Home » Courts, Global Warming, Science » More Science by Judicial Fiat

More Science by Judicial Fiat

Once again, when the secular ruling elite of the science establishment can’t make a convincing case on the merits they try to get their conclusions mandated by judicial fiat.

US Supreme Court appears divided over global warming

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

14 Responses to More Science by Judicial Fiat

  1. When the poor scientists disagree, lawyers continue to get richer and richer.

  2. Dave, what do you think of this from the closing paragraph from Time Magazine 13th Nov 2006 p 41.

    DAWKINS “a supernatural intelligent designer … seems to me to be a worthy idea … grand and big enough to deserve respect … If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.”

    http://www.time.com/time/magaz.....32,00.html

  3. idnet

    I think Dawkins is being disingenuous talking about a God he denies with every fiber of his being. What a creep.

  4. To #3: I think Dawkins is being disingenuous talking about a God he denies with every fiber of his being.
    —–
    He wrote the book as a self-therapy, to push away and resist temporarily the increasing attraction he must be experiencing, as the inevitable is getting nearer. He will be loudly repudiating his last book and praying for forgivness before he is out of here.

  5. I’m just now reading “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton. He has one of the main characters give statistics that disprove global warming. When it comes to CO2 levels, the “rise” over the last century is from something like 346 ppm to 376 ppm. The character then uses the example of a football field: oxygen takes us to the opponenets 40 yard line; nitrogen to the 15 yard line; and……CO2 represents the last “inch” of the field.

    The best explanation for global warming is that central heating systems are now found everywhere–the “heat island” effect of growing metropolises.

    As to why the hysteria, the best explanation is that it is being used to force world-wide standards upon every country, including the US, thus signaling the “foot in the door” of US sovereignty. Let’s hear it for Big Brother. And we have “science” to thank.

  6. Davescot:

    Once again, when the secular ruling elite of the science establishment can’t make a convincing case on the merits they try to get their conclusions mandated by judicial fiat.

    I’m not quite seeing this; the EPA is refusing to legislate maximum pollution levels for greenhouse gases for political/commercial reasons, notwithstanding the clear scientific consensus. Where’s the attempt to mandate their conclusions by judicial fiat?

    PaV:

    Perhaps you should go to someone other than a science fiction writer for science fact. The “heat island” effect has been discounted by eg Parker and Patterson; Crichton also cherrypicks the data to make his point. For example – the total increase in CO2 since industrialisation is from 280ppm to 376ppm – not the 30ppm claimed by Crichton in State of Fear, obtained by picking a different start date.

  7. Robin re heat island

    The heat island is still a live issue depending on who you ask.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

  8. Robin Levett
    “Perhaps you should go to someone other than a science fiction writer for science fact. ”

    Have you read “State of Fear”? Tell me, when was the last time you read a science fiction book which was footnoted, had a bibliography, and an appendix? So I would suggest you not be so quickly dismissive of what Crichton writes. In one of the two appendices, he tells us that he has been reading environmental studies for three years. The articles he cites in his footnotes, and the bibliography make clear that he is highly versant in the area of the environment. Would you have said of the young boy who pointed out that the “Emporer had no clothes” that he was no more than a boy and so should not be listened to?

    As to his “cherrypicking” data on CO2, you still seem to miss the point: even if there has been a change of nearly a hundred ppm, that still represents a change in the atmosphere of one-hundredth of one-percent!! I suggest you read Lomborg’s “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. He has what you would term “real science”; and that real science is not friendly to environmentalists. Crichton, in the appendix, suggests that there is an eerie similarity between “global warming” and the ‘eugenics movement’ and ‘Lysenkoism’. He mentions that Lysenko was extremely derisive of his opponents. Humph! What about that!

  9. DaveScot:

    The heat island is still a live issue depending on who you ask.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

    Have you read the Parker or Peterson papers referenced in the article? It seems pretty clear that the heat island effect is insignificant if present at all. (I did try to post in reply on Friday, but my post didn’t appear).

  10. PaV:-

    Have you read “State of Fear”?

    No; but I have read generally around the topic and have read a number of papers in, for example, Nature.

    Tell me, when was the last time you read a science fiction book which was footnoted, had a bibliography, and an appendix?

    When I was a teenager I was an avid reader of Erich von Daniken, if that’s any help… I also read Berlitz.

    Try the comments of some real climaotologists on Crichton:-

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

    Let’s take the issue of carbon dioxide, for example. You say:-

    As to his “cherrypicking” data on CO2, you still seem to miss the point: even if there has been a change of nearly a hundred ppm, that still represents a change in the atmosphere of one-hundredth of one-percent!!

    to which the answer is – so what?

    The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are all miniscule – and there is more CO2 than all the others (save water vapour) put together:-

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

    The relative contributions of the greenhouse gases to the effect are known. So what is your argument? That carbon dioxide isn’t a greenhouse gas?

    As for Lomborg, he is a political scientist, not a climate scientist, who wrote a book that was comprehensively trashed by real climatologists for cherrypicking data, reliance upon secondary sources, and unsound statistics – and still didn’t manage to eliminate climate change as a likelihood. I’ll take my climatology from the climatologists.

  11. Robin

    Some non-science works that color my thinking about global warming are Chicken Little and The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

    Remember the coming ice age looming in the 1970s?

  12. tribune7:

    From your link:-

    “Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin’s Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

    Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service’s long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth’s climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).”

    So, while there was concern, it was agreed that further evidence was needed; and even then the cooling – which was a real trend, and not one that is now discounted – was suspected as being at least partly anthropogenic via particulate pollution.

    Particulate pollution reduced somewhat, but greenhouse gas concentrations increased, and the evidence is now in; while there remains some uncertainty, there is now enough evidence to predict warming.

    You may have forgotten the moral of “The boy who cried wolf”; because nobody took any notice of him, his flock (or he himself) got eaten.

  13. Robin

    You may have forgotten the moral of “The boy who cried wolf”; because nobody took any notice of him, his flock (or he himself) got eaten.

    This is wrong. The moral of the story, and it can be easily checked anywhere, is

    “Even when liars tell the truth, they are never believed.”

    Three strikes and you’re out, Robin. I’ve had quite enough of correcting your shabby comments.

  14. Dave, it boggles the mind to realize the problem we face when those we debate can’t even get it right when it is spelled out, slowly, for them.

Leave a Reply