The Sound Of Settled Science

10 Replies to “The Sound Of Settled Science”

1. Reddit bans comments from global warming skeptics
   http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/18/reddit-bans-comments-from-global-warming-skeptics/

2. This is potentially great news — not just that the Supreme Court will be examining the right of bureaucratic organizations like the EPA to make rules that in effect change virtually everything that happens in the country based on questionable, unproven theories and even outright falsities, but that the putative harm caused by human caused increases in CO2 is itself being challenged in a judicious, as opposed to highly politicized/propagandized, forum.
   I hope the ruling is in favour of the petitioners, but the mere fact that the latter issue is being examined is hopefully a sign of more challenges to come.
   I liked this bit on page 11 where the petitioners challenge the legitimacy of the EPA’s to designate CO2 as a pollutant comparable to other substances that are unquestionably pollutants, and which the EPA has legitimacy to regulate:

   …CO2 is fundamentally different from these (pollutants) in multiple ways, including in its properties while in the atmosphere, in the reason why it is claimed to be a “danger,” and in the ways it leaves the atmosphere. CO2 is not dangerous to breathe in the slightest even at concentrations an order of magnitude greater than what has been shown to exist anywhere on earth. It is completely colorless and odorless, and does not form smog or leave soot. Just because a large amount of CO2 is emitted in one land area does not even mean that the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will be elevated in the atmosphere over that area or any neighboring area. Indeed, recent measurements of CO2 concentrations have shown that concentrations are higher in air over particularly warm water areas and sometimes low over industrial areas. CO2 is not removed from the atmosphere in any material way by local processes, but rather mixes throughout the atmosphere on a global basis irrespective of where it may have been emitted. It is then subject to a worldwide “carbon cycle” where it can be removed from the atmosphere by being taken up by photosynthesis from plants anywhere in the world, or by absorption into the oceans or other bodies of water.

   I guess we’re going to find the extent to which the SCOTUS is politicized, as opposed to independent and reasoning.

3. Darn WarrenZ, you beat me to it. I guess today is not a good day to be a watermellon Redddit editor either, eh?

4. Enquiring minds want to know, will the plaintiffs call Mr Beale as a witness? former EPA climate Change expert, phoney CIA operative, classic bureaucratic thief who managed to do SFA for decades, as his supervisors looked on.
   A shining example of the credibility and competence of the EPA.

5. Whoa, what a slapdown to the EPA. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch. This is more than sanity making a comeback, this is a bitchslap that will be felt around the world. Long overdue.

6. Please warn us when a link goes to a PDF download. I thought is was following a link to a webpage; instead all my phone’s storage is being taken up by a PDF that is still downloading.

7. Oblameya said he was going to do this.
   He started the war on coal, and by extension, the war on cheap electricity
   From page 30 and 31 of the amicus-curiae (emphasis mine):
   Arbitrarily raising the price of energy is the
   same thing as purposely impoverishing the American
   people. It is shocking that our government would
   intentionally pursue such a goal, particularly
   without any scientific basis whatsoever to do so, as
   discussed in Point IV above. It is equally shocking
   that the executive branch, without supporting
   legislation, would decide that accomplishing its
   energy/climate goals, not endorsed by Congress or
   the general public, is so sacrosanct that it must take
   a completely inapplicable law and twist it into a
   pretzel in the desperate but ultimately futile effort to
   find a basis to raise the price and limit the
   availability of energy for the American people. And
   meanwhile CO2 is a worldwide phenomenon, and
   other countries like China and India have no plans
   meaningfully to curtail their rapidly increasing
   emissions. Unilateral CO2 emission control by the
   United States promises to damage the economy of
   the United States without any benefits.
   If the plaintiffs are successful, does this mean that Gore or Hansen could be sued?
   Can any member of the administration be held accountable and to what extent?
   The reason I posed those questions is to show the heat that will be on the courts ruling.
   I can’t see how just a cease and desist order can be pulled of without naming violations of “the law”. (State vs Federal vs Criminal)
   Are antitrust laws applicable here?
   I want the plaintiffs to succeed but with the politicization of the SCOTUS lately, I’m a bit cynical of this bearing fruit.
   I am so glad that they are going for it though.

8. In the end Supreme Roberts will decide that “it’s a tax, so it’s all good.”

9. People who believe that are likely to believe Kwanzaa is a traditional African festival.
   Cheers

10. the war on coal persists because of the toxic pollution from burning coal, not because of any CO2.