Reposted from Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.
Posted on October 16, 2020 by curryja
by Judith Curry
An alternative assessment of U.S. Supreme Court Justice nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s statements on climate change.
For those of you not in the U.S., confirmation hearings on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court are currently underway. There are many very political issues surrounding this nomination and its timing. Lets put all that aside for the moment, and consider her statements on climate change.
Barrett’s statements [link]:
“I will not express a view on a matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial.”
“I don’t think my views on climate change or global warming are relevant to the job I would do as a judge. Nor do I feel like I have views that are informed enough.”
“I’m certainly not a scientist,” she said when asked by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) whether she had a personal opinion on the issue. “I mean, I’ve read things about climate change. I would not say I have firm views on it.”
“I don’t think I’m competent to opine on what causes global warming or not.”
The twitterati are hysterical over these statements. From a Washington Post article:
“The judge’s exchange on climate change was short, but her critics say it is disqualifying”
“It is a requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be able to review evidence to make a decision,” he said. “The scientific evidence of climate change is beyond reasonable doubt or debate, yet Amy Coney Barrett refused to acknowledge reality.”
“A climate change case is already on the Supreme Court’s docket next year. It will hear a case involving several oil companies, including Dutch Royal Shell, being sued by the city of Baltimore, which is seeking to hold them financially responsible for their greenhouse gas contributions. Barrett’s father spent much of his own career as a lawyer for Shell. “
An article in the Esquire is entitled: Amy Coney Barrett’s answer on this climate change question is completely disqualifying.
“Put simply, this is just totally disqualifying for any official holding public office in the year 2020. This isn’t even an up-to-date Republican bullshit line on the topic. “I’m not a scientist” is so 2014, maybe because even the Elite Political Media—pockets of which are just today allowing themselves to be hoodwinked by another Emails caper—caught on to how dumb it is. Does Judge Amy Coney Barrett accept the scientific consensus that gravity is keeping her in that chair? If so, why? She’s not a scientist, so how could she possibly know?”
There are two issues here that deserve discussion:
- Whether ‘belief’ in climate change actually means anything when spouted by politicians and other non-scientists
- What judges should be expected to know about climate science.
“I believe in climate science”
I think that Amy Coney Barrett’s answers to the climate question was admirable. She wanted to stay out of a contentious political debate. But more importantly she wasn’t going to pass a judgement on something for which she had not carefully evaluated the evidence and did not find herself qualified to make a judgement on. I thought her stance on this showed wisdom and humility.
In the 2016 presidential debates, Hillary Clinton said: “And I believe in science” , with specific reference to climate change.
In the political debate on climate change, ‘I believe in climate science’ is a statement generally made by people who don’t understand much about it. They use such statements as a way of declaring belief in a scientific proposition that is outside their knowledge and understanding. The belief of individuals making such a statement is often more akin to believing in Santa Claus than relating to actual understanding of science. In the case of Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech at the U.S. Democratic National Convention, Clinton’s appeal to science was a partisan rallying cry that was coupled to the mockery of Donald Trump and his supporters as ‘anti-science.’
In the context of the climate change, ‘I believe in science’ uses the overall reputation of science to give authority to the climate change ‘consensus’, shielding it from questioning and skepticism. ‘I believe in climate science’ is a signifier of social group identity that supports one particular solution: massive government legislation to limit or ban fossil fuels. ‘Belief in climate science’ makes it look as though disagreement on this solution is equivalent to a rejection of the scientific method and worldview. When exposed to science that challenges their political biases, these same ‘believers’ are quick to claim ‘pseudo-science,’ without considering (or even understanding) the actual evidence or arguments. An excellent summary of all this is provided in a previous blog post discussing an article by Robert Tracinski.
In my albeit limited experience, very few politicians have made a serious attempt to understand climate science, beyond being able to parrot talking points provided to them by advocacy groups.
Here is what we are left with: One side attacks science and the other side uses science for political attacks. Neither side actually cares about or understands the science.
Kudos to Amy Coney Barrett for providing an appropriate answer to the climate change questions
Supreme Court
A New York Times article discusses why judge’s ‘opinions’ on climate change are relevant to the Supreme Court. The EPA endangerment finding may be facing a challenge in a future Republican administrations. There are also lawsuits against the U.S. government and oil companies that could make it the Supreme Court.
The Wikipedia has a good overview on the Juliana case against the U.S. government as well as previous cases. Apart from procedural issues, I don’t see what kind of ruling by the Supreme Court on climate change that would hinge on the Justices’ understanding or ruling on details of the science.
