Posted on 08/03/2015 12:17:45 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee
Well if we are at the point where water vapor is considered a pollutant, I guess I need reeducation camp.
maybe off topic, but, I’ve never seen any public opinion polls of how many people believe in global warming. I’ve never seen any polls of how many favor doing carbon credit schemes, subsidizing “renewable” energy, or any of that.
I’m sure there have been polls done. Does anyone else think that the results of the polls have been quashed, because the polls don’t show strong support for a climate change agenda such as espoused by the liberals and Obama???
He has done nothing to earn his next Nobel Prize (or the first one FWIW) but, trust me, it's coming.
That sounds interesting. Do you have a link or do you know the name of the case?
just do a search on Peabody Energy sued Federal EPA over East Angli emails, or discredited hockey stick theory of global warming.
The reason that I know so much about it is because the coal terminal that Peabody energy is part of is near me. I have been following the issue for a number of years.
EPA has nothing to do with the east angli emails or the hockey stick
No, you are mis understanding the case.
No, you are mis understanding the case.
This is from the first article that came up on a quick search.
Well look what we’ve got here :
The world’s largest private sector coal business, the Peabody Energy Company (PEC) has filed a mammoth 240-page “Petition for Reconsideration,” a full-blown legal challenge against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Here is part of the article from World Net Daily. I see why you doubted it though. The Internet has been pretty much scrubbed of details on the case.
Prompted by the revelations from the e-mails purloined from the premier climate-research center, the largest private coal company in the world has petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency for a re-examination of the information the agency used to declare greenhouse gases a health danger.
The petition by St. Louis-based Peabody Energy, filed this month, notes the material from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia University revealed the “seriousness of the flaws” in the information used in the development of reports by the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2010/02/125528/#8FYsPO0yzBKJf1Lt.99
A few months after that, Obama/EPA would issue the CO2 regs on new permits/new plants. Numerous lawsuits were filed.
There were many, many plaintiffs including coal companies, power companies, the 20 republican controlled states, etc.
All those lawsuits were combined into one, which was called Utility Air Regulatory Group vs EPA.
The DC court of appeals ruled for Obama/EPA in 2012. The plaintiffs appealed and SCOTUS ruled for Obama/EPA in June 2014.
The lawsuits would follow one of three avenues:
1. EPA's endangerment findings were faulty
2. EPA didn't have the authority to "Tailor the Regulation".
3. The 2007 SCOTUS decision gave EPA the authority to regulate CO2 only from mobile sources(tailpipes), but didn't give them the authority to regulate stationary sources(power plants).
Now, over a year later, Obama/EPA has issued the final regulations on existing permits/existing plants. Many plaintiffs will file numerous lawsuits.
No, that isn’t the same case. Peabody won their case and the appeal.
It was after they made the deal with the Obama administration that Peabody began to divest their east of the Mississippi interests under the name , Patriot. I think that Peabody then declared bankruptcy for a Patriot and left the workers with no pension benefits. That became another case and I don’t remember how it ended.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.