hiya Veritas..my my..well this should prove interesting to say the least eh?.. ty for the link my friend!
Angel | Homepage | 12.02.06 - 4:53 pm | #

Apart from their opinions on the science, which should be TOTALLY irrelevent, let's hope they can stick to interpreting the law--which is pretty clear here that the Court can't trump the agency so long as their action is not totally arbitrary and capricious!
D. Ox | Homepage | 12.02.06 - 9:59 pm | #

My concern is in he definitions. Considerable ground has been made by the alarmists to define CO2 as a pollutant. If it is accepted as a pollutant then the court can interpret the law to say that the EPA has to regulate pollutants and they can force CO2 regulation. This is totally bunk but by defining CO2 as a pollutant it changes the entire discussion. I haven't heard a very loud argument against that definition
Veritas | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 1:11 pm | #