The Right Coast

Editor: Thomas A. Smith
University of San Diego
School of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Ski resorts fight global warming; Utah gov unsure
Tom Smith

Ski resorts across the country are using the Thanksgiving weekend to jump start their winter seasons, but with every passing year comes a frightening realization: If global temperatures continue to rise, fewer and fewer resorts will be able to open for the traditional beginning of ski season.

via www.sfgate.com

Why can't people just shut up and listen to what the climate experts at America's ski resorts are trying to tell them. Don't they understand that the folks at Aspen know what is going to happen if we don't stop so much economic activity and do it right now? Look at it this way -- if AGW is real, and we spend trillions of dollars to maybe slow it down, that will help ski resorts, but if we do nothing, that won't help them. So what is there to argue about? The time to debate is past, the time to act is now, and you're too dumb to understand this anyway.

November 28, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Dear Prudence only quicker
Tom Smith

Jeez, this is easy:

1A:  Tell your boyfriend if he is not going to marry you promptly, you will dump him.  Then if he doesn't, dump him.  Chances are good you should just dump him anyway, so alternatively, just dump him now.  You sound like a nice girl.  You could probably do better than that tool anyway.

2A:  Find some guy to approach her and say, hey, that snorting thing you do is really weird, what's up with that?  Guys are expected to be rude.

3A:  No, you cannot commit fraud for your father.  What an idiotic suggestion.

4A:  Next time they have a noisy fight, call the cops.  But buy a gun first.

November 28, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Party crashers should not have been admitted on the basis of what she is wearing
Tom Smith

I mean just look at her.  Or is that what ladies wear to state dinners these days?  I don't care if it is supposed to be Indian or something.  On her it looks tres ridicule.  This is what comes from indiscriminate multiculturalism.  I mean I could dress up in one of those African tribal chieftain getups as well but I hope I would not then be admitted to a state dinner.  Anyway, it makes me feel better about not having gone myself.  My invite was unaccountably delayed in the mail.

But seriously, could it be the Secret Service was afraid not to admit them because their names are Middle Eastern sounding?  Is this another case of PC run amok?  Or just laxity on the part of the fashion police?

November 28, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBack (0)

Maybe I should stop being such a bitch
Tom Smith

The impossible to parody Judith Warner.

November 28, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, November 27, 2009

Ahmadinejad to Chavez: 'We're going to be together until the end' | Headlines News | Jerusalem Post
Tom Smith

"We feel at home here and among our brothers ... we're going to be together until the end," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez during a visit to Latin America on Wednesday.

via www.jpost.com

November 27, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Local News | Aerial-gunning foes ask Obama to ban practice
Tom Smith

A wildlife advocacy group Friday asked President Barack Obama to end aerial gunning of coyotes and other predators, citing an Idaho incident where a shotgun-wielding parachutist illegally fired on a wolf.

via seattletimes.nwsource.com

November 27, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

If SCOTUS relied on it, is it still rubbish?
Tom Smith

From

MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
ENVIRON-MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL.

No. 05-1120.

Supreme Court of United States.

. . .

I

Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, as added by Pub. L. 89-272, §101(8), 79 Stat. 992, and as amended by, inter alia, 84 Stat. 1690 and 91 Stat. 791, 42 U. S. C. §7521(a)(1), provides:

"The [EPA] Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare . . . ."[7]

The Act defines "air pollutant" to include "any air pollu-tion agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air." §7602(g). "Welfare" is also defined broadly: among other things, it includes "effects on . . . weather . . . and climate." §7602(h).

