The Virginian-Pilot
©
RICHMOND
The Environmental Protection Agency should reconsider its conclusion that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and global warming because it relied on flawed and "doctored" research, Virginia's attorney general said Wednesday.
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli defended the petitions he filed against the agency in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington questioning the EPA's ruling. Cuccinelli was among several utility and energy companies, as well as think tanks, that filed petitions before the deadline Tuesday.
Cuccinelli, who on the campaign trail last year questioned whether people have contributed to global warming, received $238,846 in donations from energy and natural resources interests.
At issue for Cuccinelli is the EPA's reliance on information from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The credibility of the panel and some prominent climate researchers in England has recently been questioned. E-mails stolen from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia showed that some climate scientists stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data on climate change.
"It's political science, not real science," Cuccinelli said.
Members of the Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy group, attended the attorney general's news conference and criticized Cuccinelli for "cherry-picking " information.
Glen Besa, the group's state director, said that the EPA relied on more than one source for its determination and that most research indicates people are contributing to global warming.
Besa accused Cuccinelli of trying to stall the Obama administration's efforts to cut greenhouse gases through emission permits for sources such as factories, power plants, cars, trucks and businesses, as well as through incentives for clean-energy development.
The EPA has said it is reviewing the petitions.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
To answer those who ask why
It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.
James Madison
It's the principle. That's why. The EPA has over stepped its authority by acting as an unelected legislator (by regulation.)
Hey Commonsenseguy
You seem to be lacking in your name sake.
While the definition of fluid is either a liquid or gas… Air is not a liquid it is in fact a gas.
And, while lecturing people on what they know and don't know is arrogant correcting them when they are wrong is necessary for intelligent conversation.
Good Arguments
In reading the posts I see the logic behind both sides of this argument, but I believe that one thing is not being considered: The biggest industries, banking, petroleum, big pharma, military complex, etc., they are all pretty much owned by the same group that is behind the Global Warming/Climate Change international initiatives.
Note in the article above, it states that there will be a requirement for "emission permits for sources such as factories, power plants, cars, trucks and businesses." These will translate into some sort of emissions trading program (who can emit and how much - which might include your home?), turning air-emissions into tradable commodities , another intangible asset, like all the instruments created by the Banking industry to steal our savings.
And all these will be controlled through international agreements. And who will ultimately control all these? The same poeple I mentioned above, with the force of the United Nations. Oh, that organization is the one that put together the supposed definitive report on GW/CC. So, can anyone out there tell me who is behind the United Nations? Let's follow the money. Who put up the money for the headquarter's prop
If the EPA really did rely
If the EPA really did rely on false or disingenuous evidence, which is what the lawsuit is intended to prove, then what the AG is doing is a very important and neccessary move toward stopping more goverment control and more uneccessary taxes. I am still not convinced that the human population is having a profound negative impact on the environment to the point that it would endager the human population even remotely. I strongly agree with the attorney general's notion that this is "political science not actual science" In the 70s, it was reported that climate change, then global cooling, was also caused by the humans. Is this to say that perhaps our efforts to stop global cooling backfired and are now causing global warming??? no. Welcome to planet Earth. The climate changes. Dont let the media convince you that climate change is a problem that calls for federal and global governmental intervention that effectively forces you to give up your rights and your money in the name of saving mother earth. She can take care of herself, believe me.
Let the think tanks and industry fight this
Why is our A G even delving into this issue when we have $4 billion reasons why he should not
Government waste
Ken Cuccinelli is wading into an area where he is completely unqualified. In the process he is about to waste millions of dollars in a politically inspired lawsuit. I do not want my tax dollars used to carry out Ken's far right political agenda.
Seriously why is the state wasting money on this?
Why are we wasting time and taxpayers money challenging the EPA on something like. We have bigger fish to fry and our AG is taking on the EPA? Really? Why? What's the point? Is that really the job of AG? Let's focus on crime and protect our citizens like your suppose to. If you want to change the EPA, you should have run for president instead.
Its all about the Benjamins.
No rational person would deny global warming. All the worlds scientists are in agreement that man is contributing to global warming and greenhouse gases. The consequences are debatable but the reality exists.
The only reason Cookynellie is making a stink is because he is beholden to the energy lobbyists and his energy donors. Like most politicians he represents the interests of the wealth oligarchy over the interests of the people and in this case mankind.
The only reason these folks are squawking and denying the existence of global warming is because they know it will cut into profits if they are forced to go green and reduce emissions. These clowns would sell their own mothers for the profit motive, why would they give one rat's hair for the world in general.
Cookynellie is a legal strong arm stooge of the maximum profit capitalists. They call themselves good Christians, but money is their god.
A lot if hot air...
You should consider easing-up on the vitriol (no, that's not medication). Because I am not convinced on the science used to substantiate global warming does not make me or anyone else not rational. And your declaration that it is fact does not make it a reality any more than your angry rants about capitalists and christians prove you are "open minded" like your pseudonym purports. So, I proudly belong to all the groups you chose to insult.
The AG is doing what he is supposed to do and look out for the interest of this state's citizens. I appreciate his courageous move to fight against the EPA's overreach, and its potentially significant negative impact on the economy.
I never insulted Christianity.
In fact I respect Jesus Christ. A true socialist outlaw, who the greedy preachers, bankers, soldiers, and police of his time executed because he spoke out in defense of the poor.
If so called Christians truly practiced the teachings of Christ, we would have universal health care, and decent wages for an honest days work. And we would take care of our senior citizens after they have devoted a lifetime of service to their nation and community in whatever capacity they contributed, be it Governor or CEO of a company or garbage collector or janitor of an elementary school. Jesus wouldn't let old people eat dog food because they have no retirement. And unlike the insurance cartels, Jesus wouldn't let a little girl die from not receiving a liver transplant because it wasn't profitable.