Shark, yet?
Sender: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
Precedence: bulk
At 08:13 PM 4/8/2007, PvM wrote:
> After Janice's April Fools joke about Belgium barbequing taxes (I
> hope that she and her buddies
> at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1811345/posts did not
> take the news seriously... ~ Pim
@ That "April Fools" joke worked precisely because people witness
the same inanity / "feel-good" nonsense being implemented on a daily
basis by "fools" just like that. In fact, in my next post I will
provide another example of "fools" in action.
> WASHINGTON, DC: Coming only a.. week after the US Supreme Court
> snubbed the George W Bush administration by declaring that global
> warming is real, .." ~ Pim
@ I see you're still showing evidence of not having heard the noise
in the woods when the shark was jumped.
Take my word for it. The shark has been jumped. ~ Janice
Posted on 04/08/2007 4:04:57 AM EDT by bruinbirdman
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1813910/posts
Expert Comment on SCOTUS Greenhouse Gas Decision
HEARTLAND INSTITUTE http://www.heartland.org/Index.cfm ^ | 4/2/2007
Written By: Michael Van Winkle
Published In: News Releases
Publication Date: April 2, 2007
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
----------
(Chicago, Illinois - April 2, 2007) The U.S. Supreme Court issued a
decision today that could give the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) clearance to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The
following statements can be quoted in part of in full. For more
information about The Heartland Institute or for help contacting
either of the experts identified below, please call me at 312/377-4000.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20872
Maureen Martin
Senior Fellow for Legal Affairs
<mailto:martin@heartland.org>martin@heartland.org
"The U.S. Supreme Court today substituted its scientific judgment for
that of USEPA scientists.
"Speaking rhetorically on the issue of global warming, the Court
overruled the agency's 2003 decision not to regulate greenhouse
gases. The Court's rhetoric is mere dicta, however, gratuitously
included to act, in essence, as a sequel to An Inconvenient Truth,
warts and all.
"Such activist rhetoric is not unexpected from Justices Stevens,
Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, but it is disappointing that Justice
Kennedy joined them--as he did in the Kelo case authorizing municipal
landgrabs of private property for private economic development.
"Once past the rhetoric, however, all the Court did was order USEPA
to issue a more "reasoned explanation" for its refusal to regulate
greenhouse gases.
"By statute, USEPA is required to regulate emission of air pollutants
from motor vehicles 'which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare.' USEPA concluded in 2003 that greenhouse
gases were not air pollutants for this purpose. But USEPA included
other reasons--some of which the Court found irrelevant--in its
explanation of why it chose not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
"It is now up to the agency to articulate a principled, statutorily
based explanation, as the Court ordered, to justify its refusal to
regulate greenhouse gases. This ought not to be excessively
difficult. The Heartland Institute, and many other organizations and
scientists across the country and around the world who believe
passionately in sound science, stand ready to assist USEPA in this
task."
James M. Taylor
Senior Fellow for Environment Policy
<mailto:taylor@heartland.org>taylor@heartland.org
"The Supreme Court decision indicates a willingness to engage in an
issue properly left to other branches of government.
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has studied the issue of
global warming and found it unwise and unnecessary to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions. Congress has many times addressed the topic
of global warming and has repeatedly found it unwise to restrict
greenhouse gas emissions. President George W. Bush also has
repeatedly considered the topic of global warming and has repeatedly
found it unwise to restrict greenhouse gas emissions.
"When EPA does comply with the Supreme Court's directive and explain
its reluctance to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, the Supreme
Court should refrain from imposing its lay views regarding global
warming on EPA."
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 8 22:26:08 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 08 2007 - 22:26:09 EDT