The Dutch Urgenda ruling accepted the authority of the IPCC assessment reports. This was an unusual ruling based upon the U.S. court system, which leaves matters of policy to the legislative and executive branches.
I am confused, the central tenant of the AGW theory is that rising CO2 reduces Earth’s energy loss to space which creates an energy imbalance (more in than out) which causes Earth to warm. An almost just as strong tenant is that such warming causes water vapour content of the atmosphere to rise, reducing Earth’s energy loss even further and thus contributing positive feedback thereby changing the impact from significant to alarming.
However, NASA’s measurements of energy loss to space (outgoing longwave radiation) show that it has been rising steadily since at least 1985 not falling. Further, the rate of rise is exactly what one would expect given a climate sensitivity of about 3 watts/sqM/C. This rise tracks temperature very closely, following even short term temperature perturbations. There is absolutely no discernible contribution from rising CO2. The warming is apparently coming from an increase in absorbed solar radiation (slight fall in albedo) which appears to be due to a drop in cloud cover from 69% in 1985 to 66% today. But the theory of AGW does not even mention any link between CO2 and cloud cover. As a scientist, I was taught that if the central tenant of a theory is contradicted by experimental observations the theory is falsified.
Does the scientific principle not apply to AGW? Does prejudice now define reality?
If outgoing energy is restricted while incoming energy continues at the same pace, then energy will accumulate. This causes temperature to rise.
Increased temperature causes an increase in the amount of energy being radiated out.
This process continues until incoming energy balances out going energy again.
Absolutely right Mark but the outgoing energy has to be restricted as you put it for there to be any warming. For example, if OLR had fallen and then was rising again as Earth warmed you would be right but OLR has not fallen. Since supposedly CO2 levels continue to rise OLR should be being reduced further and further. Maybe if temperature was rising at the same time the two effects would act in opposition so that OLR simply remained depressed but that is not happening either. In fact OLR has been steadily rising since 1985 and it appears that the time constant is short so that OLR is more or less always in balance with absorbed solar radiation (ASR). What has been happening is cloudiness is falling slightly and as a result ASR is rising. This causes Earth to warm and as it does so OLR rises maintaining balance. No long time constants, no locked in future warming and no experimental evidence linking what is happening to rising CO2.
Absolutely wrong MarkW.
It the OLR flux increases, the planet is shedding heat. If the input remained the same, the net result is cooling. Cooling can be defined as a net loss of heat energy.
If the increased surface temperature results in an increase in OLR then the temperature will go down again. That is what a self-regulating temperature mechanism achieves. For the system temperature to rise and the heat flux to rise and remain constant, the input energy also has to increase.
For the surface (not system) temperature to rise, reducing cloud cover is sufficient.
It decreases first, then it increases back to normal as the temperature rises.
No Mark; the data I have seen shows it does not decrease first, it simply rises in line with temperature at about 3 watts/sqM/degree C rise in temperature. Further, if the theory of AGW were correct the fact that CO2 is rising should either ensure OLR continues to fall or at least remains depressed but that is not happening. OLR shows no sensitivity to CO2, it simply tracks temperature. So OLR and ASR remain in close balance. This suggests the time constant between changes in ASR and changes in global temperature are very short, months to maybe a year or two. The question of course is why OLR shows no sensitivity to CO2 levels since theory does suggest t should. I strongly suspect the answer is that there is extremely strong negative feedback which reduces the impact to levels too small to separate from system noise,
Michael,
Re: “However, NASA’s…short term temperature perturbations.”
Do you have a link for that? I haven’t been able to find a spectrally-resolved time-dependent review of outgoing radiation, although I’ve tried.
EdA, I sure do. Try https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/analysis/climanal1.html
What I have been mentioning here in my comments are short synopsis’s of an article I wrote expanding on the theme. I did submit it to WUWT but heard nothing so I assume it was rejected. I would be happy to send the article to you (with references) but I dont have your email address. If you can think of any way i could get it to you (assuming you are interested) please let me know.
(When did you submit it?) SUNMOD
reply to sunmod. From memory a few weeks ago but I am happy to resubmit if you like. Please just let me know by the reply tag
Michael,
Thank you!
Although the inactivated / archived link is dated, the fact that they note that observation of human vs. natural effects on climate will require study periods of longer than 50 years suggests that the data is not corrupted by politics.
