Supreme Court rules on Global Warming

[AgnosticJihad]

I don't have an article for this, but I'm watching the story on the news right now. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Federal Government does have the authority to regulate car emissions (the Administration's main argument for not addressing global warming), and reprimands the Administration for doing nothing. Thwere was more to the story, but I missed alot of it typing this. I'll try to find an article to post.

I can't help but wonder if this will really have any effect. Discuss please.

Here's a link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/washington/02cnd-scotus.html?ex=1333252800&en=0578de80b92a5751&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

[cupcakelove]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040200487.html?hpid=topnews

Here's a link to a washingtonpost article on the subject.

[badmonkey]

Bring on the talking and breathing taxes.

Badmonkey

[TheMojoPin]

Bring on the talking and breathing taxes.

Badmonkey

Please explain how potentially trying to regulate how much damaging crap a car spews out is the start of a slippery slope towards "talking and breathing taxes."

[badmonkey]

It's sarcasm. C02 is obviously the byproduct of breathing. It's also food for plants used to provide oxygen for us to breathe, which creates more C02. Vicious cycle. Still sarcasm. If it breathes, it pollutes. < /sarcasm >

I'm down with cutting pollution in our environment, but to label the byproduct of breathing as a pollutant is utterly rediculous.

Badmonkey

[cupcakelove]

It's sarcasm. C02 is obviously the byproduct of breathing. It's also food for plants used to provide oxygen for us to breathe, which creates more C02. Vicious cycle. Still sarcasm. If it breathes, it pollutes. < /sarcasm >

I'm down with cutting pollution in our environment, but to label the byproduct of breathing as a pollutant is utterly rediculous.

Badmonkey

1. If cars emitted close to the amount of CO2 that people do, we wouldn't have a problem.
2. Cars spit out a lot more than just CO2 into the air. If you disagree, close your garage door, then hang out and run your car for an hour.

[badmonkey]

1. If cars emitted close to the amount of CO2 that people do, we wouldn't have a problem.
2. Cars spit out a lot more than just CO2 into the air. If you disagree, close your garage door, then hang out and run your car for an hour.

Again I repeat and quote myself:
"I'm down with cutting pollution in our environment, but to label the byproduct of breathing as a pollutant is utterly rediculous."

Badmonkey

[d-rock]

when do we switch our attention from cars, which can be replaced with electric/hybrid vehicles, to factories/etc which spew out more pollutants than cars do.

[AgnosticJihad]

It's sarcasm. C02 is obviously the byproduct of breathing. It's also food for plants used to provide oxygen for us to breathe, which creates more C02. Vicious cycle. Still sarcasm. If it breathes, it pollutes. < /sarcasm >

I'm down with cutting pollution in our environment, but to label the byproduct of breathing as a pollutant is utterly rediculous.

Badmonkey

All due respect, your logic here is a little flawed. I'm not entirely sure how to show you how it's flawed, so allow me to try a couple of different methods.

1) Ever hear of oxygen poisoning/toxicity? Here's a link: http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity
Though oxygen poisoning has nothing to do with pollution, and is only commonly experienced by divers as a result of water pressure (but it can be caused by breathing in 100% oxygen for prolonged periods of time), it serves to show that just because an element/ chemical is a natural part of the respitory process, that doesn't mean too much of it can't do any harm. Too much of ANYTHING is usually not good.

2) By your rational, I would conclude that any chemical naturally produced by biological functions is harmless. I guess this means we could take tons of spider or snake venom, dump it in drinking water supplies, and not consider it pollution. (now that I read this back to myself, it does sound kind of stupid).

Ah fuck it. I give up.

[epo]

when do we switch our attention from cars, which can be replaced with electric/hybrid vehicles, to factories/etc which spew out more pollutants than cars do.

Why don't we just pay attention to both? Why can't we admit that the Earth does go through climate cycles, but it's our job not to expedite them? Maybe we're going through a cycle now, but we should also be responsible to the environment as well.

[Yerdaddy]

Again I repeat and quote myself:
"I'm down with cutting pollution in our environment, but to label the byproduct of breathing as a pollutant is utterly rediculous."

Badmonkey

Do you flush your toilet? If so, why?

