Share this Post:

unEARTHED. The Earthjustice Blog

Global Warming Deniers Ask Court To Help Their Cause

    SIGN-UP for our latest news and action alerts:
   Please leave this field empty

Facebook Fans

Related Blog Entries

by Suma Peesapati:
Clearing the Air in the Southwest with State, Federal Rules

Arizona Public Service Company officially announced yesterday that it will retire Units 1, 2, and 3 of the Four Corners Power Plant by January 1, 2014...

by Abigail Dillen:
Getting Our Nation's New Climate Rules Right

This op-ed originally ran on October 11, 2013, on LiveScience's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel o...

by Abigail Dillen:
President’s Climate Plan is Common-Sense

President Obama’s Climate Action Plan promises, at last, a meaningful step toward controlling our carbon pollution. Today’s announcement comes as ...

Earthjustice on Twitter

View Sam Edmondson's blog posts
25 January 2010, 2:03 PM
Legal attack aimed at EPA's power to regulate GW emissions
Massey Energy CEO, Don Blankenship.

The EPA Clean Air Act endangerment finding, under attack in the U.S. Senate by Lisa Murkowski and her lobbyist allies, is also facing opposition in the courts. Last month, a band of industry interests asked a federal appeals court to review the EPA's finding, which is a prerequisite for using the Clean Air Act to reduce global warming pollution in the U.S.

Among the companies and business associations crusading against the endangerment finding is the coal giant Massey Energy—whose CEO Don Blankenship is a fervid denier of global warming, a position he championed without compunction in a recent debate with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. over mountaintop removal mining.

His line of argument was skillfully captured in a tweet by Earthjustice Campaign Director Jared Saylor, who attended the debate. Others, however, realize that our national addiction to fossil fuels must be overcome, and the endangerment finding is a step towards sobriety.

Last Friday, 16 states and New York City filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit in order to defend the endangerment finding and the option of using the Clean Air Act in the future to cut down on pollution that is worsening global warming.

Blankenship and his ilk have profited tremendously from our fossil-fuel burning revelry, so it's really no surprise that they want the party to continue. But Blankenship's dogmatic, tragicomic denial of global warming in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary makes him look like the last guy at the party, yelling "beer run!" long after everyone else has gone home to sleep it off.

Well done! Thank you very much for professional templates and community edition
omegle gizzlesene

I remember the original master of this artwork, Scott Kim, who published 'Inversions' back in 1980. omegle sohbet I find it amazing how Kim and Langdon can find the symmetry to create these calligraphic cartwheels. chat roulette A perfect art for signs and book covers.

Very informative and trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I have booked marked your site and am about to email it to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading
omegle sohbet

cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias

Doesn't anybody gets it? This is not about pollution, global warming, or the environment.

This is about Constitutional law. And, it is also a turf battle between the US Congress and the EPA.

Oh Boy. The pollution lobby is out in force today.

What I don't get about these people is why they resist climate science and the move to green energy. I thought green money was the kind of green conservatives liked?

Even Texas now gets it.

Consider this...

"When all of these wind farms are completed, Texas will have 53,000 megawatts of wind generating capacity-the equivalent of 53 coal-fired power plants. This will more than satisfy the residential needs of the state's 24 million people, enabling Texas to export electricity, just as it has long exported oil."

(- Lester Brown, earth policy institute)

Maybe all the denialist's investments are tied up in fossil fuels and that explains their anger about pollution regulation and building a sustainable energy system?

Hmm, got an investment that's gonna tank because it's obsolete? Fight like hell to keep it's replacement from going on the market.

It's only self-defense.

But it's still a homicide.

Also Bob, I do not feel I am a part of the polution lobby! Here is a recent slideshow I have done

along with results

Just because I do not share your strong belief in the IPCC should not put me in the same catagory as the "pollution lobby". I just think there are better ways to approach polution, rather than deception! Sound science and realistic ideas work much better!

Bob, I do believe green energy has its place, until I have read this article Rethinking Wind Power I was very much under the assumption we could replace coal with wind and solar. Winds effectiveness from most perspectives is inferior. For instance (because of the wide and unpredictable fluctuations of wind), it only produces, on average, about 30 percent of its nameplate power, Which means your 53000 megawatts of power willl actually produce 15900 megawatts.(just being realistic) I do believe in climate change, but I do have my doughts, as most people probably do with the IPCC report. We need solid evidence, statements made in this reportis based on NO data! Admittedly statements was placed in the report for politital purposes. This is something that needs to be addressed, other words we need real data!
What we can do in the mean time is step up and get laws changed on Mountaintop Removel and the destruction of watersheds. This is one subject I will not sway on! This is rape of the mountains! Climate Change should be put on the back burner for now until a change at the IPCC is made! It should be addressed, but only on sound scientific data. Also when a better alternative is available. The only option right now is nuclear which is not with out its problems. So we find a better alternative, or go with nuclear. I prefer the first option!

