|
Post by icefisher on Aug 25, 2009 14:18:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 25, 2009 14:50:58 GMT
Of course there should be a trial. With the newer tech available, it is quit evident that co2 is only a mask to try and aquire taxes and even more power.
From what I can see, the science is very very shaky. Something on the worth of Plato.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Aug 25, 2009 16:14:31 GMT
Skip the trial part and go straight to sentencing. Obama also wants to get rid of the EPA National Center for Environmental Economics (the office Carlin works in and that is charged with the task of evaluating the science behind policy decisions. Big whistle blower flap if you recall ) . washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/25/bury-the-messenger/ .
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Aug 25, 2009 18:51:18 GMT
I am not a lawyer. My guess is that if this thing comes to trial, the burden of proof is on one side or the other. Does the EPA have to prove that CO2 is a "pollutant"? Or does the Chamber of Commerce have to prove that CO2 is not a pollutant? Then, at the end of the trial, the judge presumably rules whether the party that has the burden of proof has made it's case.
Does anyone know where the burden of proof lies, or am I completely off base on this one?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 25, 2009 19:06:51 GMT
With normal tort law, the EPA would have to prove that co2 is a pollutant, being they are the ones making the case that it is.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Aug 25, 2009 20:01:50 GMT
I think one would look first to the respective legislation creating the agency. Also, any presumptions would normally be set out in the legislation. And what has to be proved would be determined by both the issues set out and the desired relief claimed. I do not know what bearing the common law, specifically tort law, would have in relation to a case such as this. But in all probability, the Earth will have heated or cooled to the nth degree long before conclusion of the case and the appeals.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Aug 25, 2009 20:10:34 GMT
I think one would look first to the respective legislation creating the agency. Also, any presumptions would normally be set out in the legislation. And what has to be proved would be determined by both the issues set out and the desired relief claimed. I do not know what bearing the common law, specifically tort law, would have in relation to a case such as this. But in all probability, the Earth will have heated or cooled to the nth degree long before conclusion of the case and the appeals. I would be very surprised if this ever comes to trial. Obama's Czars (specifically, Van Jones, Holdren & Jackson ) will short circuit the legal process thru threats and bribery.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Aug 25, 2009 20:29:26 GMT
OK, then let me ask another question. As I understand the situation, the COC has asked EPA to hold a trial under the legislation. If EPA refuses, then COC will go to Federal Court, and ask a judge to order EPA to have such a trial. If the judge orders a trial, then can the EPA do anything about curbing CO2 until this trial has taken place?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 25, 2009 20:50:57 GMT
OK, then let me ask another question. As I understand the situation, the COC has asked EPA to hold a trial under the legislation. If EPA refuses, then COC will go to Federal Court, and ask a judge to order EPA to have such a trial. If the judge orders a trial, then can the EPA do anything about curbing CO2 until this trial has taken place? Under US Law, there would normally be a cease and desist order until the outcome of the trial was decided.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Aug 25, 2009 22:55:42 GMT
A cease and desist order, or an injunction enjoining specified conduct, which I think might be the same thing, is normally granted on a balance of convenience test, the issue here being one of harm, either way. I would think that the injunction hearing process is where all the action would take place.
|
|
|
Post by bender on Aug 29, 2009 14:46:04 GMT
Here is an excerpt from another article on this subject. arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/08/why-putting-climate-change-on-trial-is-a-terrible-idea.ars"To give an example from the climate debate, take the graph shown above, which follows both carbon dioxide levels and temperatures through several glacial cycles. A pro-climate change, one-way hash argument would note that the two always change in synchrony, hence CO2-driven climate change. The anti- equivalent would note that, if you look carefully, the temperatures start to rise ahead of the CO2 at the end of a glacial cycle, hence greenhouse gasses have nothing to do with it. As it turns out, both the intuitive arguments are wrong. The regular glacial cycles are triggered by equally regular wobbles in the Earth's axis relative to the plane of its orbit. Although these wobbles, called Milankovitch cycles, don't change the total amount of sunlight hitting the Earth, they do change its distribution. That alone is enough to cause regional climate change, but not enough to drop the global temperature by several degrees. That happens because the Milankovitch cycles set off feedback mechanisms that enhance their effect. Ice expands near the poles and reflects more sunlight back into space, for example. And, separately, atmospheric CO2 levels start to drop, which accentuates the drop in temperatures. To exit the glacial cycle, both processes need to reverse; changes in the distribution of sunlight can start to change the planet, but we wouldn't reach the temperatures we're currently enjoying in this interglacial if it weren't accompanied by feedbacks, including elevated greenhouse gas levels. So, the simple and wrong arguments take one sentence each; the detailed-but-correct one takes three paragraphs—and still required a lot of simplifications. The details generally support the scientific understanding that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations can force the climate, but certainly don't do so in a straightforward manner. chart: epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc_fig1.html
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 29, 2009 20:53:35 GMT
It doesn't matter what it is - CO2 causes it. Its relatively easy to come up with these 'if you have a hammer everything needs pounding' hypotheses.
It doesn't seem so easy to actually produce a falsifiable one though. If you remember the original hypothesis was look CO2 _caused_ the warming exit from the ice age - now its the Milankovitch cycles that are the trigger and CO2 800 years to a 1000 years later acts as a feedback? Well OK - but then let's take it that CO2 acts as a feedback to some other external forcing say a solar grand maximum.
Does this require the demonisation and the use of EPA edicts on fossil fuels? In another 50 years there will be less fossil fuels being used in any case as they are running out.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 29, 2009 22:16:24 GMT
Does this require the demonisation and the use of EPA edicts on fossil fuels? In another 50 years there will be less fossil fuels being used in any case as they are running out. They need the regulations despite believing fossil fuels are running out because when you are a bug-eyed sycophant environmentalist you are wrong so often you have to double and triple cover your bases.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Aug 30, 2009 21:05:01 GMT
Yeah, let's let a judge decide if AGW exists or not. Like lawyers know anything about science. Great! That's even more ridiculous than suing Mc Donalds because somebody fell due to ice on the street in front of it. Those guys have way too much power and produce their own work, creating an endless amount of laws, regulations and bureaucracy, which destroys the whole system.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Aug 30, 2009 22:01:55 GMT
I'm sure you all know about this "precedent" for legal action: A court in the UK has said that Gore's An Inconvenient Truth must not be presented as a learning aid to schools unless it is accompanied by material that points out all the inconsistencies and inaccuracies. www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.29Truck driver Stewart Dimmock brought legal action against the school system to prevent An Inconvenient Truth from being taught in school as factual information. The UK High Court has issued a preliminary ruling that teachers must make clear that:
1. The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument 2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination 3. Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children
|
|