Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Running with Rabett

Eli is pleased to announce that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal District, agrees with the Bunny that the EPA has it nailed.  As those of you with only mild cases of Alzheimers (not Eli) may remember, this blog featured a number of rather trenchant comments from the EPA's endangerment finding about excess atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Today, a panel made, bunnies would think, in denialist heaven, gave them the heave ho.  Judges Sentelle, Rogers and Tatel told Ken Cuccinelli and Co. where to insert their pleadings.

we conclude: 1) the Endangerment Finding and Tailpipe Rule are neither arbitrary nor capricious; 2) EPA’s interpretation of the governing CAA provisions is unambiguously correct; and 3) no petitioner has standing to challenge the Timing and Tailoring Rules. We thus dismiss for lack of jurisdiction all petitions for review of the Timing and Tailoring Rules, and deny the remainder of the petitions.
A great deal of the attack on the endangerment finding relied on accusing the EPA of outsourcing to the IPCC and the NRC and various other assessments.  The court had a Rabett Run class answer for that
State and Industry Petitioners assert that EPA improperly “delegated” its judgment to the IPCC, USGCRP, and NRC by relying on these assessments of climate-change science. See U.S. Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554, 566 (D.C. Cir. 2004). This argument is little more than a semantic trick. EPA did not delegate, explicitly or otherwise, any decision-making to any of those entities. EPA simply did here what it and other decisionmakers often must do to make a science-based judgment: it sought out and reviewed existing scientific evidence to determine whether a particular finding was warranted. It makes no difference that much of the scientific evidence in large part consisted of “syntheses” of individual studies and research.  Even individual studies and research papers often synthesize past work in an area and then build upon it. This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.
Something we should quote in the future.  And here is one that Nigel Persaud will just love
EPA further relied upon evidence of historical estimates of past climate change, supporting EPA’s conclusion that global temperatures over the last half-century are unusual. Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. at 66,518. Scientific studies upon which EPA relied place high confidence in the assertion that global mean surface temperatures over the last few decades are higher than at any time in the last four centuries.  Technical Support Document for the Endangerment Finding (TSD), at 31. These studies also show, albeit with significant uncertainty, that temperatures at many individual locations were higher over the last twenty-five years than during any period of comparable length since 900 A.D. Id.
And right below that one in the kisser for the Post Normal Science crowd
they contend that the record evidences too much uncertainty to support that judgment. But the existence of some uncertainty does not, without more, warrant invalidation of an endangerment finding. If a statute is “precautionary in nature” and “designed to protect the public health,” and the relevant evidence is “difficult to come by, uncertain, or conflicting because it is on the frontiers of scientific knowledge,”
 More to follow


jyyh said...

This bunny was already visualizing a court hall that would have a splendid scientific equipment that would be able to show the hydrogen and helium absorption and the related emission lines and a particle accelerator to show the existence and properties of hydrogen-2 components and its fusion properties if the court was (politely) asked about the correctness of the use of the word 'atom'. Would doubting the existence of electricity and alternating current be considered as slandering the court (for the equipment would likely be powered with this), I don't know.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.

what a shock. A bunch of left wing hacks approved phony global warming.

the EPA may as well be made up of Mann, Trenberth and Schmidt.

"This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question."

what a dumb quotation. Nobody has questioned the existence of an atom of co2. The question has always been, why are below average temperatures being reported as unprecedented highs?

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Uh, Jaybird, CO2 doesn't come in atoms, it comes in molecules, and we really wouldn't want higher temperatures unless we were dinosaurs, would we?

You do know that every degree of warming means GDP grows a % less every year, right?

dbostrom said...

what a shock. A bunch of left wing hacks approved phony global warming.

A "bunch of left wing hacks." Part and parcel w/"C02 atoms." Strutting about and not realizing he's wearing no pants-- too funny.

I'm beginning to wonder if Lumpus is a stalking horse.

badger badger badger said...

Somebody tell Chris Mooney to cool it with the sock puppets.

J Bowers said...

"what a shock. A bunch of left wing hacks approved phony global warming."

Including the one appointed by Reagan? PizzaHomeDelivery guy demonstrates how the modern right is somewhat far detached from its GOP predecessors.

Rattus Norvegicus said...

Jaybird, you are just as wrong about the federal judiciary as you are about everything else. Judge Sentelle is a right wing hack and the DC circuit is one of the most quote conservative unquote courts in the US.

Anonymous said...

"what a dumb quotation. Nobody has questioned the existence of an atom of co2."

Hmmm. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

Or a poster who is so "dumb" himself that anything and everything he says would need to be taken with an ocean-full of salt.

Jay, you've now tainted your lumpy sock with so much Stupid that you'll need to move on to a new one. Not that it'll make any difference - your brand of ignorance is as easy to spot as is Deltoid's KarenMackSunspot's.

Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.

dbostrom said...

Want to see something like a real skeptic?

See Why EPA Regulating Greenhouse Gases Is Absurd…And Why It Doesn’t Matter, John Nielsen-Gammon's latest post on his blog. Be sure to read the comments. Notice how there's a blind spot in Gammon's thinking but he can actually change his mind based it being pointed out.