3 ms·
I’m not claiming you needed to mention this in your original post about the lawsuit. This fact would be relevant in the sub thread here with nekusar about what
by keane 5mo ago
I’m not claiming you needed to mention this in your original post about the lawsuit. This fact would be relevant in the sub thread here with nekusar about what we can or cannot draw from the designation.
- tptacek 5mo agoThe logical flaw in their argument also doesn't depend on the EPA's actions! In fact, the additional color you added works against the claim, in their logic.
- keane 5mo agoStrictly speaking, you're right: they're more than prepared to disregard the position of the EPA (all of us seem willing to). But said designation being currently under review is pertinent to the possibility they raise, namely that consensus has changed in the past, and sometimes the more skeptical or conservative heading taken preemptively has been borne out wise.