High Court to Weigh Climate Change Case

wow, i'd better plant two tree instead of one this coming spring.

You better pump fresh air into them too, or they won't grow.

From what i hear they love Carbon Dioxide. In return they give off fresh air.

Too much of a good thing will kill them.

I'm sure, just like pure oxygen kill us.

I think a 50/50 mix would be an improvement.:cool:

OK, then i'll plant three trees.

Not to mention that Clinton put the budget into the black, and I could post tons of analysis from conservatiuve economists that point out that Democratic adminsitrations have been more responsible with spending and better for the economy in the last century.

You really should try to be better informed if your going to debate politics.

I just find it humorous that when the issues are something related to God, to which there is no presentable proof, or Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, to which there was no presentable proof, money is never a consideration, and neither is the lack of empirical evidence. Those two issues are the same as global warming... well, not really since there is more proof that global warming is actually happening.

The presidents new energy program.

Addicted To Oil

Update --
"The global political battle over climate change was also being fought at the US Supreme Court on Wednesday as judges bickered over the role of greenhouse gas emissions in global warming and disagreed on whether the Environmental Protection Agency had the power to refuse to regulate such emissions. "

In an article on FT.com tonight the two sides disagree on several points , one being whether Massachusets even has good reason to bring the case forward , and on the reality of "global warming " science .

Wednesday?s arguments focused largely on the issue of whether Massachusetts could bring the case in the first place, with several conservative justices arguing that Massachusetts had not proved the danger to its coastline was imminent enough to merit the suit, or that the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that could be achieved by limiting exhaust emissions ? some 2.5 per cent of total US greenhouse emissions ? would be significant enough to give them the right to sue.

?It depends what happens across the globe,? Chief Justice John Roberts said, noting that any reduction in US emissions might be overcome by a rise in emissions caused by China?s rapid economic development. Several liberal justices supported Massachusetts but the pivotal swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, did not reveal where he stood.

The court appeared similarly divided on the issue of whether the EPA had the authority to refuse to regulate or whether its reasons for doing so were valid.


I am sure the case will be a sharply dividing one having long effects on future arguments whichever way it is decided .

And this article from Breitbart.com tells us -
At Wednesday's hearing, the Supreme Court's conservative members seemed to recoil at the idea of government regulation, while their liberal colleagues openly embraced it.


Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia insisted that the greenhouse gases in question represent "only" six percent of the world total and that they pose no "imminent harm," agreeing with Deputy Attorney General Gregory Garre, who represented the EPA.

Liberal Justice David Souter slammed the government's contention that cutting greenhouse gas emissions on new US-made cars would only have a very marginal effect on global warming.

Do you believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?

Sounds alot like the same stuff you run in your car/cars.

Yea, but I have my own conservation plan. I coordinate all my trips.:cool:

Al Gore would be proud as he looks down from his Leer.