Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (313635)	12/3/2006 11:32:40 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573041

The Supreme Court last Wednesday heard arguments on a petition by 12 state attorneys general (AGs) -- or perhaps more appropriately "aspiring governors" -- to compel the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions: primarily carbon dioxide (CO2) from trucks and automobiles. The AGs' action followed an EPA judgment it lacks authority from Congress to issue such a regulation. Though the AG petition's crux is procedural, whether EPA possesses the necessary authority, it is also a matter of science. Are CO2 emissions from human activities the primary cause of climate change, and will increased emissions cause serious harm over this century? If the answer is no or we don't know, the petition should be dismissed. ........ The AG claims are based on projections from computer models that have not been scientifically validated, do not accurately represent important climate processes, use assumptions instead of observational data, and overpredict actual temperature increases. Climatologists know the climate system is too complex to be driven by one variable -- changes in CO2 emissions -- and yet that assumption is the foundation for these climate models and the motivation for those who would regulate CO2. In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences report made clear that, "Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions... current estimates... of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustment (either upward or downward)." This is absolute clarity that our understanding of the climate system is insufficient to make predictions that are credible enough support such far reaching regulation. The justices should see that the trappings of science and the policy preferences of those associated with the petition are nothing more than a Trojan Horse. William O'Keefe is chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute.