarily concerns the powers and procedures of Federal administering agencies in relation to the public (but usually not in criminal matters).

Consider these comments by the Justices in their conclusion. They manifest the confusion exploited by the EPA.

Although we have neither the expertise nor the authority to evaluate these policy judgments, it is evidence that they have nothing whatever to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change.

 

Despite that the Justices wrote,

On the merits of contrary to EPA’s position, we hold that the Clean Air Act’s sweeping definition of air pollutant unambiguously covers greenhouse gases.

It doesn’t matter how “sweeping” the definition, no greenhouse gas is a pollutant. Then the Justices apply Administrative Law.

 

We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand, EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns can inform EPA’s actions in the event that it make such a finding.

We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.

 

So there it is. In future court cases and in the public forum we can cite the EPA argument to delay any action,

until more research could be done on “the causes, extent and significance of climate change and the potential options for addressing it.”

The courts are correct not to involve themselves in scientific disputes when it is a legitimate scientific issue. The difference, as I pointed out to the lawyer, is that in climate science, it is “our paper” against ”their paper”, but “their paper” is created with falsified, corrupted and manipulated data. The case becomes one of illegalities, not science, and that is in the jurisdiction of the court and easy for anyone to understand and judge.

87 thoughts on “EPA Said Global Warming Unproven To Obtain A Legal Ruling For Their Climate Regulations

  1. Given MA was recently experiencing record snow, and that tomorrow temps in Boston are projected to soar to an oppressive…26C [352K for people who have trouble with Celsius] I think the real question for SCOTUS is why on earth MA thinks THEY are the ones at risk from a fraction of a degree of warming?

    • This is just a variation of the “sue and settle scam”. EPA finds someone to sue them and “force” them to do what they want to do–bypass Congress and the people and get a program that would never be authorized. So they agree to settle and then the courts grant the plaintiff’s demand. EPA gladly accepts the court’s order and get its wishes by bypassing the legislature and the people, neither which would authorize EPA to legally do what they get through the “you sue us to do what we want to do and then we will settle out of court and everybody loses but EPA and their radical leftists friends”.

      • Yes, Leonard, the Sierra Club in particular has been working this legal angle for yrs w/its high-powered lawyers against major power companies. When I read my power-company’s stockholder report, it’s obvious. The power company’s board of directors have been “directed” by the Sierra Club for decades now — it’s sickening.

    • Anyone who has trouble with Celsius won’t have a clue what 352K means; try 78.8F. And to many, if not most, in the “States” typical summer temps are over 90F (32C) and for some over 100F (38C). Where I live we haven’t seen a day time high below 81F (27C) since mid May.

      • Anyone who has trouble with Celsius won’t have a clue what 352K means; try 78.8F.
        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
        352 K is 173.93 °F and it’s 299.15 K for 26C
        And some people say I’m condescending? It means talking down to people.

  2. The US CRN clearly demonstrates that it is possible to collect accurate, reliable data on near surface temperatures. The fact that the CRN exists only in the US and a portion of Canada clearly demonstrates that accurate data are not important to climate scientists, though they are clearly important to climate science.
    The attitude of the climate science community toward data quality and data integrity is appalling. Reporting monthly anomaly changes to two decimal places is absurd, based on the underlying data. Reporting decadal trends to three decimal places is a howler.

  3. The scientific method which has been designed and refined over centuries to overcome personal opinions, religious bias, intolerance and misinformation is as good as humankind can achieve in the quest for the truth.
    It would be a boon to all societies to see CAGW tested in a court of law. The US legal system is running from their designated role -allowing flim flam artists, reward seeking acadmeics, snake oil salesman, solo politicians and defunct actors to set the standards pity on them

    • Just as metal chaff was emitted by planes during WWII to confuse radar-guided ground anti-aircraft guns, we skeptics need to jump on that bandwagon of CAGW flim flam artists, and snake oil salesmen to make such ridiculous and contradictory claims that even they become confused. Oh, wait – we have a conscience? Yes, we are with science – not against it.

