What better endorsement could skeptics ask for? – Anthony
by Lawrence Solomon in the Financial Post
The justices of the United States Supreme Court this week became the world’s most august global warming sceptics. Not by virtue of their legal reasoning – the global warming case they decided turned on a technical legal issue — but in their surprising commentary. Global warming is by no means a settled issue, they made clear, suggesting it would be foolhardy to assume it was.
“The court, we caution, endorses no particular view of the complicated issues related to carbon-dioxide emissions and climate change,” reads the 8-0 decision, delivered by the court’s acclaimed liberal, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The court decision noted that the Environmental Protection Agency itself had “Acknowledg[ed] that not all scientists agreed on the causes and consequences of the rise in global temperatures,” before suggesting readers consult “views opposing” the conventional wisdom. Specifically, the justices’ recommended reading was a superb profile of Princeton’s Freeman Dyson, perhaps America’s most respected scientist, written in the New York Times Magazine, March 29, 2009.
Freeman, an unabashed skeptic, believes that carbon dioxide, rather than being harmful, is both necessary and desirable, arguing that “increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Somewhat in the same vein, Justice Ginsburg notes carbon dioxide is necessary and ubiquitous, and thus shouldn’t be the target of indiscriminate attacks. “After all, we each emit carbon dioxide merely by breathing,” she notes, repeating a point that Dyson couldn’t have said better himself.
To see exactly what the Supreme Court said in its remarkable American Electric Power v. Connecticut decision, click here.
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers.
==================================================================
See also:
Freeman Dyson: speaking out on “global warming”
Freeman Dyson on Heretical Thoughts and Climate Change
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What the court said is that the EPA has jurisdiction here – not that they don’t believe this isn’t an issue.
Well then, we cannot have the Courts so “politicized” and arbitrarily deciding what is Good for Gaia! Clearly we just need to get the President to sign an Executive Order and make it happen. For the Good of Gaia, after all!
/s
One of the rare moments I find myself agreeing with Justice Ginsburg.
lol, I love the logic!! That oughta get some blood boiling in the alarmist camp!!
THE SCOTUS HAS STATED THAT THE SCIENCE ISN’T SETTLED!!! And penned no less by Ruth Bader Ginsburg!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH!!!!
Guess this proves it. The Supreme Court just hates Al Gore.
Another nail in the AGW/Climate Change coffin…
56F. Expecting a week of colder than normal here in
NE Oregon-green tomato chow-chow anyone…?
The conclusion is clear. The Supreme Court is full of evil deniers in the pay of big oil.
They’ve either been poisoned or paid off by the Koch brothers.
Romm will set them straight.
I was surprised and encouraged somewhat by Justice Ginsberg’s footnote. Seems that Ginsberg might be more of a critical thinker rather than most modern liberals.
Sense coming from a Bench of Judges? Perhaps there is hope for civilisation after all …
The first and last bastion of CAGW is still the “Court” of public opinion. Hopefully this ruling will convince he public to look closely at the “science”.
This is good news.
What an amazing reversal. Just a few short years ago, in the case of Mass vs. EPA, the court commented on how AGW was “well recognized”.
Climategate, the gift that keeps on giving!
When I urinate it’s harmful for the enviroment, when I exhale it’s harmful for the enviroment, when I look at that girl in the red dress it’s harmful to my enviroment. Aren’t there more important issues to concentrate on like recycling, planting tree’s, nuclear power and corrupt speculation.
I heard an interview on the San Francisco NPR station, KALW, on the
Marty Nemko show about a mouth ago, which was priceless. Doctor
Dyson doesn’t mince words when talks about the people behind AGW.
Diana Ross and the Supremes performed some of the greatest songs of the classic soul era, Keep Me Hangin On and Where did our love go being among my favorites. Much respect there, but I must say that Ronnie Spector and the Ronnettes are my favorite girl band of that style; Ronnie’s raw earnest vocal style seems to create a stronger emotional connection with me. Oh what, Supreme Court? Forget them. . .
cooler heads prevail?
At what point do the fanatical AGW believers who say it is unequivocal and settled science start to become the subject of jokes? It has to be soon considering all the vocalization of moderate thinking coming out.
