The Coffeespy

I call dibs.

Note: Apologies for the short posts.  Through a combination being short on time and not finding anything worth writing longer on, I haven’t been all that diligent.  But don’t worry, tomorrow is new comics day…

From Real Clear Politics:

In a puckish footnote in his dissent, Justice Scalia replies: “It follows that everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an ‘air pollutant.’ This reading of the statute defies common sense.”

…for being right.

In my “Supreme Court” post I gave undue weight to Justice Stevens assertion that the EPA can decline to regulate “if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change.”  This is where my negative proof angle came in.

Skalduggery read the entire opinion and it’s much more watered down than the Houston Chronicle article would lead one to believe.  Skalduggery makes the very reasonable point:

At its most basic, the majority opinion simply said, “If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, EPA must say so” (see Majority Decision).

I’m still not happy with it and believe it doesn’t make sense in an enforcement arena.  I applied to law enforcement, it would require the FBI to explain why they don’t prosecute suspects they haven’t met the burden of proof on.

Did I get that one right, Skald?

Can’t get legislation passed on an issue?  Send it to the judges for final disposition!  In a Roe v. Wade-esque move, the Supreme Court has decided how the EPA is supposed to do their jobs.  1973 - The Supreme Court tells Congress how to legislate.  2007 - The Supreme Court tells the executive how to enforce.  The kicker?  Well, you can read it.  From the Houston Chronicle:

In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions.

The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it can provide a scientific basis for its refusal.

Ah yes.  This is really what the whole thing boils down to, isn’t it?  You will believe in global warming unless you can prove scientifically it doesn’t exist.  Let’s see what fun we can have with this formulaic reasoning:

• You will believe in life on Jupiter unless you can prove scientifically it doesn’t exist.
• You will believe in the Yeti unless you can prove scientifically it doesn’t exist.
• You will believe in a flat Earth unless you can prove scientifically it doesn’t exist… well, at least we’ve made it past that one.

But the best one, in my opinion:

• You will believe in the One True God unless you can prove scientifically it doesn’t exist.

Back to the Chronicle:

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the only way the agency could “avoid taking further action” now is “if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change” or provides a good explanation why it cannot or will not find out whether they do. 

The Supreme Court, the finest judicial minds in the nation, supposedly, have demanded the EPA supply them with a negative proof.  Negative proof, of course, is a logical fallacy.  In this case, the EPA is being asked to prove that it is impossible that ’greenhouse gasses’ contribute to climate change.  Since proving something is impossible is, well, impossible, that makes it fairly difficult.  Have environmental groups proven the impossibility that something beside ‘greenhouse gasses’ are at fault?  Of course not!  But the EPA has a different burden of proof to meet - an impossible one.

Oh, and no story would be complete without:

The 5-4 decision was a strong rebuke to the Bush administration, which has maintained that it does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it would not use the authority. The ruling does not force the EPA to regulate auto emissions, but it would almost certainly face further legal action if it fails to do so.

The Clean Air Act has been around since 1963.  There have been numerous amendments and finally enforcement articles added in 2005.  Yet this is a strong rebuke to the Bush administration… because only the Bush administration has failed to make the EPA regulate since 1963.  Gotta love spin.

I’m not sure what a “foofaraw” is, but it doesn’t sound like something I want in my pocket:

In a formal invitation sent to former Vice-President Al Gore’s Tennessee address and released to the public, Lord Monckton has thrown down the gauntlet to challenge Gore to what he terms “the Second Great Debate,” an internationally televised, head-to-head, nation-unto-nation confrontation on the question, ”That our effect on climate is not dangerous.” 
  
Monckton, a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said, “A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide.”

The above gem can be read in full at Breitbart.com and came to Coffeespy through the Scottish Right.  For those of you lazy clickers, though, you can’t miss the wording of the invitation letter.  Worthy of any WWE promo:

“The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley presents his compliments to Vice-President Albert Gore and by these presents challenges the said former Vice-President to a head-to-head, internationally-televised debate upon the question, ‘That our effect on climate is not dangerous,’ to be held in the Library of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History at a date of the Vice-President’s choosing. 
  
“Forasmuch as it is His Lordship who now flings down the gauntlet to the Vice-President, it shall be the Vice-President’s prerogative and right to choose his weapons by specifying the form of the Great Debate.  May the Truth win!  Magna est veritas, et praevalet. God Bless America! God Save the Queen!”

With all this flingage and foofarawery, I am certain this will end up a pay-per-view event not to be missed… should Algore accept, that is.

I recently learned there is a small loyal following in Oregon for the Coffeespy… well, this one’s for you.  From Northwest NewsChannel 8:

In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.

Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist.

…

Taylor has held the title of “state climatologist” since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state.

His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon’s policies.

So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.

Take away his title because no one should have a dissenting opinion?  I don’t know what causes global warming.  It could be people, it could be natural variations, it could be all the damn cows.  But I do know what causes group-think: getting rid of all dissenters in your administration.