Comments on Climate Change at the CourtTypePad2011-04-20T19:44:23ZRick Garnetthttps://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/04/climate-change-at-the-court/comments/atom.xml/Joel Clarke Gibbons commented on 'Climate Change at the Court'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e201538e02be46970b2011-04-20T21:23:44Z2011-04-20T21:23:44ZJoel Clarke Gibbonshttp://www.logisticresearch.comI agree with Mr Moreland for the most part. We can't have two parallel regulatory regimes. The issue in this...<p>I agree with Mr Moreland for the most part. We can't have two parallel regulatory regimes.</p>
<p>The issue in this case is moreover further complicated by the facts of greenhouse gasses and global warming. In brief, "global warming" has proved to be a vast, shameful hoax. There is, for instance, a lecture by a professor physics at Berkeley making the rounds of the Internet at this time in which he deconstructs the "establishment" graph of global mean temperature. This is the chart in regard to which the authors, in Britain, admitted among themselves to have employed a "trick." </p>
<p>The corrected chart is rather astonishing. The fictitious data shows global mean temperature exploding higher in the last thirty years or so. The corrected data shows global mean temperature collapsing over the same time period.</p>
<p>Is it too much to hope that in light of the very real questions about the reality of global warming, a federal court will wisely demure? Another recent study documented the dangerous degree of politicization of federal judges on criminal cases. Sadly, that same politicization will probably rear its ugly head in this case and produce a doctrinnaire decision in defiance of the scientific truth, but we can always hoipe. Sometimes the truth does out.</p>Dan commented on 'Climate Change at the Court'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e201538e028f09970b2011-04-20T20:43:14Z2011-04-20T20:43:14ZDanAn interesting case. I don't know about the legalities of it all, but the idea of the federal courts adjudicating...<p>An interesting case. I don't know about the legalities of it all, but the idea of the federal courts adjudicating global warming claims sounds to me like a singularly bad idea. I didn't know there was such a thing as a "federal common law nuisance claim." If someone says that there is, I'll take that person's word for it but it is contrary to the way I thought federalism is supposed to work. Of course I thought abortion was a matter for the states, so what do I know. </p>