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.
John, I’m not sure I agree with you entirely. The EPA is expected to do due diligence in their research and to balance socio-economic impacts against SCIENTIFIC findings. The EPA is, therefore, vulnerable on both fronts; show that the science is wonky or show that the EPA discounted the economic impact and you could, quite easily, get a SCOTUS decision against them. What this decision DID do was to prevent all our power companies and industries from being nibbled to death by law suits.
The judgements logic is dangerous. Lower courts re-interpreted existing law and mandated the EPA to regulate. A higher court says as a lower court has made EPA competant to regulate the courts in general should not pre-empt this work. The legitimacy for any regulation flows from elected representives deciding it should be so. If we do not like thire choices we can dump them at the next election. Clearly the legislators framing the existing law did not formulated the existing acts to cover AGW, as they predate AGW alarm. They did not mention AGW. It was not the issue they were looking to resolve. The correct judgement would be that if legislators want to regulate AGW gasses or pass regulation to EPA, they need to mandate it, and be punished at the next election if we do not like it. US courts believe they have a role to re-interprete law in a progress manner. Most states in the world would take the view the court should keep thier noses out of policy and let the legislator decide that.
The point is not does the science support AGW. Nor does the EPA respect the science. The point is has any policy decision been validated by the democratic process. No taxation without representation! The courts are for impliementing law and occasionally limiting abuses of power.
Interview with Freeman Dyson
http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/work-with-marty-nemko-podcast/id287700443
Moderate Republican says:
June 24, 2011 at 12:28 pm
“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…”
Here!
http://csccc.fcpp.org/files/f12.jpg
MR, if you do not understand or underestimate, the benefits of CO2, then you are far away from “mainstream science”. In fact you are so far, as might be considered unrecoverable. Now is the time to give your head a good shake. GK
According to the ruling:
“The defendants, now petitioners, are four private companies
and the Tennessee Valley Authority, a federally owned corporation that operates fossil-fuel fired power plants in several States. According to the complaints, the defendants
“are the five largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the
United States.” App. 57, 118. Their collective annual
emissions of 650 million tons constitute 25 percent of
emissions from the domestic electric power sector, 10
percent of emissions from all domestic human activities,
ibid., and 2.5 percent of all anthropogenic emissions
worldwide”
My question is simply what do we get from these five companies as far as percentage of electricity provided nationally?
gopher says:
“…can you please post the links to the ‘mountain of evidence’ showing conclusively that more CO2 increases agricultural production”.
Sure, glad you asked:
Wheat responds very well to higher CO2: click
For lots more information on plants benefitting from higher CO2, see here.
There is plenty more real world evidence confirming that enhanced CO2 increases agricultural production:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
The findings in the last link state:
Folks in Illinois, and at UOI in particular, know something about farming. You should listen to them, instead of the logic impaired who cannot produce evidence of any global harm from CO2.
If CO causes no global harm, it is harmless. If it benefits agricultural productivity, CO2 is beneficial. Conclusion: CO2 is harmless and beneficial.
“Carbon” is being demonized not because CO2 is a problem; as we see, it is not a problem. CO2 is being demonized because the UN and EU agendas require it. Taxing the air we breathe is the ultimate wet dream of all Totalitarian governments, no?
The real question is: why do some folks insist on believing in an evidence-free conjecture that has been repeatedly falsified? That is a question for psychiatrists, not scientists.
I’d sure like to see that women in the red dress again..
I have a case of wildturkey riding on the next little ice age, if I lose then I have to buy my neighbor a case of his favorite wine instead. i figure we will all know the answer to this puzzel in the next few years and I have the time to wait. I also figure that if we rush to any conclution, to any quick fix it will lead to a ball of sh??, i know this from experience and that a firm head and looking carefully at any problem will evenutally lead to a qualified solution.
In the end it’s just Fun and Games.
@Smokey
But the point is, the direct effect of CO2 on plants is an irrelevance. The real issue is the effect of CO2 as a GHG, and mainstream science says those effects will be bad.
MR:
Like it or not, terrestrial life is CARBON based. This carbon is provided, to us through the plants and animals we consume. It is provided to plants by CO2 extracted from the atmosphere. So the first benefit was life itself. On the other hand, not one person (outside of industrial accidents, or geological venting) has been killed by anthropogenic CO2. The benefits of CO2 go beyond agriculture to our very existence (and earth’s bio-mass). Even though our exhale may contain 20,000 to 30,000 ppm CO2, it can still revive an unconscious (drowned) person via mouth to mouth resuscitation. To dismiss such, demonstrates, that you have an ideology to protect. GK
Although not a lawyer, my reading of the decision is that EPA is the controlling agency, and until they publish standards, no States or cities can arbitrarily impose their own CO2 standards and limits. Really nothing new.