Or more specific examples of byproducts of breathing being pollutants: The Don and Mike Show, Celine Dion's entire catalogue, The last six State of the Union Addresses, Billy Staples' Redbank stand-up, Wonderboy's breath, the fact that Osama Bin Laden is still doing it, the fact that Phil Hartman isn't, and all the awful conversations about reincarnation and chakras by all the American yoga-hippies I have to listen to in cafes in this little artsy yoga town in Bali.

[A.J.]

Did the Court find global warming to be unconstitutional?

[cupcakelove]

Did the Count find global warming to be unconstitutional?

Yes, they ruled that since the founding fathers did not use recycled paper when writing the Constitution, that global warming is an invention of the gay liberal medial.

[badmonkey]

And so it begins...

BBQ Tax in Belgium to fight glboal warming (http://en.rian.ru/world/20070403/62999935.html)
BRUSSELS, April 3 (RIA Novosti) - The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported.

Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007, residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session.

The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax legislation from helicopters, whose thermal sensors will detect burning grills.

Scientists believe CO2 emissions are a major cause of global warming.

Interesting that they will be using helicoptor patrols to make sure that you aren't polluting the air with your cooking. Wonder how many grams of CO2 a helicoptor puts out in the time it takes for you to grill some chicken or for them to catch you grilling without paying the tax.

Badmonkey

[cupcakelove]

And so it begins...



Interesting that they will be using helicoptor patrols to make sure that you aren't polluting the air with your cooking. Wonder how many grams of CO2 a helicoptor puts out in the time it takes for you to grill some chicken or for them to catch you grilling without paying the tax.

Badmonkey

What exactly does this have to do with the Supreme Courts ruling on the EPA's authority to regulate auto emissions in the US?

[MrPink]

Radio Psychic
Radio Psychic
Next week they are ruling on unicorns.

[badmonkey]

What exactly does this have to do with the Supreme Courts ruling on the EPA's authority to regulate auto emissions in the US?

The EPA has had that authority since 1990.

From the EPA Website: (http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/peg_caa/pegcaa04.html#topic4b)Under the 1990 Clean Air Act, auto manufacturers will build cleaner cars, and cars will use cleaner fuels. However, to get air pollution down and keep it down, a third program is needed; vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M), which makes sure cars are being maintained adequately to keep pollution emissions (releases) low. The 1990 Clean Air Act includes very specific requirements for inspection and maintenance programs.

The ruling was not that the EPA could now suddenly regulate auto emissions. The ruling was that CO2 was a pollutant and when emitted from automobiles falls under the already existing authority of the EPA to regulate. Now a country is taxing the emission of CO2 from a barbecue pit. My first post in this thread said "bring on the talking and breathing taxes". And to answer your question... if lunatics in other countries are doing it, how long before this ruling makes lunatics in THIS country write stupid laws taxing our barbecue pits? This is really not that big a stretch from the topic. If it is, then maybe a mod can split where I ruined this thread.

Badmonkey

[AgnosticJihad]

Dude, I just want to point out that just because Belgium is regulating the CO2 emissions from BBQ pits doesn't mean America will. The political cultures of Europe and the US are VERY different, and I find it highly unlikely that will happen here, at least in our lifetimes. Particularly considering how popular it is in America to hate Europe. Example of differences: political debate over whether or not global warming is caused by mankind is still ongoing here, but not in Europe (at least none that is taken seriously by most people there).

You do make a good point with Belgium's using helicoptors to catch people violating the BBQ tax. Unless of course the helicoptors use electric motors or biofuel (which I doubt). This does sound to me like a blatant attempt by Belgium's government to snatch up more money for themselves. But then again I don't think BBQing is nearly as popular in Europe as it is here, so I don't think they'll be bringing in much money.

[El Mudo]

Do you flush your toilet? If so, why?

Or more specific examples of byproducts of breathing being pollutants: The Don and Mike Show, Celine Dion's entire catalogue, The last six State of the Union Addresses, Billy Staples' Redbank stand-up, Wonderboy's breath, the fact that Osama Bin Laden is still doing it, the fact that Phil Hartman isn't, and all the awful conversations about reincarnation and chakras by all the American yoga-hippies I have to listen to in cafes in this little artsy yoga town in Bali.



Don't forget cow farts and Good Charlotte!

[Yerdaddy]

Don't forget cow farts and Good Charlotte!

