The 12/6 announcement by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal in a global warming nuisance case is a classic example of a double-edged sword. As reported by Fox News:
The Supreme Court announced Monday it will give further consideration to a closely-watched lawsuit filed by environmentalists, eight states and New York City blaming the problems associated with global warming on the carbon dioxide output of five major power companies.
An ultimate judgment against the energy providers could lead to dramatic changes in the energy marketplace and ripple into other industries. But the high court's decision to give the matter closer attention makes that possibility less likely.
In asking the high court to review the case, lawyers for the power companies said the plaintiffs have no standing to file a lawsuit. Instead, they contend, only the federal government through the Environmental Protection Agency has the ability to hold power companies accountable for contributing to global warming.
Believers in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) know that the soon-to-be GOP-controlled U.S. House of Representatives is gone as a driver of greenhouse gas regulation, so they are focusing on two last-ditch efforts to achieve their goal: through the courts and through the EPA. Therein lies one part of both sides' gamble in this future Supreme Court hearing, which the Associated Press says will probably happen next spring. If the power company defendants win their appeal against the Supreme Court's prior remanding of the case back to the Second Circuit for further review, it will take away any semblance of authority the courts have in forcing organizations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. That would leave just the EPA as the regulator of last resort.
AGW believers want this to be about the moral imperative to stop global warming, hoping that the justices' pre-hearing reflection on the matter will make a decision against the power companies more likely instead of less likely. However, there is another problem that AGW believers hope no one sees.
What happens if we all discover that this case was inspired and possibly directed by people associated with the '96-to-present smear of skeptic scientists?
My four articles here at American Thinker detail multiple problems associated with enviro-activists who appear to have done everything they can, including making libelous accusations, to marginalize skeptic scientists. These activists were anti-skeptic author Ross Gelbspan and the advocacy group Ozone Action, which merged with Greenpeace in 2000.
Should it not, then, be a matter of intense curiosity that an attorney, Matt Pawa, who figures prominently in two of the three major global warming lawsuit cases, has ties too close for comfort to these enviro-activists?
- Pawa was a defending attorney in the 2000 Western Fuels v. Turning Point case, which included Ozone Action as one of the plaintiffs.
- Among papers at Pawa's website is one where Ozone Action board member David Hunter laid the groundwork for a global warming nuisance lawsuit.
- Nobody else except Pawa and Gelbspan describe a set of 1991 coal industry PR campaign memos -- critical to establishing skeptic scientists as "corrupt" -- as initially being seen in articles at both the New York Times and The Energy Daily.
- A lengthy magazine interview of Pawa credited him with conceiving the Connecticut v. AEP case.
- Pawa is one of the main attorneys in the Kivalina v. Exxon global warming nuisance lawsuit, which specifically relies on Gelbspan's infamous accusation phrase to insinuate that skeptic scientists are acting in a manner similar to pro-tobacco industry "experts."
AGW believers hope the Supreme Court will ultimately accept the simple mantra that global warming science is settled, thus corrupt skeptic scientists must be ignored. Sadly, it takes a maddening amount of detail to tell how this group is interconnected in its efforts to manipulate us into believing such a simple concept. That's the double-edge.
But an edge which could cut them to shreds is a simple question prompted by all that maddening detail: "You want us to ignore skeptic scientists based on a guilt-by-association accusation supported by an out-of-context phrase from an unseen coal industry PR campaign memo?!"