Pure Conjecture

It must be great to be a Supreme Court justice. Not only are you the highest authority in the land on vexing Constitutional issues, you get to be an expert on just about anything. Some times it's theology. Sometimes medicine. And now, even climatology.

From today's Wall Street Journal Court Rulings Could Hit Utilities, Auto Makers (sub req):

In a decision that could mark a turning point in the national debate over climate change, a divided Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and that the Bush administration broke the law in its refusal to limit emissions of those gases.

The 5-4 decision was a victory for environmental groups, which had pushed for such a ruling, and a blow to the nation's auto and utility industries, among others, as well as the White House. The Bush administration has steadfastly opposed mandatory curbs on the emission of greenhouse gases, which most scientists believe contribute to global warming.

The key words there are "contribute to" not cause.

Whenever a Supreme Court decision comes down, the first thing I want to know is what the vote was and how each Justice voted. That should be covered in the first or second paragraph in all such stories, since it tells you a lot about the decision. In this case, we are told early on that it was a 5-4 decision, but have to wait until the TWENTY-THIRD paragraph to learn:

The court's majority opinion, which was written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, rejected all three claims.

Surprise, surprise, surprise. The usual suspects and the guy who seems more and more willing to blow with prevailing winds, Anthony Kennedy. But remember, the debate on climate change is not a partisan issue folks.

In any case, the slow pace of the nation's regulatory machinery, the potential for congressional or legal challenges to future regulations, and the lead time industry would need to comply with them effectively ensure that no significant changes in regulating emissions will take effect during the remainder of Mr. Bush's time in office.

Thank God for red tape.

That doesn't mean that Congress, now controlled by Democrats, won't press the issue. The House is already gearing up for action on climate change through a special committee set up by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to focus and coordinate work by the different panels with oversight of energy and the environment.

The Senate also has taken up the cause. "This decision puts the wind at our back," Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement. She promised to call the EPA before her committee to explain how it intends to comply with the ruling, while also pushing for additional legislation.

Hearing those words from Barbara Boxer should send a chill down the spine of anyone who believes in the free market.

The Journal also has an editorial today taking the Jolly Green Justices to task (sub req):

They showed no such modesty. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, a narrow majority managed to diminish the rules of judicial standing, rewrite the definition of "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act, and dramatically curtail the decision-making authority of the executive branch. And judging from Justice John Paul Stevens's 5-4 majority decision, they did so because the five Justices are personally anxious about rising temperatures. As Justice Antonin Scalia noted in dissent, the "Court's alarm over global warming" has led it to substitute "its own desired outcome" for the EPA's judgment.

The five Supreme climatologists granted Al Gore's fondest wish by declaring that "the harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized." The majority warned about a "precipitous rise in sea levels," "severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems" and "increases in the spread of disease."

Three claims which have been grossly exaggerated by climate change scaremongers.

Perhaps most distressing is the way the majority made a hash of traditional "standing" doctrine, which determines when a plaintiff has a right to sue. To justify its global warming afflatus, the Justices simply asserted that the Massachusetts coastline faces imminent threat from rising seas. Not even Mr. Gore goes that far. But the Court cites climate models to suggest future harm in order to claim the threat of immediate injury, and thus standing by the Bay State.

"Aside from a single conclusory statement, there is nothing in petitioners' 43 standing declarations and accompanying exhibits to support an inference of actual loss of Massachusetts coastal land from 20th century global sea level increases," writes Chief Justice John Roberts in his dissent. "It is pure conjecture."

Another item that fits into that category is the majority citing Hurricane Katrina in their opinion:

18-In this regard, MacCracken's 2004 affidavit—drafted more than a year in advance of Hurricane Katrina-was eerily prescient. Immediately after discussing the "particular concern" that climate change might cause an "increase in the wind speed and peak rate of precipitation of major tropical cyclones (i.e., hurricanes and typhoons),"

This is unbelievable. The Supreme Court of the United States making a link that even the most die-hard, Al Gore-worshipping climate-change doomsayers would admit is unsupportable. There is NO evidence that global warming had any impact on Hurricane Katrina. None. Maybe Justice Stevens can explain how his theory on global warming causing more numerous and severe storms can explain the 2006 hurricane season.

In fact, the entire notion that a warming planet will cause more storms of greater severity is very much in dispute. If you look back at climate history, most records indicate that warmer periods had fewer catastrophic storms.

Writing for Canada's National Post, Terence Cocoran warns of the dangers of governments trying to play both sides of the climate change issue:

Nobody at the EPA or within the Bush administration spent much effort challenging the science the court heard on hurricanes. The preference in government among politicians in power is to lie low on the science and play out the political game for as long as possible. Maybe it will go away or take care of itself.

Foot-dragging on climate-control policy is a national priority for all developed nations, including most of Europe but especially in Canada and the United States. Avoiding major and dramatic policy action--such as tough regulations, massive carbon taxes, and job-killing cutbacks--is actually sound policy.

But politicians and governments cannot have it both ways forever. You can't fund the climate-science industry, a vast self-interested global community of subsidized players, and expect to be able to ignore the effects of their work. The science will bite back. This is a dangerous game being played out across the world, but especially in the industrialized West. Without the West's billions in funding, the great UN-backed climate control industry would not exist.

...the politicians are playing with fire. At some point, carried along by the subsidized official state science, they will find themselves imposing costs and burdens on the economy that will cause a lot of harm but do little good.

That's your cue Barbara.