World Climate Report has a post about a pending case in which the U.S. Supreme Court will
review whether or not the federal government is currently required by law to limit emissions of carbon dioxide, the major human emission implicated in global warming. . . .
This case is a result of a pleading by several state Attorneys General, enviro groups, and assorted other hangers-on, arguing that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant,” and therefore must be regulated by the EPA.
The author (unidentified, but presumably the blog's proprietor, Pat Michaels), zings global-warming hysteria with this:
Folks on my side of the issue, know that there’s not a suite of regulations and/or technology that can significantly alter the course of the earth’s temperature evolution for the life of anyone on this court, or, for that matter, for any of the next several appointees. By then, society will likely be producing or using energy in ways that are so different than today that this huge catfight will look like what it really is—a silly diversion, compared to some real-world problems, like nutsos with nuclear weapons, or people flying airplanes into skyscrapers for the love of a bevy of non-experienced women.
Because Michaels is a bona fide scientist who is on the faculty of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, he offers convincing evidence to back up his position.