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
Google
Yahoo
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.
And can the name calling.....
If you have a real good point to make, name calling only detracts from your argument and flags you as being petty and vindictive.
Making fun of someone's last name - yeah, I used to do that... in 3rd grade.....
WRONG ANSWER, CLYDE
Your statement that "All the worlds scientists are in agreement that man is contributing to global warming and greenhouse gases" is simply untrue.
Even Phil Jones acknowledges that - see my post, below.
While there has been a warming trend over the last few decades, it is not established fact that this trend is continuing (even Phil Jones admits that over the last 10 years there has not been significant warming), nor is it established fact that our current climate situation is "unprecedented" or primarily the result of man-made pollutants and CO2 emissions. "Overwhelming evidence" does not need to be hidden or witheld from independent analysis if this is such a no brainer.
And if we want to talk about profit motive - you can talk about the $$ Phil Jones and other scientist got from environmental interests.
An interesting read about global warming . . .
The BBC posted a Q&A session with Phil Jones, who is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). He is one of the chief sponsors of the IPCC report to the UN on global warming. Here is the article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
In brief, he states that he firmly believes that there is global warming, and that man is a big contributer to this. He also states that "I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this [that the debate on climate change is over]", and he admits that there may have been a Medieval Warming Period (MWP) in which global temperatures were even higher than they are today.
My point is this: Despite the alarmist rantings on the left, there IS still credible debate about this, and we need to study this problem further before going off the deep end to stop CO2 emissions.
even the 'experts' disagree
I recently (as in 1 February) had a conversation with a retired UMich professor, PhD in Climatology. He is of the strong opinion that man-made climate change is bunk. He also cited the earth's natural warming and cooling cycles, aided by such naturally occurring things as sun spots/flares.
The evidence is overwhelming.
There really isn't much debate over whether the climate is changing. That's been well established. A quick photo review of the Arctic demonstrates that.
What's subject to debate is what's causing it to happen or accelerate. The deniers want no responsibility for it and want to pretend it isn't happened. Those who are concerned about it, on the other hand, aren't trying to place blame so much as get a handle on the situation and take steps to slow it down.
There is also credible debate about....
There is also debate about the extent that the current climate situation is "unprecedented" and what the actual environmental impact will be once all is said and done.
It is no secret that the earth has gone through warming and cooling periods before. The change of the Sahara from a grassland to a desert happened long before man came on the scene. While some of the "he deniers" (I love how anyone who disagrees with liberal dogma is given a derogatory label by the MSM) might want to avoid responsibility (assuming of course, that they really are more responsible than some other, natural, cause), other "deniers" simply do not completely buy into the notion that the planet is doomed unless we all give up fossil fuels and start living on rabbit food. And if this is so "overwhelming", then why has some of the key data used to formulate the IPCC report hidden or destroyed? I believe that big money - on both sides of the argument - is tainting true science.
We agree on this: The issue needs to be thoroughly studied.
demand!
Is Chief Inquisitor Cuccinelli going to force the EPA to recant? The dark ages are alive and well.
As for statistics, I read that they are statements used in support of things. (Mainly statisticians). I thing there is a Newtonian law that applies. "For every statistical conclusion there is an equal and opposite statistical conclusion"
EPA
All of the EPA members should be immediately arrested for exhaling a Gas that they deem hazardous! /s
Amazing
It is amazing what $238,846 will get you or maybe what people will do for $238,846.
Ken Cuccinelli: Are Greenhouse Gases Really Bad?
Greenhouse Gases: -water vapor -carbon dioxide -methane -nitrous oxide -ozone -chlorofluorocarbons
Ken, I have a suggestion for you. Stick your head behind the exhaust of public bus for a few hours every day. See how that works out for you and get back to us. While you are at it, make sure to huff some aerosol cans in your closet every day after work.
Olympics
Ken clearly did not watch the Summer Olympics either, because anyone with common sense noticed the Beijing skyline was almost opaque.
EPA must rethink rulings, Va. attorney general says
The EPA is like a group of people in a fog, blind and knowing the facts, they still pursue stupidity. Frankly, it is about time the States,among them Texas and Virginia, start using the true meaning of the 10th Admenment. It is time for washington to understand it.
I am not sure this is a 10th amendment issue
I think this is an issue of a beaurocracy trying to over-reach its authority and, in effect, make law.
The 1970 Clean Air Act’s original author, Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, who supports cap-and-trade, says the Obama administration’s latest move is a recipe for disaster. He said:
“We are looking at the possibility of a glorious mess being visited upon this country. This is not what was intended by the Congress and by those of us who wrote the Clean Air Act. We are beginning to look at a wonderfully complex world, which has the potential for shutting down or slowing down virtually all industry and all economic activity and growth.”
Don't you think its a little scary that a beaurocracy cand decide, all on its own, that it can vastly increase the extent of what it has power to regulate?
tough row to hoe
Air, water and soil pollution do not automatically stop at the state line. The Federal and bounding state governments (as well as individual property owners) have the right to take action against neighboring polluters whose contaminants migrate onto their property.