Do you want my cow to get a stomache-ache? Turn off that Good Charlotte album!!!

[Yerdaddy]

And so it begins...



Interesting that they will be using helicoptor patrols to make sure that you aren't polluting the air with your cooking. Wonder how many grams of CO2 a helicoptor puts out in the time it takes for you to grill some chicken or for them to catch you grilling without paying the tax.

Badmonkey

Well I for one am astonished! How desperate for a counter-argument to a Supreme Court ruling is that right-wing website you found this story off of that they had to resort to a 100-word news blurb in a Russian news site about a province in Belgium's BBQ tax?!

"Desperation is a stinky cologne."

I gotta hand it to their researchers though - they certainly are willing to climb all the way into that barrell to scrape the shit out of the bottom of it. Or maybe they were already in there hiding from O'Riely and his loofa sponge and they happened to see this article.

Well it did make me curious if Belgium is one of those super-environmentally-concious European countries that have already reduced so much polution that in the search for ways to reduce more they came across BBQs. I found that Belgium (http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/eedrb/data/BE-enemc.html)emits 30% less CO2 per capita than the U.S. (http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/eedrb/data/US-enemc.html) according to Department of Energy figures. How long do you suppose it will be before we reduce our per capita output of CO2 to the point where we may start looking at BBQs as a significant polluter? Answer: never. We don't even have it as a goal. We will be lucky to reduce our rate of increase of pollution by 30%, (U.S. Predicting Steady Increase for Emissions (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/science/03climate.html?ex=1175832000&en=e02e6c8474f6b1cf&ei=5070)).

All this begs the question: The story in question in this thread shows that the Supreme Court has accepted global warming as real and a threat to the American public and that CO2 is a primary contributor. It also says that the EPA has the responsibility to regulate auto emissions even when the Bush administration defended the agency's right to do nothing.

What have you posted to disprove any of this? That we breathe and that Wallonians have their BBQs taxed?

You don't know when you're beaten dude. Do you really have your own radio show? You don't talk politics on there do you?

[cupcakelove]

All this begs the question: The story in question in this thread shows that the Supreme Court has accepted global warming as real and a threat to the American public and that CO2 is a primary contributor. It also says that the EPA has the responsibility to regulate auto emissions even when the Bush administration defended the agency's right to do nothing.



As much as I would like it to be true, this doesn't show the Supreme Court has accepted global warming. What it does show, is that even the Supreme Court agrees that the EPA recently has not been using scientific evidence to form their policies. If they can come up with a scientific justification for not regulating auto emissions, then the court will leave them alone.

[badmonkey]

Al Gore admitted that CO2 levels come after global warming by 400-800 years in his testimony before congress. Doesn't cause come before effect?


Badmonkey

[AgnosticJihad]

Badmonkey, I tried searching both the EU's and the Belgium government's websites for info on this barbeque tax, but couldn't find a fucking thing about it. Granted, most of Belgium's website is in Nederlands and Francais, and very little of it is in English or Deutsch (which I speak), so I couldn't get much info from it. But considering what Yerdaddy found, I'm going to have to doubt you.

And now you're posting "info" about what Gore said before Congress. If this is true, cite your source.

[badmonkey]

I've been sarcastic and light about this whole thing for the most part. I wasn't trying to say that we are going to tax barbecues in the USA. That was also sarcastic. As far as the right wing website I found that article on... it came up in a random google news search for global warming tax. You doubt me because of something Yerdaddy wrote? What did he write that said that this tax didn't exist?

They don't have the transcripts up and it was on the 21st when my parents were visiting so I could have misheard it, but I'm pretty sure that Gore was confronted about the fact that co2 levels rise after global warming occurs and he acknowledged it. When the transcripts are up, they will be here (http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-sci-hrg.032107.gore.shtml).

Who was trying to disprove anything? Was there something to disprove? It's common knowledge that the Supreme Court ruled. Why would I try to disprove that? Maybe my sarcasm didn't translate well over the board. Maybe the global warming crowd is just as insane as muslims that riot over a cartoon. Oh no! Somebody made fun of a Supreme Court decision! Like that's never happened before. And yes I do have a radio show where I talk about a lot of different things including some politics. I also make fun of stupid people like Supreme Court justices who think they're the final word on all things including science. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. Watch out kids, steamed vegetables are destroying the planet. (more sarcasm)

Curious, and I know that this can easily be flipped on me (don't care), but what is it that you guys like so much about the "tactics" of the "Global Warming crowd" that you dislike about the "tactics" of the "War on Terror crowd"?

