This is how presidents lose their re-election bids, when their administration does stuff like this:
[...]
The agency sent the finding on Friday to the Office of Management and Budget for review, according to a Web site that lists pending federal rules. Once the budget office clears the finding, it can be signed by Ms. Jackson.
As we all know, if there were too little CO2 in the atmosphere, it would certainly be a health risk to the public. As for how much is too much, I can't wait to see how they determined where to draw the line. I look forward to viewing their scientific procedures, and whether they can survive even a modest amount of scrutiny. It's time for the warming alarmists to put their money where their mouth is. The EPA procedures will be the subject of much debate and litigation. I'm hoping the judiciary will be able to sniff out the bull in the EPA's case.





This is how fools lose all their credibility: They talk about a president losing his re-election when he's only 3 months into his 4-year term.
Well done John.
By the way, the respiration of 6 billion people and however many other billions or trillions of other creatures make up more than enough CO2 to support photosynthesis in all the plant life on this planet. Suggesting that by limiting the CO2 output of industry will somehow put this planet in jeopardy is foolish at best and completely irresponsible at worst.
This is a tired and pitiful argument on your part. And yet, by my count, this is the second time you are making it.
Posted by: Eric | March 24, 2009 at 07:22 AM