When Congress enacted these provisions, the study of climate change was in its infancy.[8] In 1959, shortly after the U. S. Weather Bureau began monitoring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, an observatory in Mauna Loa, Hawaii, recorded a mean level of 316 parts per million. This was well above the highest carbon dioxide concentration— no more than 300 parts per million—revealed in the 420,000-year-old ice-core record.[9] By the time Congress drafted §202(a)(1) in 1970, carbon dioxide levels had reached 325 parts per million.[10]

In the late 1970's, the Federal Government began devoting serious attention to the possibility that carbon dioxide emissions associated with human activity could provoke climate change. In 1978, Congress enacted the National Climate Program Act, 92 Stat. 601, which required the President to establish a program to "assist the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural and maninduced climate processes and their implications," id., §3. President Carter, in turn, asked the National Research Council, the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences, to investigate the subject. The Council's response was unequivocal: "If carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible. . . . A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late."[11]

Congress next addressed the issue in 1987, when it enacted the Global Climate Protection Act, Title XI of Pub. L. 100-204, 101 Stat. 1407, note following 15 U. S. C. §2901. Finding that "manmade pollution—the release of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and other trace gases into the atmosphere—may be producing a from long ago and extract small samples of ancient air. That air can then be analyzed, yielding estimates of carbon dioxide levels. Ibid. long-term and substantial increase in the average temperature on Earth," §1102(1), 101 Stat. 1408, Congress directed EPA to propose to Congress a "coordinated national policy on global climate change," §1103(b), and ordered the Secretary of State to work "through the channels of multilateral diplomacy" and coordinate diplomatic efforts to combat global warming, §1103(c). Congress emphasized that "ongoing pollution and deforestation may be contributing now to an irreversible process" and that "[n]ecessary actions must be identified and implemented in time to protect the climate." §1102(4).

Meanwhile, the scientific understanding of climate change progressed. In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a multinational scientific body organized under the auspices of the United Nations, published its first comprehensive report on the topic [which there is some reason now to suspect is utter shit -- tas]. Drawing on expert opinions from across the globe, the IPCC concluded that "emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of . . . greenhouse gases [which] will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface."[12]

Responding to the IPCC report, the United Nations convened the "Earth Summit" in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. The first President Bush attended and signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a nonbinding agreement among 154 nations to reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for the purpose of "prevent[ing] dangerous anthropogenic [i.e., human-induced] interference with the [Earth's] climate system."[13] S. Treaty Doc. No. 102-38, Art. 2, p. 5 (1992). The Senate unanimously ratified the treaty.

Some five years later—after the IPCC issued a second comprehensive report in 1995 [which there is good reason to suspect is utter shit. -- tas] concluding that "[t]he balance of evidence suggests there is a discernible human influence on global climate"[14]—the UNFCCC signatories met in Kyoto, Japan, and adopted a protocol that assigned mandatory targets for industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Because those targets did not apply to developing and heavily polluting nations such as China and India, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution expressing its sense that the United States should not enter into the Kyoto Protocol. See S. Res. 98, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. (July 25, 1997) (as passed). President Clinton did not submit the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

. . .

November 27, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Ron Bailey on climategate docs
Tom Smith

It's not just the emails.

November 26, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

What does hide the deline mean
Mike Rappaport

in the climategate codes?  Powerline writes

The decline being hidden is that reflected by tree ring data in recent years. The point, as suggested above, is that narrowing tree rings during a time when we know temperatures were rising proves that measuring the diameter of tree rings is a worthless way to measure world-wide temperatures. That's a big problem, since such proxy data are the basis for the alarmists' purported knowledge of temperatures in earlier eras.

This is getting big.  Very big.  

November 26, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

How is that new Iran policy working out for you?
Mike Rappaport

Yes, that means you, President Obama.  The New York Times reports that Iran apologist and UN nuclear investigator Mohamed El Baradei says "that it ha[s] been more than a year since Iran had answered questions about the extent of its nuclear ambitions, including suspicions that it is pursuing nuclear weapons. . . . We have effectively reached a dead end, unless Iran engages fully with us."

Now what has been going on for the last year?  Can't quite figure it out.  Some new leader got elected a year ago?  Can't remember.

Is it too soon to call Barack Obama one of the worst President's of all time?  Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean.  I think that judging his proposed policy objectives clearly puts him in that category.  But, thankfully, he has only instituted some of them so far, so maybe its premature.  He may be helped by congressional resistance over the time of his presidency, like the last Democratic President was.  Sadly, President Bush did not get much help in that direction. 

November 26, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)