"If you disagree with the War on Terror you're either unamerican, a left wing nutjob, or both."
"If you disagree with the existence of Global Warming, you're a denier, a right wing nutjob, or both."

There's a lot of parallels on these two issues that I've been noticing lately.

Badmonkey

[cupcakelove]

I've been sarcastic and light about this whole thing for the most part. I wasn't trying to say that we are going to tax barbecues in the USA. That was also sarcastic. As far as the right wing website I found that article on... it came up in a random google news search for global warming tax. You doubt me because of something Yerdaddy wrote? What did he write that said that this tax didn't exist?

They don't have the transcripts up and it was on the 21st when my parents were visiting so I could have misheard it, but I'm pretty sure that Gore was confronted about the fact that co2 levels rise after global warming occurs and he acknowledged it. When the transcripts are up, they will be here (http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-sci-hrg.032107.gore.shtml).

Who was trying to disprove anything? Was there something to disprove? It's common knowledge that the Supreme Court ruled. Why would I try to disprove that? Maybe my sarcasm didn't translate well over the board. Maybe the global warming crowd is just as insane as muslims that riot over a cartoon. Oh no! Somebody made fun of a Supreme Court decision! Like that's never happened before. And yes I do have a radio show where I talk about a lot of different things including some politics. I also make fun of stupid people like Supreme Court justices who think they're the final word on all things including science. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. Watch out kids, steamed vegetables are destroying the planet. (more sarcasm)

Curious, and I know that this can easily be flipped on me (don't care), but what is it that you guys like so much about the "tactics" of the "Global Warming crowd" that you dislike about the "tactics" of the "War on Terror crowd"?

"If you disagree with the War on Terror you're either unamerican, a left wing nutjob, or both."
"If you disagree with the existence of Global Warming, you're a denier, a right wing nutjob, or both."

There's a lot of parallels on these two issues that I've been noticing lately.

Badmonkey

That problem isn't that people don't get your sarcasm, its that you're being smug about something that is unrelated to the story linked to in the first post. I know the title says global warming in it, but the supreme court's ruling did not have anything to do with it. It was about the scope of the EPA's authority, and if the EPA was doing their job properly, so to start screaming about global warming, bbq taxes in belgium, and al gore, just makes you look like a nut job.

[TheMojoPin]

"If you disagree with the War on Terror you're either unamerican, a left wing nutjob, or both."
"If you disagree with the existence of Global Warming, you're a denier, a right wing nutjob, or both."

There's a lot of parallels on these two issues that I've been noticing lately.

Badmonkey

Those bolded parts aren't very good parallels at all. The first typically hovers around straight up calling people treasonous or traitors. The latter is just sort of "meh."

[TheMojoPin]

That problem isn't that people don't get your sarcasm, its that you're being smug about something that is unrelated to the story linked to in the first post. I know the title says global warming in it, but the supreme court's ruling did not have anything to do with it. It was about the scope of the EPA's authority, and if the EPA was doing their job properly, so to start screaming about global warming, bbq taxes in belgium, and al gore, just makes you look like a nut job.

I disagree with him, but he doesn't look like a nut job. Why reply to him like that?

[badmonkey]

Those bolded parts aren't very good parallels at all. The first typically hovers around straight up calling people treasonous or traitors. The latter is just sort of "meh."

It's not "meh", when it's used to discredit scientists and suppress their research when they disagree with global warming alarmists. It sounds exactly the same as complaints I've heard about the war on terror. Either way, anybody that disagrees with global warming is treated as a kook, regardless of scientific evidence that supports their statements.

And thanks by the way for defending my non-nutjob status. :)

Badmonkey

[MrPink]

Global warming doesn't exist.

[TheMojoPin]

It's not "meh", when it's used to discredit scientists and suppress their research when they disagree with global warming alarmists. It sounds exactly the same as complaints I've heard about the war on terror. Either way, anybody that disagrees with global warming is treated as a kook, regardless of scientific evidence that supports their statements.

