About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Monday, June 20, 2011 - 7:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I found a website ( http://isthereglobalcooling.com/ )showing why it may be a very, very bad thing to try to limit carbon dioxide emissions:

**************************************
October 2009 U.S. temperatures according to NOAA were the third coldest in 115 years of record keeping, 4 degrees below the average temperature for this month.

Germany recorded in 2009 its lowest October temperature in history.

New Zealand had record low October  temperatures.

China had the worst October snowstorms in recorded history ... .

Siberia may have had its coldest winter in history in 2009-2010.

In the U.S. temperatures cooled in five of the last seven decades even though CO2 levels increased steadily throughout this period.

Summer 2010, record cold in Australia.

Denmark experiences coldest November 2010 temps in 131 years.

UK midlands expect coldest November temps in 134 years.

December 2010, The central England temperature record in early December was the second coolest since records began in 1649.

UK experiences coldest December in history.

January 2011, ... Bitter cold sets records in Korea.

February 2011, Moscow has coldest winter in 100 years.

Record low temperatures in San Francisco and Spokane.

Temperatures are dropping an average of 4.1 deg F per decade.

Northern Australia has coolest May in history.

Record low temps and snowfall in USA May '11.
*******************************************

"even though CO2 levels increased steadily"

Ed


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Monday, June 20, 2011 - 9:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The good in this ruling is in the restriction of lower courts from making activist rulings (misinterpreting a law to satisfy the right or the left or anyone.... as opposed to proper application of an existing law). That is what I understand the ruling to mean.

I haven't read the complaint and don't know if anyone of the plaintiffs made a case for the unconstitutionality of the EPA based upon the 10th amendment. This is the ruling: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-174.pdf but it doesn't say what parts Alito and Thomas didn't concur with.

Failure of the judicial branch to do its job properly takes away too great a protection - the checks and balances of the three branches - to get tempted to correct specific wrongs via a shortcut.

It sucks that States rights weren't furthered, and it sucks that climate change regulation gets a short-term boost, and it sucks that business stay saddled with regulations and that the EPA isn't reined in, but to preserve the rule of law is critical. Replace a number of senators (enough to over ride a veto) or just a few senators and the president and the EPA can be eliminated. Problem solved the way it should be.

Doesn't take long to put forward and pass a bill that says, "Environmental Protection Act is repealed in full."

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.