Curses Upon Skalduggery!
In my “Supreme Court” post I gave undue weight to Justice Stevens assertion that the EPA can decline to regulate “if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change.” This is where my negative proof angle came in.
Skalduggery read the entire opinion and it’s much more watered down than the Houston Chronicle article would lead one to believe. Skalduggery makes the very reasonable point:
At its most basic, the majority opinion simply said, “If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, EPA must say so” (see Majority Decision).
I’m still not happy with it and believe it doesn’t make sense in an enforcement arena. I applied to law enforcement, it would require the FBI to explain why they don’t prosecute suspects they haven’t met the burden of proof on.
Did I get that one right, Skald?
The Skald wrote:
Absolutely Coffee, and judging by virtually every news report I’ve read, they’ve all overstated Stevens’ opinion and link it to the Bush administration. Like my greatgranny said, that dog just don’t hunt. Personally, I loathe the fact that the court claimed jurisdiction on such an amorphous “injury.” The ocean is rising and encroaching on our shoreline says Mass. ummm, horse hoooey
Posted on 04-Apr-07 at 11:04 pm | Permalink