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.
The next 18 appointees to the Supreme Court should be FARMERS! Need I say more? What?
Oh, OK. OK.
The next 200 Senators elected to the US Senate should be FARMERS! How’s that? Still not enough?
OK.
The next 1000 Representatives elected to the US House of Representatives should be FARMERS!
What?
Oh, yes, forgot.. The next 45 Presidents of the United States should be FARMERS!
PS: And we ought to send all the lawyers in this country to China too!
Ah the first batch of eco loons silenced (kicked out of the equation). now let Congress encourage the EPA to endorse actual science rather than Gavin’s manned up Real Climate apology for science. Interesting times indeed!!
John B says: June 24, 2011 at 4:40 pm
“If a scientist submits a proposal for a research grant, it [the EPA] will not be funded unless it will conclude that CO2 is a problem.”
And how would they know the conclusion at the time of issuing the grant?
First, the [ ] brackets completely change the meaning of what I said. What I meant was the proposal will not be funded by the EPA unless the proposed work will prove CO2 is a problem.
Second, I think a brief summary of the government contracting process is in order. All federal agencies follow the FARs (Federal Acquisition Regulations) which are published on-line. Requests for Proposals (RFPs) are published in Commerce Business Daily, which is also available on-line. Government customer RFPs clearly state what the solicitation requires, and what a winning proposal shall say. The acquisition regulations are very strict and precise. I know of NASA employees who did jail time by stating that XXX software shall be used instead of saying that contractor shall use software in all ways compatible with XXX. The government request identifies a Contracting Officer and a Technical Point of Contact (TPOC). Typically, a potential contractor will call the TPOC and say: “Hi Joe, I’m thinking of proposing this…” The customer TPOC will answer by saying: “Well Fred, that’s close to what we’re looking for” or “Gee, Bob, that would not be favorably judged.” Just as the USAF knows exactly what size tires they buy for their airplanes, requests for scientific research know exactly which researchers will do a “good job” for the team.
I’m not saying this is good or bad, it’s just how the government contracting world works. And it is completely different from commercial practice.
Yes bad idea, unless you want the courts setting and administering policy as well as writing legislation (when it feels like it!); recall the separation of powers idea our (the US) Constitution embodies …
It’s up to congress to set the direction of these bureaus like the EPA through PL (Public Law) enactments (vs CFR or Code of Federal Regulations which these bureaus write). The courts act as line judges making ‘foul’ calls.
.
Exemplification of PTS (Persistent Troll Syndrome) running a misleading as Hades nic … but in support of the welcome dreck, foils are always needed to keep the troops sharp and running their ‘A’ game …
(I only wonder, from whence he/she came? DailyKos? DU? Huff(com)Post?)
.
The ruling is a positive development. It establishes:
1. That the courts do not have jurisdiction to determine CO2 science. That is up to the EPA.
2. That CO2 disputes must go through the EPA. They cannot be brought directly to the courts.
3. That the court does have jurisdiction to rule on EPA CO2 over matters of economic impact and national security.
In other words, the EPA sets the rules on CO2 so long as the benefits outweigh the costs and do not place the nation at risk. This last point is perhaps the most significant, because of the EPA reliance on the IPCC.
The IPCC does not have the national interests of the USA anywhere in its mandate. The IPCC is completely free to recommend policies that would lead to the destruction of the USA, so long as those policies were a net benefit to the rest of the planet.
As the USA makes up only about 5% of the population of the planet, but generates about 25% of the CO2, the quickest way for the IPCC to reduce CO2 levels would be the economic destruction of the USA. This would benefit the other 95% of the planet with minimal cost.
Since the EPA places heavy reliance on the IPCC, it is possible that the current EPA direction will unknowingly lead to the economic destruction of the USA, which the courts might decide is not in the national interest.
Rattus Norvegicus says:
June 24, 2011 at 9:39 am
“This really wasn’t a remarkable decision. It is a straight federalism decision, the EPA has the power to regulate the emission of carbon dioxide and so preempts any right under federal common law for the states to regulate CO2 emissions.”
Does that mean that California can’t go ahead with AB32?
Dan in California says:
June 25, 2011 at 6:12 am
“First, the [ ] brackets completely change the meaning of what I said. ”
Apologies for that, I realised I had bracketed the wrong “it” after I had posted the comment. I knew what you meant and didn’t intend to change your meaning.
But as regards government requests for proposals (RFPs), I think you are wrong about what a research proposal as opposed to a proposal for hardware or software looks like. A research RFP would be e.g. “to look at sea level changes”, not “to conclude that sea levels have risen”. Anything else would not only be corrupt but stupid as these things are public. Do you know of any RFPs that explicitly or implicitly ask researchers “to conclude…”?
John B says: June 25, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Dan in California says: June 25, 2011 at 6:12 am
Do you know of any RFPs that explicitly or implicitly ask researchers “to conclude…”?
They’re not explicit. RFPs for research certainly do include implicit orders on the outcome. I do have personal experience in this. I was principal investigator on a small government research contract about 20 years ago and I naiively thought I was supposed to do an honest study. After I handed in the final report I was informed by my government customer that the purpose of the contract was to conclude the status quo was the best approach. I never got another contract from that customer again. Unlike most university scientists, I have a large customer base, so I was not out on the street after that. I can’t say in a public forum which government entity that was, but James Hanson works for them.
John B says: June 25, 2011 at 1:58 pm
“ Do you know of any RFPs that explicitly or implicitly ask researchers “to conclude…”?”
Here’s another personal example (I have grey hair; I’ve been at this a long time).My company had a small phase 1 contract to do R&D (this is rocket science, not climate science). The customer formally invited us to submit a phase 2 proposal. Invitations for sole-source contract proposals are not made unless there is a high probability of award. After submittal, the government lab director personally berated us for not letting him help write the proposal. I was astounded, as that would have been illegal. We did not get the contract.
It happens. Frequently.
@Dan
But R&D is not research. (Yes, I do know what R&D stands for). What I am saying is that government grants for research do not dictate what the research should conclude. I could be wrong, does anyone have any evidence?
@Dan again
Oops, just saw your post before last!
The point is the batttle ground should be at the ballot box not the courts. Whatever the courts decide, elected representives should be get their hands dirty. They talk about saving the planet but know measures constant with the declared problem as political suicide so they are looking for fudges. It gets them of the hook if the courts / quangoes like the EPA take on the problem. Sorry – Sean and stacyglen are both me – finger trouble.
I’m glad to see that some people here have actually looked at the Court’s opinion and interpreted it more or less correctly. The rest of you should grow up. There’s nothing in the opinion to suggest that Ginsburg or anyone on the Court is either hostile or friendly to the claim that CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming. The remark about breathing merely supports the obviously true claim that Congress could not “preemptively prohibit every discharge of carbon dioxide without a permit.” The reason for claiming it is that Congress could preemptively prohibit every discharge of some other things, but the plaintiffs seem not to recognize this difference.
I’ll say it again: The rest of you should grow up. This is far from being the only time when people here have posted yahoo-like cheering or booing in a comments thread. It happens all the time.