She must be one of them unedumacated redneck tea party types our local Warmists are always raving about:


Ruth Ginsburg:Global Warming Sceptic

As Watts Up With That ? notes, Judge Ginsburg in the (8-0)opinion she wrote in American Electric Power v. Connecticut reveals she is a global warming sceptic :



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. 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.

Freeman, an unabashed skeptic, believes that carbon dioxide, rather than being harmful, is both necessary and desirable, arguing that “increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

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.

Scepticism must be wiped out!!
Get back in line, you rebel!

It's really too bad on many fronts that many of today's populace are either so naive, or so preoccupied, or just simply so needy and greedy, that individual thought is nearly lost and questioning popular trends is beyond their comfort zone.

So, Bellevue Boy....what's that red dot in that sea of blue?

Aren't all judges also experts in global weather and climate sciences like you guys are?

I just read the entire "case"...it's not even a case, it didn't even in the remotest sense say what the author of the quoted article said (whoever he is, and wherever he wrote it...link?)...

That author should never be allowed to report on legal proceedings...ever...and anyone dumb enough to rely on anything he writes about the law should be shot on sight for repeating it to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together.

Fish on...

Todd

I think he meant "septic"...the tank where the author of the article and the OP got this topic.

Fish on...

Todd

Was Justic Ginsburg ever a lawyer?

Oh yeah, she was.

Well now, that explains everything......

The truth is that man - both individualy and as a species - has about the same effect on the earth as an ant or a fly does. Some people just can't accept that.

Sol Duc, you posted (without a link, or saying who the author is) a steaming pile of crap that isn't in any way related to the truth...and when given a chance to at least share where you got that steaming pile of crap, or, perhaps this is very, very unlikely...look up the truth yourself...you instead ate the pile of streaming crap...again.

Fish on...

Todd

Hey Todd...fu.

Solomon's biggest mistake was actually linking to the "case" (it's not, it's a petition for certiorari)...so that anyone could go read just how full of crap he is.

The Court said it is the EPA's job to make regulations that control the emission of CO2, no the Court does not make decisions like that...not because they think there's a controversy about climate change or not, but because it's not their job to make decisions like that, it's their job to review the decisions that others make.

The Court could have just as easily said "We have no position on whether or not the sky is blue", if they were discussing an agency's rule about such a thing...without meaning that they think there's a genuine controversy about the color of the sky.

Fish on...

Todd

#s 12, 28, and 41

"Aren't all judges also experts in global weather and climate sciences like you guys are?"

So last week it was select astronomers and this weeks it's select judges. I bet we can find some palm readers who are weather "experts" too.

Fixed that typo for you.

But here is the big lie... the biggest contributing greenhouse gas to global warming is not CO2. Nope, it's water vapor, by a huge margin. And water vapor level do not rise unless there is already another heat source. Most likely, the earth goes through some kind of heavy solar cycle or volcanic cycle causing the initial warm up causing ocean temperatures to rise. Once that happens, water vapor levels rise and the rest is history.

So?

Were you making a point, or just repeating what Hannity told you over the weekend?

Put more CO2 into the atmosphere (we put 7 billion tons there annually), and you also put more water vapor into the air. The increased CO2 not allowing the sun's heat to radiate away at the rate it should is your "another heat source".

So, were you trying to make the point that humans ARE f'ing up the atmosphere, or were you just waving around that red herring to distract somebody?

time to break out the fake fur coats

http://techland.time.com/2011/06/15/claim-sunspots-to-disappear-global-cooling-may-ensue/

Hey, don't go fkn with MY VERSION of science.

methinks way too much "science" ain't science at all

People form opinions and then go looking for information to support the opinion . Then they surround themselves with people that support the opinion. It is a myth that practitioners of science are more objective than laypersons. Real good book on this topic just came out ,The Believing Brain by Michael Shermer.

Wouldn't all the hard, heat radiating surfaces we humans have been creating (parking lots, roofs, etc etc) add to the heat source? ? ? ? ?

"It is a myth that practitioners of science are more objective than laypersons."

Have you any proof of this, besides your presumably unbiased author's unbiased book?

Sg

You just provided all the proof you need. You formed an opinion and you are now looking for evidence to back it up. You could have read the book and then formed an opinion.

Some are willing to let their opinion change when the evidence is against them.

And some still believe the Earth is flat, and is the center of the universe.

TJ,

I had a pre-existing opinion before I read this thread or your post based on my acquaintance with numerous scientists and non-science types. I've never seen any survey data or information that supports or refutes the statement you wrote and posted. You could have done us a favor and provided some brief indication that the book supports your statement, if that's what you intended. The structure of your post and its description as a "real good book" doesn't draw me toward reading the book.

Sg

Let's answer that with the same question........Do you know of any departments who have presented biased science reports?

Slab,

Depending on the subject material and report, some science reports undergo policy and legal review before being issued. IMO any report that has been edited for policy or legal reasons may no longer be a science report, depending on what was edited and how. That doesn't make the scientist biased or lacking in objectivity. It becomes an agency report with multiple authors, some scientists and some not. If you want the objective report you need to obtain the draft technical report, before the policy and legal wonks review and edit it, if there's reason to doubt. However, for those kinds of issues, the draft is FOIA exempt because it's pre-decisional. However, none of this means the scientist who wrote the draft isn't objective in his/her analysis, although it's always possible. For example, scientists employed by tobacco companies and purveyors of manufactured food products manage to produce conclusions that no one on the payroll agrees with or considers objective. My point is that I had a pre-existing opinion that scientists tend to view almost everything more objectively than non-scientists. While that by no means covers all scientists, it's applicable to the majority of the ones I know best.

Sg

Perfect...here are some actual climate scientists...not lawyers, not lobbyists, and definitely not blowhard right wing nutjobs on a fishing bulletin board...

Not only that...but they're funnier than the non-scientists



Fish on...

Todd

Just keeping with the objective aspect......

Salmo,

Intelligence is usually not a factor in belief with one exception once people commit to a belief the smarter they are the better they are at rationalizing those beliefs. People are people and we all basically function in the same way biologically ,there are evolutionary reasons we form beliefs the way we do. Shermer the author and publisher of the Skeptic here is a brief explanation http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/

TJ,

Good link. Thanks. It's been decades since studying Descartes.

The conclusion "I am therefore I think" is disturbing. What do we call these many, many human-appearing animals who've never formulated a cognitive thought in their life?

Sg

No quibble about rights Aunty, and this isn't about rights. It began with the Justices understanding and interpreting science, to objectivity and who has it, and then to the ability to think. My slightly sarcastic remark is about the many whose thought process appears to be one of connecting the dots randomly rather than systematically.

Sg

An idiot with full Constitutional rights is still an idiot. And the fact that some of them may give their lives to protect my rights doesn't have a f'n thing to do with it.

"many whose thought process appears to be one of connecting the dots randomly rather than systematically."

That’s your opinion and your via observations, relationships etc you select out what you need reinforce your opinion. Truth be told your mechanic connect the dots more systematically re repairing your car than you can and he may even score as low grade moron on an IQ test.

I try to treat everyone decently, including idiots and Republicans...........but I repeat myself.

TJ,

Uhm, yes; everything I write that isn't verified by another might just be my opinion, but that doesn't make it wrong - or right. Speaking of car repair, I just had mine serviced, and the mechanic, who doesn't have a college degree, ain't likely a moron. It seems like this is getting to be some serious thread drift.

Aunty,

I don't recall anyone saying anything about not treating everyone with decency. Again, you're drifting toward a different topic. Should we begin a new thread?

Sg