Patterico's Pontifications

2/16/2010

Texas vs the U.S.

Filed under: Environment,Government — DRJ @ 5:41 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Texas has filed a petition in federal court challenging the EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases:

“The state has filed a Petition for Review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and will also file a Petition for Reconsideration with the Environmental Protection Agency, asking the administrator to review her decision. The state’s legal action indicates EPA’s Endangerment Finding is legally unsupported because the agency outsourced its scientific assessment to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been discredited by evidence of key scientists’ lack of objectivity, coordinated efforts to hide flaws in their research, attempts to keep contravening evidence out of IPCC reports and violation of freedom of information laws.”

I wonder if there will be discovery and, if so, whether they will depose Phil Jones? [EDIT: Probably not. The pleadings indicate it is an appellate proceeding.]

The New York Times is not impressed, labeling the petitioners as a group of “global warming skeptics.”

— DRJ

49 Responses to “Texas vs the U.S.”

  1. Awesome! Another reason to vote for Ted Cruz as Texas AG. By the time this gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, we’ll need Cruz arguing the thing.

    Ben Pugh (1527b3)

  2. Garcon! An order of popcorn, s’il vous plait.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  3. Secessionist traitors that hate science.

    JD (8ce84a)

  4. JD, you are a moron.

    And I’ll take Greg Abbott, thank you very much. His argument in the Ten Commandment case was brilliant. And if anyone bothered to read his letter to John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison about the heath care bill and the Cornhusker Kickback would know just how brilliant Abbott is.

    Ted Cruz? No way, Jose.

    retire05 (1e885c)

  5. I confess, retire05, JD’s snark tag was so visibly laying around I had to steal it.

    John Hitchcock (03b4ac)

  6. “labeling the petitioners as a group of “global warming skeptics.”

    They still feel the “global warming” term is useful when referring to warm climates like Texas because there will be some 100 degree temperatures to demagogue in the next few months when the fair haired children get a little sunburned. The “climate change” term is more useful in other parts.

    j curtis (5126e4)

  7. Nobody in Texas cares what the new york times says.

    Beth in Texas (47ec7a)

  8. retire05 – I will include the /sarc tags next time.

    JD (8ce84a)

  9. nobody anywhere cares what the new york times says.

    rumcrook (e27b90)

  10. JD is just being sarcastic. He is anticipating the “arguments” headed this way.

    This is going to be a fun one to watch.

    Hey, since when did an agency of the US outsource to the UN? I mean isn’t that what we are paying taxes for the EPA to do (not to mention, all those fine universities we have in this country might have enjoyed some of that tax money)?

    Pons Asinorum (b14377)

  11. “The New York Times is not impressed, labeling the petitioners as a group of “global warming skeptics.” ”

    They labeled them as “texas, free market groups and skeptics.”

    imdw (bb8086)

  12. “The New York Times is not impressed, labeling the petitioners as a group of “global warming skeptics.” ”

    They labeled them as “texas, free market groups and skeptics.”

    The claim that they can’t use outside science seems rather weak. The rest will depend on how IPCC compares to other science, and how much doubt they can cast on the parts of IPCC that are relevant to the endagerment finding.

    imdw (490521)

  13. I too am looking forward to seeing the Obama Administration’s scientific defense for its actions, under penalty of perjury.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  14. The problem is that the “outside science”, when properly reviewed, is found to be not science, and is therefore, no basis for the finding of the Agency.

    AD - RtR/OS! (c781de)

  15. The Times repeatedly refers to some petitioners as “skeptics” in the article and the title is “Texas, Skeptics Seek Court Review of EPA’s ‘Endangerment’ Finding.” By the way, I think Texas and the Skeptics would make a good name for a band.

    DRJ (6a8003)

  16. “The problem is that the “outside science”, when properly reviewed, is found to be not science, and is therefore, no basis for the finding of the Agency.”

