So a divided Supreme Court has decided that the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 gases or prove that they do not do any harm to the atmosphere.  A Supreme Court ruling Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency can……

The Bush administration gets a win in the war on terror. From the AP:The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from Guantanamo detainees who want challenge their five-year-long confinement in court, a victory for the Bush administration’s legal stra…

So, I wonder if anyone has explained to those five justices yet that they just declared water a pollutant? Does this mean we can no longer pour water down the storm drains?
n2sooners on April 2, 2007 at 6:10 PM

Absoloutly right. By this logic water is a worse pollutant then carbon dioxide since it is a more powerful greenhouse gas. All this time I thought “water pollution” meant there were dangerous chemicals inside the water, who knew moonbats thought water itself was the pollution. Now I understand Michelle’s shirt the other day that said “hippies smell”. They are afraid to touch the pollution!

The bigger question is: When will they raise our taxes and disguise it as fighting global warming.

Kini on April 2, 2007 at 7:02 PM

Soon Kini – very soon.

Exit question: Does this mean the next time a glacier melts in Alaska, we can sue the Gorebot and his carbon-dioxide-blowhole/mansion in Tennessee as the proximate cause?

He’s untouchable.

The bigger question is: When will they raise our taxes and disguise it as fighting global warming.

The other biggie today is the global-warming case. 5-4 as usual, with Kennedy joining his liberal brethren to make the majority.

Liberals are dancing NOW.

Wait’ll it comes time to pay the Piper.

I can’t help feel that a major terrorist attack will come just when we are talking about everything but the WOT. How does global warming become “the greatest threat to mankind”, trumping GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WAR?!!!

Easy… the folks pushing global warming politically are avoiding the war on terror and their impotence in winning/contributing to it. How do you address terrorism when you’ve got no ideas? Trump terrorism and rogue nukes with saving the planet! Even 3000 dead on American soil can’t hold a candle to the light from the sun that is saving the planet! And if you can’t stomach a war on terror, then we’ve got something completely unrepulsing, full of wholesome green imagery, allowing you to divest yourself from that war: saving the planet!

What about putting clean water emissions from a purification plant into a body of clean water? Is that also pollution? How about letting steam go up into an ocean of water vapor? Also pollution? Apparently, if you need it to be, then the EPA must also agree.

The biggest pollutant is humanity. I know this because the leftists told me so.

Any violation by the plebs gets them a tax, tax penalty, fine, damages, restitution, and prosecutor fees. That’ll keep the plebs in line.

If it’s left up to the liberals, add execution to that list.

Does this mean the next time a glacier melts in Alaska, we can sue the Gorebot and his carbon-dioxide-blowhole/mansion in Tennessee as the proximate cause?

Absolutely… and Bush should get credit for his environmentalism too. Snopes confirms with Glass Houses.

Scalia, writing in dissent, says that’s all well and good — except shouldn’t it be the EPA that decides what constitutes “pollution?”

Yes, it definitely should be. We’ve spent decades and billions to make sure CO2 and only CO2 comes out of the combustion process – limiting or eliminating heavy metals, chlorine, sulpher, etc. Now, putting CO2 into an ocean of CO2 is polluting the air. What about putting clean water emissions from a purification plant into a body of clean water? Is that also pollution? How about letting steam go up into an ocean of water vapor? Also pollution? Apparently, if you need it to be, then the EPA must also agree.

Exit question: Does this mean the next time a glacier melts in Alaska, we can sue the Gorebot and his carbon-dioxide-blowhole/mansion in Tennessee as the proximate cause?

Probably not (yet), but based on this case, the EPA can probably go after him for his excessive carbon-dioxide emissions. Otherwise, they need to give a reason for not doing so.

Exit question: Does this mean the next time a glacier melts in Alaska, we can sue the Gorebot and his carbon-dioxide-blowhole/mansion in Tennessee as the proximate cause?

I’m much more interested in jailing him and all the other outspoken global warmists brainwashing the younger generations of the world when their theory once again changese in a number of years.

This isn’t about stopping free speech, it’s about stopping lying speech that has put itself up as “science” so as to be untouchable, when in reality it’s bs. We’ve seen the studies of restless children having nightmares about entire continents being flooded, etc. We’ve seen the UK make laws that will penalize citizens for not making their homes more energy efficient. And we’ve seen the UK’s likely next Prime Minister say that we need a “New World Order” to combat global warming, something I and many others have said was the agenda of the global warmists for a long time… obviously not the average citizen who buys in to it, or even the scientists who largely believe in global warming because if they can tie any of their projects in to it, they can keep that government money flowing to them from around the world. Question global warming and your ass is on the street. But these government and UN heads are the ones who are using this as a stepping stone to a global tax, global law, and eventually a global government. I’m just glad that the UK’s likely next PM is saying it, so I don’t sound like such a tin-foil hat wearer when I say it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070312/wl_uk_afp/britainpolitics_070312082025

…domestic motor vehicles contribute about 6 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions and 4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions…

The total global “inventory” of greenhouse gasses is about 3 billion tons, of which 5 percent are man-made, so 4 percent of 5 percent = 0.2 percent from domestic motor vehicles.