Image: The EPA regulatory reconsideration of fine particulates
Related: Tropical Paradise Islands Are Not Sinking And Shrinking…Most Are In Fact Growing!
By: Francis Menton
This morning the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington held oral argument in the case of the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council v. EPA. That’s the case where a hardy band of citizen petitioners (CHECC) challenges the 2009 finding of EPA that CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” constitute a “danger” to human health and welfare by reason of their potential to warm the atmosphere. That finding, known as the Endangerment Finding or EF, is the underlying basis for the all-of-government regulatory assault on the fossil fuel industry and the energy economy currently being conducted by the Biden Administration.
I attended today’s argument in my capacity as one of the lawyers for CHECC (although my excellent co-counsel Harry MacDougald delivered the oral argument). I have had previous posts summarizing the briefing in the case, including this post at the time of the filing of the Opening Brief back in October 2022, and this one in February 2023 upon the filing of the final Reply Brief.
My previous posts on this case have focused on what we lawyers like to call the “merits,” which here means, has EPA articulated any valid scientific basis for its supposed “finding” of human endangerment from increased atmospheric CO2? On that issue, EPA’s position is pathetically weak. Given the mass hysteria gripping essentially all of our major institutions with the fear that the world is about to end from “climate change,” you would think that our government overlords would at least have a well-rehearsed and coherent story as to how that is supposed to happen. But they don’t. The stated basis for the EF is a combination of a temperature series where almost half of the data has been manufactured and infilled by computer algorithm, together with model predictions of atmospheric temperature patterns that have never been found in the empirical data as it has been collected. Unfortunately, almost none of the oral argument was devoted to these subjects.
Rather, slightly less than all of the argument was devoted to another issue that we lawyers call “standing.” Since the non-lawyers among the readership may not be familiar with this issue, I’ll provide some background.
Article III of the U.S. Constitution, in vesting what it calls the “judicial power” in the federal court system, defines the scope of that power in Section 2 in terms of what it calls “cases” and “controversies.” Those terms have long been interpreted to mean that for someone to qualify to initiate a federal litigation, he must have some kind of real stake in the matter. In contrast to many of the European countries, our courts do not entertain requests from mere citizen advocates who want to push some political cause by getting a favorable advisory court ruling. The courts use the term “standing” to refer to the required personal stake in the matter needed to qualify to bring a suit.
As a starting proposition, the requirement of standing is frankly a good idea, and keeps our courts out of quite a bit of mischief. However ..
Full article ..
In fact, carbon dioxide, which is blamed for climate warming, has only a volume share of 0.04 percent in the atmosphere. And of these 0.04 percent CO2, 95 percent come from natural sources, such as volcanoes or decomposition processes in nature.
— ToxicAngelStudios WW (@ST3V3P4R4DIS3) April 14, 2023
Documentary: 'Unmasking the Smart City Agenda'
Note: This is just the first 10 minutes of the documentary. The full documentary can be found here: https://t.co/CxqANF2t9p
We are about to be ushered into the age of "Managed Retreat" into Smart Cities, – otherwise known as… pic.twitter.com/DZBcGS2G9t
— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) April 15, 2023
