"The state explained that the IPCC, and therefore the EPA, relied on flawed science to conclude that greenhouse emissions endanger public health and welfare," Abbott said. "Because the Administration predicated its Endangerment Finding on the IPCC's questionable facts, the state is seeking to prevent the EPA's new rules, and the economic harm that will result from these regulations, from being imposed on Texas employers, workers, and enforcement agencies."Long-time readers will remember this. And this. And this. And this. And this. Most damning of all is that a third of all the "scientific papers" referenced by the IPCC's report seem to be environmental groups' press releases.
In the EPA's defense, I'd point out that it really isn't any more politicized than, say, the Department of Justice. Or Homeland Security.
Hat tip: Soylent Green.
Ooooh, this could be very cool!
ReplyDeleteMaybe they can get it made into a real referendum on the science. Get McIntyre, Watts, Pielke, Lord Monckton, Spencer, Livingston, Penn, and a cast of hundreds. The case that the science is badly overstated was basically won in Once Great Britain, right?
If I recall my reading, there are four temperature data sets that all this bs is based on. Three of the four have been proven to be a total pile of overcooked steaming bovine field droppings. The fourth, the Japanese scienytists won't release for scrutiny. It's an election year for Perry here in Texas. He finds his cojones every 4 years or so.
ReplyDeleteNonononononono! Yes, it is eminently true that the IPCC junk is ... well, junk. (I disdain to call that dog's breakfast "science.")
ReplyDeleteBut that's not the tack to take in arguing against the EPA's blatant power grab.
No. The argument which must be brought to bear is that the damned EPA has no legal authority to exist in the first place. It is ultra vires. It is an unconstitutional entity. It should join the choir eternal. Und so weiter.
Gods above! We need more smash-mouth constitutionalists!
M
TW: forsful: yes! Deliberately so!