Supreme Court to rule on global warming

Actually they've taken a case regarding whether the EPA should regulate carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles as a 'pollutant':

A sharply divided federal appeals court ruled in favor of the government in 2005. But last June, the Supreme Court decided to take up the case, plunging for the first time into the politically charged debate over global warming. The ruling next year is expected to be one of the court's most important ever involving the environment.

The AP story went on to quote a spokesman from the Sierra Club and mentioned the recent Democrat takeover of Congress, but didn't bother to get comments from any actual scientists. Therefore, as a service to those who don't have time to dig around, I present to you here some scientific discussion on the issue. Here's a highlight:

The American Meteorological Society’s Glossary lists the definition as: air pollution - The presence of substances in the atmosphere, particularly those that do not occur naturally.

Since none of the SCOTUS judges are scientists or experts it will be interesting to see how arrive at such a decision, since it would seem the definition of pollutant is key here.

MORE 11/27/06

Drudge has an entire section of embarrassing flashbacks about the hurricane season that wasn't. This was my favorite quote:

As they say about the stock market: Past results are no indication of future performance. This year's uneventful season provides no assurance that next year will be as calm:

Quite true. But some folks believe the weatherman's hands have been tied. Just call it a high-flying conspiracy.