I think however there are very very few liberals on the extreme left who would say that terrorism is not a problem at all. The major difference is in tactics. Should the ‘war on terror’ be fought through law enforcement and sanctions, or military strikes.

Oh, I only managed to catch the end of this debate on the radio, but I think you will be surprised at how it ends…. considering that its NPR.

Let’s test that.

Shazam!

Did that work?

I think one of the strongest points made in the new article was:

First, and most obviously, the ruling that greenhouse gases are “air pollutants� under section 202 of the Clean Air Act enables this or any future administration to regulate these emissions from motor vehicles without additional congressional action.

That is a powerful authority, and over time and across multiple administrations is sure to be enacted upon.

I think your commentary about relative standards of proof is apt. Will those who rail about Bush “lying” about the pre-war intel also complain if it turns out that we make massive investments to counter climate change, and later learn that the consensus scientists were wrong? There is a very valid comparison here because just as science bases theories on probability rather than 100% definitive proof, so were the pre-war decisions made on intelligence data that can prove to be untrue or faulty. We really have to decide in each case, how much uncertainty is acceptable before we decide to make a conclusion and act on it, and we have to realize that if the decision turns out to be faulty then that doesn’t prove that the decision makers were lying or had malicious intent.

My last paragraph argument, which, judging from the confusion, must not have been made very well, was to point out the inconsistency of many global warming alarmists who accept the allegedly thin support for all things global warming but insist on proof beyond all reasonable doubt with regards to other issues we face today, such as the threats we face from militant Islamic fundamentalism and terorrism. It is rather inconsistent for Gore, for example, to scream ‘where’s the proof, where’s the proof’ on one hand while screaming ‘we have to act, we have to act’ on the other…. especially when the threat we face from terrorism is present day while the threat we supposedly face from global warming is a long time off.

What stevestrum was saying is that there are priorities to be set as to national priorities. I think it goes to far to suggest a polarize view where certain people are concerned about global warming and climate change threats while others are concerned about the threat of a terrorist attack, but there is a valid point to be made that we have to prioritize our national interests and deal with them in a way that is proportional to their likelihood of occurrence and significance of impact if they occur.

The real question is what will the next administration propose and how will it imlement it. Would an Obama or Clinton Administratino be willing to give up jobs and economic growth to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Will the impact of open borders be considered when trying to comply with new regulations? What will the synergistic effects of a huge environmental program along with an economic recession.

This case is certainly about more than standing, although the creation of ‘special standing’ for states may have repercussions well past our current environmental crisis.

Oh, and I’m not only a SCOTUSblog junkie, but a primary source junkie as well.

As to the whole terrorists vs global warming thing, well I’m afraid you’ve just made an association fallacy.

Glad someone is posting about this Joe, keep up the good work.

As for terrorists, who the hell is talking about terrorists? Aren’t there enough posts here for those comments?

Radical bloggers, who six months ago were enforcing absolute control over opinion and content on their sites, have lost audience. Some now would like to blend into the middle and have a voice.

Good for them… BUT they must learn that ‘In the Middle’ differing opinions get listened and responded to… not steamrolled or banned.

As one who enjoys a good debate, I wish them well.

But this was not a ruling on the merits of an EPA set of regulations, or lack thereof, but rather a technical case pivoting on issues of standing, regulatory boundaries, and rule-making obligations.

As another commentator on SCOTUSblog (a must for any SCOTUS junkie like myself) stated:

(I)t is by no means clear that on remand, EPA will come to the conclusion desired by Massachusetts and the other petitioners. The Court’s opinion does not purport to eliminate EPA’s discretion about whether or not it has to regulate; instead, it merely reaffirms that EPA must exercise that discretion in conformity with the Clean Air Act’s decisional criteria. EPA could, for instance, come to the conclusion that more greenhouse gasses would be emitted by automobiles and other sources around the world, exacerbating the petitioners’ injuries, if EPA regulated unilaterally and unconditionally because, as confirmed by the State Department, the Executive would lose critical leverage in negotiating a multilateral solution to climate change concerns. In this case, it is likely that the Supreme Court would defer to EPA’s reasoned judgment that more pollution would result from regulating than would result from not regulating.

Also, since when do weblogs prioritize stories based on a reader’s agenda? We have a ton of cobloggers here and we each pick and choose what we write on. I don’t contact each person who writes here and say: “You know, that’s not of top priority. You can’t write that.” And some of the things we write about have nothing to do with the news. I never KNEW that other sites in my Center Voices column get a list of stories prioritized by readers so that they can gain acceptance from them over what a moderate is.

My definition of moderate is to address threats in priority order, regardless of who’s glamorizing this or that pet cause.

Which, by the way, suits me fine. The alarmists will scream and sue, the lawsuit will take a while to work its way through the courts, maybe Bush wins, maybe he loses in which case, we’ll repeat the process. And eventually, the world will wise up to the lunatics who are running around claiming that we’re all going to die if we don’t listen to them.

Funny isn’t it, that so many of those who pooh-pooh the terrorist threat are so sure we need to take global warming seriously… even though they have less proof of the dangers from global warming than do those who fear terrorists.