Ken Cuccinelli is the Attorney General of Virginia, the man famous for wanting to send scientists he doesn't like to the gulag. He and his pals from various states across the nation filed a lawsuit, filled with the usual awful science and logic, about how the EPA shouldn't be allowed to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. It was filed in the US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. That court unanimously told Cuccinelli and pals where to stick their nonsense. http://www.eenews.net/assets/2012/06/26/document_gw_02.pdf Some highlights: --- we conclude: 1) the Endangerment Finding and Tailpipe Rule are neither arbitrary nor capricious; 2) EPAs interpretation of the governing CAA provisions is unambiguously correct; and 3) no petitioner has standing to challenge the Timing and Tailoring Rules. We thus dismiss for lack of jurisdiction all petitions for review of the Timing and Tailoring Rules, and deny the remainder of the petitions. --- But the existence of some uncertainty does not, without more, warrant invalidation of an endangerment finding. --- State and Industry Petitioners assert that EPA improperly delegated its judgment to the IPCC, USGCRP, and NRC by relying on these assessments of climate-change science. See U.S. Telecom Assn v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554, 566 (D.C. Cir. 2004). This argument is little more than a semantic trick. EPA did not delegate, explicitly or otherwise, any decision-making to any of those entities. EPA simply did here what it and other decisionmakers often must do to make a science-based judgment: it sought out and reviewed existing scientific evidence to determine whether a particular finding was warranted. It makes no difference that much of the scientific evidence in large part consisted of syntheses of individual studies and research. Even individual studies and research papers often synthesize past work in an area and then build upon it. This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question. --- Denialists, however, can take heart in this ruling in that it mainly just says that, in addition to the science being good, the EPA's interpretation of the law is very plainly correct. That leaves them free to attempt to change the law. Good luck.