EPA is supposed to calculate the cost of all their regulations, but invariably concludes that no matter the cost, the changes are warranted. Perhaps forcing them to produce a valid and realistic cost/benefit analysis would eventually make them act more reasonably. However, if they assume all worst case scenarios (e.g. the plant will be destroyed if CO2 increases any more), then they will not be stopped. Giving an agency such power, and then allowing them to police themselves, is very dangerous. Cap and Trade would be bad. EPA in charge might be worse.
John B:
Mainstream climate science, which has been mostly wrong about everything, predicts bad effects. They are making an evidence-free prediction, based on models. There is no evidence of global damage from CO2. None. They’ve been crying “Wolf!” for a long time now, but unlike the fairy tale, there’s never been a wolf.
After a hefty ≈40% increase in CO2 over the past century and a half, there certainly should be at least some evidence of the predicted global harm. But there is no such evidence. Rational folks will look at that lack of evidence and conclude that the CO2 scare is based on false assumptions.
So why do some folks still believe that catastrophe is around the corner? Leo Tolstoy explains:
The simplest and most obvious truth is that CO2 is not causing global harm, and that it enhances ag productivity. CO2, at current and projected concentrations, is harmless and beneficial. Those are simple and obvious truths. But some folks’ egos get in the way of accepting the truth.
Perhaps as a non-lawyer I am misreading this opinion but I do not see where it affirms the EPA’s authority to regulate GHG. This decision seems to affirm congress’s authority to act on its own behalf or designate another person or organization to act for it. The EPA only has that authority as long as it pleases congress and in 2013 it may not please congress.
G. Karst says @ur momisugly June 24, 2011 at 2:29 pm “Even though our exhale may contain 20,000 to 30,000 ppm CO2, it can still revive an unconscious (drowned) person via mouth to mouth resuscitation. To dismiss such, demonstrates, that you have an ideology to protect. GK”
What!?!?
Are you really saying that because you can give someone mouth to mouth resuscitation that..what..that somehow proves that CO2 as a forcer in the climate can never be problematic?
Do you really believe that is even remotely close to being a scientifically valid statement?
The very first sentence in Article I of the Constitution says; “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives”. Nowhere does the Constitution say Congress may delegate that authority to the EPA or any orther entity. If the clean energy act gives the EPA the power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions that would seem to be a clear violation of the constitution. Now consider the fact that;
-Hydrocarbon fuels power nearly all vehicles in the US.
-Half of our electricity comes from coal, and smaller amounts come from other hydrocarbon fuels.
-Most homes are heated with hydrocarbon fuels.
All of those fuels produce CO when burned.
Consequently any serious reductions in CO2 emissions could leave us all shivering in the dark.
Do we really want to put that decision in the hands of unelected bureaucrats in Washington?
Mark Wilson says @ur momisugly June 24, 2011 at 12:57 pm “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.”
No, as usual you are wrong again due to not understanding the science Mark.
Agriculture yield is not dependent solely on CO2, so to make any claim based solely on CO2 levels relating to agriculture is either deliberately mislead or just stupefying ill-informed. Farmed plants behave differently than those in the wild where conditions aren’t managed. And more plant growth doesn’t inherently equate to healthier plants or improve agriculture yield.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/co2plant.htm
BTW – you are misusing the concept of a strawman argument as well. If you are going to assume someone of something at least use the term properly.
…delivered by the court’s acclaimed liberal, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Another typo. “acclaimed” should be “aclu.”
“Federal judges lack the scientific, economic, and technological resources an agency can utilize in coping with issues of this order.”
Scientific evidence means nothing to an idealogue.
I see no restraints on the EPA’s attempts to tax CO2 emissions coming from this decision.
John B says:
June 24, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Mainstream science does not say that the GHG affects of CO2 will be bad.
A few computer models do. Those computer models are known to be deeply flawed and there isn’t a scintilla of real world evidence to back up the predictions of those models.
Why anyone would think a temperature rise of less than half a degree is bad, is beyond me.
From the Lexis-Nexis environmental blog: http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/environmental-climatechangelaw/blogs/environmentallawandclimatechangeblog/archive/2011/06/20/today-s-supreme-court-decision-in-aep-v-connecticut-michael-gerrard-columbia-law-school-arnold-porter.aspx
Today’s Supreme Court Decision in AEP v. Connecticut
Posted by
Michael B Gerrard
Change Author:
*
External URL:
Here is my instant analysis of the decision just issued by the Supreme Court in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, the case in which several states and others sought a court order requiring several large electric utilities to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions because they were a public nuisance.
