Administration Lawyer Claims Link Between CO2 and Warming ‘Cannot Unequivocally Be Established’
Administration Lawyer Claims Link Between CO2 and Warming ‘Cannot Unequivocally Be Established’
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Massachusetts v. EPA. The outcome of the case will “likely determine whether the [Environmental Protection Agency] can regulate [greenhouse gas emissions] from power plants and other industries.”
Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre, who argued the case for the administration, admitted to the Justices that he had limited knowledge of climate science. “I am not an expert on global climate change,” Garre said.
Despite being uninformed in this “extraordinarily complex area of science,” Garre tried to introduce an element of doubt into the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. From Slate’s account of the arguments:
Justice Stephen Breyer lights into Garre for some of the agency’s silly reasoning in declining to regulate the emissions. When Garre says that scientific uncertainty alone can justify the EPA’s refusal to regulate, Justice John Paul Stevens asks whether it matters that even the scientists who worked on the National Research Counsel study on global warming felt there was less scientific uncertainty than the EPA claimed. Garre insists that there is a “likely connection” between greenhouse gases and global warming but that “it cannot unequivocally be established.”
There is no doubt among the experts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body which involves thousands of scientists from over 120 countries who develop detailed reports on climate change, produced a report in 2001 which was reviewed by more than 1,000 top experts, including so-called “climate skeptics” and representatives from industry. The report stated, “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”
Most recently, the National Academy of Sciences unequivocally concluded that natural causes cannot explain the unprecedented warmth over the last 400 years, and “human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
53 Responses to “Administration Lawyer Claims Link Between CO2 and Warming ‘Cannot Unequivocally Be Established’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Science is not exactly the administration shill’s forte.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:08 pmits funny how in a world that is 1000 % built on science, they disagree with the one bit od science that goes against Oil Company interests…
quite an interesting coincidence
November 30th, 2006 at 12:10 pm1 degree
November 30th, 2006 at 12:11 pmmore hot air from the administration…
November 30th, 2006 at 12:12 pm1 degree
Comment by Kevin
Associate or Bachelors?
November 30th, 2006 at 12:15 pm#2…..
November 30th, 2006 at 12:15 pma degree here, a degree there, it all adds up…
#4.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:18 pmDoctor of Divinity
(only $29.99 if you act now!)
Big Tobacco tactics in the White House. Nice.
Welcome to the third world.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:19 pm.
Kevin gets his information from Steven Milloy and junkscience.com. For those of you not familiar with the tobacco lobbyist-pathological liar Milloy, getting information from him is like getting information from …. actually I can’t think of a comparably bad source of information.
Kevin, do you believe that smoking tobacco does not cause cancer?
November 30th, 2006 at 12:21 pmThat junk science guy is an ass-tard. Figures FOXnews.com links to it regularly.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:28 pmNo “unequivocal proof” of God either, and that’s not stopped the administration from using it as a club against opponents.
There was a post a few weeks ago, I think here or perhaps kos, regarding the Rove/Bush attack on science/reality as a political tactic at the expense of policy. I’ve been looking for it but can’t find it (help me!).
At any rate, this case fits the model. The postmodern deconstruction of science and the elevation of emotion and faith have been used expertly by these folks. For them, science and the method are obstacles to be avoided at all cost. Science translates into policy and as soon as you step into that “reality” you are bound to it and thus open to debate.
We see the same thing here.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:28 pmSweet, Dr. of divinity only 29.99. How much for a Psy. D?
November 30th, 2006 at 12:28 pmKevin, do you believe that smoking tobacco does not cause cancer?
Comment by RealScientist
Unequivocally?
November 30th, 2006 at 12:29 pmSomeone who finally tells it like it is on this wretched site.Go hug a tree.Losers
Comment by Karl — November 30, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
Please elaborate on your answer, Karl. Show all work. Provide (credible) references wherever appropriate.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:35 pmAwww, c’mon Kevin/Karl, don’t get all mad, a was just wanting to get something going…
November 30th, 2006 at 12:38 pm#8:
November 30th, 2006 at 12:40 pmBut haven’t recent studies found that smoking upsets the development of Parkinson’s Disease?
Wow…these lobbysts are just like tobacco ones.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:41 pmHow much is Garre being paid for this testimony? Plenty, I’m sure.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:44 pmIt’s amazing that there’s more proof of Global Warming than there was of WMDs in Iraq, but still no movement from the Bush “Administration.”
