What will the U.S. Supreme Court do? Looking to the merits of the case about global warming and the case against EPA, from a legal perspective we must consider the poor dumb schlub factor that mercifully has been incorporated into modern rules evidence (i.e., the Daubert standard), as follows:
The Rules–especially Rule 702–place appropriate limits on the admissibility of purportedly scientific evidence by assigning to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand. The reliability standard is established by Rule 702’s requirement that an expert’s testimony pertain to “scientific . . . knowledge,” since the adjective “scientific” implies a grounding in science’s methods and procedures, while the word “knowledge” connotes a body of known facts or of ideas inferred from such facts or accepted as true on good grounds. The Rule’s requirement that the testimony “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue” goes primarily to relevance by demanding a valid scientific connection to the pertinent inquiry as a precondition to admissibility. (See, Daubert v Merrel Dow Pharmaceutical)
Establishing under Daubert the relevance and weight to be given to an expert’s opinion concerning a scientific theory requires a reliability analysis. We need good answers to these questions:
• Has the scientific theory been empirically tested? (“The criterion on the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, refutability, and testability” ~K. Popper, The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, 1989)
• Has the scientific theory been subjected to peer review and publication?
• What is the Type I and Type II error rate of the scientific idea to determine the validity and reliability the theory?
• What is the expert’s qualifications and stature in the scientific community and can the expert’s results be replicated by other experts elsewhere?
• Can the expert’s explanation of test results be clearly explained and understood by all of us poor dumb schlubs?
When it comes to cutting through the mysticism of global warming alarmism, we are just beginning to catch up with Japan. Understanding global warming there is simple: nominally, it’s the rising sun, Aho.
Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis [IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2] has been substituted for truth… The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken.
We also know what the UN is all about. The UN has zero respect for individual liberty and the members by and large hate America. The UN is the sort of place where someone like Al Gore would be appointed to rebuild the public’s trust in government climatology-based policies. The problem, of course, of appointing Nobel-winner Al Gore to determine what scientific advice to follow would be like asking Swedish chemist and engineer Alfred Nobel about how best to develop a more humane cannonball. A UN that elected Libya to its Council on Human Rights cannot be taken seriously–e.g.,
“It’s time for the UN to formally apologize for having legitimized Gaddafi’s regime by electing Libya to its Human Rights Council last year, to the Security Council in 2008-2009, and as General Assembly president in 2009,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based watchdog organization.
Do you remember this?
“The UN should also apologize for choosing Gaddafi’s regime to head the planning of its 2009 world conference on racism, and for designating Col. Gaddafi’s daughter Ayesha a UN Goodwill Ambassador.”
And, it’s time to begin the downsizing of the federal government and right-sizing the EPA out of existence. “That fact is demonstrable from the very data on which EPA relied, and it is confirmed by data and other input EPA refused to consider in what was an arbitrary and capricious process. The scientific evidence shows EPA’s conclusion that human-caused CO2 emissions are warming the globe is invalid.” (See–e.g., Brief of Amici Curiae Scientists)
A hypothesis that cannot be falsified by empirical observations is not science. The current hypothesis on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), presented by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is no exception to this principle. Indeed, it is the job of scientists to expose the weaknesses of this hypothesis. (William DiPuccio)
When talking to the government school teachers of global warming it is merely an act of good faith on our part that we assume they believe in the scientific method. We feel comfortable interacting with them based on that assumption. There is however honor in candor when dealing with charlatans. Our lack of candor in dealing with academia is costing us dearly.
Science now has the same credibility problem as the government because scientists who should have known better did not stand up and confront the pseudo-science of the AGW True Believers and government science authoritarians and so much of our hard-earned dollars have been wasted chasing rabbits.
What is really alarming about global warming is the unprecedented academic dishonesty of the ‘official’ inquiries to that look into academic dishonesty. The whitewash only serves to demonstrate a complete lack of institutional honor. Anyone who may have thought a generation ago that the US and the UK and all of Western civilization in general for that matter was invulnerable to an academic integrity crisis such as the one that has struck the secular, socialist Education Industrial Complex must surely awaken from their slumber.
[A]t the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise. ~Judith Curry
Do EPA government science authoritarians control average global temperatures (or, is it the sun, stupid)? The EPA is serving the interests of a government grown too big to fail and in the process they are taking the people to the cleaners. EPA is demonstrating the problem of substituting a consensus of opinion for fact. The problem with groupthink is what the group thinks.
And, that is why the world had a problem with Nazis. JFK’s diaries show he was taken in by the Nazis. The problem was not with what the Nazis thought and but how they acted based on what they thought. We cannot afford to be as uncritical and shortsighted as JFK. And, that is why humanity has a problem with the government science authoritarians and the liberal fascists of Leftist global warming alarmism: the problem is with what they think and what they have done and have shown they are willing to do based on what they think, if they achieve the power over others that they seek.
The scientists also urged EPA to use the Scientific Advisory Board process, permitting an on-the-record hearing, in which it could draw on analysis from qualified scientists in different fields of knowledge… But EPA ignored these comments, glossed over these fundamental scientific questions, and relied on adjusted, unreliable data. (See–e.g., Brief of Amici Curiae Scientists)
The time has come for the Supreme Court to put an end to climate of liberal fascism that has given rise to Climate Apocalypse Now.
Western societies have had some kind of millennial or apocalyptic movement at work through most of human history, said Lorne Dawson, the chair of department of sociology and legal studies at the University of Waterloo, who has been studying apocalyptic movements for the past decade. There are also more secular apocalyptic movements today, he said. ~Sarah Boesveld
EPA sees in science a tool that can be used to subvert individual freedom. Instead of being hidden from the public it should have been discussed in classrooms across America; but, academia failed us. What the EPA has done amounts to a class action lawsuit by the Left against the productive and the accused is guilty until proven innocent. Kafkaesque! Now it is up to the Supreme Court to restore a climate of reason.
It`s about us and about our hypochondria about the world. If you actually have clean water, you have modern energy, you will cope with change whatever it is, hot, wet, cold or dry. I’m a left wing critic of global warming because the agenda is fundamentally wrong and dangerous. And believe you me, neither Republican nor Democrat will do anything about it, because our second crisis is a crisis of hypocrisy… I come from Europe which has been lecturing the world on this subject. Let me tell you, the hypocrisy in Europe is absolutely mind blowing, I am embarrassed. (Philip Stott)