Straight up. With stuff like this an Al Gore's "truth", I wonder how these dems keep saying that the replicans are fearmongers.

__________________
"If I didn't live in Ohio I would love to live in Texas, it's the only place where drinking beer and kickin' ass is still accepted." -Roman

There are specific threats that should not panic but determine our resolve to address. In my mind they are in this order:

Nuclear proliferation

Terrorism

Global Warming

They need addressed and faced with a plan ,logic and consequences of the plan carefully considered and executed. Fear Mongering is not needed for any of these but intelligent people understanding the facts and planning and responding in manner that solves the problems with the least negative consequences.

Yellow dog if you want a tutorial on C02 and why our body eliminates it and what happens when C02 from emissions spikes in the atmosphere review the Cooney thread.

Well, methane gas is also a big pollutant, do you know what makes that? Cows, a lot. I guess we should kill all of the cows, huh? We could also start writing tickets to people who experience flatulence. That'll slove the problem.

__________________
"If I didn't live in Ohio I would love to live in Texas, it's the only place where drinking beer and kickin' ass is still accepted." -Roman

You are shifting the discussion and not being logical.You sound like a kid. Anyway this is the courts section.Feel free to jump in the global warming thread but we are debating fact by fact in a logical sense.

The Supreme Court isn't going to really decide if the EPA should regulate carbon dioxide emissions, but rather if they have the authority to do so according to the link you provided. I read through it quickly, but the EPA representative said that even if they did have the authority to enact the regulations, they were not prepared to do so at this time - so the Supreme Court will not be deciding on the policy of regulations or no regulations.

Yes that is what the terminology "hear arguments" means but good point I should not have assumed all would know that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15909008/

This is a good description on what the Supreme Court will be hearing.It is only a beginning. I think Shells CEO admitting a consensus of 98 percent Scientific consensus was the most significant part of the first link.

Another point is this is just the courts decision on interpretation of a law of regulation not about the science.

This is why I made the earlier comment and supplied the article about the companies involved. If all sides work together then bigger government does not have to happen.

shutup hairbal