      • Unlike litigants on their side, the courts would quickly rule that we don’t have standing to sue and force us to pay the EPA’s legal fees.
        The courts stopped being impartial decades ago. They’ve stopped even trying to look partial in recent years.

    • I’m mad as hell with Google search, as I just tried to donate to Ted Cruz (who gets it) and the first couple times it came up tedcruz.org on page 1, but now it comes up tedcruz.com which is a bogus site and you can’t find the real Ted Cruz site – he has said some very good arguments about the alarmist global warming scare, and is a very good debater, if he is allowed to debate. – Sorry if off topic – I’m just mad!

    • They didn’t. What they ruled was that the EPA must decide whether it is a pollutant and IF the EPA decides that is, then they must regulate it. It’s a subtle difference, but an important one that grants almost unilateral decision making to the agency.
      The difference that the lawsuit made is that the way they did it, EPA was put into the position of taking the defense saying “we cannot regulate it” and intentionally put up a weak defense, so both sides of the court were effectively arguing for regulation with no counterpoint. On the contrary, if they had regulated it directly, they would have faced opposition from many competent fronts (including the TCEQ itself) saying that they had no basis for their stance. Now, they have precedent on their side, so it’s quite difficult to overturn.

  4. I am not sure why the USA has a government when the SCOTUS and the EPA can protect the nation, the States and individuals with such bureaucratic efficiency. All that remains is for the EPA to be given powers of taxation and the nation can save a huge amount of money by cancelling all those irritating elections.
    The EPA would protect life and limb by forcing states and companies to build better roads and railway infrastructure – all they need is an endangerment finding which would only take a few minutes. That would solve the highway funding problem in a few days.
    Health is obviously a safety issue and an unprotected public is at huge individual risk if they are not insured. Presto, EPA-Care. But don’t require people to have insurance, require the hospitals to provide adequate services to every individual. Sue them if they don’t.
    Individual risk from terrorism is obvious therefore an endangerment finding is easy. Require the armed Forces to deliver complete protection instead of pissing away billions on $2000 hammers and secretly duplicating alien warp drive technology.
    I am not so sure this wouldn’t work. Tossing them a few climate catastrophe bones might give them the standing they need to replace a large portion of the government.
    /Monty Python

    • Couldn’t be much worse than what we have now. On the other hand, wouldn’t be much different from what we have right now.

  5. Based on their reasoning, they must then rule in favor of regulating the principal greenhouse gas: water vapor, and presumably the mass of liquid water which has a potential to vaporize and force climate change. I wonder if they envision a progressive (i.e. monotonic change) thermodynamic machine (the “sauna” effect).

  6. @ crispin in waterloo The courts and regulatory agencies ARE the government. The misuse of the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and now ,of course, the Clean Air Act is stunning. It makes a farce out of any attempt to evaluate the cost of doing a project since any contrived standing can get traction in courts and drive cost up exponentially with no assurance that the project could be pursued as envisioned even if the developer prevails. This is no way to run a railroad!

    • Fossil – correct-a-mundo. Hence my mode being given as ‘Monty Python’. You had 200 years of democracy. And now for something completely different.

      • You had 200 years of democracy. And now for something completely different.

        … a lady asked Dr. Franklin “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy.” Franklin replied, “A republic . . . if you can keep it.”

    • That is all part of the plan to de-industrialize – make everything so regulatory onerous, complicated and costly that trying to generate new companies/business to enhance the economy becomes insurmountable.

    • Throw in the IRS attacking anyone who doesn’t toe the govt line. A recently FOIA request uncovered a memo in which they ordered an audit of everyone who contributed to a conservative organization.