The 8-0 decision by Justice Ginsburg dismissing the lawsuit is based entirely on displacement of federal common law by the Clean Air Act. The Court found that Congress had entrusted EPA in the first instance to decide how GHGs should be regulated, and it’s not for the federal courts to issue their own rules.
United States Supreme Court
I think this is the most intriguing paragraph in the opinion: “The petitioners contend that the federal courts lack authority to adjudicate this case. Four members of the Court would hold that at least some plaintiffs have Article III standing under Massachusetts, which permitted a State to challenge EPA’s refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions; and further, that no other threshold obstacle bars review. Four members of the court, adhering to a dissenting opinion in Massachusetts, or regarding that decision as distinguishable, would hold that none of the plaintiffs have Article III standing. We therefore affirm, by an equally divided Court, the Second Circuit’s exercise of jurisdiction and proceed to the merits.”
Though unnamed in the opinion, clearly the four justices who find standing, and no other obstacles to review, are Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Kennedy. The four who disagree are Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. (Thomas and Alito filed a concurrence casting doubt on Massachusetts; it’s interesting that neither Roberts nor Scalia joined.) The Ginsburg group thus apparently rejects the political question defense as well as the standing argument. Sotomayor was recused from this case because she was on the Second Circuit panel in the AEP case; should another case come up on which she wasn’t recused, there would apparently be a 5-4 majority to allow climate change nuisance litigation, but for the Clean Air Act displacement.
On the other hand, I read the above-quoted paragraph (when considered in conjunction with Massachusetts) to say that Justice Kennedy may believe that only states would have standing. Thus there might be a 5-4 majority against any kinds of GHG nuisance claims (and maybe other kinds of GHG claims) by non-states.
The Court explicitly did not decide whether the Clean Air Act preempts state public nuisance litigation over GHGs. Thus some plaintiff group will probably press state common law claims, perhaps on the remand in AEP v. Connecticut.
Since the opinion was based entirely on displacement by Congressional designation of EPA as the decision-maker on GHG regulation, if Congress takes away EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs but does not explicitly bar federal common law nuisance claims, these cases will come back.
I will be moderating a debate on the subject, “A Climate Change Debate: The Future of Climate Change Litigation After the Supreme Court Acts (Again),” at the New York City Bar Association on Thursday, June 30, 6 pm to 8 pm. Further details about that free event are available at A Climate Change Debate: The Future of Climate Change Litigation After the Supreme Court Acts (Again).
Sincerely,
Michael B. Gerrard
Michael B. Gerrard
Andrew Sabin Professor of Professional Practice
Director, Center for Climate Change Law
Columbia Law School
435 West 116th Street
New York, New York 10027
(212) 854-3287
michael.gerrard@law.columbia.edu
I think the host of the world’s most viewed climate website deserves some fragment of the credit for this decision.
John B says:
June 24, 2011 at 12:33 pm
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…
No, John, the rules for practicing real scientific method and principle science are already well established. Unsurprisingly, your Relativism is instead Postnormal Science’s rule, under which the only principle of “science” that is real is established by a propagandistic “consensus” or vote, that is, until “Might makes Right” makes its pre-Enlightenment re-emergence – the latter two “principles” and their practitioners also involving evolutionary throw-backs and dead-ends.
In other words the grossly unscientific practices of self-ordained ipcc-style “Climate Scientists” do not define what real scientific method and principle science is, which, according to your very definition, tends to suggest that “Climate Science” is not practicing real scientific method and principle science.
Even the ipcc, enc., itself left this same conclusion well in play by not requiring countries containing ~5 billion of the Earth’s ~6.7 billion people to follow its own alleged Kyoto Protocol “cure” to its own alleged “disease”, a conclusion which India and China ran with, in a manner directily opposite to the ipcc’s alleged “disease”, its alleged “cure” and its “science”.
Case dismissed!
Here, I think, is the money quote:
“The Act itself thus provides a means to seeklimits on emissions of carbon dioxide from domestic power plants—the same relief the plaintiffs seek by invoking federal common law. We see no room for a parallel track.”
So one of the alarmist’s potential avenues of attack, federal common law, is now closed. That’s all. It is good news.
Mike says: June 24, 2011 at 9:07 am
“You may recall the Supreme Court ordered the EPA under Bush to stop ignoring the science. Now this is finally happening.”
Yes, but that’s the problem. The EPA pays scientists to tell them what they want to hear, and what they want to hear is that CO2 is a problem that needs regulation. If a scientist submits a proposal for a research grant, it will not be funded unless it will conclude that CO2 is a problem.