And thanks by the way for defending my non-nutjob status. :)

Badmonkey

Honestly, almost all of the experts and scientists that are most adamant about humans not having a severely negative impact on global warming don't need much discrediting. I'm sorry, but there's very little evidence that supports the minority view...hence why it's remained in the minority. The science, by and large, points away from their conclusions. A good number of the people that refuse to be anything bu contrary ARE kooks that are refusing to look at the overall picture. These guys are discredited 99% of the time for a reason...they're shitty researchers with shitty research.

And anyone who says global warming doesn't exist is REALLY uninformed. The issue isn't whether or not it exists...the issue is whether or not humans are accelerating it and if there's anything we can do about it.

[AgnosticJihad]

Badmonkey, I'm not objecting to your sarcasm. I love sarcasm, and enjoyed yours (when it was obvious; it wasn't always. That's the problem with using sarcasm in the written word: you have to make it very obvious). All I was saying is that you're throwing out information that if true, could be used to make a valid point; unfortunately I've been unable to confirm the info you're putting out there. It's okay if you do it every once in a while, but to do it over and over is a little annoying. Also, when you throw info out there like that, it makes it appear like you ARE being serious.

[AgnosticJihad]

That problem isn't that people don't get your sarcasm, its that you're being smug about something that is unrelated to the story linked to in the first post. I know the title says global warming in it, but the supreme court's ruling did not have anything to do with it. It was about the scope of the EPA's authority, and if the EPA was doing their job properly, so to start screaming about global warming, bbq taxes in belgium, and al gore, just makes you look like a nut job.

Considering the court ruled that CO2 is a pollutant and chastises the EPA for doing nothing, and (to my knowledge, at least) the only known negative effect CO2 has on the environment is its role in global warming, kinda sounds like it's related to global warming. Maybe it's just me, though.

[scottinnj]

All due respect, your logic here is a little flawed. I'm not entirely sure how to show you how it's flawed, so allow me to try a couple of different methods.

1) Ever hear of oxygen poisoning/toxicity? Here's a link: http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity
Though oxygen poisoning has nothing to do with pollution, and is only commonly experienced by divers as a result of water pressure (but it can be caused by breathing in 100% oxygen for prolonged periods of time), it serves to show that just because an element/ chemical is a natural part of the respitory process, that doesn't mean too much of it can't do any harm. Too much of ANYTHING is usually not good.

2) By your rational, I would conclude that any chemical naturally produced by biological functions is harmless. I guess this means we could take tons of spider or snake venom, dump it in drinking water supplies, and not consider it pollution. (now that I read this back to myself, it does sound kind of stupid).

Ah fuck it. I give up.

Now on this we agree AgnosticJihad. The EPA already has the authority to impose CAFE standards on the auto industry. It just makes sense that not only do they have that authority, they should also be able to regulate the emissions from the tailpipes of the vehicles they have CAFE standards on.
It's an exhaust pipe. Just like the smokestacks at electrical generation plants. If the EPA can regulate the pollutants out of power plants, it can regulate pollution coming out of automobiles.
Pollution is pollution. Doesn't matter how it is generated. We should all be working to get emissions down. I'm not a global warming guy, I just want blue skies and clean water.

[AgnosticJihad]

Now on this we agree AgnosticJihad. The EPA already has the authority to impose CAFE standards on the auto industry. It just makes sense that not only do they have that authority, they should also be able to regulate the emissions from the tailpipes of the vehicles they have CAFE standards on.
It's an exhaust pipe. Just like the smokestacks at electrical generation plants. If the EPA can regulate the pollutants out of power plants, it can regulate pollution coming out of automobiles.
Pollution is pollution. Doesn't matter how it is generated. We should all be working to get emissions down. I'm not a global warming guy, I just want blue skies and clean water.

Exactly. This is why I don't get people who refuse to regulate emmissions (or any other form of pollution, for that matter) just because they don't believe in global warming. Whether it exists or not, pollution has plenty of negative effects aside from global warming.

[scottinnj]

Damn right. I don't know if flushing your radiator without a catch can contributes to global warming, but over time it will hurt your neighbor's baby once the antifreeze seeps into their well.

[Yerdaddy]

I've been sarcastic and light about this whole thing for the most part. I wasn't trying to say that we are going to tax barbecues in the USA. That was also sarcastic. As far as the right wing website I found that article on... it came up in a random google news search for global warming tax. You doubt me because of something Yerdaddy wrote? What did he write that said that this tax didn't exist?

