Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

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.

No more strawmanny than your above quote. There isn't "overwhelming scientific consensus", what there is is about 97% of scientists agreeing in a poll that the Earth has warmed about a degree and a half in the last 150 years due to the increase in CO2 from humans burning fossil fuels.

There's a huge difference between "scientific consensus" and scientists sharing an opinion based on the facts. Especially about the consequences of global warming. (the causes though are a little more "consensed")

 

[Hallo Alfie]

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.

Nice to see you again Hazey.

btw, you stole my thunder a bit; I was going to wait a few days before bringing this one in.

 

[atecom]

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.

It seems to me the result of the court case was not that evolution was real, it was that he was allowed to teach it (Or actually specifically wasn't allowed to teach it since he lost the initial case but won on appeal).

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I think the point is that those who would say that the law has no place in having a hearing against science today, would be applauding the actions of Scope in breaking down the barriers of his day, by using the court for science.

There is a level of hypocrisy which is pretty obvious.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

I think the point is that those who would say that the law has no place in having a hearing against science today, would be applauding the actions of Scope in breaking down the barriers of his day, by using the court for science.

There is a level of hypocrisy which is pretty obvious.

You appear rather confused on the facts. You should read about the Scopes trial, as well as reading the actual text that the opinion piece you posted so completely mangles.

Note that the supreme court has made a decision regarding the reality of global warming in 2007. I posted a link up-thread.

 

[Furcifer]

Note that the supreme court has made a decision regarding the reality of global warming in 2007. I posted a link up-thread.

This isn't technically correct, they've made a decision with this in mind. It's splitting hairs to point this out, but that seems to be where this discussion is headed.

It's important to note that this basically reiterates the consensus opinion of climate scientists in that CO2 from fossil fuels has contributed to recently observed warming. Beyond that there isn't consensus and the actual effects of global warming are a heated topic of debate. Pun intended.

What's interesting in this case is that the Supreme Court has actually taken the time to address this notion that because there is consensus on a very small part of AGW the science isn't "settled".

 

[shadron]

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

There weren't? Then what is the source of this quote from the financial post opinion piece?

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.

I would call that pretty gratuitous, but I'd like to know the context of the quote.

Dyson is quoted in the NY Times article by:

Dyson had proposed that whatever inflammations the climate was experiencing might be a good thing because carbon dioxide helps plants of all kinds grow. Then he added the caveat that if CO2 levels soared too high, they could be soothed by the mass cultivation of specially bred “carbon-eating trees,”...

It should perhaps be pointed out that Dyson's ruminations on biology are somewhat out of his region of expertise, which is astronomical physics and space habitats. The effects of increased CO2 are bound by what the trees in the world are evolved to expect, regardless of how much they may "like" it. Gratuitously doubling that percentage is probably not going to have good effects overall, sort of like saying that humans need and like water, so let's fill the atmosphere with it. What are we going to do with all those carbon-eating trees, BTW? Burn 'em for fuel? Leave them to rot in the forest where they fall? Sounds self-defeating.

It sounds to me like Dyson was working when someone asked him out of the blue about global warming and he said the first thing that popped into his mind. And now it's reported as him "coming out of the closet".

 

[mhaze]

nice to see you again hazey.

Btw, you stole my thunder a bit; i was going to wait a few days before bringing this one in.

bwhahahaha!

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I think the point is that those who would say that the law has no place in having a hearing against science today, would be applauding the actions of Scope in breaking down the barriers of his day, by using the court for science.

There is a level of hypocrisy which is pretty obvious.

Actually I consider that the law has no place in determining what is taught as science in one way or the other. The use of laws to forbid teaching results of science is something that belongs in countries where the feeling is that the public is too stupid to make up their own minds, or where it would contravene the state religion the preachers are too lazy to defend.
What always surprises me is that the US is among such countries from time to time.

Using the data of geophysics to create a law to allow/ban certain industries, yes, I fully agree thats a case for a judgement. But not the base science itself, that can only be resolved in the scientific community by experiments and testing leading to ever further understanding. Controversy about a theory does not discredit it, it just leads to further understanding, and wether that leads to more or less acceptance of AGW will utterly ignore this case anyway.
So basically the supreme court wasted who knows how much money to put forth a personal opinion of people that should have better things to do.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

There weren't? Then what is the source of this quote from the financial post opinion piece?

