Comments on: 17 states sue EPA over global warming.

By: dbadass

dbadass — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:40:53 +0000

Carbon Dioxide is not plant food. It is simply a carbon source for the production of organic food molecules.

By: woodguy

woodguy — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:30:30 +0000

phantasymanINphantasyland Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:27 pm
isn’t carbon dioxide plant food?

Correct. So is feces, but I don’t want it in my water. Already have enough in the White House.

By: phantasymanINphantasyland

phantasymanINphantasyland — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:59:12 +0000

Look, I’m the first to admit that I’m not a global warming alarmist, but I firmly believe that we should leave the planet better than when we arrived. And I believe that most of the approaches we’ve taken to combat human contribution to global climate change have been hollow and that said human contribution has probably been overstated and politicized.

By: Who Misspoke Today?

Who Misspoke Today? — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:46:58 +0000

phantasymanINphantasyland Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:27 pm

isn’t carbon dioxide plant food?

They call it Life.

http://cei.org/pages/co2.cfm

and

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/18/new-ads-funded-by-big-oil-portray-global-warming-science-as-smear-campaign-against-carbon-dioxide/

By: IgnoranceIsNotBliss

IgnoranceIsNotBliss — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:32:35 +0000

The Green Light

By: phantasymanINphantasyland

phantasymanINphantasyland — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:27:52 +0000

isn’t carbon dioxide plant food?

By: impeachcheneythenbush

impeachcheneythenbush — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:10:57 +0000

Wouldn’t this refusal to follow the ruling of the Supreme Court be considered “contempt of court?” In fact, are the states filing such charges?

“Indirect” contempt occurs outside the immediate presence of the court, and consists of disobedience of a court’s prior order. Generally a party will be accused of indirect contempt by the party for whose benefit the order was entered. A person cited for indirect contempt is entitled to notice of the charge and an opportunity for hearing of the evidence of contempt, and to present evidence in rebuttal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court#United_States

By: Zooey

Zooey — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:51:10 +0000

They’ll try to get the lawsuits thrown out of court for “national security” reasons.

Hey, it doesn’t have to make sense — this is BushWorld.

By: cerberus

cerberus — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:49:32 +0000

We still have an EPA? Could have fooled me! Bush has taken the teeth and funding out of every agency and it appears that this one is run by more of his cronies.

By: RUCerious

RUCerious — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:47:55 +0000

Running out the clock, one ignored order at a time.

By: Menehune

Menehune — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:46:00 +0000

These guys play stall-ball better than anyone I’ve ever seen. So, even if they win the suit, the EPA will get another two months of free stall time. Add that on top of however long it takes the case to be heard. Then after 60 days, they merely have to say whether they intend to regulate. At which point they will say “yes, but we have to do a study to see how best to regulate it.” At that point Cheney is in Dubai and Bush is long gone to Paraguay.

By: Buckie Boy

Buckie Boy — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:42:45 +0000

So they are leaving it up to States to do the right thing. Go figure, and which states are these, Red ones? Blue ones?

Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials ‘09

By: raynman

raynman — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:33:00 +0000

Bush Administration Dictionary:

Immediately – Whenever we feel like it

By: galmud

galmud — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:29:45 +0000

EPA should be renamed to OIPA

By: Who Misspoke Today?

Who Misspoke Today? — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:28:07 +0000

I sure wish I had one year to act immediately.

By: zhoward

zhoward — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:25:06 +0000

60 days plus how long before the court rules?

By: misshusseinmolly

misshusseinmolly — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:24:41 +0000

Johnson: “Wow — is it ‘immediately’ already?