They don't have the transcripts up and it was on the 21st when my parents were visiting so I could have misheard it, but I'm pretty sure that Gore was confronted about the fact that co2 levels rise after global warming occurs and he acknowledged it. When the transcripts are up, they will be here (http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-sci-hrg.032107.gore.shtml).

Who was trying to disprove anything? Was there something to disprove? It's common knowledge that the Supreme Court ruled. Why would I try to disprove that? Maybe my sarcasm didn't translate well over the board. Maybe the global warming crowd is just as insane as muslims that riot over a cartoon. Oh no! Somebody made fun of a Supreme Court decision! Like that's never happened before. And yes I do have a radio show where I talk about a lot of different things including some politics. I also make fun of stupid people like Supreme Court justices who think they're the final word on all things including science. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. Watch out kids, steamed vegetables are destroying the planet. (more sarcasm)

Curious, and I know that this can easily be flipped on me (don't care), but what is it that you guys like so much about the "tactics" of the "Global Warming crowd" that you dislike about the "tactics" of the "War on Terror crowd"?

"If you disagree with the War on Terror you're either unamerican, a left wing nutjob, or both."
"If you disagree with the existence of Global Warming, you're a denier, a right wing nutjob, or both."

There's a lot of parallels on these two issues that I've been noticing lately.

Badmonkey

http://moldfarm.com/albums/bush/monkey_bike.jpg

Sarcasm? Come on! You and I both know you’re backpedaling. (You can use the picture if you like.) There’s no hint of sarcasm anywhere in your posts. (My post was full of obvious sarcasm mixed with real evidence and a consideration of yours. Compare the two.) But that’s not such a bad thing. Backpedaling might be one step towards open-mindedness. When I started reading this post I didn't even want to call you on it. But then you work in the thinly-veiled insult of referring to the “global warming crowd” and their “tactics” like people who have accepted global warming as a real and serious issue are some illegitimate irrational fringe group of subversives imposing their crazy beliefs on an unsuspecting public. You lost an argument and you go on the attack with a straw man insult. A month ago I posted a portion of legitimate people and institutions that make up the “global warming crowd” here in post #47 (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=56519&page=2&highlight=nasa), or at least people who take the issue seriously. Notice that in that thread you and the other climate change deniers continued to post articles from discredited sources and pictures of Al Gore and ignored any of the credible sources of information on the issue. That’s what you did with my post here – you ignored my arguments and mischaracterized my position in your next post to make me sound like an asshole for taking my position and compared me to the people who have questioned my patriotism over the last six years of the Wurr on Turr.

The obvious truth is that you are what you accuse me of being: an ideological demagogue. Why? Because you ignore good evidence, seek out bad evidence in order to tow the conservative line without regard to the truth. What is it that the Supreme Court listens to before making a decision? Evidence. Why? Because it’s the basis for making any good decision. So why do you hate evidence? Because you don’t care if you’re making good decisions or not. That’s why I do call you a right-wing nutjob. Not because you don’t believe in the existence of climate change. But because you don’t believe in assessing and reviewing evidence before making your decisions. You were relying on a Russian news article about an obscure Belgian law to defend your position on this issue. Then you use thinly-veiled insults to mischaracterize everyone who believes it is real.

I’ve supported Bush’s troop “surge”, his guest worker plan, his AIDS funding, Powell’s labeling of Darfur a genocide, I supported the invasion of Aghanistan while opposing the arming and supporting of warlords and the withdrawal of troops and intelligence resources to Iraq, I support the existence of a War on Terrorism, but I support winning it – not blindly supporting my party’s politicians whether they’re winning or losing. I may not have the most posts on the board, but I’ve probably posted more words on this board than anyone else. And the vast majority of those words have been defending my positions with credibly sourced, carefully worded arguments. And every time I make one of those arguments I get ignored, insulted, or mischaracterized by conservatives who hold dogmatically to their opinions and refuse to acknowledge credible evidence that conflicts with their opinions. There are exceptions to this, and you certainly aren’t the worst. But you do it, like you did on the other climate change thread and in this one. And every time I’ve suggested that you were a right-wing nut I’ve explained to you why. You’re asking now, not because you really want to know, but because you’re trying to make the comparison between me and them. That’s why I’m calling you one now.