Once again, the proponents of AGW start off by calling people who don't agree with them "deniers". That is a sure sign of a lack of confidence in the science. Science, by definition, must always come under scrutiny and withstand its attack through repeatable experiments that confirm the conclusion of the theory. This is not the case. As many AGW proponents claim, Climate is not Weather, but yet, they use a computer model based on Weather forecasting to forecast the climate. In addition, many of the weather stations in colder areas such as northern Canada are not being included in the data. Also, they skip over higher elevation, landlocked Bolivia and extrapolate temps there by using data in the lower/warmer surrounding countries. We also have seen admitted scare tactics acknowledged by the IPCC in the GlacierGate episode unraveling now. Add ClimateGate, brutally cold global winters and a total lack of any sea level rise (except for those pacific nations that are SINKING) and you have a logical conclusion this is a massive scam. It is only fitting the courts are the avenue to stop the intrusion into business and peoples lives. I am beggining to see a resemblence to the famed Bagdad Bob whenever an AGW proponent tells us there is something there that no logical thinking human being can see. Thank God people are waking up to the charade of AGW much like the empty rhetoric of Barrack Obama.

Sir: you misconstrue the meanings of climate and weather: Climate is the study of weather over the long term, while weather is the study of changes in the atmosphere over the short term. The use of weather models is quite legitimate in the study of the climate, because one can project the effects of changes in the daily inputs to the weather systems over time.

Is it 100% accurate? Of course not. Is it close enough to be able to extract useful data bout climatic trends? Absolutely! The ClimateGate bruhaha was over one set of data, and does not negate the mass of data from other sources. I dispute your assertion that the pacific nations are sinking. The means of extrapolating data for elevation and for remote areas is quite well developed, and can now be augmented with much more accurate data from satellites and other remote sensing. In other settings (i.e.: tracking terrorists), you would be criticizing the experts for NOT connecting the dots, with even fewer data points than climate scientists have already collected concerning climate change.

Good grief! Go get a real education!

yes, u got scientist would be worth anything if they couldn't acknowledge that we never really, really know 100% for certain about anything. yes it's true. there's always this remote possibility of error.

unfortunately, the scientific process has run enough of its course that in good, sound judgment, we do know. we know enough to say that climate change is happening, and that it is man-made. we are certain enough now to demand urgent action to do something about it.

and why not? we've blown up 500 mountains in Appalachia alone, pushing the native americans out of Black Mesa for the same reasons we're raping Appalachia. we have nothing to look forward to except a possible sustainable future, with unlimited energy potential, no peak charts, no conflicts with countries over fuel sources--we're sending our people to war over non-existent WMD's to justify getting 600,000 barrels of oil a DAY out of Iraq.

this generation must see the end of fossil fuels. fossils belong in a museum, or in the ground. and those scientists taking money from the fossil fuel industry to keep up this crap, should be chastised for their abuse of the lager scientific process.

Susan, What alternative energy would you suggest to replace fossil fuels? Please read the article above on wind. Solar does not fit the criteria for a good source of energy either. I just would like to know what your suggestions would be? Especially if we need extra electric for electric cars? As for transportation I would suggest LNG, but for the other energy needs I have no idea. I always look for realistic ways. I would also consider conservation, but not like cap and trade to price energy out of ones means, because you have to consider the poor and the elderly into the equation. alot of these people live on less than one thousand dollars a month. If you double or triple there heating bills what are they to do? They will have to freeze or go without medicine or food. Right now alot of people have to make the decision do I eat this week, or do I buy my life saving medication? People need to wake up to reality. It is nice to try to save the earth, but at the same time you have to keep in mind that people are still starving right here in the USA! It is the same with gasoline, we need to conserve but you have people that have to drive 1 hour to work, walking is not an option. You also have to consider alot of people make less than 20k a year, what are they supposed to do? Yes, even saving the enviroment has its human consiquinses.

Cap and trade was used quite effectively to control CFLs, and as I recall, was also fought tooth and nail by those who made CFLs. Well, duh!