    • “It is no way to run a railroad”
      It is if you want to destroy an industrial economy and bring on the chaos that will come. Then you build from the ashes the utopian society that the communists want. Just because it hasn’t worked very well in the past is not a good reason to give up now. It (communism) was just not carried out correctly. 🙂

  7. Justice John Paul Stevens held that Massachusetts, due to its “stake in protecting its quasi-sovereign interests” as a state, had standing to sue the EPA over potential damage caused to its territory by global warming.
    Well the joke is on the state of Massachusetts, SCOTUS, the EPA and the USA in general.
    No US court can regulate other countries, without which there is no way to protect Ma. from any climate change, real or theoretical.
    No I know Obama will send a team to Paris with the intent of bullying the world into submission. Just like he bullied Russia. OK, not like that, more like China. OK, not like that, more like Syria. OH, scratch Syria, more like Iran. OK, not that either, gimme some time, I’m sure I can come up with something. Meanwhile, lookout world, Obama is going to bully you at the negotiating table….

    • It used to be a requirement that you had to prove actual harm, not potential harm. If potential harm is the new standard, they why can’t I sue the US govt for not providing laser based protection against space rocks?

  8. “I pointed out to the lawyer, is that in climate science, it is “our paper” against ”their paper”, but “their paper” is created with falsified, corrupted and manipulated data. The case becomes one of illegalities, not science, and that is in the jurisdiction of the court and easy for anyone to understand and judge.” Indeed.

  9. >Then why did the court rule that CO2 is a pollutant
    too much of anything is bad.
    Too much water can kill you.
    We must stop this di hydrogen monoxide plague.

    • In fact Oxygen is more a ‘pollutant’ than CO2. It wiped out the anaerobic biosphere when plants started pumping it out. CO2 has never been responsible for such a multi-species extinction, in fact it allowed those murderous plants to flourish!

  10. Gases can’t form a green house, so GHG idea is ridiculous and greatest fraud in the history of science. There is no such things like GHE due to gases and ‘global warming’. Still we have colder nights than bright sunny day, tops of mountains cold higher we go. we transformed millions of sq. KM of the soil surface into dry land areas by concrete jungle and deforestation. Such areas are getting warmer not moist areas. Drier the land, the hotter. If it were GHE due to gases the earth’s atmosphere should remain warm and get warmer each day since the Sun is always shining on the half of the earth, the sun never sets from the earth; and it should be warmer higher we go because warmer air goes upwards, so the top of the Everest should be warmer than in the middle east.

  11. This piece is practically unreadable and it lacks adequate presentation of context. That’s a shame because it seems this is a serious matter.

  12. As to 2007 Mass v EPA, George Bush ran the EPA in 2007. Dr. Ball says EPA got what it wanted which is true, but George Bush got what he wanted as well. None of the attorneys assigned to the case disputed the notion that CO2 caused global warming. It’s true as Dr. Ball points out that the case was an admin. matter, but it was pivotal that no science was presented disputing the notion that CO2 caused warming, Justice Stevens even used the absence of such a defense by EPA attorneys to substantiate his decision: “4/2/2007, “Massachusetts vs EPA”, p.1, from Justice Stevens decision: (scroll down): “Causation, EPA does not dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. At a minimum, therefore, EPA’s refusal to regulate such emissions “contributes” to Massachusetts’ injuries.”…Both US political parties love AGW cash, George Bush #1 in 1990 even financed the global climate science spending boom with USGCRP, mandating spending on climate via the Executive branch and 13 fed. agencies–out of reach of congress and voters. There’s no difference whatever between GOP leadership and democrats today. The one difference between the two parties is their electorates. Republican voters–who are despised by Republican “leaders”– don’t back the notion of AGW nor spending millions a day on it. If one wants to stop the AGW racket, why not name names like the Bushes, McConnell, and Boehner? Nothing else has worked.