November 30th, 2006 at 12:46 pmI wonder if Garre were to suck his SUV’s tailpipe, he’d notice a “likely connection” between the CO2 he’s sucking and his comatose state he finds himself in.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:48 pmWow…these lobbysts are just like tobacco ones.
Comment by Juan C — November 30, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
Juan, they aren’t just like tobacco lobbyists. They ARE tobacco lobbyists. At least Steven Milloy is a tobacco lobbyist. This non-scientist anti-regulation freak is paid by industry to attack science in three areas: global warming, second-hand tobacco smoke, and DDT (wants it legalized, claiming it is safe).
November 30th, 2006 at 12:49 pmGarre insists that there is a “likely connection†between greenhouse gases and global warming but that “it cannot unequivocally be established.â€
Is Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre standing in the Supreme Court and lying right to Justice Stevens’ face?
Stunning…
November 30th, 2006 at 12:50 pmHow much is Garre being paid for this testimony? Plenty, I’m sure.
Comment by veritas
Garre is not an expert witness, he’s arguing the case!
He should be disbarred.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:51 pmPeople who “think” factor in the CONSEQUENCE of them being wrong when making decisions.
If we DO reduce green house gas emissions and we are WRONG and they ARE NOT warming the planet, what is the damage and can we fix that damage.
If we DO NOT reduce green house gas emissions and we are WRONG, and they ARE warming the planet, what is the damage and can we fix that damage.
Erring on the side of caution never hurts and it always better to be to early than too late, because we have only one planet!
November 30th, 2006 at 12:52 pmIf we DO reduce green house gas emissions and we are WRONG and they ARE NOT warming the planet, what is the damage and can we fix that damage.
Comment by criticalthinker — November 30, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
I think you should change your handle, because this statement doesn’t make any sense. First of all, greenhouse gases are warming the planet. Period. If you were a critical thinker you would realize that. Second, the suggestion that stopping or reducing the rate at which we perturb our atmosphere will somehow cause “damage” is really pretty bizarre.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:58 pmIf the opponents of something are never going to accept the truth and insist that their delusional views are correct, then nothing can “unequivocally be established”.
I find it strange that for something the administration has been so adamently opposed to accepting (that global climate change exists and that human activities are helping to make it worse - both parts, not just one), you would think they would get their “best person” on this case. But instead, they put someone up to defend their side who wasn’t knowledgeable enough about the issue to argue intelligently. Were they trying to lose this one? Or are they so arrogant in their thinking that they felt it unnecessary to put up much of a fight? Or is it that they’re sure of the result? Strange.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:01 pmWhere’s my big ass truck. Give me a knob job. I’m hungry. Who won “The Bachelor”?
November 30th, 2006 at 1:04 pmWhere’s my big ass truck. Give me a knob job. I’m hungry. Who won “The Bachelor�
Comment by ForTruth
Too funny. You give new meaning to the word “distracted.”
November 30th, 2006 at 1:13 pmWayne, the administration knows that global warming is real. They just don’t want to do anything about it, because they believe in the magic of free markets (even though they do everything possible to undercut true freedom in the markets). As we all know, they are very comfortable with lying about everything, including what they themselves believe.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:14 pm“it cannot unequivocally be established.â€
Neither can the link between HIV and AIDS…but you’d be stupid and dangerous to think otherwise. Just like with climate change!
November 30th, 2006 at 1:18 pm#
Wayne, the administration knows that global warming is real. They just don’t want to do anything about it, because they believe in the magic of free markets (even though they do everything possible to undercut true freedom in the markets). As we all know, they are very comfortable with lying about everything, including what they themselves believe.
Comment by RealScientist — November 30, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
They believe even more in campaign contributions from those industries that they “protect,” at the expense of the well-being of all of us on this planet.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:19 pmThey believe even more in campaign contributions from those industries that they “protect,†at the expense of the well-being of all of us on this planet.
Comment by impeachcheneythenbush — November 30, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
It goes hand in hand with their moral and intellectual corruption. The Bush administration is largely composed of bad people. It’s that simple. They all belong in prison, preferably Gitmo.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:22 pmLinks between the Bush administration and illegal eavesdropping, illegal interrogation techniques, abuse of power and lying to the american people cannot as yet be unequivocally established, but they will be…….they will be.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:22 pm#24 If we DO reduce green house gas emissions and we are WRONG and they ARE NOT warming the planet, what is the damage and can we fix that damage.
You forgot to mention that the green house gas emissions are HUMAN produced. Artificial. Not natural. If we, the humans produce less green house gases, the effect is only to revert to a cleaner air.
