tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post7942409934895228982..comments2023-11-02T00:33:00.040-07:00Comments on Sowell's Law Blog: Legal Challenges to Global Warming LegislationRoger Sowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-30123942973246984622010-01-11T12:04:22.075-08:002010-01-11T12:04:22.075-08:00http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126027972598681805...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126027972598681805.html?mod=djemITP#articleTabs%3Dcomments<br /><br />Yes, the Court Opinion established that “Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of “air pollutant,” we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases …(1)” But…<br /><br />According to the Opinion narrative, The State of Mass used Dr. Michael MacCracken as one of their expert witness. Per Dr. McCracken’s bio (2) he “coordinated the official U.S. Government reviews of several of the assessment reports prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and he was a co-author/contributing author for various chapters in the IPCC assessment reports.” <br /><br />It is reasonable to infer from reading the Opinion that the State of Mass and the Court did rely on the IPCC data that is now being questioned in order to conclude that in their opinion, “scientific certainty” did exist wrt to CO2 being an “air pollutant”.<br /><br />The Opinion also states that: “If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, EPA must say so.”<br /> <br />It is also clear from reading the Opinion that the EPA did not agree with the State of Mass that the GW science was certain and they tried to argue that the EPA should not be forced make a ruling to have CO2 declared a “air pollutant” as demanded by the State of Mass. <br /><br />The EPA obviously lost that argument due to the testimony of expert witnesses and one can conclude that the Court was convinced that “scientific certainty” had been established. <br /><br />One has to wonder if that “evidence” included the Mann Made warming “Hockey Stick”? It would be interesting to read the Court Transcripts in order to establish what props were used by the State of Mass lawyers and their Expert Witnesses.<br /><br />The Court Opinion concluded by stating that: “In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation (as in lost the argument?) for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law.”<br /><br />And there you have it – in order to comply with the law as read by the Supreme Court and contrary to the EPA’s “expert” advice, CO2 was subsequently ruled an “air pollutant” and which has now been elevated to the exulted status of being a “dangerous pollutant”.<br /><br />Is there a way to get the horse back in the stable and put the correct facts in front of the Supreme Court as it is clear from the Climategate e-mails that the Supreme Court was unknowingly fed false data that was taken at face value (3), the EPA lost the case, heads rolled and that we are the worse for it with science being “forced” to suit policy decisions, right or wrong. <br />(1) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf<br /><br />(2) http://www.climate.org/about/maccracken-bio.html<br /><br />(3) http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climategate.htmlNormannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-81330286581702207212009-03-13T22:37:00.000-07:002009-03-13T22:37:00.000-07:00Ms. Jeanette, Thank you for the kind words! There ...Ms. Jeanette, <BR/><BR/>Thank you for the kind words! <BR/><BR/>There are, as I wrote briefly, several ways to challenge an environmental regulation. There are many more, and each can be used when the situation is right. <BR/><BR/>Such legal challenges can delay the implementation of a law, and that can be useful. In the case of climate change, it might be useful to tie up the implementation for a decade or two, and let the climate change so we see what we are up against, if anything. We are working on that for California's AB 32. <BR/><BR/>This is somewhat like turning the tables on the environmentalists, who delight so in filing lawsuits to delay projects. <BR/><BR/>And I am honored to be your California friend! <BR/><BR/>Regarding the NEWTAP project, I hope to see it function someday. It has always dismayed me to see great floods in the midwest, while the western states are suffering water shortages. <BR/><BR/>There are indeed other big ideas to solve big problems. Stay tuned! <BR/><BR/>RogerRoger Sowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15390264574157209871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3575804792126536975.post-30275913179567219002009-03-13T18:54:00.000-07:002009-03-13T18:54:00.000-07:00Finding a legal way to stop "global warming legisl...Finding a legal way to stop "global warming legislation" seems extremely difficult. Thanks for this clear description of what one must prove to challenge a law. I try not to become someone in the hopeless category, but when I experienced that no one, including the Bush administration and the Supreme Court, would vet whether or not a candidate for President was a "natural born citizen" as required by our Constitution, I certainly became disillusioned.<BR/><BR/>I find it so interesting that the AGWers are trying to tar reasonable scientists with the "right-wing conservative" lable. Actually, I see that all liberals and conservatives are left out of the current power structure. Only "progressives" and further-leftists are running the show. And I am very surprised at those I used to believe were liberal joining up.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, thank you for your comments on WUWT and for your own blog. I feel like I have an internet friend in California. Your ideas about water distribution from those who have it to California and the more arid West is exactly the kind of project our tax money should fund. Keep the great ideas coming; maybe a global cold spell will bring the grandiosity down a peg or two.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01811175315920598010noreply@blogger.com