EPA's Greenhouse Gas Ruling Safe Despite Lawsuit, Legal Experts Say

SolveClimate News ^ | 6/1/11 | Elizabeth McGowan

[EBH]

Texas and 14 other states clearly want to deep-six the endangerment finding.

"Overturning the endangerment finding would mean finding that EPA did not have a solid basis" for its decision, said Gerrard, director of the university's Center for Climate Change Law, in an interview. "EPA has heaped up enormous volumes of evidence on one side. The evidence on the other side is exceedingly thin.

"EPA is the agency that has the scientists with the expertise," he continued. Before issuing the endangerment finding they "looked at it, relooked at it and re-relooked at it. They seriously examined critiques and still ended up in the same place."

Texas's lawsuit challenge covers a very traditional administrative law question, Parenteau said, adding that it's a prime example where deference to an agency such as EPA is "at its absolute peak" because the courts don't sit as the final arbiters of science.

As long as EPA had a reasonable basis to conclude that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to threaten public health or the environment, he explained, the agency is authorized to make an endangerment finding.

"EPA didn't leave any stone unturned," Parenteau said, adding that the agency's massive documentation weighed in at 900 some odd pages of global warming research. "There isn't any science they missed. They acknowledged everything."

[EBH]

900 pages....

So now overwhelm the court system with bad science...

[Da Coyote]

The EPA claim fully demonstrates what liberal arts types are capable of when they deign to touch science.

They beclown it, they infect it, they f*rt in it’s general direction.

I’ll take on ANY EPA bottom-O-the-SAT barrel clown on the topic of CO2 any time they want.

Any time.

Any.

[Da Coyote]

Oops, it’s “its”, not “it’s”.

Gasp, I’m becoming a liberal.

[Amagi]

EPA/AGW ping?

[apillar]

Translation: No matter what the court rules, we are going to keep doing what we want anyway.

It worked for the FCC. When the federal courts ruled the FCC didn't have the authority to regulate the Internet and establish network neutrality rules. The FCC responded by issuing a "finding of fact" that stated they did have the authority and implemented the rules anyway. Now, to be fair, it hasn't made it back to court yet and they very well may get royally slapped down as they should. But that doesn't mean they didn't try.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

The Cloward-Piven tactic has been in use for a long time. During the investigation of the assassination of JFK the FBI dumped stacks and stacks of documents on the Warren Commission at the last minute. Those stacks were in no discernible order, had many blank or useless pages interspersed throughout, and were impossible to decipher in the short time left for the commission to make a decision.

This is just a repeat of that.

[bert]

If there is no law...... there is no law. There is no protection for the regime

[knarf]

I inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.

All the green ... GREEN .... things on the planet thank me, "inhale" my carbon dioxide (it is THEIR life) and return to me .... oxygen.

I make CO2 and green makes O2 .. we are a symbiotic couple.

(And we're inseparably in love with each other)

[Flycatcher]

Oops, it’s “its”, not “it’s”. Gasp, I’m becoming a liberal.

Lol!

Don't beat yourself up.

I gave up correcting my forum grammatical errors as my New Year's resolution this year.

The quality of my posts hasn't improved, of course, but nevertheless I sleep better for it. :^)

[CitizenUSA]

I believe the EPA will win this one for the reasons cited. It’s really not the court’s job to evaluate the scientific merits of the case. Sure. The EPA is no doubt doing things never envisioned by those who wrote the laws, but who is really at fault here? Congress. BTW, the situation is far from hopeless, because what has been unleashed by Congress can conceivably be restrained by them. All we need are the votes.

[dila813]

They took and clicked the I accept button on other’s work that they didn’t test or validate.

The EPA is supposed to conduct its own independent research, not rely on others.

The endangerment finding is based entirely on the catastrophic positive feedback theory which only exists in computer models and has never been observed in nature past or present.

[Lurker]

"Overturning the endangerment finding would mean finding that EPA did not have a solid basis" for its decision, said Gerrard,

No sh**, Sherlock. They don't.

[PATRIOT1876]

CORRECTION:

“EPA has heaped up enormous volumes of PHONY evidence on one side. The evidence on the AGW HOAX is exceedingly thin.
“EPA is the agency that has the scientists with the GOVT GRANT MONEY,” he continued. Before issuing the endangerment finding they “looked at it, relooked at it and re-relooked at it. They seriously examined critiques and still ended up in the same place BECAUSE THE COMPUTER MODELS ARE RIGGED TO GIVE THEM THE RESULTS THEY DESIRE NO MATTER WHAT DATA YOU PLUG INTO IT.”

EPA didn't leave any stone unturned THAT'S WHY MOST PEOPLE ARE AS REPULSED BY THEIRE ECONOMY-KILLING, FREEDOM STEALING LIES AS THEY ARE BY SOMETHING YOU FIND WRIGGLING AROUND UNDERNEATH A ROCK.
Parenteau SHOULD'VE said, adding that the agency's massive GINNED UP documentation weighed in at 900 some odd pages of global warming NONSENSE. There isn't any NON-science they missed.

[az_gila]

...said Gerrard, director of the university's Center for Climate Change Law,

---

Job preservation - he will be out of a job when the scam is exposed...:^)

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

EPA is the agency that has the scientists with the GOVT GRANT MONEY

That is a good point. Eisenhower's famous speech on the "Military-Industrial Complex" (1961) also warned of the potential corrupting influence of government grant money:

Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity....Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Since Eisenhower's warning, anti-Americanism and the UPCC have made matters worse.

[Max in Utah]

The EPA is supposed to conduct its own independent research, not rely on cherry pick from others.

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx for the ping Amagi !

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Zionist Conspirator]

How can the EPA be abolished? Can Congress abolish what it did not create?

Would we have to resurrect Nixon to do away with the monster he created?

[Monorprise]

“900 pages....

So now overwhelm the court system with bad science...”

Perhaps we should pay their game as well, we can tell fairytale just as well as they can. We could even recycle a lot of their fairytale property altered. Our only problem is we don’t have the Big goverment dollars to produce theses volumes of meterals.

I honestly think Texas should not bother, they should just tell the Federal Employees in black robes that they have NO remove authority in theses areas cause the Constitution is not theirs dictate, nor does it even remotely authorize the EPA.

[vrwc1]

My understanding is that the EPA relied heavily (if not exclusively) on IPCC reports as the basis of their finding.

Now consider the fact that large parts of the IPCC's reports (especially some of the most extreme claims, like disappearing Himalayan glaciers) have been found to be faulty/incorrect, written by environmental activists, and based on many articles/"studies" that were not peer reviewed.

When this information is presented to the court, along with scads of conflicting peer-reviewed reports and other contrary evidence, there is a good chance the court could find that the basis of the EPA's decision was not sound.