The U.S. Supreme Court says the Environmental Protection Agency has offered "no reasoned explanation" why it shouldn't regulate carbon dioxide, just like every other pollutant spewing from tailpipes and smokestacks. You'd think that would be a no-brainer, but ...
The court's four most conservative members -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both appointees of President George W. Bush, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- dissented.
The implications are theoretically immense. Of course, Bush will probably just sign a piece of paper noting that he doesn't agree, and nothing will come of this until the next administration takes charge. Still, at least it's another victory for common sense. A squeaker of a victory, but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
More like this
Jay Wexler, a colleague of Randy Barnett at Boston University law school, has compiled the first study of how funny each Supreme Court justice is.
The late Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun left all of his papers to the Library of Congress, as is customary, and asked that they be relased on the 5th anniversary of his death on March 4, 1999. That release was made this week.
Orin Kerr makes a couple of interesting points in his post on Volokh about O'Connor's retirement:
CNN has a long review of the job Chief Justice John Roberts is doing so far at the Supreme Court. By all accounts, the other justices have embraced him and he has shown great understanding of and affinity for court tradition.
Carbon dioxide released by man near ground level is heavier than air and sinks in air rather than rising up to the upper atmosphere to become a so-called greenhouse gas. While sinking, it stratifies from air. After sinking and stratifying, it tends to remain close to the ground and may find its way down to low-lying water bodies or down to ocean level where it can mix and react with water to form weak carbonic acid. Carbon dioxide is also removed from the lower atmosphere by rainfall.
How do I put this politely? Hmmm.
David, you're wrong. And pointing to your own website only proves you can't be bothered to read genuine science.