Appeals Court Rules EPA Shall Regulate Harmful Emissions
Two noteworthy things about last week's ruling:
And:A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia declared that the agency was “unambiguously correct” that the Clean Air Act requires the federal government to impose limits once it has determined that emissions are causing harm.The judges unanimously dismissed arguments from industry that the science of global warming was not well supported and that the agency had based its judgment on unreliable studies. “This is how science works,” they wrote. “The E.P.A. is not required to reprove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.”
The panel’s opinion was unsigned. The chief judge, David B. Sentelle, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan; he was joined by two Clinton appointees, David S. Tatel and Judith W. Rogers.
4 comments:
The science of global warming does not have to be scientifically verified to be credible in order to be used as a valid argument for the EPA to regulate human CO2 emissions . Judges do not settle science, they settle disputes between parties in a way which benefits the greatest good of society. The judges correctly ruled that it is better for society if CO2 is considered a valid threat to our well being and that our safety is potentially protected by having the EPA regulate these emissions.
It is actually irrelevant if the claims of catastrophic warming due to CO2 are “scientifically” credible or not. The stability of society demands that we provide explanations for those changes we see in our environment and that we are able to feel that we have the ability to control those changes by our actions in order to produce positive results. The human psyche needs to have a feeling of relevance, and society as we know it would collapse if we felt that we could not control nature to our advantage. The science of global warming must be ruled to be true, as it is advantageous to society that it is true.
Discrediting those who wish destabilize our society by denying the science of global warming is an important part of keeping us safe and contented.
The mistake that the deniers make is that they base their skepticism on traditional science; which does not accept a theory until it has been tested by experimentation designed to predict and measure results which are repeatable and where all other competing theories have failed similar testing.
Post normal science is now a well accepted process which has been formed to avoid the inadequacies of the traditional scientific method when "facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent". In short, the possible catastrophic results of climate change are great enough and urgent enough that the uncertainty of the science is vastly outweighed by the potential benefits of immediate action and it must be recognized that even a less than complete consensus must be considered as adequate to avoid catastrophe. Combined with the precautionary principle, we are more than justified in claiming that climate change theory is, for all practical purposes, correct.
The accumulating evidence supports the climate change theory to the point that it can be confidently stated that the science is settled. To delay immediate action is suicidal to the human race and the planet. Those who demand absolute proof are keeping our legislators from making the difficult decisions which must be made if we are to survive. Deniers must be exposed at every opportunity and ridiculed and alienated from main stream society. They must be identified as being outside of accepted science, and therefore opposed to science. They need to be referred to as “science deniers” often, and repeatedly in order to make them irrelevant in the political decision making process.
climate change is real: You make an excellent point. However, I must disagree with your statement, "Those who demand absolute proof are keeping our legislators from making the difficult decisions which must be made if we are to survive." The deniers merely give cover to legislators who have vested financial interests in doing nothing, or continuing to support the Oil Regime. Big Oil = Big Money and that is the crux of the problem. The Tea Partiers, Climate Change Deniers and Science Deniers are strategic distractions and tools of the big players.
Post a Comment