• 20
Admittedly, we're a little late to the party on this one, but thankfully, our greener sibling site was on top of things when the Supreme Court made an important ruling yesterday regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's enforcement of the Clean Air Act.
The ruling revolves around the regulation of carbon dioxide, classifying it as a pollutant and, more specifically, a greenhouse gas. Considering that this is the first case involving global warming, the 5-4 ruling was a major blow to the current administration's opposition of mandatory controls on emissions.

Some of the quotes from the court are worth a read (click here for AutoblogGreen's post), but in the end, it's not the court's place to make regulations, only uphold them. As such, the EPA has to make changes to the existing law and/or uphold current regulations. However, don't expect anything to change until later this decade, if and when the Executive Branch has a shift in its policy towards global climate change.

[Source: Reuters via AutoblogGreen]

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 8 Years Ago
      No. 12: Your missive reads like a press release from one of the oil companies. All very finely produced propaganda.

      If folks are interested in a scientifically thoughtful discussion of global warming science, check out:


      This is a website run by mainstream scientists with a high level of credibility in global warming research.
      • 8 Years Ago
      No. 1 & 5:
      So are you saying that you know more than the IPCC, which has described global warming as a a clear and compelling danger largely caused by humans? If so, you are living in a dream world.

      The IPCC reports represent the consensus -- consensus -- of hundreds of scientists from around the world and representing many disciplines. Never before in history has the scientific community studied a phenomena so exhaustively. While there is certainly much more that needs to be learned, the basic facts have been established. The scientific debate about global warming's existence is over.

      The only folks out there who are disagreeing with the IPCC are the hack scientists funded by the likes of the fossil fuel industry.

      Of course, industry propagandists will continue to spew disinformation in an attempt to divert people's attention from the real question: What do we do to stop global warming and/or mitigate its impacts?

      • 8 Years Ago
      Here’s a quote from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), which is a part of NOAA. Being a large government agency, NCDC is not likely or allowed to make such statements lightly:

      “Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years.” (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html)

      This is based on measured and repeatable data. If you have any respect for the scientific method (and you should considering all the modern marvels and conveniences are a direct result of its competency), it’s hard to argue with the data. The current CO2 trends are well above anything that has ever been recorded (both in the historic and prehistoric record).

      • 8 Years Ago
      Well given that a human exhales more co2 in one day than a car and the population went from 1 billion to 4 billion over the last 100 years it's clear that global warming is really caused by the breathing of humans!!! The UN should impliment a 1 child per couple like china has, worldwide. There should also be a policy of humane putting down of humans that do not contribute to the evolution of the human race. The human population must be taken back to under 1 billion asap to save mother earth!!!!
      • 8 Years Ago
      No. 9: Either you are very ignorant of the scientific method or you are a propagandist who spews particularly vile (and wholly inaccurate) disinformation. Shame on you.
      • 8 Years Ago
      Steven T. obviously has something to gain by foistering the global-warming scare on us. Who do YOU work for Mr. T? Gore? The democrat party? The UAW? get real you fascist hack. Dr's Spencer and Lindzen and many others don't agree with you and they're smarter than both you or the IPCC. Not that that's hard to be :)

      Again, Steven T is an ignorant lying hack bolshie.
      • 8 Years Ago
      EPA and CARB have always co-incided. Federal regulations cannot superceed state and local regs, unless state and local regs are unconstitutional or agains federal law.

      There is a difference between law and regulation. So, in any given locality, you will still be required to meet the more stringent of federal and local regulations.
      • 8 Years Ago
      Consensus =/= scientific fact. It’s just consensus until it’s overturned by better data. Which creates a new consensus, that eventually gets overturned by better data. And so on. Perhaps this story represents better data, since it goes farther back in time than the hockey stick hoax and takes into account data from widely dispersed parts of the world, perhaps it doesn’t. Time will tell.

      Relying solely on consensus is an appeal to authority, which is a classically fallacious argument.

      The IPCC report was written by scientists, editted by beauocrats. Many scientists dropped out after they saw what was being edited out. The recently released IPCC report is simply a summary document. the final report hasn’t been completed. How can you make conclusions in the summary, when the final document hasn’t been finished yet? It’s a miracle!

      Second, someone doubted that scientists manipulate data to fit their end theory. Why did the UN try and “erase” the medieval warming period then? And why are they inflating the numbers to make humans more responsible?

      Here’s some reading:

      Read this, and come back to me and claim that politicians aren’t manipulating global warming data.

      The IPCC refused to allow any scientists who disagreed with their assumptions of man-made global warming from participating, used models long debunked as faulty and missing many, many key variables (hint, to date none of them are able to take past data and even come close to predicting known climates). There are good reasons to help take care of the environment. The problem is political activists have taken over the environmental movement and eventually will destroy any good environmental work because of their bogus hyperbole. And when the time comes that the planet faces a real problem no one will listen. Y2K hyperbole was first….the whole man-made global warming is second.

      And here is a nice little piece on how the IPCC covertly corrected errors in their report after it was published. Also points out errors in Gore’s statements that he has yet to correct.

      • 8 Years Ago
      Don't panic people. Nuclear winter will offset global warming.
      • 8 Years Ago
      Wow. I guess I bette rhold my breath and stop eating meat-after all people and cows are now 2 huge polluters.

      Are we going to apply the Global Warming rules to Mars?

      After all Mars has a lot more Global Warming than the Earth-with NO industry.

      Explain that jscro!
      • 8 Years Ago
      Calm down people. I guess I'll be the voice of reason.

      There is no definitive proof because no one has been able to explain Earth's many past warming/cooling trends. Anyone feel like they have a definitive answer/proof, apply to the Nobel committee. Without that knowledge, we can't say that we're not in the middle of a natural process.

      On the Other hand, it is silly to argue that human existence has no impact on Earth's environment. Why would you be against limiting pollution? Even if you don't believe in all the hype about global warming, isn't it just common sense to clean things up a little?

      It is easy to hate hypocrites like Al Gore and basically any so-called environmentalists. The media will always jump on the radicals, but I don't know too many people that are against cleaning up their own neighborhoods.
      • 8 Years Ago
      You are a fool. Not worth my time to try and argue that.
    • Load More Comments