Courts Wasting Time, "Global Warming" Debate.

Hey folks,

Good Thursday morning to you. Here we go again. It will be in all the news outlets today as usual, unless the President's meeting over rides it. OK, President meets with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and says, "We will not leave until the job is done. But we will work to speed the turnover" There you go.

Now the Supreme Court is divided on the issue of "Global Warming." I wouldn't be. There is no such thing. No scientific clear cut evidence AT ALL to support it. As a matter of fact, the Satellite and other evidence shows that the ice sheets are actually getting thicker, and that the Antarctic Dry Valleys, the continent's largest ice-free area, have cooled somewhat. The National Science Foundation says records show a decline in seasonally averaged surface air temperatures of 0.7 degrees centigrade per decade, but has no explanation for this fall.

With that and all the evidence to the exact opposite of "Global Warming", I understand why the Court is divided. Basically the case wasting the Court's time is whether the Environmental Protection Agency {EPA} is required by law to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from newly manufactured motor vehicles.

This basically sums up the disagreement,

"Isn't it intuitively reasonable to suppose that with some reduction of the greenhouse gases, there will be some reduction of the ensuing damage or the ensuing climate change which causes the damage?" asked Justice David Souter. "Isn't that fair?"

"There's something of a consensus on warming, but not a consensus on how much is attributable to human activity," countered Justice Antonin Scalia.

Translation of this case as a whole? CNN reports

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court appeared sharply divided Wednesday over what role the federal government should play in regulating carbon dioxide emissions from new cars.

The major environmental case pits states against the Bush administration over damage claims blamed on global warming."

They are blaming BUSH! {Laughing, banging hand on desk} What did their hero Clinton do? I think we need to blame Clinton. Think about this for a second. If driving cars are going to kill us, and President Clinton got a law passed to "regulate" car manufactures, {Government in private business} we would have by now fourteen years of cleaner air. FOURTEEN!.

Then you have an honest question. Lets say for a second that this IS true. {Even the EPA says that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant} This is an honest question and argument.

"The issue is important because the states must prove such specific harm to individuals in the face of EPA inaction before they can establish legal "standing" to continue their lawsuit.

"Let's say we're looking [ahead] at five years or 10 years, what particularized harm does the record show that Massachusetts will, or faces an imminent threat of suffering?" Alito asked.

"Given the nature of the harms, even small reductions can be significant," Milkey replied.

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the impact of any specific reductions by the United States alone, noting even if carbon dioxide emissions on new cars were regulated in the United States, broader global sources of pollution would remain.

"It assumes there isn't going to be a greater contribution of greenhouse gases from economic development in China and other places that's going to displace whatever marginal benefit you get here," Roberts said.

Milkey was hard pressed to estimate precisely how much reduction in greenhouse gases would occur if the EPA stepped in to reduce output from new cars."

Of course he was. There is no REAL proof.

"Currently about 6 percent of the world's output of carbon dioxide comes from U.S. vehicles. Scalia wondered what effect a reduction to 4 percent would represent.

Scalia also disagreed that carbon dioxide causes air pollution, since he said its destructive effects were as a "stratospheric pollutant" above the Earth's atmosphere.

"I think it has to endanger health by reason of polluting the air, and this does not endanger health by reason of polluting the air at all," said Scalia."

Folks I have told you before, "Global Warming" is a THEORY. For every scientist that says it is real, there are others that say it’s not. The same group running around saying it’s real, is the same group that was warning us about the new "Ice Age" a few years back. It’s all about money. Plain and simple. To have this in the Supreme Court is nothing more than a waste of the Court's time. Time that could be spent arguing the evils of the Easter Bunny, or whatever is next for those "concerned."
Peter

Sources:
CNN-"Global warming debate hits Supreme Court"
AP-"Bush agrees to speedy turnover in Iraq"