The sewage discharges at issue in Milwaukee II, we do not overlook, were subject to effluent limits set by EPA;under the displacing statute, “[e]very point source discharge” of water pollution was “prohibited unless covered by a permit.” 451 U. S., at 318–320 (emphasis deleted). As Milwaukee II made clear, however, the relevant question for purposes of displacement is “whether the field has been occupied, not whether it has been occupied in a particular manner.” Id., at 324. Of necessity, Congress selects different regulatory regimes to address different problems. Congress could hardly preemptively prohibit every discharge of carbon dioxide unless covered by a permit. After all, we each emit carbon dioxide merely by breathing.

It's a perfectly sensible statement in context. It outlines the difference between this case and another and also justifies why these things are best solved by government regulation rather than by suing each other (the libertarian method, if you will).

The text of the syllabus + opinion is here.

 

[Beerina]

There weren't? Then what is the source of this quote from the financial post opinion piece?



I would call that pretty gratuitous, but I'd like to know the context of the quote.

Dyson is quoted in the NY Times article by:

It should perhaps be pointed out that Dyson's ruminations on biology are somewhat out of his region of expertise, which is astronomical physics and space habitats. The effects of increased CO2 are bound by what the trees in the world are evolved to expect, regardless of how much they may "like" it. Gratuitously doubling that percentage is probably not going to have good effects overall, sort of like saying that humans need and like water, so let's fill the atmosphere with it. What are we going to do with all those carbon-eating trees, BTW? Burn 'em for fuel? Leave them to rot in the forest where they fall? Sounds self-defeating.

It sounds to me like Dyson was working when someone asked him out of the blue about global warming and he said the first thing that popped into his mind. And now it's reported as him "coming out of the closet".

It's possible extra CO2 is good. It's possible warming is good. That the GW is being used as a rationale for massive government intervention in the economy, with all the attendant back-room deals and political "donations" to get back out of the way, as per every other issue through human history, is not.

It's probable GW is not as bad, at its worst, as slowing the economy through government intervention would be, if you measure actual quality and length of life, and technological advancement rates.


So, yes, GW or AGW is not as bad as the "cure".

 

[BenBurch]

If the SC ruled that cigarettes do not cause cancer, would lung cancer patients rise from their deathbeds cured?

If not, then you can see the problem with the SC ruling on this.

 

[leonAzul]

I think the point is that those who would say that the law has no place in having a hearing against science today, would be applauding the actions of Scope in breaking down the barriers of his day, by using the court for science.

There is a level of hypocrisy which is pretty obvious.

If one of the states were to enact legislation banning the discussion of AGW or similar hypotheses in public schools because it is at variance with biblical texts, then you might have a point.

What is consistent in both cases is that all of the courts involved have declined to rule on the validity of the science and deferred such determinations to legislative inquiries or to agencies established by legislative acts. They consistently limited their attention to the legality of the matter, much to the disappointment of both sides of the dispute. Now tell me, where is the hypocrisy in that?

The only evidential hypocrisy in this thread is that demonstrated by the authors of reportage who consistently quote-mine out of context with the intent to "fan the flames" of discord in the name of furthering discussion.

 

[Mikemcc]

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

It's from the second link.

Good job that no-one makes that claim apart from deniers then...

 

[Trakar]

I assume legal issues falls in EBF topic.

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

First and foremost, courts decide legal issues not matters of science. Remember in the Scopes trial, the court actually found against the evolutionary proponent!

as supported by the USSC's statements of finding in this very case!

..."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. See generally Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 865–866 (1984). Judges may not commission scientific studies or convene groups of experts for advice, or issue rules under notice-and-comment procedures inviting input by any interested person, or seek the counsel of regulators in the States where the defendants are located. Rather, judges are confined by a record comprising the evidence the parties present..."

