I don't remember ever seeing an 8-0 vote.  I am glad they were not dragged into the overblown hype of the AGW 'consensus'.

Obama and his watermelon environmentalists (green on the outside and red on the inside) just had the gauntlet thrown down.  They can't even count on the liberals in the court to ignore facts over junk science.

 

The EPA will do their best to keep out of the courts. If the House doesn't cut their funding severely, time to replace a few members.

If you read the decision, you will find that this story totally misrepresents what the court said.

Please elaborate.

Read the decision. What the court actually said is not what is implied by this story. The same is also true of the recent WalMart decision.

I'd rather read the phone book.

 

You tell us about it, Oliver Wendell Holmes. 

Whatever position you might take on global climate change-whether agreeing with Dyson or not--the man is a most intriguing person, one of the most brilliant scientists not only in the modern era, but probably one of the most brilliant in the history of the world!  A truly amazing person. The New York Times article referenced above can be read at this link:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03...azine/29Dyson-t.html

Read the phone book or read the decision. I won't do it for you, you lazy bast&*#@.

My goodness.  The mental gymnastics GW deniers must make to justify their conspiracy theories is just fun to watch.

What the Supremes said is this:

" We address in this opinion the question whether the

plaintiffs (several States, the city of New York, and three
private land trusts)  can maintain federal common law
public nuisance claims against carbon-dioxide emitters
(four private power companies and the federal Tennessee
Valley Authority).  As relief, the plaintiffs ask for a decree
setting carbon-dioxide emissions for each defendant at an
initial cap, to be further reduced annually.  The Clean Air
Act and the Environmental Protection Agency action the
Act authorizes, we hold, displace the claims the plaintiffs
seek to pursue"

 

Translated: States wanted to pursue caps on CO2 emissions at their own thresholds.  The Supremes rules that the EPA had that authority, not the states.  

The Supremes made it clear that their opinion should not be construed to either lends support for or against AGW.  It is simply a matter of interpreting case law. 

"My goodness.  The mental gymnastics GW deniers must make to justify their conspiracy theories is just fun to watch."

 

The shoe actually is on the other foot. The AGW "science" has been shot so full of holes that the scientists and politicians who have staked their repu tations and careers on it spend all their time contorting like Houdini trying to escape the flooded phone booth. And you might note that Algore has gone silent on the issue. The only thing sustaining this scam are the pliant liberal media and brainwashed people like yourself.

 

And regardless of what else the Supreme Court said, they did recommend that people consider opinions opposing AGW, which you obviously have not. 

 

And the misrepresentation continues. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Etc. Etc. Etc.

And in your case, ignorance is bliss.

You must be the happiest person in the world.

While it was interpreting the law Unob, their commentary does affect people's opinions.

 

Especially this:

Somewhat in the same vein, Justice Ginsburg notes carbon dioxide is necessary and ubiquitous, and thus shouldn’t be the target of indiscriminate attacks. “After all, we each emit carbon dioxide merely by breathing,” she notes, repeating a point that Dyson couldn’t have said better himself.

If Ginsberg was a scientist, you might have a point.

Doesn't matter if she is or isn't, she paraphrased a scientist. One who disagrees with the 'presumed' consensus.

Isn't it amazing how these hollow-headed liberals swallowed Algore's pap hook, line and sinker, and still can't shake the hook? 

Isn't it amazing how stupid people keep demonstrating their stupidity over and over and over in public?

 

 

 

Yes...and you haven't gotten any funnier either.

As much as I respect Freeman Dyson, it seems to ME there is too much evidence to the contrary. Here's one from today's news:

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_CLIMATE_OCEANS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-06-26-12-24-11

The cited SCOTUS has nothing to do with global warming, only the supremacy of the EPA over states when it comes to airborne emissions. 

Global warming is real.  Whether or not it is caused or influenced by man is an entirely different question. 

With the approaching new maunder minimum, look for another little ice age.  Global warming solved!

LIKE.

Those claims about the Northwest Passage seem a little extreme. In all likelihood it was open during the Medieval Warm Period when the Vikings colonized Iceland and Greenland, and possibly went through the passage and settled in the Pacific Northwest. 

 

It was iced up during the Little Ice Age while the later explorers were trying to find it, by finally started opening again when the Little Ice Age gave way to the Modern Warm Period. Norwegian Roald Amundsen made it through the passage again in 1906 in a 70 foot boat.

 

 

 

This is a depiction of the temperature during this timespan. What most people don't understand, even scientists and climatologists, is that the Little Ice Age was anomalous, while the warm periods were the rule. So the modern warm period is more typical of climate over the last 12,000 years. 

And the Little Ice Age relates to a decrease in sun spot activity  just like we going into now.