An example: you are (suposedly) a cocaine addict. The less you snort, the better for your health. Less damage to your body and brains. There isn’t a “minimum” of cocaine snorted. The ideal level is zero. No damage in snorting less every day. Maybe you would need to attend some clinic for a total recovery (Kyoto Treaty), but even if it’s expensive, you’ll gain years of life. You see? Money against years of life. I prefer life, no doubt about it.
If we DO NOT reduce green house gas emissions and we are WRONG, and they ARE warming the planet, what is the damage and can we fix that damage.
The damage will be enormous. Milions of people dead, money lost, cities lost, health damaged, maybe end of the human civilization.
Erring on the side of caution never hurts and it always better to be to early than too late, because we have only one planet!
Comment by criticalthinker — November 30, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
Erring on the side of caution has hurt a lot of people.
Let’s suppose, again. We are in the main deck of the Titanic. An iceberg has just ripped our unsinkable boat. The sailors are running and preparing the evacuation, shouting “everybody out of the boat now!”. You see the rats jumping to the water.
What else do you need to run for your life? Or will you wait for a formal declaration of the ship’s captain? Maybe he is dead or too busy mantaining the boat afloat.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:43 pm“Kevin, do you believe that smoking tobacco does not cause cancer?”
RealScientist- Here you pose a complex question. In other words, you conjoin two unrelated points that are conjoined by a single proposition. If you want to sway the viewpoints of your opponents, wouldn’t it make sense to not treat them like idiots? I understand your passion for the topic in question, but really, what are you trying to accomplish by using this form of argument?
November 30th, 2006 at 1:46 pmDid someone fart in here?
November 30th, 2006 at 1:59 pmSo this Administration lawyer lied in his arguments before the Supreme Court? OK, OK, lawyers are often known to lie and I guess he was not under oath. But this is an appearance before the Supreme Court. So why shouldn’t this fellow be disbarred?
November 30th, 2006 at 2:00 pmif we want to end global warming, let’s start with getting rid of these losers in the White House.
November 30th, 2006 at 2:38 pmRe#25 RealScientist
I did not spell out what damage is, so that people could contrast the two positions in their own minds for themselves.
But since that was too tough an intellectual exercise for you here is it spelled out:
The damage in the first case is economic, and it is minimal damage.
The damage in the first case is catostrophic, and it is maximal damage.
Why do you think my last statement was that it was better to err in the side of caution?
Understand now?
November 30th, 2006 at 4:14 pmRe#34 Evil Spaniard
My post was an intellectual exercise for people to contrast damage caused by taking the two course of actions.
Since you like RealScientist missed that boat, I repeat.
The damage in the first case is economic and can be fixed.
The damage in the second case is enviornmental and cannot be fixed.
My last statement is that we should err on the side of caution means I am FOR the FIRST case and AGAINST the SECOND.
Sheesh……
November 30th, 2006 at 4:20 pmThis is the same method that the tobacco industry used for years against detractors. Remember? “No one’s proved that there is a link between smoking and cancer.” The same crap is going on, the radical-right learned some great lessons from that era.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:21 pmThe slightly tricky point here is that Scalia is right–the traditional definition of pollutant is that it cause direct harm to individuals. Carbon monoxide fits this bill–carbon dioxide does not. The question is whether one can argue that the collective harm done justifies classification as an air pollutant. Alternatively, one might argue that it is justifiable considered a water pollutant: as discussed in last weeks New Yorker, the increased acidification of the oceans associated with absorbed carbon dioxide (converting to carbonic acid) is a pollutant having adverse effects on all organisms depending upon calcium carbonate based biomineralization to produce shells, from plankton to coral.
I am nervous about the supremes throwing this out on the technicality. If so, the congress must legislate a new definition of pollutant into the clean air and clean water acts..
November 30th, 2006 at 4:22 pmMy post was an intellectual exercise for people to contrast damage caused by taking the two course of actions.
Since you like RealScientist missed that boat, I repeat.
