Judge stipulates what science has failed to prove
The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington ruled June 26 that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was “unambiguously correct” in applying the Clean Air Act to combat carbon dioxide. The court deferred to the scientific judgment of EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson in the agency’s endangerment finding that this gas, which is produced by all humans, becomes harmful to human health when it is a byproduct of man-made technological advances such as automobiles.
The Coalition for Responsible Regulation, composed of industry organizations and several states, sued the EPA, arguing that the agency relied on flimsy science to justify imposing heavy air-quality regulations that damage economic growth. The federal judges reviewing the case didn’t care. “This is how science works,” read the opinion. “EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.” In other words, the court accepted the EPA-approved notion that global warming is “settled science” and any further consideration is unnecessary.
True science is never settled. As a systematic process of inquiry, it relentlessly searches for a better explanation for an observed phenomenon. When new information invalidates a previously held belief, a fresh hypothesis replaces the discredited one.
The global warming theory argues that combustion of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, which traps the sun’s rays in an atmospheric greenhouse effect. Unless we trade in our motorcars for bicycles, they argue, rising temperatures will cripple the planet’s ecosystem. If this frightening tale were true, there would be a clear correlation between increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising temperatures. However, while carbon dioxide levels have increased steadily with the advent of the industrial age, global temperatures haven’t risen in concert. Rather, they have fluctuated, failing to demonstrate a cause-effect relationship. The science is hardly settled.
America used to lead the world in almost all things good – now look what has happened – you spent zillions educating idiots – well thats the way it’s looking from the outside!
And it often seems the worst of them become lawyers, then Judges. U.S. Schools stopped teaching science decades ago, now they teach politics instead – in science class.
The Scopes Trial was in the 1920′s. Has education deteriorated? Maybe, or maybe not; I don’t know.
My own feeling is that few people can do syllogistic reasoning. The jury in the Sandusky case had two professors (one was retired) and a school teacher, and they did not have a clue as to reasonable doubt. It pains me that nobody, including the judge and prosecutors, were aware that repressed memory theory is well known to be junk science. Unreliable recovered memories made up almost all of the case.
I also believe that syllogistic reasoning can not be thought, as one could not teach Ray Charles to pass a drivers test. The man really wanted to drive a car and he did so one time in a very open area.
My theory predicts that education reform will always fail. It looks like people are throwing in the towel on the foolish “no-child-left=behind”. The policy was developed by George W. Bush and Ted Kennedy, two of the dumbest guys in the world!
What George W Bush meant by ” by child left behind” was that every child has the fundamental right to the three Rs: Reading, wRiting and arRimetic.
If the left-wing agitators, eh sorry, educators translate this to mean teach stupid UN and IPCC global warming nonsense, then all is lost.
Critical thinking is no longer taught; it has been thrown out with the bath water….and this is what we get in return.
George W. Bush was not an educator. He didn’t know about the Iowa test, a nationally normed objective test that had been used by school administrators for decades to track the performance of their schools.
If the three R’s are a fundamental right, then what about Ray Charles’ right to a drivers license. The right can only be the right to instruction appropriate for the child.
The UN and IPCC pronouncements about climate change should be taught as items along with the debunking of the hockey stick, and the problems with renewable energy. Right now too many people do not understand the thermodynamic cost of Carbon Capture and Sequestration.
My concern is that our people in America have no concept of the atomic theory of electron shells and believe their cell phones can cause cancer. And we constantly face the attacks on the beautiful and correct theory of evolution.