10-28-22, 06:24 PM
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.
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.
“A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.” – Karl Popper
Terms of Service
Moderation Guidelines
Terms of Service
Moderation Guidelines