Environmentalists hail Supreme Court ruling

[CMF Newsman]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Environmentalists hailed a US Supreme Court ruling that the government has the power to regulate greenhouse gases, as a watershed decision in fighting global warming.

In a sharply divided judgment, the court ruled Monday that greenhouse gases are pollutants, and so the federal Environmental Protection Agency was wrong to say it had no mandate to regulate such emissions.

The decision dealt a new blow to the administration of President George W. Bush, which is steadfast in refusing any limits on US industry or on its gas-guzzling cars, arguing it could hurt the country's economy.

"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 from new motor vehicles," the court ruled.

story

[bushcheney08]

Bush needs to fire those Supreme Court Justices and replace them with smarter ones who know that there's no such thing as global warming because there are a few scientists out there who still don't believe in it.

[Copperhead]

What, we should pollute just because we can? Forget global warming, how about acid rain? That is something that is caused by pollution. How about trees alongside heavily travelled streets that choke from the fumes from the multitudes of vehicles that pass it daily?

Pollution, whether or not it causes global warming, is not a good thing. It hurts all of us, be it directly or indirectly.

[tcrashfx]

Bush needs to fire those Supreme Court Justices and replace them with smarter ones who know that there's no such thing as global warming because there are a few scientists out there who still don't believe in it.

Yep, "W" needs to fire them and the House and Senate too!

That would sure fix the problem.

[Jay]

We'll see if this actually does anything though... Hopefully, it will. We need to look after the climate for our children's children and such .....if there are any humans left by then..

[Felix]

And another story to fan the flames...

International report details impact of global warming:
The conclusions came in the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has tracked research on human-caused global warming since it was created under UN auspices in 1988.

In February, the panel released a report that for the first time concluded with 90 percent certainty that human actions were the main cause of warming since 1950. But in this report, focusing on impacts of warming, the group described for the first time how species, water supplies, ice sheets, and regional climate conditions were already responding.

(The report was to be posted on the Web at www.ipcc.ch. )

At a news conference capping four days of debate between scientists and representatives from more than 100 governments, Martin Parry, the co-chairman of the team that wrote the new report, said widespread impacts were already measurable, with much more to come.

If I remember correctly, a number of folks on this board vigorously deny validity to the linking of a documented warming trend with man-made carbon emissions. At one time, the fact of the warming trend was also denied, although some have acknowledged that such has been the case over the past hundred years or so. They just ascribe it to cyclical changes. I agree that climate moves in cycles, that is what killed the dinosaurs, among other "cyclical" effects.

[Thorne]

Marvell, the reason that we totally disagree with the majority of these so-called "scientific studies" is because they don't take into account the history of the world's climate. This is a wonderful case in point right here. "In February, the panel released a report that for the first time concluded with 90 percent certainty that human actions were the main cause of warming since 1950." Given that there is plenty of evidence of climactic changes prior to 1950 (some on a much more drastic scale than we have seen in the past 60 years), why is it that man is all of a sudden responsible for these changes in the last 60 years, but not before?? This is why I call this bullshit science. They're picking a time, then saying "Okay, from this point, man is responsible for it. We can't tell you what happened in the years before this, but we can definitely say that man is responsible for the last 60 years." That, and the amount of carbon emissions that man has been responsible for over the past 125 years wouldn't match some of the natural carbon emissions that the planet itself produces in the form of natural phenomena like volcanic eruptions.

[legaltender]

Given that there is plenty of evidence of climactic changes prior to 1950 (some on a much more drastic scale than we have seen in the past 60 years), why is it that man is all of a sudden responsible for these changes in the last 60 years, but not before?? This is why I call this bullshit science.

In 1950, the world's population stood at 2.5 billion, rising to just over 4 billion by 1975. In 1999 it was just over 6 billion and by the start of 2004 had reached 6.3 billion.

[daworm]

And each of us fart.

Of course, I have no problems with any effort to reduce the population. There's too damned many people as it is. And I have no problems with limiting emissions. Rampant pollution shouldn't be acceptable. My problem is the methods used to determine what are acceptable levels and what are not. They make assumptions based on man-caused global warming, which hasn't been proven (and no, these studies do not prove it, and the 90% claim is about as bogus as any other statistics you'll read), and as such cause companies to waste billions of dollars that needn't have been wasted.

