Supreme Court justices expressed their doubts about the scientific expertise behind global warming during testimony on "a challenge to the Bush administration's refusal to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases in new vehicles," The Washington Post reports.Justice Antonin Scalia, in particular, made his skepticism known as he made several revelatory remarks. "When is the predicted cataclysm?" he asked an attorney representing twelve states who object to the EPA's relaxation of emissions standards for new automobiles.
In another exchange with the attorney, James R. Milkey, Scalia admitted to not understanding Earth's atmospheric divisions:
"Respectfully, Your Honor, it is not the stratosphere. It's the troposphere," Milkey said.
"Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I'm not a scientist," Scalia said to laughter. "That's why I don't want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth."
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Scalia Change
Lawyers like to say that Antonin Scalia, whether you like his ideological bent or not, is a brilliant opinion-writer. He sure looks stupid to me... and harmful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
In Scalia's defense, he's a notorious joker, and his self-deprecating response is far more candid than any of his colleagues'.
We don't have scientists on the Court, which is a pity.
"Stupid" to a degree. But sometimes his opinions just look stupid because we like to imagine a supreme judicial opinion is about honest argument, and Scalia's opinions suck as arguments. But he's a pretty artful salesman and smoke-blower. I'd call him a politician disguised as a judge, except I think the same applies to all judges to a degree, and I have no idea how far out on the bell curve of jurisprudential depravity he lies (pun intended).
In my experience as a lawyer, there's no judge more dangerous than an intellectually gifted judge. And laspses aside, I believe Scalia to be dangerous precisely because of his keen intellect.
A judge who is merely smart can write a cogent opinion, citing precedent in support of his opinion. A judge who is smart and intellectually dishonest will cite those precedents supportive of the outcome he wishes to accomplish, and will ignore, distinguish or otherwise minimize those precedents which are harmful to his objective.
But a judge as gifted as Scalia can turn black into white, day into night; he can pepper your position with punches while never taking a blow. That's the frustrating thing about a really bright judge. Scalia can play "hide the ball" with the false premise on which his decision is based, or make it seem reasonable by applying it to another scenario, and then, having convinced you of its relevance, circle around to apply it in such a way as to make a leaky conclusion appear watertight.
He's an equal-opportunity offender, though. Ask any prosecutor about Scalia's opinion in Crawford v. Washington. You'll get an earful.
Thanks, folks. I hear that about Scalia, Roxtar and MT.
I'd say on balance I'd prefer to have really smart people in the supreme court. If folks can explain the climate situation so that anyone can understand it, then maybe they don't understand climate as well as they think they do. Sounds like the attorneys need to bone up a bit more on this deal.
"If folks can explain the climate situation so that anyone can understand it, then maybe they don't understand climate as well as they think they do."
So what's the point of having teachers and schools....
Well one point to having teachers and schools, would be to train our children first in skepticism and then in the scientific method. You know the one that resists dogma and takes no finding at face value without first replicating the experiment and then proposing a new theory to explain any discrepancies which itself is subsequently tested.
The plantary climate being dynamic and complex may, in fact, become unsuited to human life. It remains to be seen how much of a hand we have had in it, and how much impact we will have on this climatic change should we decide to act in a positive way to the outermost extent of our abilities.
I for one would like to know why short-term weather beyond 5 days remains so unpredictable and yet our environmental doom is predestined (in addition and prior to our sun exploding anyway).
What is the transport mechanism for atmospheric carbon? What will the impact of carbon sequestration on the deep oceans? Why do prescribed environmental solutions always treat economic impacts as not worthy of consideration? Is it just a bit of alarmism to shake the money tree or does the "sky is falling" mentality or the environmental movement conceal a true problem?
Perhaps if environmentalists took others objections seriously, perhaps novel solutions could be developed that address everyone's concerns. I'd be happy to review any sites or documents that have been instrumental in your faith with respect to the issue of climate change (since global warming is now somewhat out of vogue).
Post a Comment