  13. The USSC did not find or assert that CO2 is a “pollutant”. It only ruled that the EPA must justify its inaction on a consideration of “whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change.”
    The Court held that if the EPA wishes to continue its inaction on carbon regulation, it is required by the Act to base the decision on a consideration of “whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change.”
    It was left up to the EPA to determine whether CO2 is a “pollutant”, in that sense of “pollutant”. Of course the EPA was then happy to incorrectly use the IPCC as its own finding that CO2 does contribute to “climate change” and is therefore a “pollutant”, which it can control. [The EPA violated its own rules as to what process it must go through before accepting something like an IPCC Assessment Report as scientific evidence bearing on an EPA finding.]

  14. “This wholly inappropriate relationship is graphically illustrated by a cynical trick called sue and settle. An environmental pressure group mounts a law suit against the regulator to get an extreme interpretation of the rules enforced and the regulator promptly folds with nothing more than a token fight. It’s just a comfortable charade being played out by both parties, which was worked out well beforehand and gives the regulator a bone fide excuse for setting the most onerous regulations possible.”
    https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/know-your-enemy-the-environmental-regulator/
    Pointman

    • Absolutely.
      Lisa Jackson boasted at the “40 years of EPA” celebration at Harvard in 2010, about the fact that:
      “the lead author of Massachusetts vs. EPA, came to work at the agency she once sued – to see through the work she sued it to do.
      http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/lisa_p_jackson_epa_administrator_fulfilling_the_un_mission.html
      “Lisa Heinzerling, who with my colleagues here today including Gina McCarthy, Bob Perciasepe and Bob Sussman helped EPA follow the science and follow the Supreme Court to finalize our endangerment finding on greenhouse gases last year.”
      These are the people she mentions and their status at that time:
       Lisa Heinzerling
      From January 2009 to July 2009, Heinzerling served as Senior Climate Policy Counsel to Lisa Jackson and then, from July 2009 to December 2010, she served as Associate Administrator of EPA’s Office of Policy. In 2008, she was a member of President Obama’s EPA transition team. A Professor of Law at Georgetown, she was at one time an assistant attorney general in Massachusetts, specializing in environmental law.
       Robert Sussman
      Sussman is a Senior Fellow at Podesta’s Center for American Progress and was appointed as senior policy counsel to the Environmental Protection Agency under Administrator Jackson on climate change and other environmental issues. Sussman also served on the EPA transition team with Jackson. It is his second stint there; he was deputy administrator under President Clinton from 1993 to 1994.
       Bob Perciasepe, Deputy Administrator.
      Previously Chief Operating Officer at the National Audubon Society, (where Carol Browner was on the Board), he coordinated national and state programs for them. During the Clinton Administration, he was EPA Assistant Administrator for Water and, subsequently, Air and Radiation.
       Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation.
      She was Undersecretary for Policy at the Massachusetts Executive Office for Environmental Affairs under Mitt Romney, appointed by him in 2003. Prior to her confirmation in the Obama Administration, she was Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
      McCarthy is now of course, continuing the EPA agenda.

    • Works that way in the UK too. Government departments have rules about civil servants’ political activities but none about their engagement in technically non-political groups that may be relevant to their work. So departments dealing with energy, “climate change” and the environment are stuffed with true believers convinced that any thing “green” (at least in their eyes) is good and that anyone who makes a case against, no matter how sound their evidence and arguments, is inherently bad if if not actually evil. So if there is an inconvenient law or absence of law obstructing their aims, an NGO can be sure that there will be no dispute about its standing to seek change, and that the department is unlikely to mount the strongest possible defence, not least because it won’t use the arguments most likely to succeed.