Cap and trade is to give utilities, and other point producers of greenhouse gasses a way to manage the orderly transition to alternative energy sources.

Solar & wind, combined with new (and emerging) storage technologies can produce enough energy. In addition, we have hardly started researching the energy in wave action & the tides.

Nobody says this will happen overnight, but we are starting to move in the right direction. An orderly transition is quite possible, and grandma won't have to freeze. Heck, I project my old age income to be well under $1000/mo, and I sure as heck want to have solar heating and electricity on my house before then, so I don't have to pay all those utility bills!

Green isn't just PV solar electricity: A lot of the transition is in making buildings passively heated and cooled, using the physics of the environment. I have a friend who is working on a new means of generating heat, which would make water heaters, or furnaces easily powered by PV solar. It's a matter of getting efficiency out of the total systems.

AGW, or more accurately, Anthropomorphic Climate Change (ACC) IS occurring, even with the gaps in the data. Putting our heads in the sand and pleading poverty won't change the fact that oil is getting scarce and coal is extremely dirty, both to extract, and to use.

Lifestyle changes will be necessary, not just in terms of electrical power use and transportation needs, but because our industrial food production system depends on unsustainable oil resources, and utilizes a process that is killing the living systems of the soil.

We can do, and have done a lot to change our environment: the forests of Illinois and the Mid-west are now cornfields. The Great Plains once was a self-sustaining grass/meat producing bonanza that had evolved into a drought resistant production system capable of feeding far more people than it ever was asked to, before it was dismantled by people who did not understand how it worked. Water over the dam, but it is proof that we can, indeed, change our environment.

This resistance to making the change to the new, green technologies is like a drowning man grasping at his rescuer: if he is successful, he will drown them both.

RealTimeHistory. Let me ask you what have you done for the enviroment lately? Have you stood side by side with James Hanson and protested mountain top removel? I have last summer! Have you donated several thousand dollars you really did not have to save a pristine watershed from a Rock Quarry? I have done that also! How do you heat your home? Do you heat your home with solar? I recently built a new home, I put the one of the most effecient heating system in the world in it! Geothermal is a bit more efficient but at double the cost!
My home has 3 times the goverment recommended insulation in it! I placed it so I could take advantage of the availible sunlight to save on lighting! I use available technology for the most conservation. I also have gravity fed spring water to save on pumping. What I am trying to say is we need to work with proven availible technology, sure technology will improve but when? Will it be affordable for all? I feel I do my part to conserve, so when I leave this earth I will feel confident I have done all I can to protect it and protect human kind!

You, sir, are an irresponsible, self-centered moron. You talk about "data" and "politics" when all you are doing is trying to distract people from the substance of this entire conversation.

You will stop at nothing to continue to pursue your dirty interests, because the only thing that drives you is greed. Pure and simply, you are Smeagal, blissfully clutching his Precious as he plummets into the burning depths of Mordor.

What is outrageous is you would foul and destroy the Earth for the rest of us as well, because you don't give a damn about anyone, any creature, now living or that may ever live, as long as you can have all the toys and money you want while you grace this measly little rock with your godly presence.

Interesting. Although, it's hard to take your article seriously when you use the word "denier". When you resort to name calling you give the impression that you are losing the argument. It's also rude. You might want to use the word skeptic next time.

What "overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary"? So far Lal told Rose that he knew there were no solid data to support the report’s claim that Himalayan glaciers – the source of drinking and irrigation water for downstream areas throughout Asia – could dry up by 2035. Said Lal: “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”
Also, Amid a possible new row for 'wrongly' linking global warming to a rise in natural disasters, the UN climate panel has underlined that it was
reassessing the evidence for surge in hurricanes and floods around the globe.
Not to mention Most scientist questioning the peer review process itself! In a recent email I recieved from one of the IPCC reviewers went as far as call it so-called peer review! I consider myself an enviromentalist, but I will not use lies to prove my point! It is now we need to start over with climate science the public will not trust the current scientist or data. Even the raw data has been labeled as (cherry picked), With the research I myself have put into it I would have to agree. So we can keep harping on this consensus until the IPCC falls apart or we can demand Pachauri resign now to try to salvage what is left of the integrity climate science so we can move on. I admit global warming is real, but I personally don't think it is going to ruin the planet. I also think we do not have we have enough solid evidence to prove anything at the moment!

I agree 100%. Abusing 'deniers' won't do any more. There are serious doubts emerging about the science behind AGW which must be addressed quickly and without further 'spin', or the whole theory will sink into disrepute.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <p> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.