    I understand that. They talk about “outsourcing the science” but then quote federal law about how the agency has to use the best reasonably available science. That to me implies going outside the agency is ok — actually, is required — so long as that is the best reasonably available science. The “outsourcing” claim is just posturing.

    imdw (bb8086)

  17. What would happen during the discovery process, now that Jones has admitted that most of his past documentation is suddenly “missing?” Lamest excsue since the hallowed dog ate my homework.

    Dmac (799abd)

  18. “excuse.” I need a new keyboard.

    Dmac (799abd)

  19. dmac

    Scientists missplacing empirical evidence – happens all the time…

    EricPWJohnson (a8ea04)

  20. Journalism is going to see a big Reformation over the next few years as the reporter alarmists are discredited. They’ve invested all of their credibility in the case for AGW being iron-clad, and the science settled.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  21. 15

    Or just “Skeptika” for a doom metal band. They could have a fire breathing Al Gore monster mascot like Iron Maiden’s Eddie.

    j curtis (5126e4)

  22. Maybe AlGore should go around breathing fire on all of the places seeing unprecedented & record levels of snowfall right now.

    The name of the band will be “Secessionist Science Haters” (or, for the alliterative minded: Secessionist Science Skeptics).

    The point about relying on the IPCC report remains one of ceding decision-making power to a central authority — in this case, the pseudo authority of the UN; something that “progressives” seem so easily willing to do. Well, not here in Texaslovakia, buddy! Unlike the NYT, we don’t subscribe to the “if it’s sanctioned by the UN it must be a reliable outside source” theory of factual information gathering.

    The point, immature-moldy-donkey-worshipper, is that the IPCC was — and still is by many — embraced as an impeachable authority BECAUSE it is sanctioned by the UN, and not based on any proof that their data is accurate & not tainted by a significant political bias. Your attempted refutation of the “outsourcing” claim is, like so many of your arguments, a weak attempt to turn the question around. Those that complain about the EPA relying on the conclusions of the IPCC are doing so BECAUSE the EPA took the IPCC report at face value: “if it comes via the UN, how could it possibly be wrong?”

    Here in Texasylvania, we say “find the best man for the job”; not, “let’s go ask that guy, he thinks like we do”.

    New band name: Sarc Tag

    This report brought to you free-of-charge by the Texastan Ministry for Telling It Like It Is.

    Icy Texan (33337e)

  23. The secessionist-within-the-secessionist faction, El Tejas de Santa Anna, could not be reached for comment.

    Icy Texan (33337e)

  24. “The rest will depend on how IPCC compares to other science, and how much doubt they can cast on the parts of IPCC that are relevant to the endagerment finding.”

    They can’t find the knife?

    Johnny Cochoran is still dead, I hope.

    papertiger (aea3ff)

  25. Scientists missplacing empirical evidence – happens all the time…

    Comment by EricPWJohnson

    anthropologists and IPCC lead authors especially.

    papertiger (aea3ff)

  26. Color me skeptical

    /band name

    papertiger (aea3ff)

  27. With less than a year left before he leaves the governor’s mansion in Sacramento for good, the larger-than-life former body-builder, who as an actor never met a movie villain too large to slay, has effectively been beaten back by entrenched interests in the real-life political arena.

    The state legislature is balking at his choice for lieutenant-governor, his budget is in trouble — again — and the initiative that kindled his relationship with Premier Gordon Campbell is now being attacked by one of his old allies.

    Ted Costa, the man behind the successful recall campaign that forced out then governor Gray Davis and opened the way for Schwarzenegger to run, has now turned his sights on the legislation designed to force the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

    Costa, who runs People’s Advocate, an organization that works to restrict government spending, was joined by two legislators from Schwarzenegger’s Republican party in sponsoring an initiative they hope to put before voters that would suspend the climate change legislation until the state unemployment rate falls below 5.5 per cent for four consecutive quarters.

    Unlike in British Columbia, where such populist measures have little chance of success, in California citizen initiatives have been an important driver of public policy.

    But Costa isn’t the only one who knows how to play populist politics in the state and the success of the measure, considered a strong possibility just a week ago, is now far from certain.