  15. These comments are from Lisa Jackson when she was EPA administrator:
    “During my first year as Administrator, the EPA finalized an endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, proposed the first national rules to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions under the Clean Air Act and initiated a national reporting system for greenhouse-gas emissions. All of these advances signaled historic progress in the fight against climate change.”
    “Climate change must be considered and integrated into all aspects of our work. While the EPA stands ready to help Congress craft strong, science-based climate legislation that addresses the spectrum of issues, we will assess and develop regulatory tools as warranted under law using the authority of the Clean Air Act.”
    The EPA authors of the Endangerment Technical Support Document were mainly economists and environmental policy specialists, with qualifications like Masters in International Affairs or Public Policy and Management, although there were a couple of chemists and engineers and one meteorologist. Five authors were also IPCC authors. The TSD was reviewed by Tom Karl, Gavin Schmidt and Susan Solomon.
    At a Power Shift rally in 2009, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1C7vMNQv2g, Jackson played to the crowd:
    “African Americans and women got the vote because of a power shift. We have the first African American head of the EPA and the first African American President; we have changed the face of environmentalism.
    We have a $10.5 billion budget, the largest in EPA history, that’s a power shift, EPA is back on the job. Science has been resurrected and will guide our actions.”
    She also promised that crowd, that she would overturn the Bush administration “midnight regulations”. The most critical of these to the environmental lobby was the memorandum by outgoing EPA chief Stephen Johnson, which stated that carbon dioxide was not a pollutant to be regulated and officials assessing applications by utilities to build new coal-fired power plants could not consider their greenhouse gas output when approving power plants.
    “Our first steps on taking office were to resume the CO2 endangerment finding and to seek fuel efficiency standards to reduce carbon pollution. The Law says Greenhouse Gases are pollution.”
    “Power Shift” http://www.wearepowershift.org/, is part of the Energy Action Coalition (EAC), which in turn describes itself as “a coalition of 50 youth-led environmental and social justice groups working together to build the youth clean energy and climate movement.” EAC is a prominent member of Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection and one of their chief projects is the Campus Climate Challenge, funded by, amongst others, George Soros’ Open Society Institute. http://climatechallenge.org/
    There is more on the EPA here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/the_un_states_epa.html
    and on Lisa Jackson as EPA head here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/lisa_p_jackson_epa_administrator_fulfilling_the_un_mission.html

    • All of these advances signaled historic progress in the fight against climate change.”

      When nonsense like this is taken seriously, I wonder if the real problem is that reality has turned into a bad made for TV movie.

  16. Apologies! When I said “the arguments most likely to succeed” I was thinking of those which would succeed with an impartial judiciary. In some areas of law in UK this appears not to be as reliably available as one would expect.

  17. The case was is a shining example of oligarch rule. Given Stevens concept of “not obsolete”, the implication is Congress intends to pass a law which allows the Executive to fill in all the blanks, even those blanks completely unknown. By extension, Congress should just be disbanded since they’re no longer needed, a point the current Administration is underscoring.
    Obtw, you do release the Paris conference is a show trial? The Deal has already been approved and what you’re seeing is the premier ads to a complacent public.

  18. So let me understand this – the EPA regulates CO2 as a pollutant based on its miniscule affect on atmospheric temperatures but does not regulate H2O vapour which is by far the most important GHG?
    As for the courts staying out of scientific arguments because they are not qualified to judge “this paper versus that paper” they adjudicate all the time in “he said, she said” cases. That is the whole function of the courts. Admittedly the justices of SCOTUS may be deemed to be laymen in scientific matters but is it not reasonable to expect and even require them to have an educated, intelligent layman’s grasp of science?
    Or is it the case that having reached the heights of the legal profession they can now turn off their brains and coast for the duration?

    • “Admittedly the justices of SCOTUS may be deemed to be laymen in scientific matters but is it not reasonable to expect and even require them to have an educated, intelligent layman’s grasp of science?”
      In a case involving a 17 yr. old murderer, Stevens opined that teenagers should not be tried as adults because science had discovered that their Frontal Lobes had allegedly not developed to the point where they could understand what death is. The lack of complete Frontal Lobe development is true, but the fact is that many adults murder people, and the vast majority of teenagers do not murder people, probably because they do know what death is and therefore, or also, the trouble they’d be in if they did murder people. I’ve known 6 yr. olds who know what death is, one of them was me, but two others were 6 yr.old little girls who I witnessed talking about their own deaths, then agreeing that they “couldn’t anything about it anyway…so let’s have a race” – they’d been tiring a little bit at the 9 mile mark of a 12 mile hike, so at that point they just took off on their race.
      But I concluded that according to Stevens, the question is, why does Stevens act like his Frontal Lobes are still not fully developed? As he also did in the Mass vs EPA suit, according to what chili palmer July 25, 2015 at 11:39 pm found above, that Stevens did make a scientific determination on CO2 Climate Change which apparently influenced his vote.

