Posted on 12/01/2009 11:05:11 PM PST by TsonicTsunami08
3 April 2007
In one of the most important decisions in environmental law, the US Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant and that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the right to regulate CO2 emissions from new cars.
It does seem as if if CO2 is a pollutant, presumably just in excess, then everything, in excess, is a pollutant and therefore there are no limits on what the EPA may regulate.
link www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php
Why in the heck would they do something so stupid?
Whatever the SC has said, Congress could remove the EPA authority no matter what the court rules since their ruling is only based on the authority granted by congress as the EPA isn't mentioned in the constitution. We must elect a congress that will stop the EPA in its tracks.
When are the CRICKETS-CHIRPING REPUBLICANS going to express outrage?...call for hearings?...call for criminal investigations/RICO? We know where the internationalists, the UNaccountable bureaucrats, the SOCIALIST DEMOCRATS stand. The domestic enemies are 535 con-men of congress. The good statist/bad statist con-game is being exposed. We the people, are the PREMEDITATED targets of the deceivers, every one of us, our children and our grandchildren.
When, in the course of human events,...
Hmmm, the EPA now has the death penalty? We all produce CO2, so I guess the EPA can, “shut us down,” any time it wants?
The EPA has no constitutional authority to write law. Only the elected congress may write law. Congress can no more give away its law-making power than obuma may give away his war-making power to Bill Ayers.
The SC has been stacked with bufoons and morons for decades. If the supreme court decided to give away its judgement power to the ATF and Smithsonian Institute, there would be howls of protest.
Every so-called “law” written by a bureaucrat is illegal. All “laws” written by unaccountable bureaucrats should be ignored and sabotaged. And if these dictators want a fight, so be it. States need to round up and throw out every federal bureaucrat that interferes in their affairs.
Read our Declaration of Independence. This matter of unelected British functionairies writing law is addressed several times.
That was an incredible decision. The Supreme Court of the United States relied on United Nations faked data to form their decision. This was a 5 to 4 decision which should remind us all that Justice Kennedy IS THE SUPREME COURT. Had he voted no we wouldn’t be in the mess we are with the EPA moving to take control of energy use in this country.
Its word twisting. Strictly speaking, a pollutant is anything that is somewhere where you dont want it to be. Kind of like the definition of a “weed”, which is any plant growing where you dont want it to. Wheat can be a weed, if its growing in a field of rapeseed.
So CO2 can indeed be a pollutant, but then so too can oxygen, or nitrogen, or even water or heat. The question is not whether CO2 can be a pollutant, but does it warrant being a pollutant in this instance, to which the answer is resoundingly no. There are far more dangerous pollutants from vehicle exhausts - like carbon monoxide, sulphides, even water vapour.
This is an obvious example of the CRU/IPCC fraud being swallowed whole -- and malapplied to law. This is a SCOTUS decision that MUST be challenged and reversed!
Of course, in this scientist's opinion, the SCOTUS has zero business ruling on matters of scientific fact or interpretation...
IMHO, the above is simply a prime example of leftist "legislation from the bench"!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respected scientists" -- like h3||!!!
bttt
Rats at the EPA are on the move!
"AGW: 'Good' Science -- or 'Bad' Science?"
At the upper left of her 3'X4' display board is that SCOTUS graphic in #11. She shows that essentially every statement on it is WRONG -- using actual IPCC-published data from the Internet, and the Scientific Method. ;-)
And she shows that Algore's catastrophic flooding predictions are bunk -- by demonstrating that floating ice does not raise the water level (in a glass) as it melts! LOL!!!
TXnMA: "Have you learned how to calculate the area of a square?"GD: "Sure -- the area is the product of the length of the sides."
TXnMA: "So -- the side of a square with an area of 36 would be...?"
GD [instantly...]: "Six"...
TXnMA: "And a the area of square with the side of one thousand would be?"
GD: "Ummm... one million."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TXnMA (to self): "HOUSTON... WE HAVE LIFTOFF!!" ;-)
Then, I showed her the following table from The Online Encyclopedia of Earth's page on the Composition of the Atmosphere:
| Table 1: Average composition of the atmosphere up to an altitude of 25 km. |
||
|---|---|---|
| Gas Name | Chemical Formula | Percent Volume |
| Nitrogen | N2 | 78.08% |
| Oxygen | O2 | 20.95% |
| *Water | H2O | 0 to 4% |
| Argon | Ar | 0.93% |
| *Carbon dioxide | CO2 | 0.0360% |
| Neon | Ne | 0.0018% |
| Helium | He | 0.0005% |
| *Methane | CH4 | 0.00017% |
| Hydrogen | H2 | 0.00005% |
| *Nitrous oxide | N2O | 0.00003% |
| *Ozone | O3 | 0.000004% |
| * variable gases | ||
When I pointed out the CO2 percent volume, she said, ".036 -- why...that's only 36 thousandths!".
I replied, "Yep -- of one percent..."
She immediately responded, "That's only one hundredth of 36 thousandths!"
TXnMA: "What would that be if we multiplied it by a million?"
GD: "That would be...36! Hey! That's only 36 out of a million! CO2 is only 36 millionths of our atmosphere -- that's pretty tiny!
TXnMA: "Let's go use Canvas [the precision graphic engine I use for cartography, etc. on the Mac] to draw a square precisely one thousand pixels on a side,"
GD: Yeah -- and then we can draw a tiny square of 36 pixels in the middle of the million!
~~~~~
...and Science Fair project "Climategate" was off and running...!!! :-)
There are few things more thrilling than to watch a "teachable moment" catch hold -- so that you can almost "see the flashbulbs going off"...!
(Confession: if I could have afforded it, I might have been a teacher instead of a research scientist/engineer...)
Thank you so very much for sharing this wonderful experience with us! Can't wait to hear more about your granddaughter's Science Fair project!!!
I’m still waiting on Congress to introduce a bill to strip the EPA of its authority to regulate CO2.
Havent’ seen it yet, by anybody.
Kudos to her and to you. You are each blessed with the other.
Praise God!!!
In #14, I discussed the "off the top of our head" calculations my granddaughter and I did to come up with the conclusion that carbon dioxide was 36 millionths of the atmosphere's volume. In so doing, I (unintentionally) submitted it to you -- my "peers" -- for review.
Last night, I was "walking my 5th grade granddaughter through" a review of those numbers using powers of ten notation:
So...
1) The scientific method is at work: we reviewed our own clculations, (using a different method) found an error, and have corrected it (because we have no vested interest in "PROVING" our original calculations to be "THE TRUTH".)
2) "Peer review" DID NOT work in this case because...
Now, we "scientists" (TXnMA & GD) must ask ourselves how we would have reacted if we had created that huge million-pixel graphic, printed it out (at the planned 3' X 3' size) and glued it onto our display/backdrop -- BEFORE we found this error...
I like to believe that we would be "true scientists" and would correct our error -- even after "publication"... '-}
~~~~~~~~~~
Were the "Climategate scientists" 'burdened' with that same honesty?
Looking forward to your feedback...
IMO, they had no business rendering an opinion on “CO2 is/is not a pollutant”.
Moreover, they ruled INCORRECTLY that the federal government had any Constitutional power to regulate carbon emissions.
Just like any commerce is interstate commerce, even if it’s not.
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.