Posted on 06/26/2012 2:13:38 PM PDT by Jean S
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday upheld the first-ever U.S. proposed rules governing heat-trapping greenhouse gases, clearing a path for sweeping regulations affecting vehicles, coal-burning power plants and other industrial facilities.
Handing a setback to industry and a victory to the Obama administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously ruled the Environmental Protection Agency's finding that carbon dioxide is a public danger and the decision to set limits for emissions from cars and light trucks were "neither arbitrary nor capricious."
The ruling, which addresses four separate lawsuits, upholds the underpinnings of the Obama administration's push to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, and is a rebuke to a major push by heavy industries including electric utilities, coal miners and states like Texas to block the EPA's path.
In the 82-page ruling, the three-judge panel also found that the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide regulations is "unambiguously correct."
The court also said it lacked jurisdiction to review the timing and scope of greenhouse gas rules that affect stationary sources like new coal-burning power plants and other large industrial sources.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the court found the agency "followed both the science and the law in taking common-sense, reasonable actions to address the very real threat of climate change by limiting greenhouse gas pollution from the largest sources."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
If the EPA is that worried about emissions they need to shut up.
The drumbeat of Obamanation rolls on: regulate -— control -— destroy -— Regulate -— control -— destroy -— REgulate -— control -— destroy -— REGulate -— control -— destroy -— REGU
Setback to whom? The industry which will be forced to charge higher prices?
Bias, bias, bias. This is not a big bad industry vs. Mr. Smith. This is big bad government vs. Mr Smith.
All should write to their congressman and urge them to support the Defending America’s Affordable Energy & Jobs Act introduced and sponsored by Tim Walberg (MI 7th). He already has more than 100 co sponsors but more are always welcome.
It would take the decision making out of the hands of the EPA and back into the hands of congress and by extension, into the hands of we the people.
Obama wins and the American people get the shaft. There is no question Obama hates the United States and the American people.
Exhaling is dangerous to the public and should be regulated!
Headline: Obama Wins Significantly Higher Energy Costs, Women and Children Hurt the Most
It is the DC circuit. My hope is that this will work its way up and that it will be overturned. Elsewise it is even more important that conservatives be elected to end this monstrosity brought to us by Nixon
“This is not a big bad industry vs. Mr. Smith. This is big bad government vs. Mr Smith.”
That should be said repeatedly by every conservative running for office, and by Romney.
It will be.
Government will decide who is worthy of life and allowed to inhale and exhale via mandate to save the planet.
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis.”- David Rockefeller
It has been well established that the hoopla over the threat of climate change is all drama and little fact. The famous “hockey stick” graph created by Dr. Michael Mann asserting the 20th century was the warmest in 1,000 years was debunked by Canadian scientists McIntyre and McKitrick , who found serious errors in Mann’s analysis. (This is the famous graph used by Al Gore and the U.N. science panel to support their claim of man-caused global warming.)
In 2009, “Climategate” exposed the fact that climate scientists at the University of East Anglia and the U.S. had been manipulating and erasing data to arrive at predetermined outcomes supporting climate change. For instance, temperature measurements from stations in China failed to take into account their location and the influence of the warming effects of expanding cities.
In an attempt to make October 2009 the hottest on record, scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) were caught using September figures for Russia. New Zealand’s NIWA, (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research,) was caught manipulating raw data to show a significant rise in temperatures over the last century where none exists. This was followed by another discovery that a scientist (Briffa) had cherry-picked tree ring data in Russia to produce results indicating global warming.
A 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claimed 80 per cent of Himalayan glacier area would be gone by 2035. However, 2012 research done by scientists at the University of Colorado based on observations from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite shows that the world’s greatest snow-capped peaks have lost no ice in the last decade and that polar ice is melting at a much lower rate than claimed.
In an actual field stdy by the Norwegian Polar Institute, a team found that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimated the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass. Overall, according to the team, their field data shows “steady state mass balance” on the eastern Antarctic coasts – ie, that no ice is being lost from the massive shelves there. The research is published in the journalGeophysical Research Letters.
Studies have now shown that clouds over the poles, rather than trapping greenhouse gases, actually cool, rather than heat, the stratosphere. [Paper published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics June 2012] A comparison of the ARGO-ERA Global Ocean Heat Content Model projections for January 2003-2011 with actual measurements shows that the actual mean trend was negligible compared to model projections.
One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, found hundreds of errors in an IPCC report on renewable energy, but was ignored when he raised concerns. He proceeded to research the evidence and wrote a book based on 800 sources and using 80 charts critiquing the latest science. His conclusion: the science was hyped and exaggerated the impact of CO2 on climate. According to his analysis, we should expect only a few tenths of a degree of future cooling.
Increasingly, men of science are coming forward to go on the record as skeptical of climate change claims. In January, 16 noteworthy international scientists wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal stating:
“The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.”
In April, fifty top astronauts, scientists and engineers at NASA signed a letter stating: “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.”
When is the American public going to wake up to the fact that it is about power, control and taking your property and liberty - not some climate change crisis?
To paraphrase Obi Wan Kenobi - this was not the change you were hoping for.
This decision more or less follows from the Supreme Court’s idiotic 2007 5-4 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA that the EPA must regulate “Greenhouse Gas”. Sad. BTW, it was 3-judge panel, not the whole court. Sentelle is a Reagan appointee who I guess has gone mad. The other two are what you would expect: one was a career professor & “civil rights” lawyer; the other worked as a legal aide in the office of Washington D.C.’s mayor. Great, this is how major policy decisions are made in this country.
This decision more or less follows from the Supreme Court’s idiotic 2007 5-4 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA that the EPA must regulate “Greenhouse Gas”. Sad. BTW, it was 3-judge panel, not the whole court. Sentelle is a Reagan appointee who I guess has gone mad. The other two are what you would expect: one was a career professor & “civil rights” lawyer; the other worked as a legal aide in the office of Washington D.C.’s mayor. Great, this is how major policy decisions are made in this country.
“It is the DC circuit. My hope is that this will work its way up and that it will be overturned. Elsewise it is even more important that conservatives be elected to end this monstrosity brought to us by Nixon”
Not making it to the Supremes, because the law will be modified specifically to limit their powers by then.
I’ve always been curious as to what in the background of a Judge on the bench, or Judges of a court qualifies them to determine scientific findings, and rule on such issues.
Seems to be who argues the best, perhaps more plausible argument, or whatever the Judge’s personal perspectives are rather than quality science that determines the judges edict.
IOW how can these “Judges” be all, and know all? Not possible, and how does one “rule” on a scientific finding with only those of like social, or political mentality performing positive peer review, and those of opposing social values, thus political perspective the negative review. A crap shoot? Go for the gut instinct?
Does this boil down to if in doubt...? WHAT?
How does a judge have confidence to rule on such issues as Science is the study of ‘?’
So this means they are going to want to accelerate logging by the timber industry. A whole lot of CO2 emissions could be avoided by getting rid of all those darn trees.
Forget Obamacare, forget Immigration. If the left forces our major energy producing companies completely out of America then the U.S. is done. This will end up being the biggest hoax ever pulled off on the world when it is finally history.
Green house gas and incondescent, lightbulbs and 18 oz soda is bad but big g’mint, drugs, abortions, and perverted sex is good for you?
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.