Amazing. The mainstream press will ignore this, however since it doesn’t fit their agenda. So typical. So depressing.
OMG… wait… it’s better than we thought? Now I’m really confused.
That’s not the way the wider world sees it:
Supreme Court Upholds EPA’s Authority to Regulate Carbon Dioxide
“WASHINGTON, DC, June 20, 2011 (ENS) – The U.S. Supreme Court today reaffirmed its finding that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant subject to control under the Clean Air Act and upheld the authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the greenhouse gas.
“The unanimous court, in an opinion written by Justice Ruth Ginsburg, held that the Clean Air Act displaces federal common law claims seeking reduction of greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change.
“In the case of American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, the high court reversed the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Justice Sonia Sotamayor recused herself, having sat on the Second Circuit panel that heard oral arguments in the case.
“The appeals court had held that federal common law provides a basis for the plaintiffs – eight states, New York City, and three nonprofit land trusts – to seek reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from large coal-fired power plants.
“The Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs right to file public nuisance litigation under common law against utilities for their greenhouse gas emissions.
“‘It is altogether fitting that Congress designated an expert agency, here, EPA, as best suited to serve as primary regulator of greenhouse gas emissions,’ Justice Ginsburg wrote. ‘The expert agency is surely better equipped to do the job than individual district judges issuing ad hoc, case-by-case injunctions.’
“The Supreme Court pointed to its 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, in which it held that the Clean Air Act authorizes federal regulation of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles provided that certain prerequisites are met.
“The court observed that the Clean Air Act and EPA actions under the act displace any federal common law right to seek abatement of greenhouse gases from power plants.
“In particular, the court pointed to EPA’s regulatory actions in commencing rulemaking to establish New Source Performance Standards for greenhouse gases from fossil-fueled power plants.”
“Environmentalists of every stripe were pleased with the decision.”
The Supreme Court can be no better than the “consensus” — they obviously are not questioning it seriously, or they wouldn’t have affirmed the EPA’s authority to regulate a natural gas — so of course they are incompetent.
Technicalities, guess they are technically important. Its not often the Supreme court issues an unanimous verdict. I know the verdict isn’t that important with respect to the case itself but the knowledge the court showed by not just mentioning but quoting a meaningful scientist might actually swing some folks who are sitting on the fence.
Very impressive indeed!
The decision came down on June 20. While it cedes emissions-control authority to the EPA (vs state powers to sue corporations that are culprits in major ‘nuisance emissions’) there are some interesting tidbits in the ruling, including saying it’s not the job of the court system to set emissions limits.
“Federal judges lack the scientific, economic, and technological resources an agency can utilize in coping with issues of this order…. Judges may not commission scientific studies or convene groups of experts for advice, or issue rules under notice-and-comment procedures inviting input by any interested person, or seek the counsel of regulators in the States where the defendants are located. Rather, judges are confined by a record comprising the evidence the parties present. Moreover, federal district judges, sitting as sole adjudicators, lack authority to render precedential decisions binding other judges,even members of the same court….
The Second Circuit erred, we hold, in ruling that federal judges may set limits on greenhouse gas emissions in face of a law empowering EPA to set the same limits, subject to judicial review only to ensure against action “arbitrary, capricious, . . . or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
Also, the judgment cautioned for a need for common sense and economic wisdom:
“The appropriate amount of regulation in any particular greenhouse gas-producing sector cannot be prescribed in a vacuum: as with other questions of national or international policy, informed assessment of competing interests is required. Along with the environmental benefit potentially achievable, our Nation’s energy needs and the possibility of economic disruption must weigh in the balance.”
So the ball in in the EPA’s court. Does this judgment then open the door for lawsuits against its emissions rulings on the basis of economic disruption?
People these days we be so prissy and sissy to not let to reslease the clear thoughts they harbor, but for some of us freewheeling brainiacs or a shock jock or two. So they rebel symbolically, in a footnote, or a chorus of spontaneous laughter:
As I understand the decision, the court said this was not within the competence of the federal courts and if you want to do something about it, go to Congress. Well, it’s up to you guys, tell your Congressman that you don’t like a scam, especially one that’s aimed at your tax dollars.