It appears that the MOD will clear the path for your submission. I look forward to it.
It’s a pity her critics weren’t as honest about their lack of knowledge on the subject. Really the only answer they would have approved of is if she sang the CAGW chorus for them.
Exactly. K. Harris said that CC will damage the air we breathe. What a maroon.
Amy Barrett showed superior intelligence, well above and beyond the people asking those irrelevant questions.
If I’m not mistaken, SCOTUS never ruled that CO2 actually is a “pollutant”.
They ruled that, if it is, the USEPA under the Clean Air Act had the authority to regulate it.
All based on The Endangerment Finding (along with Congress abdicating the the authority to make “laws” to an
unelected bureaucracy which can make a regulation which has the effect of an actual Law).
Short term solution: Scientifically gut the “CO2 is going to kill us all” finding.
Long term solution: Strip Congress/Executive Branch-created bureaucracies of their authority make regulations that have the force of ‘Law”. Propose a regulation and make pass through the gauntlet that every other bill has to pass before it becomes “Law”.
Gunga,
Re: “They ruled that if it is, the USEPA, under the [CAA], had the authority to regulate it.”
Close, but, unfortunately, not correct. Rather than trying to plow through the twisted logic of the majority opinion in Mass v. EPA, it is best to read the crystal clear Scalia (for whom ACB clerked) dissenting opinion, available at the oyez Web site. The holding in Mass was that if the EPA found that something was a pollutant, it was compelled to regulate it, unless a very narrow, strong argument could be made against regulation. With his typical wit, Justice Scalia points out that flatulence could fall into this category. I guess that’s why Poles refer to it as, “spoiling the air.”
The EPA proceeded with their endangerment finding, and, eventually the Clean Power Plan, which produced the first SCOTUS stay of a regulation under active appeal. President Trump has clipped the wings of that turkey.
Thanks for clarifying but I don’t see the difference unless it’s the timing of the endangerment finding.
Is there something fundamentally different in what we both said?
What did I miss?
PS SCOTUS never declared that CO2 was a pollutant.
Amy showed that she is not being controlled by the false consensus.
No greater evidence understandable by all that the current weather is with in normal range is found in the tree ring history of Alaska. It has been wormer then now for hundreds of years at a time repetitively. https://home.nps.gov/glba/learn/nature/upload/Lawson_etal_2010_AnnualPaleoclimateReport.pdf
“The scientific evidence of climate change is beyond reasonable doubt or debate”
I am tired of that “science is settled” rant. If it’s settled, it’s not science; and if it’s settled, then everyone involved should go find other, productive work, instead of demanding billions more research funding.
“The scientific evidence of climate change is beyond reasonable doubt or debate” Or so you think. Regardless, ACB expressing her personal beliefs on climate change would only excite one side or the other and only cloud any future ruling she might support or oppose on the subject. These senators are looking for dirt so they can scream she is unqualified.
One might consider a major improvement to the US system of governance. It is to have judges elected every 2 years or 5 years instead of for life.
Second, replace the president with the Supreme Count.
Third, accept nominations for the Court but ban electioneering; enforce slander and libel laws.
Fourth, stop electing Senators and appoint them on merit as Canada does, or should.
Fifth, all votes in the lower house should be free votes, based on individual conscience. Decrease the party structure’s ability to make members vote against their will.
Sixth, ban bribery and enforce the ban.
None of that is an improvement.
Also, in general, SCOTUS doesn’t try facts. Appeals courts review the application of the law. Rarely, if ever, does an appeals court reverse a courts finding of fact. Climate change as a matter of science will never be tried before SCOTUS. The law will be reviewed. Things like whether CO2 is air pollution under the clean air act is a matter of law. SCOTUS would never rule what CO2 is or does as a matter of science, just whether the law applies to it.
There is a huge misconception of the purpose, responsibility and authority of SCOTUS which is simply to protect and defend the Constitution—as originally written,intended and amended—and to fulfill its primary role as a check to legislative and executive branches to make sure they don’t abuse their enumerated powers, and to assure no laws are actions are unconstitutional.
As the constitution was originally written, the federal government should have no power or authority to pass and enforce legislation regarding environmental issues, which, under the 9th and 10th amendment must be controlled and regulated by the individual states…
Unfortunately, an awful 1942 SCOTUS decision in the Wicker v. Filburn case greatly increased the scope, power and control of the federal government which led to federal and state spending increasing from about 7% of GDP (prior to 1942) to roughly 50% now (including $2 trillion/yr of regulatory private-sector compliance costs, which consumers actually pay for in higher product costs).
