You might try being a bit less cryptic. You know, so people can understand what you write.
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by stevefitzpatrick
↧
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by sciguy54
”
Urgenda was inspired by a book, written by its lawyer, Roger Cox, entitled “Revolution Through Litigation”
”
This is merely a recent manifestation of a now well-worn methodology. Since the late 1950s the left has been fully engaged in a policy of obstruct and desconstruct, using the courts to obstruct progress and then destroy agents of progress.
The Alinskyites among us have long realized that it is not so difficult for a half-dozen lawyers to influence a dozen judges and impose their will upon a nation. One day western society will sadly re-learn an old warning that absolute power corrupts absolutely.Until then we seem to be hell-bent to hand over control of every aspect of our lives to agents pulling levers furiously behind curtains hidden behind yet another curtain.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by justinwonder
Yes.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Vaughan Pratt
@me: Had Urgenda asked for the original 30% target, I found nothing in the court’s reasoning that would justify lowering the target to 30%
Oops, insert “below” between “to” and “30%”.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Vaughan Pratt
@angech2014: I guess this means the sea level rose 10 feet all over the world
Lucky guess. GPS survey data this month set the height of The Mountain Formerly Known As Mt. McKinley, Seitz’s benchmark for his claim, at 20,310′, ten feet lower than Bradford Washburn’s 1953 estimate of 20,320′.
Russell’s point seems to be the relativistic one that when the height of anything solid like a mountain changes with respect to sea level, it is more likely that the sea level changed than the mountain.
AI programs should take note of such creative lines of reasoning, lest they be used in some roundabout way to trigger a nuclear war, render humans redundant, or (the ultimate catastrophe) show that Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory is inconsistent.
↧
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Vaughan Pratt
The Beth who cried woof.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Vaughan Pratt
The defendant was The Netherlands, and according to the court they had no case for reducing their earlier target of 30% to 17% because they offered neither any new scientific information about climate change nor any reduction in their earlier estimate of feasibility of achieving that target. When asked directly about the latter the State said yes, it was economically feasible for them to meet that terget.
Oops, target. Beth’s a corrupting influence. ;)
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Vaughan Pratt
the biggest challenge is to educate politicians and judges on the scientific method
Why?
1. Has the scientific method ever been applied to itself to answer the question of whether it is effective in any way?
2. Out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, how come only science needs a single fixed method?
3. Does science need a method because science is harder, or because scientists are the only ones who can’t come up with their own method for any given problem?
4. In the entire history of mankind, what great scientific discovery has ever been made that depended on applying the scientific method?
I submit that the so-called “scientific method” is to the scientific brain as an abacus is to a modern computer. It’s a joke. It’s a concept useful only to non-scientists reassuring each other about the ignorance of scientists they’re convinced are wrong.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by climatereason
Vaughan
If a mountain that doesn’t tend to move can’t be measured accurately after many years of trying, what hope is there of measuring a moving target such as sea level.? Further complicated as both the water and land levels are moving relative to each other at different rates according to region.
tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Jim D
Danny, I think the court should always be open to making endangerment findings, chemical or otherwise, which would then imply a ban or risk from suit from further knowing use of that chemical. Imagine what kind of world it would be without emergency recalls. This also happens with drugs. I still think Urgenda is different because it is splitting hairs to say 17% versus 25% targets.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Jim D
Steyn tried to get the case thrown out on the grounds that he was just a non-expert exaggerating. I still think he could win that way. It depends whether any reasonable person would believe his scientific judgement taking his phrase literally. I think not, in which case Mann loses because that makes it akin to satire.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Jim D
See my reply to MM. I think Mann could lose, but the case is not about science, but about what can be said by whom and whether it is taken seriously or not (satire versus libel).
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Jim D
A court is not going to aim to overturn the results of a paper. The best it can do is deal with its own evidence and say whether it is reasonable to assume a cause and effect of some specific harm to a person or the ecology. This may take scientific testimony for sure to establish a link, and science could be used on both sides of such arguments.
↧
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by sciguy54
Can developed nations which have zero-to-negative internal population growth sue nations with growing populations, given the certainty that head count is a present and future impediment to earthly “natural order” and directly relates to the consumption of resources?
Can inhabitants of pacific atolls sue the Netherlands for building dykes, pumping out wetlands and constraining rising seas to a smaller surface area? Demand the “restoration” of artificially drained areas?
Can anyone with a smaller-than-average personal carbon footprint sue anyone with a larger-than-average personal carbon footprint?
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Richard Arrett
Jim D said “Steyn tried to get the case thrown out . . .”
This is not correct.
Steyn didn’t try to get the case thrown out at all.
He is not a party to the motion to dismiss or the appeal of its denial.
He is the only party who is wanting the case to move forward to discovery of Mann and his deposition.
Mann got all discovery stayed pending the appeal – which is why nothing is happening now.
So you have your facts incorrect.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Jim D
How do you interpret his anti-SLAPP attempt?
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by JCH
Anti-SLAPP…
↧
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by mosomoso
Also, Pachauri was fond of brown suits. Face hair with brown suits. Says it all for me.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by peter3172
Not to mention that, at any point in time, levels are moving up by varying amounts and at varying rates in some parts of the world, and moving down by varying amounts and at varying rates in some other parts of the world, and usually asynchronously as well – making any assessment of global average very iffy.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Pieter Steenekamp
IMO an independent judiciary can add to a society functioning well.
I’m from South Africa and the current government seems sometimes to consider themselves above the law and the constitution. With an independent judiciary they don’t really get away with it – when they make laws that’s unconstitutional, the courts reject those laws and they have to amend; when they act unlawfully the courts again hold them accountable.
I’m not saying that the world should look at South Africa because we do it so well. All I’m saying is that we would have been worse off without an independent judiciary – not “even though” but “because” the the courts are only accountable to themselves.
To come back to the Urgenda issue. IMO it’s a good thing that an independent judiciary can hold government accountable for their actions.
The problem is that the world’s scientific community act like a group of sheep – nobody (well, of course I’m exaggerating, fortunately there are the Judith Curry’s and others supporting this blog, but this blog is not representative of the scientific communities views) wants to challenge the mainstream scientific group-think that humans are causing catastrophic climate change.
I support a system where a court can hold a government accountable if their actions are causing real harm to the environment.
I do not support the mainstream scientific community’s group-think on AGW – that’s where the problem is, not with the courts.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