    Before Californians have a chance to vote on whether to rein in Schwarzenegger’s green goals, the sponsors have to get enough signatures on a petition to force the state to put the measure on the ballot.

    That from a Vancouver Sun op/ed, Schwarzeneggar climate change legacy in trouble.

    Now why can’t we get that sort of reporting here?
    It’s a Canadienne op/ed and it has more point of fact and situational detail of California’s war on the climate change fraud, then I can get here even on the so called conservative blogs!

    papertiger (aea3ff)

  28. 7. and 9. “Nobody in Texas cares what the new york times says.”

    Not quite true. If a Texan has already decided what to do they do not care what the New York Times says. OTOH, if a Texan is unsure of the right course of action (a rare event, true, but it does happen occasionally) they do check the NYT, see what it recommends. Then they do the opposite of that. Works every time.

    Mark L (cb0d62)

  29. Central thesis of AGW refuted, if the EPA had done due diligence they would have found the three peer reviewed articles reporting that satellite measurements of long wave infrared showed no increased absorption between 1970, 1997, and 2006.

    There were three different experiments performed in space to measure OLR emissions. The Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer (IRIS) was performed in 1970, the Interferometer Monitor of Greenhouse Gases (IMG) was performed in 1997, and the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) was performed in 2006. All of these experiments were performed over the Pacific Ocean and confined to the same three-month period (April through June), and the data were limited to cloudless days.

    LarryD (feb78b)

  30. Don’t mess with Texas!

    Why hasn’t the GOP done this up till now? I hate to think that it’s because they want to control the spoils of war, not end the war (on the citizens’ wallets).

    It’s high time conservatives took these issues to the courts. The left is way ahead of the right in this area, and it’s the best avenue for redress at this time.

    Patricia (e1047e)

  31. Nobody in Texas cares what the new york times says.

    Nobody in Texas can read the New York Times.

    Triumph (b66fe4)

  32. (@11 imdw) The claim that they can’t use outside science seems rather weak.

    Such a claim was not made. Here is the full sentence (blue and bold are mine):

    The state’s legal action indicates EPA’s Endangerment Finding is legally unsupported because the agency outsourced its scientific assessment to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been discredited by evidence of key scientists’ lack of objectivity, coordinated efforts to hide flaws in their research, attempts to keep contravening evidence out of IPCC reports and violation of freedom of information laws.

    In short, outsourcing is not the problem (or the claim), but the agency whom the EPA chose is. The preposition “to” defines a domain of discourse and is therefore a logical quantifier, as are the subsequent clauses.

    Pons Asinorum (b14377)

  33. Comment by Triumph — 2/14/2010 @ 11:49 am at this thread:

    “I, for one, have better things to do out of my precious time than arguing with right-wing ideologues whose manners mirror exactly those of left-wing ideologues.”

    Triumph, you cut and ran from a question in that thread. Your intellectual cowardice is showing, but your political independence-ideology (“Nobody in Texas can read the New York Times”), not so much.

    Pons Asinorum (b14377)

  34. “Such a claim was not made.”

    I’m referring to the attack that science was “outsourced.” It’s part of the critique the post had, and a part you decided to also pull out from the rest of the argument in your 2/16/2010 @ 6:34 pm comments.

    The debate is over the quality of the science used. The law requires the best reasonably available science, and if the best is outside the agency, then clearly they are required to “outsource” it.

    imdw (b67c0f)

  35. Pons – it does not process input.

    JD (b7fd45)

  36. (@34 imdw) The debate is over the quality of the science used.

    False; the claim is solely about the agency used, in this case the IPCC. When the domain of discourse includes only a single element defined as the IPCC, then that is the only possible element in the claim.

    “that science is outsourced” != “that science outsourced to the IPCC”

    EPA can outsource and the Texas suit does not address that fact, only the agency used.

    Pons Asinorum (b14377)

  37. JD — DRJ inspired me 😉

    I’m gonna give it a shot.

