Blogcritics Comments on Supreme Court Says EPA Can Regulate Car Emissions

Comment by Clavos on Supreme Court Says EPA Can Regulate Car Emissions

Wed, 4 Apr 2007 06:13:23 EDT

Kathy: Point taken in re the science, although I stand by my point about control; your entire article is precisely about the struggle for control. One other point, Kathy: You say cars account for about 20% of CO2 emissions. I believe the more accurate statement would be that cars account for about 20% of man made CO2 emissions, as far more CO2 is produced by nature than by humanity. Stan: I don't question that you have a terrible drought, OR that it's caused (at least in part) by the warming of the atmosphere. I DO question the extent to which it's caused by human activity. There is plenty of evidence to leave that point still open to debate, including that cited by Maurice above, and a host of other scientists as well.

Comment by STM on Supreme Court Says EPA Can Regulate Car Emissions

Wed, 4 Apr 2007 05:31:59 EDT

Please send some of that spare water Down Under, the stuff might be considered a pollutant ... we're experiencing a bit of a shortage at the moment. Six years of drought and children who've never seen rain will really get you thinking about GW and whether it's real or not. According to the CSIRO the drought here - which has even seen city water levels fall to near-critical levels - has been excerbated by global warming. Just bear in mind too that that piece only relates to one part of the continent. The rest of the joint is dry as a bone. You have to see this to believe it, but it's bad. Take note Clav, old boy ... it's not the normal weather pattern. It'd make believers of all you sceptics if you came here and saw for youselves. How's this: a mate's kid up in the bush had no memory of rain until he was sent to boarding school in Sydney. He is 13.

Comment by Kathy on Supreme Court Says EPA Can Regulate Car Emissions

Wed, 4 Apr 2007 02:12:16 EDT

To Doug: All things -- even water -- can be considered a "pollutant" in sufficient doses. That's why the cardinal rule of epidemiology is "the dose makes the poison." To Maurice & Clavos: The EPA did not make a decision based a scientific analysis -- so I don't think it's accurate in this case to suggest science was cooked or ignored. As I understand it, science simply wasn't considered.

Comment by Doug Hunter on Supreme Court Says EPA Can Regulate Car Emissions

Tue, 3 Apr 2007 22:37:11 EDT

Some random, rambling thoughts about this article and the envirowhackos whose propaganda made it possible. If CO2 is now considered a 'pollutant' then we should just strip all restrictions off of the EPA and let them regulate everything as the complete idea of a pollutant is now meaningless. Good things, bad things, anything is now a pollutant. If there is no god and humans are simply slightly evolved animals (aka part of nature) then why are human things and actions considered unnatural? Shouldn't nature and natural apply to all things? In that context can nature ever be damaged or destroyed? Plankton 'pollute' the atmosphere with oxygen without which we could not survive. Lucky they don't have their own micro-EPA. I dislike self proclaimed environmentalists and their smug self righteous martyrdom just like those that loudly proclaim and proselytize regarding their vegetarianism every single time they eat out and those nutjob christians that bang on my door ever weekend. Screw you all, you're different faces of the same fucked up personality disorder.

Comment by Clavos on Supreme Court Says EPA Can Regulate Car Emissions

Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:54:20 EDT

And I keep saying that GW is NOT a science/environmental issue. It's a control issue, and anybody who thinks otherwise is naive.

Comment by Maurice on Supreme Court Says EPA Can Regulate Car Emissions

Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:26:48 EDT

I have said it before, you need more faith to believe in the science of GW than you do to believe in God. I believe in neither. I don't suscribe to the beliefs of PETA but I do think this is funny. Especially this part: "...pointed out to him that animals raised for food generate more greenhouse gases than all cars and trucks combined...". And finally the real cause of warming/cooling trends.