Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Lukraak_Sisser]

What does the opinion of a legal court have to do with science in the first place?

Its up to the scientific community to determine wether something is as proven as it can be or not. Especially as the scientific community is unbound by a particular nation anyway.
The people manning the US supreme court are probably excellent in their field, but they are not scientists and their opinion should have no particular sway on findings. Only on wether certain things are legal to research.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

What does the opinion of a legal court have to do with science in the first place?

First you have to ask, "for what reasons do we have courts" from there the answers to your question will be found.

Its up to the scientific community to determine wether something is as proven as it can be or not.

True, but a court can give an objective decision based on the evidence available. Clearly they think the science isn't settled as evidenced by the articlle above and the quotes provided therein:

"Global warming is by no means a settled issue, they made clear, suggesting it would be foolhardy to assume it was."

They also said:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/23/lawrence-solomon-supreme-skeptics/

“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.

link
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html

my bold

I'm going to read that recommended linked article now.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

As skeptics are fond of advising: If at all possible, go to the primary source.

Following this advise I read the "Syllabus" and "Opinion of the Court".

Quick precis:
Couple states sued some greenhouse gas producers. The states don't get through with that because:
We hold that the Clean Air Act and the EPA actions it authorizes displace any federal common law right to seek abatement of carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants.

In other words, it's the EPA's job to deal with GHGs and not the courts'.

The court argues:
It is altogether fitting that Congress designated an expert agency, here, EPA, as best suited to serve as primary regulator of greenhouse gas emissions. The expert agency is surely better equipped to do the job than individual district judges issuing ad hoc, case-by-case injunctions. Federal judges lack the scientific, economic, and technological resources an agency can utilize in coping with issues of this order.

This reflects what posters here have said about courts and science.

The proper course of action is:
If EPA does not set emissions limits for a particular pollutant or source of pollution, States and private parties may petition for a rulemaking on the matter, and EPA’s response will be reviewable in federal court.

This has happened in a previous case in which it was decided that the EPA not only can but must regulate greenhouse gas emissions because GHGs are air pollutants.
From that ruling:
The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized.
[...]
Given EPA’s failure to dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, its refusal to regulate such emissions, at a minimum, “contributes” to Massachusetts’ injuries.


The opinion piece by Solomon clearly misrepresents the objective facts. It is unclear if Solomon is a liar or inexplicably and gravely mistaken.

The court, in its current ruling noted:
The agency [=EPA] observed that “atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are now at elevated and essentially unprecedented levels,” almost entirely “due to anthropogenic emissions,” mean global temperatures, the agency continued, demonstrate an“unambiguous warming trend over the last 100 years,”and particularly “over the past 30 years,” . Acknowledging that not all scientists agreed on the causes and consequences of the rise in global temperatures, EPA concluded that “compelling” evidence supported the “attribution of observed climate change to anthropogenic” emissions of greenhouse gases.
Solomon turns this on its head by using a selective quotation. He makes it appear as if the fringe opinion had been agreed with rather than considered and rejected.

In a footnote the court notes:
For views opposing EPA’s, see, e.g., Dawidoff, The Civil Heretic,
N. Y. Times Magazine 32 (March 29, 2009). The Court, we caution, endorses no particular view of the complicated issues related to carbon-dioxide emissions and climate change.
This is misrepresented as the court endorsing this opposing view, again a complete reversal of the facts.

 

[Mojo]

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.

Looks a bit strawmanny, since nobody would deny that you can find at least some "scientists" who would disagree with any given consensus (See, for example, the rationale behind Project Steve). This doesn't mean that there isn't an overwhelming scientific consensus, particularly among those scientists best qualified to comment on this particular matter.


ETA: here's the actual quotation from the opinion, with the rest of the sentence:

Acknowledging that not all scientists agreed on the causes andconsequences of the rise in global temperatures, id., at 66506, 66518, 66523–66524, EPA concluded that “compelling” evidence supported the “attribution of observed climate change to anthropogenic” emissions of greenhouse gases, id., at 66518.

 

[Mojo]

And, seriously, the law courts are not an appropriate venue for the assessment of scientific claims, as has been acknowedged by the courts themselves. See for example the comment from Judge Easterbrook, who is now Chief Judge of the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in Underwager v. Salter 22 Fed. 3d 730 (1994), as adopted by the English Court of Appeal in British Chiropractic Association v. Singh [2011] 1 WLR 133:

Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation.

 

[a_unique_person]

Let's see what one of the central sources of denialism tells us.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/24/the-supremes-recommend-the-supreme-skeptic/

When the Supreme Court says

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.

So we have a situation just as Geni said, it ruled on a matter of standing, and endorsed no view. A few gratuitous comments by some judges that reveal why they are judges and not scientists do not constitute a court ruling. The quote from WUWT is a typical denialist tactic, take a fact and completely misrepresent it.

 

[Mojo]

Let's see what one of the central sources of denialism tells us.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/24/the-supremes-recommend-the-supreme-skeptic/

When the Supreme Court says

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.

So we have a situation just as Geni said, it ruled on a matter of standing, and endorsed no view. A few gratuitous comments by some judges that reveal why they are judges and not scientists do not constitute a court ruling. The quote from WUWT is a typical denialist tactic, take a fact and completely misrepresent it.

Quite impressive to include the quotation contradicting the claim directly after the claim itself.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

A few gratuitous comments by some judges that reveal why they are judges and not scientists do not constitute a court ruling.

