Fish Wrapper Twists Court Ruling To Fit Global Warming Hype Agenda

The editors of the Daily Dead Fish Wrapper are at it again on one of their favorite topics, global warming. In today's editorial, they also employ the usual tactic of twisting an event to suit their pre-determined opinion. In this case, the title "The air clears on climate change" is very misleading because it applies to a case about the regulatory powers of the EPA.

The purpose of the article is the recent Supreme Court ruling in a case where the issue was whether the EPA had the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. According to the title, you would think that the ruling provided definitive scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming (and exactly when was the last time that judges were scientific experts?). Instead, it was just 12 states getting the liberal wingnuts of the Supreme Court to go along with them and try to force the administration to hamstring our economy.

The tone right off the bat contains the typical editorial arrogance of the FIsh Wrapper.

The high court exposes the Bush administration's failures, and it gives Oregon and other states greater license to act

There's a powerful wind now at Oregon's back in its drive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming.

The legal clouds are gone, blown away by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the federal government, and by extension the states, have the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

So would someone please explain to me why telling the goverment agency it has the authority to regulate something is so historic? Democrats have always done that in their constant battle to ruin our econmomy and make us a socialist country. That's nothing new.

In a better world, with a more enlightened administration, this historic court ruling would be met with a strong new federal response to the looming crisis of climate change. But it's not coming, not from this president. The Supreme Court's ruling is really an invitation to the states, and the next president, not this one, to lead the nation forward.

Here's a quick history lesson for the lefties that always want to blame everything on Bush.

When was Kyoto shot down by the U.S. Senate 95-0?
A: 1997

Q: Who was President at that time?
A: Slick Willy

And how is this an invitation to the states? The decision just told the EPA (a federal agency) that ist has the power to regulate CO2, and that is an invitation to the states to jump in and take charge? Gotta love that liberal logic...

So, because Bush isn't going to start legislating articifical limits on emissions that would have almost zero impact on global temperatures, it's up to the state to start destroying our state economy (something Teddy is already good at).

So, let's go. Oregon lawmakers and Gov. Ted Kulongoski should push ahead with a sweeping package of bills encouraging alternative energy and controlling carbon dioxide. Oregon already has adopted California's plan to cut emissions from vehicles beginning in 2009, leading to a 30 percent reduction in carbon by 2016. To put their laws into effect, the states need waivers from the federal Environmental Protection Agency; now there's no excuse not to grant them.

Oregon has an opportunity now to join California as one of the world's leaders in smart, creative and aggressive responses to climate change. Within the next week, the Oregon Senate will vote on Kulongoski's proposal to require utilities to get 25 percent of the energy they sell customers from renewable resources such as wind and solar by the year 2025. That's an achievable goal, and it ought to be enshrined in Oregon law.

Further, the Senate is preparing to vote on incentives to encourage the development of a biofuel industry in Oregon, one that would turn farm crops such as corn and straw, and woody debris from Northwest forests, into affordable, low-emission fuels. Lawmakers also are working on bills that would create or enlarge tax credits for renewable energy projects, including new wave-energy experiments on the Oregon coast.

But of course, the libs don't think far enough ahead to consider other consequences. Take for example corn, which is used in bio-diesel (another huge inefficient waste). The demand for corn has gone up so much that it is affecting many different foods that rely on corn.

The recent rise in corn prices--almost 70 percent in the past six months--caused by the increased demand for ethanol biofuel has come much sooner than many agriculture economists had expected.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, this year the country is going to use 18 to 20 percent of its total corn crop for the production of ethanol, and by next year that will jump to 25 percent. And that increase, says Marshall Martin, an agriculture economist at Purdue University, "is the main driver behind the price increase for corn."

The jump in corn prices is already affecting the cost of food. The most notable example: in Mexico, which gets much of its corn from the United States, the price of corn tortillas has doubled in the past year, according to press reports, setting off large protest marches in Mexico City. It's almost certain that most of the rise in corn prices is due to the U.S. ethanol policy, says David Victor, director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University.

But don't be too proud, fellow Oregonians, because the Fish Wrapper isn't the only news outlet to twist the court decision. The rest of the MSM has joined in, as exemplified by the Washington Post.

The front-page teaser headline for today's front page Washington Post article on the Supreme Court's CO2 ruling (emphases below are mine):

Court: EPA Violated Clean Air Act

Supreme Court rebukes Bush administration for refusing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The link takes readers to today's front page article by Robert Barnes and Juliet Eilperin, "High Court Faults EPA Inaction on Emissions."

