The Supreme Court sided with science against Obama

[DA 20]

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama invited “anybody [who] wants to dispute the science around climate change . . . to have at it.”

The Supreme Court’s response? Thank you, Mr. President, for the offer. We will.

On Feb. 9, the court upheld a delay of Obama’s war on fossil fuels, which is supposed to “stop climate change,” in the form of new restrictions on factories’ greenhouse-gas emissions. Apparently a majority of the court is less confident of the “science around climate change” than Obama is.

As well they should be. Obama’s policies will have negligible effects on the climate and will be all pain with no gain.

Two critical points about “the science around climate change” stand out in a review recently completed by the CO2 Coalition, a new independent, nonpartisan scientific-educational group (CO2Coalition.org).

First, carbon dioxide, CO2, is emphatically NOT a “pollutant.” All living things are built of carbon that comes from CO2. An increase in essential CO2 in the atmosphere will be a huge benefit to plants and agriculture. Satellite measurements show that the increase of CO2 over the last few decades has already caused a pronounced greening of the planet — especially in arid regions.

For tens of millions of years, plants have been coping with a “CO2 famine.” Current CO2 concentrations of a few hundred parts per million (ppm) are close to starvation levels compared to the several thousand ppm that prevailed over most of history.

http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/the-supreme-court-sided-with-science-against-obama/

 

[Dave70968]

The High Court did no such thing. It agreed to hear a challenge as to whether the law gives the EPA the legal authority to do what he's asked it to do. The Court will hear no evidence whatsoever about the science; that's not the purpose of appellate courts. In fact, the science can be 100% wrong, but if the EPA has the authority (and the test is very deferential to the administrative agency's judgment), the courts will let it stand.

Don't kid yourself; this has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

 

[YukonGlocker]

Yep...this isn't about science. Decent click-baity title tho'.

 

[Dave70968]

A bit more on the issue here:

First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute . . . Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
In other words, if Congress hasn't explicitly defined the authority it granted to an agency, then the agency gets to use whatever definition it likes, so long as it could be a plausible meaning of the statute. Note that the Chevron case arose because the EPA reversed its definition between the Carter and Reagan administrations; not only can the agency write its own definition, it can change it as well (with some limited restrictions to ensure notice, due process, etc.).

That's what this case is about: does the EPA have the legal authority to call CO2 a pollutant and thus regulate it? That's not a question of science, it's a question of what mandate Congress gave the EPA.

 

[Glocktogo]

The entire subject is just plain stupid. The EPA wants to disadvantage the United States economically, based on what amounts to pissing on a wildfire. Until the EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the rest of the globe, their ever increasing stringency and stridency are meaningless...

[Broken External Image]