So you want to know what’s the difference between me and the pro-Wurr on Turr people? I consider evidence and only attack people who attack me. They attack first and last and have no respect for evidence. In my opinion, based on everything that’s happened since the Wurr on Turr began – like the fact that we lost in Iraq and we’re losing in Afghanistan and the overall Wurr on Turr – to hate evidence is to accept and condone the damage done to America over the last five years. And to ask for more. How can I be expected to respect that kind of thing at this point?

Regarding the Gore (again with Gore. Get that fucking dingo under control!) testimony, his prepared testimony is up there and there’s no reference to CO2 and the start of global warming. If it was in the Q&A then you’ll have to post it. At the same time though, you’ll have to demonstrate how the start of global warming can’t be possible without CO2 emissions when it is well-known that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. Therefore global warming is possible without excess CO2. That’s just basic logic.

I’ve always been willing to consider your arguments on their merits. I expect the same from you, if you don’t like being called a nutjob.

[Yerdaddy]

As much as I would like it to be true, this doesn't show the Supreme Court has accepted global warming. What it does show, is that even the Supreme Court agrees that the EPA recently has not been using scientific evidence to form their policies. If they can come up with a scientific justification for not regulating auto emissions, then the court will leave them alone.

From the majority opinion (PDF): (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf)

(b) The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. The Government’s own objective assessment of the relevant science and a strong consensus among qualified experts in-dicate that global warming threatens, inter alia, a precipitate rise insea levels, severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems, a significant reduction in winter snowpack with direct and important economic consequences, and increases in the spread of disease and the ferocity of weather events. That these changes are widely shareddoes not minimize Massachusetts’ interest in the outcome of this liti-gation. See Federal Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U. S. 11, 24. Ac-cording to petitioners’ uncontested affidavits, global sea levels rosebetween 10 and 20 centimeters over the 20th century as a result of global warming and have already begun to swallow Massachusetts’ coastal land. Remediation costs alone, moreover, could reach hun-dreds of millions of dollars. Pp. 17–19.

(c) Given EPA’s failure to dispute the existence of a causal con-nection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and globalwarming, its refusal to regulate such emissions, at a minimum, “con-tributes” to Massachusetts’ injuries. EPA overstates its case in argu-ing that its decision not to regulate contributes so insignificantly topetitioners’ injuries that it cannot be haled into federal court, and that there is no realistic possibility that the relief sought would miti-gate global climate change and remedy petitioners’ injuries, espe-cially since predicted increases in emissions from China, India, and other developing nations will likely offset any marginal domestic de-crease EPA regulation could bring about... Leaving aside the other greenhouse gases, the record indi-cates that the U. S. transportation sector emits an enormous quantity of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Pp. 20–21.

Maybe it gets more specific on the pages referred to, but I don't know how much more specific you can get. They're stating this as their accepted opinion - as fact.

A reduction in do-mestic emissions would slow the pace of global emissions increases,no matter what happens elsewhere. The Court attaches considerable significance to EPA’s espoused belief that global climate change must be addressed. Pp. 21–23.

It even points out the EPA's own belief in global climate change.

The fact that DOT’s mandate to promote energy efficiency by settingmileage standards may overlap with EPA’s environmental responsi-bilities in no way licenses EPA to shirk its duty to protect the public“health” and “welfare,” §7521(a)(1). Pp. 25–30

The EPA has a "duty" to protect us from climate change. No shirking!

Under the Act’s clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climatechange or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why itcannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. It has refused to do so, offering instead a laundry list of reasons not to regulate

The court is not waiting for the EPA to disprove global warming. "It refused to do so" so it made its decision based on the available evidence from the "strong consensus among qualified experts." Sound familiar?

Unless there's some Latvian National Junior College Metaphysics Jr. Assistant Teacher's aid that has found evidence that the Supreme Court is full of shit and they suppresed it as part of the global conspiracy of evil scientists and Neobolsheviks to hurt Bush's feelings and make his daughters have to get hammered and naked on domestic beer then I'm siding with the Supreme court.

[cupcakelove]

Yerdaddy likes to read. I was going with what I saw summarized in news articles, and I never saw one talk about the Supreme Court actually referencing climate change (I guess its another example of the liberal media spreading the myth of global warming). This is great news.