The U.S. Supreme Court And the AGW Scam

Remember in 1972 when the EPA found DDT was harmful, to whom they never said, how it was harmful never said, and what real science was it based on never said. They just said it was harmful and so it was ordained harmful.

WHO in 2006, after 30 plus years of trying, could find anything harmful from DDT. Yes that WHO. -- Couldn't find a thing about DDT harmful to anything. And so WHO authorized it's use again, all hell in libturd land broke loose, they then reduced their finding to limited use.

In the meantime, since 1972 between 30-40 million Africans, mostly children under the age of 5, died of malaria. Libturds and their junk science can be very disastrous.

The arguments before rendering the CO2 decision were hot and furious. Thomas Jefferson quotes are in order ...

”It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions,”

“It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

In a very carefully weasel worded tortured 5-4 opinion — The Supreme Court said “MAY find” it did not find that CO2 “IS harmful”. So they deferred to the now discredited UN/IPCC and HAD/CRU where we now know they faked the data. I suspect in light of the recent exposure of the AGW fraud, the SC may want a do over.

Here is the introductory part of the SC CO2 decision, the judges playing scientist, wrongheaded on all counts:

MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA

Opinion of the Court

JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.

A well documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat. It is therefore a species—the most important species—of a “greenhouse gas.”

Calling global warming “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,” a group of States, local governments, and private organizations, alleged in a petition for certiorari that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has abdicated its responsibility under the Clean Air Act to regulate the emissions of four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. Specifically, petitioners asked us to answer two questions concerning the meaning of §202(a)(1) of the Act: whether EPA has the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles; and if so, whether its stated reasons for refusing to do so are consistent with the statute.

In response, EPA, supported by 10 intervening States and six trade associations, correctly argued that we may not address those two questions unless at least one petitioner has standing to invoke our jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution. Notwithstanding the serious character of that jurisdictional argument and the absence of any conflicting decisions construing §202(a)(1), the unusual importance of the underlying issue persuaded us to grant the writ. 548 U. S. __ (2006).

The complete decision PDf is here. You may observe how the SC's finding does not match today's EPA actions. The SC tossed in well respected, for a big laugh today. You may also note that the 'ceiling' referred to, Al Gore warm blanket, scientifically referred to as the greenhouse signature, is completely missing from attempts to find same. Multiple teams with weather balloons have come up empty, and it does not appear in the satellite data. JoNava has a novice level paper that explains the whole AGW scam at JoNova.Com.Au

Words mean things, and often not what they mean, is what is being done.