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
Organized crime in the EU related to climate science?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/06/029318.php
Sorry the tips link on WUWT hangs up my PC
Moderate Republican says:
“Smokey says@ur momisugly June 22, 2011 at 6:53 am “And increased CO2 is not only completely harmless, it is a net benefit to the biosphere.”
“Respectfully, anyone making an assertion like the above is most certainly not qualified to deride “mainstream science.”
That completely content-free comment ignores the fact that there is no testable, measureable, empirical evidence showing any global harm due to CO2. Furthermore, there is a mountain of evidence showing conclusively that more CO2 increases agricultural production. The conclusion is inescapable: CO2 is harmless and beneficial. More is better.
Jeremy says:
June 24, 2011 at 8:44 am
At what point do the fanatical AGW believers who say it is unequivocal and settled science start to become the subject of jokes?
Welcome to WUWT, Jeremy. We have been laughing at them for years. In fact one of the reasons I come to this site is for my health because of all the laughing. That and truth.
Good news indeed
Eco-litigation is dead.
quis custodiet can never be those whose post normal reading comprehension is so fanciful and dreamy.
the responses to the article have been slobberingly droll.
it’s almost like a secular version of ‘jesus loves me’.
i reckon it’s best to be sceptical of those who call themselves sceptics who gush and drool and simper over the words of a bunch of freaks in widow’s-weeds and powdered wigs as if those fools can better dispose of your life than some other bunch.
and who among the crowd spots the evil premise in that? anybody? or does everybody think their ‘daddy’ is there to protect them?
do you know what a protection racket is?
what is so deadly dangerous is that ‘it is not rape if you negotiate’
heh. bargain with reality all you want. it won’t budge.
what do the fabian society movment think of this outcome
Mark Wilson says @ur momisugly June 24, 2011 at 11:49 am “Nobody has ever said or even implied that this ruling means the courts are rejecting climate science.”
Um, no Mark, as with many of your other posts your assertion here doesn’t hold up.
From the first paragraph “The justices of the United States Supreme Court this week became the world’s most august global warming sceptics.”
That statement is grasping at straws, and your assertion is just plain wrong.
Gary Crough says:
June 24, 2011 at 11:25 am
“What they ruled was the EPA was responsible for determining the facts of the issue and based on these facts making necessary regulations (if any).”
But they put federal judges on warning that if the EPA, or anyone else, shows up and says that the science is settled, that the judge allows the case to proceed, and the judge rules in favor of the EPA, then SCOTUS will overturn the ruling. There is no way that they could be clearer. In effect, they just ruled inadmissible claims such as “The science is settled,” “The consensus of scientists is,” or similar claims. They just spanked Al Gore and everyone who has said that there is a consensus of scientists that CAGW is the truth.
Congress has total authority over EPA, including the authority to abolish it. So, EPA can rule whatever Barry and Lisa want but Congress can immediately change the law.
Trollus rattus, yes only one footnote, but one that will march through public understanding.; ….after all, we all emit co2…”
Smokey says @ur momisugly June 24, 2011 at 12:00 pm ” TFurthermore, there is a mountain of evidence showing conclusively that more CO2 increases agricultural production. The conclusion is inescapable: CO2 is harmless and beneficial. More is better”
Um, no, that is clearly not inescapable but it does provide more evidence that anyone making an assertion like the above is most certainly not qualified to deride “mainstream science”.
That is like saying “Trees like water too, so therefore more water is better regardless of the amount”. That is clearly a bogus statement, as is your assertion above. And in addition to being bogus it is wildly far removed from any scientific line of thought.
MR:
A borderline insane comment like that is to be expected from a logic-challenged poster who has zero evidence of any global harm from CO2, but only True Belief in the repeatedly falsified CO2=CAGW conjecture.
“The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
~ Marcus Aurelius
Here is another part of the SC decision (pg. 14):
“It is altogether fitting that Congress designated an expert agency, here, EPA, as best suited to serve as primary regulator of greenhouse gas emissions.”