Beyond this, this case has nothing to do with whether or not issues of climate science are correct or incorrect, the court was called upon to rule whether or not the EPA had standing and authority to regulate CO2, and whether or not the various nuisance suits being filed by various state authorities could continue in an effort to avoid EPA regulations and standards, to which the USSC unanimously agreed that the EPA was acting properly and in accord with previous court directions and that there was no merit or basis in the various state challenges to EPA actions. And now you are going to try to cherry pick and distort the court's rulings into a big "win" for those that are trying to interfere with and stop all efforts to minimize humanity's forcings of the climate? Seriously?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-174.pdf

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the main opinion:

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

The Court reinforced the legal conclusion that it had drawn back in 2007 in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA, stating that the EPA has been told by Congress to treat greenhouse gas emissions as an “air pollutant” under the Clean Air Act, and is obliged to do something about it.

The decision put a stop to a spreading series of lawsuits, that have been designed to attack not only global warming mitigation efforts but also various other perceived threats to the environment. All of the other ongoing and planned court challenges of EPA (and various endangered/protected species acts) regulation activities are covered by this decision and looks like it nips them off at the roots.

In looking through this ruling I just don't see what has inspired your jubilation, but if you care to point the exact terms, I will be happy to go back through the transcript and review the statements in their complete context, and comment upon them.

 

[Mikemcc]

It's possible extra CO2 is good. It's possible warming is good. That the GW is being used as a rationale for massive government intervention in the economy, with all the attendant back-room deals and political "donations" to get back out of the way, as per every other issue through human history, is not.

It's probable GW is not as bad, at its worst, as slowing the economy through government intervention would be, if you measure actual quality and length of life, and technological advancement rates.


So, yes, GW or AGW is not as bad as the "cure".

Looking at the probabilities. It's unlikely (becaue of changes to absortion into CO2 sinks) that that extra CO2 is good and highly unlikely that possible warming is good as it willl increase global mean sea level adding to the cost of improvements to sea defenses and destroying agricultual land.

 

[Trakar]

It's like asking a proctologist what advice he would give in medicating a schizophrenic. The ignorance and basic errors in logic in those statements is mind boggling. Something that can be good in one way can also be bad in another way. The example I have used before is ozone. Of course, it is also completely possible that the judgement has been completely misrepresented by deniers, I will have to read over geni's comments more closely to see what the real story is.

It probably isn't to wise to base opinions of the USSC or the Justices who sit on that court's bench, by the characterizations some here are using. This new opinion actually reaffirms the EPA’s scientific findings that climate change is real and has significant impacts on the country. In the actual decision, Justice Ginsburg reminded readers that after the ruling in Massachusetts the EPA went back and determined that carbon pollution contributes to climate change impacts including increases in heat related deaths, coastal inundation and erosion from melting ice caps, more frequent and intense hurricanes, and shifts in drought and rain patterns. None of which is evident in the characterizations some seem to be pushing here.

More importantly than this, however, Roberts and Scalia broke away from the current conservative orthodoxy that climate change does not exist. Both justices joined an opinion that discusses at some length the current climate science and reiterates support for using the Clean Air Act to tackle the climate crisis. This probably explains much of the caterwauling.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think the point is that those who would say that the law has no place in having a hearing against science today, would be applauding the actions of Scope in breaking down the barriers of his day, by using the court for science.

Scope didn't use the court, he was prosecuted. He taught the theory of evolution in a public school.

There is a level of hypocrisy which is pretty obvious.

You claim they would be doing this and then accuse them of hypocricy for non-existent actions your pigeon-holed thinking assigns to them. How low do you go?

Meanwhile, of course, Arctic sea-ice recedes, the "cooling period" we've been "entering" since 2005 fails to materialise, floods and droughts abound, and even Antarctic sea-ice has gone off the denier play-list. What you have left is stuff like this. But at least you have mhaze to echo it back to you, which must be a great comfort.

 

[Trakar]

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?

Ahhh! thankee, I was pretty sure that we had just inherited a thread, as I hadn't seen these posts sooner. I wish there was some kind of mod note at the front-end of such dumpings.

 

[Trakar]

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.

You do realize that the court ruled against the evolutionary theory proponent in the Scopes trial,...don't you?