      • Left wing justices decide what the right ruling should be ahead of time, then seek out any justification to support their predetermined positions.

  19. An excellent book concerning the courts is “Galileo’s Revenge -Junk Science in the Courtroom” by Huber, which describes how the courts redefined “expert” testimony from someone with expertise representing the norms of the science to anyone with an opinion. This pretty much explains how the Warmist’s agenda at one time would have been thrown out, but now is allowed to be presented. “Scientific Experts” before were required to establish authentic expertise and bizzarre claims were limited because their primary vocation was not court testimony. Strange claims in court could affect their livlihood. (I don’t count psychiatry as science.)

  20. I’m a lawyer and I understand the opinion and actually agree with it though I am a skeptic. Courts are faced with the problem all of the time that science is not fully settled and later when the science is ferreted out are required to change course. A good example from my field of personal injury, which includes workers compensation, is how heart attacks are handled on the job.
    When I started practicing law 35 years ago it was common for judges to award worker’s compensation based on having a heart attack on the job. Why? Because it was easy back then to find a doctor who would say job related physical or mental stress caused a heart attack. Almost no worker would ever be successful today because it is damn hard (if not impossible) to find a doctor to say that physical or mental stress causes heart attacks, on or off the job.
    The state of global warming science today is that there is a huge “consensus” that CO2 causes it. Judges can’t decide the scientific issue and are thus left with going with concepts like consensus. Change the scientific consensus and you get a different result in court. Even getting the consensus down to the 75% level might causes judges to say this is a matter we should not be deciding.
    As for the pollution issue, I agree with the court’s reasoning on that. To much of a good thing can be a bad thing and we have a consensus of scientists saying it is now a bad thing.
    Politicians face the same damn problem as judges. So if you don’t like the legal and political effects consensus, you have to change it.

    • One other point — on the issue of standing. It is pretty darn rare for a state not to have standing in federal court concerning issues that affect citizens of the state. The irony here is that Scalia, Thomas and Alito are staunch “states rights” supporters, that is, until they don’t like a state’s claims.

      • For a lawyer you missed the obvious point raised about standing, specific injuries were not identified.
        The courts would become a circus swamped with frivolous ludicrous claims if potential “unknown non-specific bad things might happen” were basis for standing.

    • David, I’m a lawyer too, 35 years, working with experts in litigation, intellectual property law, and I disagree. I read it closely at the time and found it to be more of a predisposed opinion looking for a rationale. However as you point out, courts have plenty of legal precedent to support either side in any case they want. I don’t have time to go into detail on my recollection, but I do recall thinking that it presumed a lot of ‘facts’ by affidavit not subject to cross examination, took bald statements as true, and that had there been an evidentiary trial on what ‘the consensus statement really means and how vague it is and it’s ‘foundation’ much of the rationale would have been lost. The fact that the Supreme Court gives deference to administrative agencies in the executive branch sort of defeats the concept of separation of powers when the executuve branch is so easily stacked with political appointees, and that administrative deference principle is an Achilles heal in the system in my view. Also, Courts do determine…after evidence is taken, what the science is, in areas like admissibility/ inadmissibility in fingerprinting, DNA, voice printing, lie detectors, many others, and decide obviousness in patent law. If the EPA didn’t have a presumed advantage, real rules controlling admissibility of evidence between two private parties, would expose the meaningless nature of the famous ‘consensus’ statements. If the insurance companies really followed through with their claims that man made global warming caused them losses, the science would be on trial with fair rules of evidence and not decided by those in power in science. Juries listen to experts all the time on both sides explain the science to determine the facts, fire origin, causation, cause of death, etc.
      But the fact you and I or any two lawyers disagree on this should not be surprising, it was a 5-4 decision.