What's funny is that what motivates these so-called environmentalists isn't the environment at all. All they want to do is harm big business in any way they can. Making them waste billions on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, when one single volcano will release in on eruption what all the factories on earth have released since the first factory was built, is a wonderful way to do that.

[el Gusano]

Look at the history of the Antarctic ice cap. Wasn't always there.

BTW, why is Mars getting warmer? Did we cause that as well? Or are all the Martians driving Expeditions also?

[Deleted]

> why is it that man is all of a sudden responsible for these changes in the last 60 years, but not before??

Because of the degree (quantity) of burning fossil (carbon) fuels.

[Copperhead]

Something to consider - the earth's climate does go through warmer and cooler cycles. Is it possible that perhaps mankind's activity is accelerating the process? It's going to happen anyhow but our use of resouces could well be making it happen faster.

Just a thought from my little corner.

[daworm]

Possibly, or it could be retarding the natural cycle, or it could be having no effect whatsoever. There's too much emphasis placed on correlation, with none on causality. We know we are putting out more CO2 than in the past, and we know it is warmer than other time periods. That's a correlation. But we don't know, and because it is not something we can experiment with, we can't know, if the increased CO2 is causing the warming, hindering it, or having no effect whatsoever. The closest we can get to actual experimentation is computer modeling, and when the models fail to say what the modelers want them to say, they change the model. Their preconceived notion of how things ought to be influence their models, which are then used to "prove" their preconceived notions. How convenient.

[spinsandbarks]

BTW, why is Mars getting warmer? Did we cause that as well? Or are all the Martians driving Expeditions also?

I'm amazed. This is the third time today I've read this specific comment -- down to the details of Martians driving Expeditions -- on message boards with absolutely no connection or relation whatsoever other than hotly debated discussions about global warming.

Either someone's got talking points or Ford is not as stoopid as I thought it was.

[legaltender]

spinsandbarks said:

BTW, why is Mars getting warmer? Did we cause that as well? Or are all the Martians driving Expeditions also?

I'm amazed. This is the third time today I've read this specific comment -- down to the details of Martians driving Expeditions -- on message boards with absolutely no connection or relation whatsoever other than hotly debated discussions about global warming.

I found six others -- along with comments like this in response:

"Actually, the people of Mars have been electing Republicans for some time, now, and as a result are facing total disaster, not to mention a shortage of government welfare checks. No doubt residents of Venus are sneaking across the border to Mars each night, and taking jobs that citizens of Mars won't do."

[Felix]

Legal Tender cited another comment anent Global Warming and Mars:

Actually, the people of Mars have been
electing Republicans for some time, now, and as a
result are facing total disaster, not to mention
a shortage of government welfare checks.

That is funny. Occasional laughter amidst the fury of bunkered-down crossfire is therapeutic.

[Jay]

Mars isn't exactly warm. It could stand to be a little warmer. If it was, it could become a prime vacation spot in a few centuries

[el Gusano]

Hmmm... I just knew that Mars was getting warmer because of the Solar cycle because of a science article I read a few days ago, I got cynical, and the Expedition was the biggest vehicle I could think of off hand. I don't even know if it's the biggest gas guzzler or not.

In reality, I would think it was all the oil-burning, fluid leaking, sputtering, inefficient Subarus that the environmental whackos drive that would be more likely to cause the problems, but that was too many syllables.

[daworm]

Try this one.

[Deleted]

What's that hood ornament? Briggs & Stratton?

www.briggsandstratton.com.au/images/bslogo.jpg

[The Easter Bunny]

Note to "The Easter Bunny:" there is a forum for funny stuff, called, imagine this, "Funny Stuff."

I am sending your effort at humor to your pm box. Feel free to cut and paste into the appropriate forum.

**alleged humorous post deleted.

[Jay]

Too bad they don't make the Ford Excursion any more ...

[atticflea]

I'm not entirely sure if this follows the thread or not, but here goes.

Bush and Big Oil apparently have a little secret.

-NEWS from MotherJones-

"President Bush promises that fuel-cell cars will be free of pollution. But if he has his way, the cars of tomorrow will run on hydrogen made from fossil fuels."

www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2003/05/ma_375_01.html