CHECC Brief Challenging CO2 Endangerment Finding Now Publicly Available

[Sunsettommy]

Manhatton Contrarian

CHECC Brief Challenging CO2 Endangerment Finding Now Publicly Available

October 25, 2022/ Francis Menton

Excerpt:

Yesterday the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC) filed a corrected version of its opening brief challenging the EPA’s Endangerment Finding as to CO2 and other greenhouse gases.  The brief can be found here.  The bizarre reason for the “corrected” filing was that the clerks at the DC Circuit rejected our initial filing on the ground that we used an excessive number of acronyms.  They have a rule encouraging you not to use too many acronyms, but the rule gives no clue as to how many is too many.  When you use the term “greenhouse gases” thirty times, should you shorten it to “GHGs,” or write it out every time?  You only find out when they bounce the brief and require you to correct it.  Anyway, with any luck the linked version is now the final one.

When you take a look at the brief, you will see that we are directly and openly challenging the fake science of predicted catastrophic human-caused global warming from GHGs.  (No rule on excessive use of acronyms here at MC.).

LINK

======

It was stunning when I learned they declared CO2 is a pollutant when in reality as a trace gas is an essential part of the Photosynthesis process which I learned about almost 50 years ago.

[Billy_Bob Systems Administration]

Manhatton Contrarian

CHECC Brief Challenging CO2 Endangerment Finding Now Publicly Available

October 25, 2022/ Francis Menton

Excerpt:

Yesterday the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC) filed a corrected version of its opening brief challenging the EPA’s Endangerment Finding as to CO2 and other greenhouse gases.  The brief can be found here.  The bizarre reason for the “corrected” filing was that the clerks at the DC Circuit rejected our initial filing on the ground that we used an excessive number of acronyms.  They have a rule encouraging you not to use too many acronyms, but the rule gives no clue as to how many is too many.  When you use the term “greenhouse gases” thirty times, should you shorten it to “GHGs,” or write it out every time?  You only find out when they bounce the brief and require you to correct it.  Anyway, with any luck the linked version is now the final one.

When you take a look at the brief, you will see that we are directly and openly challenging the fake science of predicted catastrophic human-caused global warming from GHGs.  (No rule on excessive use of acronyms here at MC.).

LINK

======

It was stunning when I learned they declared CO2 is a pollutant when in reality as a trace gas is an essential part of the Photosynthesis process which I learned about almost 50 years ago.

The endangerment finding was a sham from the word go.  They used deception to get that finding.  I find it interesting that the court is basically claiming that they do not understand the terminology when there wasn't a problem with it when they pushed to get the finding.  IT seems that they are making people jump through hoops to get to trial.  This really looks like an abuse by the court to keep them from filing this brief.