There ought to be a special court for handling cases like this, the schizophrenic street people with CIA-implanted brain chips, etc. The judge could wear a Gilbert-and-Sullivan outfit and spout Marxist (as in Groucho) rhetoric. Just to troll some of the litigants, in the corner would stand a US flag postage stamp in the middle of several square yards of gold fringe.
Put it on pay-per-view and it could do pretty well.
That appears to be the situation. Murray is publicly spouting the sort of garbage that he wishes the lawsuit was about – that the climate science the EPA is relying on is “incorrect”, and that complying with the regulations would cost his industry and the power industry too much money.
In reality the case seems to hinge on this kind of technicality:
The case is supposed to be Murray Energy Corp. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency et al., case number 14-1112, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but all I could find under that designation is the amicus brief from the nine states supporting Murray, but that brief does contain a good deal of detailed information.
Yep. Just like the denialist wackosphere so consistently misrepresents the conclusions of scientific papers that it’s pretty much predictable that whenever they cite an actual legitimate paper their claims bear little or no relationship to what the paper was actually saying. This is undoubtedly why Murray is bloviating about things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the substance of the lawsuit, like the awesome “cooling” we’ve allegedly experienced in the past 17 years!
I don’t think he’s trying to show that global warming isn’t real. It is. It is controlled by the sun and it has been happening since the Earth formed.
I imagine he’s going to provide proof that the claims that global warming is caused by humans are bullshit, in which case, he’s gonna win. And good for him for having the balls to stand up to the EPA, which needs to be abolished yesterday, if not earlier.
This thread shows some pretty prominent oil companies have publicly stated that AGW is caused at least in part, if not largely, by human activity. If it’s BS like you said then why are they are board?
What a charming and highly scientific viewpoint! Any thoughts at all down there in Houston, TX, on the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere? Of it having suddenly spiked from the stable interglacial level of 285 ppm before the industrial revolution to 400 ppm today?
So, it is not over yet, but really? They still think that it was a good idea to challenge a rule that was not made yet? And why is it that the money wasted in that dumb effort is not a problem for the state governors that supported this lawsuit?
Shouldn’t competent lawyers know that you can’t challenge a rule that’s still just a proposal?
Was this some sort of dumb publicity ploy or did they believe that they could set a precedent of stopping rules in the proposal stage?
Could they have been hoping to get a friendly judge? I don’t know enough to know if there’s any randomness in which judges hear these types of cases or if it’s predictable.
Seems quite a few folks on this thread are yet to fully appreciate the wide ranging effects of and damage to real science done by the CAGW scammers. The climate" industry" now depends on misdirection, misinformation and hiding from the facts to support a global connection to billions of taxpayers dollars.
Clearly it is not in the industry’s interests to stop calling sceptics and noteworthy scientists “deniers” any more than it is in their interest to acknowledge that there has been no global warming now for nearly two decades.
It’s time to allow this inflated ball of hot lies to quietly cool while letting the earth go about the business as usual stuff of refusing to warm, even while co2( the alleged but unproven cause of historic warming) goes on increasing crop yields and greening the planet.
Cheer up, save face, find a new hobby.
Actually XT, there has not been any convincing evidence that increased co2 has been the cause of step increases in global temp ( the last one ceased in the late 90s), rather, plenty of strong reasons to doubt this. If you have an interest in the science , there are good sites with credible and very thorough considerations of the history and details of this fascinating subject. Anthony Watts is just one of many.
Science is not done by vote, or consensus, neither is the relentless pursuit of facts in any way improved by belief one way or another. I maintain that anyone who argues that the climate science cagw story is in any way “settled” just doesn’t understand science.
Cheers
And it got worse as new study found that there was no “pause” in the warming.
It is clear what is going on, it is politics the reason for the denial, and this is demonstrated when scientists that are Republicans end up agreeing with the consensus when they check the evidence.
(Dr. Barry Bickmore - How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change. Bickmore is a conservative Republican scientist from BYU and even a Mormon)
Actually, barfridge, we’ve debated this subject on this board a metric boatload of times and I encourage YOU to do some searching to see the various permutations. THIS (semi-zombie) thread isn’t really the place to debate this subject or beat this dead horse again, however. If you feel you have any new or interesting science based information about global climate change feel free to start a new thread on it. I warn you, however, there are some very knowledgeable 'dopers (who aren’t me) on this board and it has not gone well for previous posters on the theme you touched on. However, if you feel you have right on your side then go for it.
Ever since he refused to acknowledge how wrong he is (and he is lately godwinizing the discussion by not removing articles that accuse the scientists of being Nazis.) that one should not even give him the time of day.
As a newbie to this board I am impressed that I can get such quick responses. thanks for including me.
Having been a member of various other science related blogs and forums for many years , I appreciate that people will have their opinions, we all have bias and occasionaly a breakthrough moment may occur, though generally posters with strong opinions are welded to them.
As a scientist ( not in the climate field ), I enjoy taking whatever advantage I can from the data now freely available on the web. Care of course must be taken when accepting or rejecting ideas and or data. Some sites are clearly better than others.
I have found that the Watts site steers mostly clear of shallow opinionated material in favour of well documented studies, with digressions and opinion seeded where useful. The Nova site is very good, lots of links, plenty of data, a broad spread of up to date science and a willingness to go to the nub.
I still find it odd that well intentioned people still find the use of the term “denier” of value. It is meaningless really. Sceptics of the CAGW theory don’t deny there is climate change at all. Nor do they deny that co2 is a greenhouse gas. The name calling stuff is unhelpful at best.
Previous experience has told me that science is jettisoned when many climate deniers in your group are in the danger to hear the facts. I have seen it many times before and accepting science does not mean much when one is defending and ignoring what trash pushers like Anthony Watts are doing.
In any case this issue is not based on just opinions anyhow. Arctic amplification, for example, (The increased warming in the polar regions) was predicted a long time ago and the melting of cap ice is accelerating, there is no opinion there, that is a fact.
How’s that law suit going?