SCOTUS meets Global Warming

If there's something that promises to make even more of a circus of science related reporting than ID cases getting pushing into the courts, it's the Supreme Court trying to rule on whether global warming exists, and if so whether the EPA is obligated to stop it.

I suppose that as long as the federal government is considered to be the caretaker of the world, one must expect things like this to happen. Still, a case hinging on whether Massachusetts is measurably losing coastline as a result of the EPA failing to regulate CO2 as an pollutant seems designed to generate more heat than light.

The Globe provides a dose of alarmism with its reporting saying:

"One expected consequence of global warming is melting polar ice caps, which could raise sea levels around the world and cause massive flooding in coastal areas, swamping several US cities. Other potential problems include the vast elimination of sea life because of the oceans' absorption of deadly carbon dioxide and the mass migration of species toward the earth's poles."

Newflash to Boston Globe: that "deadly carbon dioxide" is also known as "food" to the plant algae which is the most plentiful form of life in the oceans. The which algae in turn released oxygen and provides food to larger organisms. It's a circle of life thing.