But both headlines not only skew the issue that was before the Court -- turning a legal matter into a political drama, and making the Supreme Court into a veritable high court of climate science -- they mislead readers about the actual finding of the Court's majority.

I'm no fan of the majority's reasoning or their ruling, but as Barnes and Eilperin themselves report deep in their article, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, noted that "We need not and do not reach the question" of whether the EPA "must make an endangerment finding." In other words, the ruling is not some stern Al Gore-like command for the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

Indeed, while the scientific geniuses in the Court majority in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. EPA did hold that carbon dioxide may be defined as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and hence may result in future EPA regulation, the ruling is not a rebuke to the Bush, and Clinton, administrations* for years of non-regulation.

A better teaser headline would be "Court Broadens Clean Air Act's Reach," which is what the ruling will likely do as more lawsuits follow from the Court's precedent.

And of course, ABC News didn't want to be left off of the bandwagon:

"Court trumps Bush on global warming," read the teaser headline on the front page of ABCNews.com, as accessed by this reader at 12:15 p.m. EDT today. No, the Supreme Court is NOT the high court of all things scientific, but ABC and other liberal media outlets are essentially portraying the new ruling as such, although it pertains merely to what the EPA may choose to regulate as an air pollutant.

When I clicked the link it took me to a two-paragraph Reuters squib about a Supreme Court ruling on carbon dioxide regulation that came down this morning:

Apr 2, 2007 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a defeat for the Bush administration, a closely divided Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a U.S. government agency incorrectly determined it lacks the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that spur global warming.

The nation's highest court said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "has offered no reasoned explanation" for its refusal to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions from new cars and trucks that contribute to climate change

The headline reads "Supreme court [sic] rules against Bush in global warming case." Of course, the ruling had nothing to do with establishing the scientific credibility of the theory of manmade global warming, nor could it. The issue was whether the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could regulate CO2 as a pollutant, something the Bush administration argued it could not do under existing law.

Indeed, as the Court's longest-serving liberal jurist noted, the ruling doesn't force the Bush administration's hand on regulating so-called greenhouse gases, it merely broadened interpretation of existing law to make CO2 classifiable as a pollutant.

That would be clear to ABCNews.com Web site visitors had ABC amended the Web site with a link to Reuters's updated article, posted at 11:05 a.m. EDT.:

In sending the case back for further proceedings, [Justice John Paul] Stevens said the high court did not decide which policy the EPA must follow. "We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute," he wrote.

Essentially what happened in this case is that a group of 12 states successfully pushed the Court's liberal wing (plus swing vote Anthony Kennedy) to force the EPA's hand to open the door to regulating carbon dioxide emissions.

Of course, greater regulation will entail greater costs to the consumer, namely taxes and federal spending on compliance costs (hiring federal inspectors to enforce the law), but don't expect the dollars and nonsense of rulings like this to tamper the media's jubilation over its hottest pet issue.

But what else should we expect from the Fish Wrapper (and MSM) when there is fear mongering to do about global whining, er, warming? Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, right?

This website bothers me. A

This website bothers me. A lot. This is my first (and only) trip here and I know you address more than global warming. But in regards to this issue, my guess is that you're too old to REALLY care about global warming because you're not going to be around to deal with it like I will be as a 28 y/o man. Whether the Oregonian hypes it up or not, sure, argue that, whatever. However, the leading SCIENTISTS of the ENTIRE WORLD are with them so maybe they're onto something...

I'm only ten years older

I'm only ten years older than you, so that argument doesn't really hold water.

As for the leading scientists of the ENTIRE WORLD, that's a joke. It's obvious that you're getting your news from the mainstream media and are not getting the whole picture. There are just as many eminently qualified scientitsts who point out things like this:

  1. over the earth's history, there have been periods of time where the temperature was warmer than it is now (ever heard of the Medieval Warm Period?), and that was before the industrial revolution (which added CO2 to the air in large amounts)
  2. other factors such as solar activity show a much closer correlation with temperature increases than CO2 levels
  3. CO2 level increases actually follow temperature increases much more closely than they lead it
  4. ice packs are increasing, not decreasing, such as at the South Pole

So make sure and get the whole picture - which means getting information from more places than the mainstream media - before you start claiming that every leading scientist in the ENTIRE WORLD goes along with the GW hype, because it simply isn't true.

By the way, another good thing to do is follow the money. When you hear someone hyping global warming, check to see how much money they make (such as in research dollars or their company gains from the joke that is carbon offsets, like Al Gore), and see how much of what they are saying is based on that.

User login







Syndicate

Syndicate content