Let’s not get carried away by a couple of sentences. The Supremes aren’t going to overturn EPA on GHGs unless it can be demonstrated that EPA’s decision is arbitrary and capricious. That is a very difficult legal hurdle to overcome. There might be other technicalities that could cause the SC to overturn EPA, but as far as science is concerned, the SC defers to EPA, even if there are considerable uncertainties.
If anything is going to change, it will have to be done by Congress.
Smokey says:
June 24, 2011 at 12:00 pm
I won’t comment on your “More is better”…i think it is obvious that there are limits, and that more CO2 is not better for EVERYTHING…. but can you please post the links to the “mountain of evidence showing conclusively that more CO2 increases agricultural production”.
Smokey says @ur momisugly June 24, 2011 at 12:22 pm “A borderline insane comment like that is ….”
It is only insane if you believe that “The conclusion is inescapable: CO2 is harmless and beneficial. More is better” makes any sense as a scientific statement. And no – a YouTube video of a plant in a greenhouse doesn’t qualify as proof of anything. If you really think it does then you’ve got other bigger issues to deal with…
Smokey says:
June 24, 2011 at 11:09 am
Until mainstream scientists embrace the scientific method, their opinions can hardly be called scientific.
Whoa!
Surely what is practiced by mainstream scientists is the scientific method, by definition. As opposed to…
Moderate Republican says:
June 24, 2011 at 11:32 am
Respectfully, anyone making an assertion like the above is most certainly not qualified to deride “mainstream science:.
With respect, that’s your opinion. There are lots of respected scientists more qualified than you or me (we all know who many of them are) who are saying that CO2 is indeed harmless or even beneficial at current levels. After all, the world is growing measurably richer in vegetation by the decade, so there’s certainly no sign that it is harmful to life. And there are plenty of scientists saying that there is no evidence for positive temperature feedbacks (unless you or anyone else can point us towards the as-yet hypothetical hotspot so essential to the AGW hypothesis? No? Thought not). As for throwing in the word “mainstream” – that’s just an alternative for “consensus” – it’s simply not a scientific argument, it just says “there’s more of us than there are of you.” It’s lame. Like you naming yourself “Moderate Republican.” Really, really lame.
Robert of Ottawa says:
June 24, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Eco-litigation is dead.
The ruling specifically says that the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide. Therefore your assertion is nonsense.
unless as John says:
June 24, 2011 at 12:23 pm
“If anything is going to change, it will have to be done by Congress.”
Why do you choose to ignore the reality?
Bruce Cobb says:
June 24, 2011 at 9:31 am
Music to my ears; in fact, I hear a symphony.
Most apposite. Freeman Dyson’s fathter was the British composer George Dyson. (But perhaps you knew this already)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Dyson_%28composer%29
So MR, are you honestly claiming that the mere act of being a sceptic proves that one has rejected science?
That in and of itself is not a scientifically valid statement. But then again, I know science. It becomes more evident with every one of your posts that the only thing you know is propaganda.
You misunderstand me. I didn’t ask when they themselves would become a source of humor. I asked when will the average person substitute “CAGW Believer” for “blonde”.
And I’ve been here for years…
Moderate Republican says:
June 24, 2011 at 12:15 pm
That is like saying “Trees like water too, so therefore more water is better regardless of the amount”. That is clearly a bogus statement, as is your assertion above. And in addition to being bogus it is wildly far removed from any scientific line of thought.
Since every study done shows that plants benefit from CO2 levels up to 10 and 20 times higher than we currently have. I know of no study that has found a CO2 level that is high enough to harm plants.
As usual, you are just grasping at desperate strawmen.
Will the EPA automatically grant every human emission rights even if the human doesn’t have the monetary means to acquire enough carbon credits?
John says:
June 24, 2011 at 12:23 pm
The courts have over ruled the EPA in the past when it was obvious they weren’t following the science. A decade or two ago the EPA put out a ruling on particulates in the air. The courts struck down the regulations as not following the science.
This SCOTUS decision looks like an open handed encouragement of empowering Congress to pass additional legislation that prevents the EPA bias from corrupted IPCC processes & reports.
John