http://www.cpaulsmith.com/2010/04/01/global-warming-ruling-a-monument-to-bad-science-and-judicial-activism/ Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:39:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.2 http://www.cpaulsmith.com/2010/04/01/global-warming-ruling-a-monument-to-bad-science-and-judicial-activism/comment-page-1/#comment-1421 Pat Mofitt Fri, 02 Apr 2010 18:57:11 +0000 http://www.cpaulsmith.com/?p=222#comment-1421 I am not an attorney but come from a related scientific discipline to this topic. Lets assume for a moment that CO2 related harms are correct. The court also seems to have ruled on the proper means by which to correct or alleviated these harms. "Excess" CO2 is global in nature and evidence presented in this case by Dr Christy - which was not contradicted- found CO2 control by the US is insufficient to avert catastrophic consequences according to the climate models. Infact few of the proposed EPA remedies would have a significant cooling effect. It would seem given the above that hardening the related US infrastructure may be the most cost effective and safest means to mitigate any potential negative warming impact. Regulatory CO2 controls will certainly drain the productive potential of the economy to pay for infrastructure hardening- so hasn't the Court also ruled as to the most effective means by which to solve the "warming problem" by directing where the financial resources are to be used. I am not an attorney but come from a related scientific discipline to this topic. Lets assume for a moment that CO2 related harms are correct. The court also seems to have ruled on the proper means by which to correct or alleviated these harms. “Excess” CO2 is global in nature and evidence presented in this case by Dr Christy – which was not contradicted- found CO2 control by the US is insufficient to avert catastrophic consequences according to the climate models. Infact few of the proposed EPA remedies would have a significant cooling effect. It would seem given the above that hardening the related US infrastructure may be the most cost effective and safest means to mitigate any potential negative warming impact. Regulatory CO2 controls will certainly drain the productive potential of the economy to pay for infrastructure hardening- so hasn’t the Court also ruled as to the most effective means by which to solve the “warming problem” by directing where the financial resources are to be used.

]]>