Environmental law is a part of product liability law which requires a third party to prove there is a NET harm being caused by a defective product or a negative externality caused by the use or production of a product or service as intended.
It’s insane to sue fossil fuel companies for environmental and health damages caused by CO2 because there aren’t any…
All empirical data clearly show higher CO2 levels have had a net benefit to a healthier environment: higher crop yields, less water requirement by plants, less frost loss, longer growing seasons, increased arable land in Northern latitudes, etc., in addition to the $quadrillions of economic development, increased standards of living and doubled life expectancy, fossil fuels have contributed to people’s lives.
All environmental laws must be evaluated based on cost/benefit analysis. For example given the “logic” of Leftist enviro wackos, cars should be banned because there are about 40,000 car deaths a year, despite the $trillions of benefits 330 million Americans enjoy from ICE vehicles…
“There is a huge misconception of the purpose, responsibility and authority of SCOTUS which is simply to protect and defend the Constitution—as originally written,intended and amended—and to fulfill its primary role as a check to legislative and executive branches to make sure they don’t abuse their enumerated powers”
Well said. So far, she seems to be the most Constitutional judge the supreme court has seen in a very long time. Though, I don’t think the Republicans are truly on board with that idea. Otherwise their earlier appointees would have been actual originalists.
We will know the first time she votes to uphold ANY federal environmental rules. The Constitution doesn’t grant them any authority to do that.
I had an interesting exchange at the firepit the other evening. A guest pronounced she believed in “climate change”. I offered her an analogy.
If she were on a plane as it roared down the runway, would it be good enough to “believe” the consensus that the plane would lift off or would she rather “know” it would lift off every time? In other words, science is the method by which we seek to understand immutable physical laws upon which we can rely, time after time.
Well, there is definitely no doubt in my mind that climate change is real. Very real. Very very real. It happens on a recurring basis and was happening long before humans meandered around, hunting the local livestock and starting up civilization.
It was a lot warmer when the dinosaurs stomped around. But there was also snow. Volcanoes were pretty busy back then, too, and that had some effect on the climate. And we have that problem with the Nyiragongo volcano in Congo, which has an impressive and very active lava lake in its caldera. http://www.meteo-tv.ru/news/Prirodnye-proisshestviya/Uchenye-predupredili-o-skoroy-vulkanicheskoy-katastrofe/
There’s also the very active Erta Ale caldera in the Danakil Depression in Ethiopia, which finally (after a couple million years) got its local laval flow to eat through the local crust and form a very active lava lake. Eventually, since it sits on the East Africa rift zone, it will start to split the rift in eastern African wide open. But not in my lifetime.
That will have some rather impressive effect on the climate, won’t it? There’s just all sorts of stuff going on, and all of it will cause climate change, including that new island forming off the coast of Hawaii.
So what is the issue, again, with climate change?
We have no control over the climate and what it does, and no one can convince me that we do. The argument is about something that is beyond our puny control and it is a fallacy to think that we can control it. If those afraid of CO2 have an issue with it, then they could wear breathing equipment and get counseling to relieve their anxieties. They can also stop demanding cash from us.
What the political seance mob fear with their political lawyering against the likes of Exxon is simply this-
I rule that inasmuch as the democratic representatives of the people have determined fossil fuels are a legitimate good for the benefit of society it shall be the perfect right of any entity to actively engage in its promotion production distribution and sale. Case to the contrary dismissed with full costs to the defendant/s.
What scares the lefties in part is that ACB is far smarter and much better informed than they would like. She is not likely to be swayed by empty, fashionable, arguments dressed up as vitally important and given much publicity by their propaganda sycophants.
Do you believe in
Godclimate science?They said separation of the church and the state!
https://twitter.com/DJKoessler/status/1316488940677931008
“Do you accept that COVID-19 is infectious?”
COVID being COronavirus something something, it’s a VIRUS thing (*), duh, it’s infectious… it’s in the name; it’s in the DEFINITION.
Only people with the virus can have it.
By definition.
(*) What kind of thing and whether COVID is a “disease” or something else is another question.
From the article: “Does Judge Amy Coney Barrett accept the scientific consensus that gravity is keeping her in that chair? If so, why? She’s not a scientist, so how could she possibly know?”
Judge Barrett can demonstrate gravitational effects to herself by jumping up and down.
Alarmists cannot demonstrate any climate effects from CO2.