    • Not sure how you agree that “too much of a good thing is bad thing” supports CO2 as a valid argument for CO2 being a “pollutant”. You could also say too less of a good thing can be a bad thing as in too little CO2 could lead to world famine and an Ice age. You have to twist concepts and language beyond Orwells worse fears to make CO2 a pollutant.
      The point being if too much of anything can be a bad thing we would have to regulate everything. Oh wait, maybe that’s the point….

  21. There used to be a legal principle that the plaintiff had to first prove that harm had occurred before they could proceed with their case.
    Like the rest of judicial ethics, that too has been tossed aside in the mad rush to have govt take over everything.

    • That legal requirement of “there must be harm” still exists any time courts want to use it. It is amazing the machinations courts will go through to find harm if they want to and equally amazing the machinations the courts will go through to find no harm when they want. It is often a catch 22 for a litigant.
      The problem with the concepts of standing and harm is that they often make the principal of open courts and redress of grievances a sick joke. There is a clear judicial trend all over the country to find ways not to decide cases on their merits and to prevent juries from deciding cases.

    • No, no, no. Administrative Law is where the congress, or it’s authorized agency, decide harm, guilt, and punishment. Sort of like a King’s Court, a Star Chamber, or a kangaroo court.
      The framers of the constitution took Montesquieu’s advice and made sure that the judicial branch was separate from the other branches in order to make sure this kind of thing couldn’t happen but the Progressives figured out how to get around the constitutional separation of powers. Welcome, the regulatory state.

  22. The Bush EPA decided not to regulate CO2 because it would be difficult to do and would have little practical effect. They made that argument to the SCOTUS when challenged by Massachusetts and other states, and did it fairly well, even if some (I am one of them) believe EPA should have done a better job of arguing the science, too. The SCOTUS ruled that if CO2 is a pollutant it must be regulated under the Clean Air Act, and sent the case back to EPA to re-evaluate. On remand, one of the last acts of the Bush Administration was to conclude that CO2 did not pose a danger and should not be regulated. A month or so later, one of the first acts of the Obama EPA was to reconsider that decision, resulting in the Endangerment Finding and other similar rulemakings that resulted in regulation of CO2 as a pollutant. The Endangerment Finding was a travesty, but it’s been the basis of all subsequent CO2 regulation.
    I wrote about this in a law review article. https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=116+W.+Va.+L.+Rev.+1007&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=3876ea4ce0c8c9355e5a9ac10a405ada

  23. “It is possible the EPA arranged for Massachusetts and a few other states to file a petition against them for failing to regulate CO2 as a harmful substance. Of course, it was the EPA who determined it was a harmful substance.”
    And you wonder why Mitt didn’t get elected.

    • Many years ago my dad was watching a TV program where two fellows were in a disagreement about communism. One guy asked the other if he had ever been to a communist country. The other guy replied no, but he had been to Massachuetts. It took my dad a while to figure out what he ment about Massachusetts. I notice it all the time now.

  24. It depends on your definition of “is” which is the perfect climate for the Clintons to do whatever they want.

  25. I’m not judging your courts, as I am not informed about your laws. But 26C that is a pleasant heat. Most air conditioners the reverse cycle ones are set at 20 or 21 C in summer. And quite honestly I would not bother to turn one on, I’ve lived in much hotter climates, where people don’t work between 2 – 4 pm as it is too hot. (Siester time) We acclimatise like animals. Rug up in winter and stop becoming hot house flowers in a temperate climate.

Comments are closed.