Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Nine “Climatologist” Supreme Court Justices Rule on Science

arroba Email

Government must deal with greenhouse gases: US Supreme Court

When the science isn’t convincing then have it declared true by judical fiat. This is the new modus operandi for the science establishment. First Dover and Intelligent Design now the nation and Global Warming. The judiciary is out of control and the science establishment is now a Political Action Committee that relies on government to enforce its findings when the facts won’t support their case. What a fine mess.

A few things of note: First: What WAS the basis of these robed lawyers making decisions on this in the first place, and how did they come to this and WHAT information did they use for this sage ruling? Secondly, it would be interesting to scan the net for critics of "greenhouse deniers" who've written on the problems with the anthropic Co2 contribution to global warming as being merely "paid shills for industry" or "mere lawyers", as with science writer Michael Fumento. Then compare this ill will against "mere lawyers" making commentary on "things outside the purview of the law" with the utter joy in the radical environmentalist community that 5 SUPER lawyers have done much of the "Greens"' bidding in one fell swoop. Third, water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. However, what I don't know and what someone here might, is whether or not the production and use of hydrogen fuel cells and such gets its hydrogen from fossil fuel sources or is this largely synthesized some other way (as in electrolysis). The difference is that if extracted from FF then you might have a situation where you are not merely recyling H20 in the current water cycle but adding a net INCREASE in wator vapor to the atmosphere (thus increasing the greenhouse effect) with this...."green" technology. Wakefield Tolbert
Dave, do you have a link handy to a paper that discusses soot deposition on snow fields and what effect the altered albedo has had? Many thanks! apollo230
Do hydrogen cars output water and water vapor? hydrogen vehicle:
A primary benefit of using pure hydrogen as a power source would be that it uses oxygen from the air to produce water vapor as exhaust.
OK thanks. Is water vapoor a "greenhouse" gas? greenhouse gas
Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.
Wow. I couldn't help but notice water vapor is the first one listed even though it is last alphabetically. Is that just a coincidence?
Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect.
Thank you.
Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at very local scales.
That was until we started using hydrogen as a fuel source... Now that the SC has set the precedent- ALL greenhouse gases are pollutants and must be regulated. DaveScot- "An Inconvenient Truth" will be presented at a local library. An Al Gore representative will be on hand. I plan on attending. Joseph
When we breath do we not exhale CO2? Is CO2 a "greenhouse gas"? Yes. Does this mean the SC is going to want to regulate our breathing? And what to do with all the pig farms and their methane? Oops I agree we should get rid of them regardless of any "greenhouse gas". Joseph
apollo C02 increases crop yields. The benefit from the increase in this century is estimated up to 15%. Furthermore, attempts to decrease human output of CO2 will slow the global economy by increasing the cost of everything that has any energy input from burning fossil fuels. That includes a lot of agriculture related things from making fertilizers to harvesting and transporting crops. Moreover, the small amount of warming so far has increased the growing season in the northerly latitudes fueling even greater crop production. Reverse these things and the starvation that's already plaguing the world is likely to increase manyfold. The only good thing about this boneheaded political power-grab is that global warming won't be significantly effected because increased CO2 is a byproduct of warming not a cause of it. If you want to really do something to slow global warming get the countries like those in Europe who have relaxed standards on black carbon (soot) emissions and poor countries who burn wood and coal and don't filter the soot out of their smokestacks and chimneys and vehicle exhausts to stop spewing all that black crap into the air. It travels thousands of kilometers and accumulates on light colored surfaces turning them darker. I suppose you know that dark surfaces absorb more light and make it hotter. This is especially egregious on permanent snow/ice fields because each melt just concentrates more of it on the surface. The darker snow absorbs more light and melts faster. That's why all the really alarming warming is occuring in the high northern latitudes melting glaciers and bringing an earlier spring. It's also why the surface temp readings are higher than troposphere readings when all the CO2 models say the troposphere should be warmer. That's because the soot is concentrated on the surface not in the troposphere. CO2, being a gas, is in the troposphere and that's where it should be causing more heating. CO2 also disperses evenly across the globe so we should see the same warming in the northern and southern hemispheres when in fact it's all in the north. That's because soot travels a few thousand kilometers at most from the source and the vast majority of the sources are in the northern hemisphere, especially in the higher northern latitudes where they burn more soot producing stuff to keep warm in the winter. So the arctic is melting and the antarctic is getting colder. What's wrong with that picture? DaveScot
Anybody looking for Bilbo's comments... if he hadn't been such an ass they would have stayed up. As a general rule any comment that starts out with the theme "I don't expect this to get posted because disagreement isn't tolerated" I consider to be a death wish and I grant the wish. So don't do it. DaveScot
Do any of you see civil war eventually coming out of this anserine thinking? I don't think this one will do (God forbid) but it was the "wisdom" of our court that started the last one. tribune7
Man I pity you Americans. What a bloody mess when scientists resort to the courts to decide what theories are true!! Unbelievable. Insane. Time for another new revolution. Do any of you see civil war eventually coming out of this anserine thinking? Lord knows the suggestions and threats of violence abound. There's no way this kind of stupidity can continue without consequences. Somebody has to stop this folly. I can easily envision the US as a divided nation once again ending up at war within itself over issues like this. From an non American stance, I can see the divisions growing wider and the sides taking clearer shape with each passing year. Not a harbinger of peace. Borne
My attitude is, that it's better to be safe than sorry. I suspect that society will gain much from treating global warming seriously even if it is a myth. What could be so wrong in conserving our fossil fuel resources? More for the kids (and better air quality too). As a father, Dave, I am sure that you want what is good for the next generation. Best regards, apollo230 apollo230
Oh yeah, that's right. Silly me. Just like scientists making scientific findings the court polls its members and the majority makes the legal finding. DaveScot
No only 5 did. The 4 conservatives dissented and for good reason. They said the courts have no business in making these decisions. jerry
maybe i'm totally mistaken, but I think they just ruled that Co2 can be seen as a pollutant and should be regulated as all pollutants are. Fross

Leave a Reply