Comment by criticalthinker — November 30, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
Thank you for the clarification. But the way you originally stated your proposition was clearly misleading. The parallel structure implies that you are talking about damages of similar type, presumably environmental. By the way, global warming has the potential to cause both massive environmental AND economic damage. Also, taken at face value your post suggests that you think it is possible that greenhouse gases aren’t warming the planet, which of course runs counter to the universal consensus among scientists.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:50 pm[…] To the original article: […]
November 30th, 2006 at 4:55 pmWill everybody (excuse the choice of metaphor) chill for a minute? I totally agree that something needs to be done urgently about climate change, and if Mr Garre said anything to the contrary, I find that upsetting. HOWEVER, the statement that a connection between greenhouse gases and global warming “cannot unequivocally be established” is not only uncontroversial–it is exactly the language used in the 2001 NAS report that confirmed the basic findings of the IPCC of that year!!! (See Chris Mooney, “The Republican War on Science, p 92.) It is in the nature of scientific inquiry that empirical questions can seldom be unequivocally established. That does not mean there is any serious doubt. It is just unfair to call Garre a liar (or, worse, a tobacco lawyer) simply for making that particular statement, because it happens to be true. If he went on to say that there is serious doubt or that action is unnecessary, then you can call him anything you like.
November 30th, 2006 at 7:12 pmVery strange - this administration …
The link between Saddam and WMD’s could not ‘unequivocally be established’ - but that didn’t stop the administration from recklessy rushing headlong into a complete and tragic mess of a war …
But now, they can’t budge to do the right thing on global warming because they don’t see an “unequivocal link” …
It is almost like they say “okay - which option will f#ck up the largest amount of people … okay, let’s do that ! ”
Incredible …
November 30th, 2006 at 8:58 pmAs a scientist, I’ll chime in and say that, while there is extremely strong evidence, it is certainly cannot unequivocally be established. People who say so are politicians and activists, no scientists.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:44 pm#49
You should consult the findings of your fellow scientists - EPICA - the European Project for Ice Coring
You will note that there is no mention of Al Gore, Bono, the penguins from ‘Happy Feet’ or any other ‘non-scientist activist, politician, celebrity type’ - neither human nor animated.
I will start you off with this little excerpt and then you can hit the link to read the rest:
“We found a very tight relationship between CO2 and temperature even before 420,000 years,” said project leader Professor Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland.
From: “CO2 ‘highest for 650,000 years’ “
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website
Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/ hi/ science/ nature/ 4467420.stm
Enjoy.
November 30th, 2006 at 10:02 pmRe#45 RealScientist
Before you criticize others for not being “critical thinkers” maybe you should first read the words a post rather than trying to read what is not their and what you “think is ” between the lines!
Nowhere in my post did I say or suggest that green house glasses are not warming the planet, because as a scientist myself I know otherwise.
Just because a post contains two parallel cases does not mean they are equally damaging or even similiar, how did you come up with that piece of logic?
And last if I did not believe in global warming, why would I say that we only have one planet and should err on the side of caution?
Therefore, the problem was not me writing in a confusing manner, but rather with the manner in which you read!
December 1st, 2006 at 4:59 amComment by sicklecell
December 1st, 2006 at 8:21 amCOWARD!
Lick my sweaty ballsack DrxJ
December 1st, 2006 at 9:39 amGo to a supermarket parking lot and quiz people. Show them a gallon container of gasoline and ask them what is left after this gallon is internally combusted. Most people will shrug and look at you quizzically and say, “Well, nothing.” Wrong. The Law of Conservation of Matter says that during a normal chemical reaction, matter is neither created or destroyed. It just changes its form. During combustion, the carbon in gasoline bonds with oxygen. A carbon atom has a molecular weight of 12. An oxygen atom has a weight of 16. 2 x 16 = 32 plus 1 @ 12, gives you the molecular weight of 44. 44/12=3.6667. So, for every pound of carbon you burn, you end up with 3.6667 pounds of CO2. Burn a gallon of gasoline and you end up with 19 pounds of CO2. It is a natural law. You cannot dismiss it or change it..
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we have been transferring the carbon in peat, coal, gas and oil from the earth to the atmosphere. I think we are hosed. Americans still have an appetite for overweight, high-slung station wagons and manly trucks. India and China are building 650 coal-fired power plants. We have our gas-guzzling military machine. If a pack-a day smoker quits after 40 years, he is not out of harm’s way. If we could reduce our CO2 emissions to zero over the next 5 years, the damage is still done. Larson B would not grow and then reattach itself to Antarctica. The Greenland ice cap would not unmelt.
Google Thermohaline circulation to understand why the British and northern Europeans are concerned about climate change. If the circulation stops, the Gulf Stream tempered mild climate gets a lot colder at the same time that sea levels rise.
Expect your grandchildren to tug on your sleeve and ask, “Hey Granddad, what kind of car did you drive back in the first decade?”
Good night and good luck.
December 2nd, 2006 at 6:08 pmi\’m like a lawyer
Finding the right attorney can sometimes be difficult, like anything in life there are good ones and bad ones.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:18 am