Supreme Court backs off alarmist climate science

The Supreme Court stepped back from alarmist climate science in today’s decision in AEP v. Connecticut.

In the Court’s 2007 Justice Stevens-authored decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, a majority of the Court was fully in the alarmist camp. As an example, the Court held:

The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. The Government’s own objective assessment of the relevant science and a strong consensus among qualified experts indicate that global warming threatens, inter alia, a precipitate rise in sea levels, severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems, a significant reduction in winter snowpack with direct and important economic consequences, and increases in the spread of disease and the ferocity of weather events.

Now contrast that position with the one stated in footnote 2 of today’s essentially unanimous opinion delivered by the liberal Justice Ginsburg:

The Court, we caution, endorses no particular view of the complicated issues related to carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.

Supreme panic has been replaced supreme neutrality.

We trace this change to Climategate and its progeny… the scandals that saved Western society.

9 thoughts on “Supreme Court backs off alarmist climate science”

  1. Keep an eye on Labrador, Canada. That was where the last Laurentian ice sheet started. Any sign of low level permanent snow cover anywhere in Canada will be a very bad sign.

  2. The problem is in Australia is that the ABC news network is equivilant to the ALP mouthpiece. It is so blatently bias it’s shameful.
    There are few people that go out of their way to educate themselves via the internet, which is the ONLY WAY to educate yourself. I try to keep my sanity by thinking ot all the misnomers in society.
    The Federal Reserve is nothing to do with the Federal Government, and has no reserves.
    The United nations are not united.
    Newspapers don’t contain any news.
    Investigative jounalists don’t investigate.
    Come on guys it’s fun, throw a few in.

  3. But the glaciers DO creep down. There are many glacial valleys that were sculpted by moving glaciers. They have a distinctive cross-section that’s easy to recognize once you know what to look for.

  4. Another ice age is overdue, as the current interglacial is already several thousand years longer than the recent average. I used to wonder how long it took for glaciers to creep down from the Arctic to Ohio, until it was explained to me that they don’t creep, they form in place. One year the snow never melts and the next winter it just piles higher, and so on.

  5. The solar wobble theory is also known as SIM (solar inertial movement) and as solar angular movement (or momentum). SIM has benefited greatly from work by the genius “Ivanka Charvátová” (the only one in the world to accurately predict behavior of solar cycle #23, our last cycle, this is now #24), the late Carl Smith produced a graph, keyed off one particular point in the changes in solar angular momentum, that has been referred to as the “Rosetta Stone” of solar cycle and Earth climate synchronization. The changing orbital dance of large planets and corresponding movements of the sun around our solar system “barycenter” induces predictable cycles in solar output and responses in our Earth climate. The visible radiation isn’t even the most important part of it when it comes to our climate and oddly we see responses that indicate vulcanism changes and quake triggering tied in. Short term, more and more of the scientists who have kept their objectivity and ethics intact are seeing a return to climate like the 70’s. It was cool enough so some are referring to it as a “mini” ice age. Even one global warming committed IPCC scientist said he thought it may have started already, (Mojib Latif). In keeping with the political necessities he likely has, to keep his job, he says man made warming will come back after the mini ice age. LOL! The problem that launched a hoax was when Man made, CO2 based global warming believers saw CO2 rising and no warming. The research money involved is huge, and being a team player in the game (warming exploitation) with politicians who could influence the grant availability had advantages. The lies and fudging of data and making “inconvenient truth” like Medieval warming (warmer than our current times) go away in their graphs started, and then God help us it started getting cooler even as CO2 continued to rise. The geniuses in solar physics have started warning that it may be more of a “Little Ice Age” climate we see coming. No one knows the detailed mechanics of slipping into a glaciation cycle of some 70,000 years (it is over due). Professor Vladimir Paar has warned us, about a year ago, that it could start within 5 years. You can see that it is possible, slipping from era to era and event to event, each meaning more cold, more precipitation, increasing solar reflectivity coming from more snow and ice and low level clouds and volcanic ash, we cannot be sure we will see a return to the warmth we enjoyed in our own time. The remainder of our lives may be spent seeing agricultural disasters and more flooding and an acceleration of the breaking of cold and storm related records. Cold climates make for more storms of more power. We may see winters starting earlier and ending later, year after year. Then as current generations slip away and new generations come, they will see the glacier growth, especially encroaching up north, and they will wonder how it was that we were so obtuse.

  6. An indicator of the future of a carbon tax is that the government refuses to run a plebiscite. If they were so convinced it was right, they would seize the chance to recover their position after lying about bringing in a carbon tax 12 months ago during the election.
    The whole CO2 scam is only a smokescreen so Greenpeace and or its subsidiaries – if that is what charities etc are – can sell renewable energy generators. That is because raising $250million a year in donations is not easy. The market for renewables at 20% level is in the trillion dollar category.

  7. Australia is approaching the crunch point in it’s ‘carbon’ debate – present prognosis is that any attempt to introduce a carbon (C02) tax will fail miserably and also see a change of Government – this could be the test case for the Western world – we watch in anticipation of the return to sanity!

  8. I’m with James Barker – let’s wait and see. The SC did nothing to rein in the EPA and Obama’s attempt to use regulatory powers to get around the fact that he was unable to get environmental policies passed through Congress.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.