[Dr.Zoidberg]

This is a horrible decision imo.

Sad enough that USA needs an adjudication of the Supreme Court! It´s the only one of the countries in the world by now.

This effectively gives the EPA the power to license a bar-b-que for 20 euros.

You know this is nonsense.

Supreme Court should stay out of this crap.

Here I have to prove you right. It doesn´t have to come to the point that a Court has to decide about it.

Hopefully we can remove this by law from the EPA's jurisdiction.

I´m not a jurisprudent, but in Germany, if the Supreme Court returns a verdict, there is no way to remove the adjudication. The adjudication is definitely valid and you can´t enter a caveat. I think there is no difference in USA.

Unfortunately looking at this ruling it's even more disturbing. Not only has it determined CO2 is under the EPA's jurisdiction but it's opened the door for enviromental lawsuits far and wide based on global warming, even though the court itself agrees that it's far from certain.

Now basically any wacko state(state today, individual probalby tommorrow) can bring suit for any reason based on global warming quack science. As liberals love to do, the decision making is being taken away from the people and given to a bunch of lawyers and judges.

That was always a problem in USA that everyone can sue anyone for trifles (e.g. the person which was burned from hot coffee and sued a fast food company for not writing a warning on the cup that it contains something hot. LOL).

But I hope the judges are intelligent enough not to accept every sue and are able to decide between quack science or accepted science and to return reasonable verdicts. Or do you have such little confidence in your country´s jurisdiction?

America's MOST RELIABLE FORECASTER, thinks Gore is full of bunk. That would qualify as something "new" imo.

As I said several times, I don´t know the movie, so I can´t comment on the substance. Also Al Gore is no scientist, so maybe he doesn´t understand the coherences of this topic correctly and therefore can´t put the quintessence across good enough.

But I forgot the "consensus" is in so one of the top meteorologists viewpoint is invalid.

I never said that his viewpoint is invalid:

Concerning the hurricanes I wrote:

So I can´t find a statement by Gray, which speaks against a trend of increasing hurricanes, caused by global warming.

In this post I founded my standpoint as well.

Concerning the man made global warming:
That´s why I wrote to his opinion to be "against the theorie that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm":

"And as we often discussed before, this neither is a reason that his opinion isn´t right nor it is,...(and you can´t deny that), "...there are definitely more scientific data at the moment which affirm the man made global warming".

I would suggest powerlines viewpoint here as a little less biased than the media or the "consensus" seekers.

I also don´t like that often articles have been written by authors who don´t know enough about the complex subject matter. They only wrote an article about this topic, because it´s state of the art at the moment to write about this topic. And often those authors twist somebodys words or misinterpret the coherences of this topic.