Actually, there were no such "gratuitous comments". Implications to the contrary are simply manufactured.

 

[Warmer1]

"What does the opinion of a legal court have to do with science in the first place?"

Nothing, but this is all that the deniers have to grasp at since "Climategate" which I am sure that they still believe is true. It's not like a denier to admit they were wrong, ever.

This is just another waste of bandwidth IMHO.

Can the deniers please post some links to valid published scientific articles for once?

We understand that the deniers can drag this non issue out for a few months with no reference to valid science so why do people bother?

Peter Sinclair (Climate Denial Crock of the Week) is now posting videos on alternative energy, which provide valuable information, and perhaps the solutions are what we should all be focused on?

This thread is on ignore as I feel I can predict it's ongoing lack of scientific debate. FAIL!, Groupthink! Religion! anyone?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

First you have to ask, "for what reasons do we have courts" from there the answers to your question will be found.

I presume to deal with legal issues, criminal transgressions etc, but maybe in the US all scientific findings need to be approved of by the supreme court before being found acceptable?
I wonder if you'd feel the same if the court decided that evolution isnt a settled issue? or plate tectonics? or quantum physics? In each of these cases its easily possible to find scientists that disagree with the mainstream.

True, but a court can give an objective decision based on the evidence available. Clearly they think the science isn't settled as evidenced by the articlle above and the quotes provided therein:

"Global warming is by no means a settled issue, they made clear, suggesting it would be foolhardy to assume it was."

They also said:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/23/lawrence-solomon-supreme-skeptics/

“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.

link
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html

my bold

I'm going to read that recommended linked article now.

But how qualified ARE the judges to give an objective decision based on the evidence? What degrees in geophysics do they have? What research have they done themselves? Or those feeding them the summaries? And as mentioned above, what does it really mean that there is dissent? There is no scientific theory that does not have a group of people disagreeing with it. How many is enough to turn it over to people with basically no real knowledge of the subject at all?
Because in that case I'd say that in the US evolution is about as an unsure theory as AGW.
Mind you I'm not coming out on either side of the debate here, I dont consider myself knowledgable enough in the subject to be truly sure, my specialization is biochemistry, not earth sciences.

 

[Warmer1]

Also from

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176635

"Since many of the threads cover the same or similar ground, we've decided to keep only this thread for general Global Warming discussions, which will be moderated. Unless the topic is very different from the "general" discussion, new threads and posts about global warming will be moved to that thread if they satisfy the membership agreement.

Failure to confine general discussions to this moderated thread or starting other threads for general discussion will be treated as Rule 6 violations and subject to a series of escalating penalties just like any other membership violation."

Is this thread a rule violation?

 

[leonAzul]

First you have to ask, "for what reasons do we have courts" from there the answers to your question will be found.

We have courts to settle legal disputes.

True, but a court can give an objective decision based on the evidence available. Clearly they think the science isn't settled as evidenced by the articlle above and the quotes provided therein.

The opinion of the court has been published and is freely available:
http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/10-1741.pdf

"The Court, we caution,
endorses no particular view of the complicated issues related to carbon-
dioxide emissions and climate change."​

p 7 note #2

I'm going to read that recommended linked article now.

Instead of continuing to rely on second- and third-hand reports, why don't you read and cite the original document?

 

[a_unique_person]

Actually, there were no such "gratuitous comments". Implications to the contrary are simply manufactured.

my bad., can i no belive anything a denier tells me.

 

[Furcifer]

This is misrepresented as the court endorsing this opposing view, again a complete reversal of the facts.

I think it was meant as a play on the words finds and finding. YMMV.

 

[Mojo]

But how qualified ARE the judges to give an objective decision based on the evidence? What degrees in geophysics do they have? What research have they done themselves?

This is irrelevant because they explicitly said that they weren't doing so:

The Court, we caution, endorses no particular view of the complicated issues related to carbon-dioxide emissions and climate change.

 

[mhaze]

What does the opinion of a legal court have to do with science in the first place?

Its up to the scientific community to determine wether something is as proven as it can be or not. Especially as the scientific community is unbound by a particular nation anyway.
The people manning the US supreme court are probably excellent in their field, but they are not scientists and their opinion should have no particular sway on findings. Only on wether certain things are legal to research.

Why...uh...you are right, a legal court doesn't have anything to do with science. Gee, this is so stupid...

Wait....there is that darn pesky Scopes Monkey Trial....

Hmmm.....

So the True Believers in No Evolution praise the court system which it finds on their behalf, but when the True Believers In No AGW has similar findings, the court system is irrelevant to science.

Got it.

 

[leonAzul]

If EPA does not set emissions limits for a particular pollutant or source of pollution, States and private parties may petition for a rulemaking on the matter, and EPA’s response will be reviewable in federal court.

This has happened in a previous case in which it was decided that the EPA not only can but must regulate greenhouse gas emissions because GHGs are air pollutants.

In a nutshell. The Clean Air Act establishes the EPA to regulate air pollution, not the courts.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Why...uh...you are right, a legal court doesn't have anything to do with science. Gee, this is so stupid...

Wait....there is that darn pesky Scopes Monkey Trial....

Umm.... In that trial a teacher was found guilty of breaking the law by teaching evolution. Something that happened to be illegal.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

my bad., can i no belive anything a denier tells me.

Indeed, but everything a warmer does, huh?

 

[leonAzul]

Is this thread a rule violation?

No. It is a discussion of a report that claims a legal ruling has been made on the matter.