    Pons Asinorum (b14377)

  38. “EPA can outsource and the Texas suit does not address that fact, only the agency used.”

    They do mention outsourcing. So do you in your earlier comment. I’m not sure why you’re having a hard time with this.

    imdw (220b12)

  39. Good luck, Pons. Running head-first into a brick wall and then screaming at it to get out of your way is likely to be more fruitful.

    JD (57d75b)

  40. Perhaps ice cream is the answer?

    The Petition for Reconsideration argues that the IPCC has been discredited; states reasons for the this (which do not include outsourcing as a reason).

    Corwin (ea9428)

  41. (@ 38 imdw) They do mention outsourcing. So do you in your earlier comment.

    So is the word “the”.

    Now let’s see, starting with outsourcing to the IPCC, you have gone from outsourcing science to outsourcing.

    Do you mean all outsourcing or just science outsourcing? You see, to answer this question requires that you define the elements within the set under consideration (or the domain of discourse).

    In your case you have defined two different domains of discourse. First was science outsourcing. Your second one was all outsourcing.

    Consider choosing what the quoted passage defined; a single element — outsourcing to the IPCC.

    At that point, you could intelligently agree or disagree with the reasoning if you so desired.

    I’m not sure why you’re having a hard time with this.

    Not having a hard time at all, imdw. Either you get it or you don’t — and you don’t.

    The logic is there, the facts are there, it is not a particularly difficult issue — yet you insist on redefining the claim’s domain of discourse, despite the fact that it is explicitly mentioned in the quoted passage.

    Pons Asinorum (b14377)

  42. JD — Running head-first into a brick wall and then screaming at it to get out of your way is likely to be more fruitful.

    You’re killin’ me, lol!

    Pons Asinorum (b14377)

  43. Corwin — #42 for you too!

    Pons Asinorum (b14377)

  44. Well there’s this comment:

    “Hey, since when did an agency of the US outsource to the UN? I mean isn’t that what we are paying taxes for the EPA to do (not to mention, all those fine universities we have in this country might have enjoyed some of that tax money)?”

    “In your case you have defined two different domains of discourse. First was science outsourcing. Your second one was all outsourcing.”

    You see I explained that the question is the quality of the science, not who did it. So…. it would seem like i’m talking about the same thing, no? As to what you’re talking about, I think it’s “outsourcing” in general.

    imdw (dba501)

  45. Does the DNC pay people to troll on conservative websites and irritate people just so they can waste some of our time??

    MD in Philly (d4668b)

  46. After it typed “I think” it should have just stopped.

    JD (aecc08)

  47. Yes, when you start out with a lie, the rest is just redundant.

    AD - RtR/OS! (3742c3)

  48. (@44 imdw)You see I explained that the question is the quality of the science, not who did it. So…. it would seem like i’m talking about the same thing, no?

    The quoted passage explicitly mentions the IPCC. The quality of the science are the reasons supporting why outsourcing to the IPCC was wrong.

    As to what you’re talking about, I think it’s “outsourcing” in general.

    Oh, I see the confusion, but no.

    In my earlier comment, prior to our dialogue, I explicitly defined the domain of discourse as outsourcing to the UN. I expanded the domain of discourse without justification (although still, not to your extent). My writing was sloppy/lazy, because I then asked why the EPA could not do the studies themselves, in the same sentence. I then mentioned other possible outsourcing agencies.

    Although I admit the parsing is confusing, general outsourcing is not my primary objection, as can be seen by my list of other alternative agencies. (My question still stands, but it should have been independent of this thread or set aside as a parenthetical — my bad).

    In any event, that was just my opinion. What is not opinion is the larger issue that the claim is centered on the outsourcing to the IPCC, as quoted in this thread, which you appeared to take objection.

    If that is no longer the case, then perhaps we are in agreement in this small instance.

    Pons Asinorum (b14377)

  49. Outsourcing to the IPCC for valid science makes about as much sense as the justice dept outsourcing civil rights info from the KKK.

    peedoffamerican (b21f59)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3493 secs.