Chevron has fallen!

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Pieces of Malarkey, Jun 28, 2024.

  1. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,179
    Likes Received:
    22,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All those once-reputable outfits have sadly been gripped by climate madness in recent years. Note the absence of substance.
    In terms of “all the work” you still have a significant debt to work off.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2024
  2. Pieces of Malarkey

    Pieces of Malarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2022
    Messages:
    3,830
    Likes Received:
    2,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You didn't see the original topic of this thread?

    OK, the Reader's Digest version. In 1984 Chevron went to the Supreme Court over an EPA rule in Chevron v. NRDC. The question was centered around poorly written legislation that authorized EPA action. NRDC argued that EPA's opinion of the legislation could serve as a proper understanding of what was permissible, and the liberal Supreme Court agreed with them setting up a precedent called Chevron Deference.

    Eventually, in 2007, Massachusetts v. EPA determined that EPA had the authority to regulate CO2, a non-pollutant. This was despite EPA's clear argument that they did not have authority to do that.

    Then on June 28, the Supreme Court heard Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and reversed Chevron, returning to a proper Constitutional understanding of the relationship between Congress and the Executive branch (which is what EPA is under) and voiding any number of regulations promulgated under Chevron Deference.

    This doesn't automatically void Massachusetts v. EPA because, frankly, Massachusetts is a mess due to the logical gymnastics involved with allowing the impossible to be regulated. However, there are a number of lawsuits that have been filed to contest Massachusetts (incidentally, probably using EPA's original defense quit extensively) and I expect it to be overturned as a perfunctory matter early in the next Supreme Court session, likely in October or November. Even if it's not that soon, since Biden's CO2 regulations don't go into effect until 2027, there's plenty of time to blow that up without destroying the whole economy.

    And just like that, CO2 regulation and the mandated ban on internal combustion engines vanishes.

    What happens to the IPCC and the Paris Accords then can't be predicted, but the smart money would be on the whole con collapsing.

    All because NRDC claimed that regulatory agencies had authority that they didn't.

    There you go. Feel free to leave over this, too.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2024
    Shutcie, AFM and Jack Hays like this.
  3. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,367
    Likes Received:
    10,988
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Excellent example of confirmation bias.
     
  4. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,367
    Likes Received:
    10,988
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your post confirms my assessment.
     
  5. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,367
    Likes Received:
    10,988
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Koch Brothers and oil executives did not invent the scientific method.
     
  6. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    100,142
    Likes Received:
    79,600
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Who said they did? Whose post were YOU responding to? Mind you so far I have found your concept of the “scientific method” to be……….interesting, not accurate or correct just interesting
     
  7. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    100,142
    Likes Received:
    79,600
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No it doesn’t. Due to your failure to critique the research
     
  8. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    100,142
    Likes Received:
    79,600
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Yes when people do not read provided links it does point to “confirmation bias”
     
  9. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    100,142
    Likes Received:
    79,600
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Thanks for the reply but if you had read the thread what I was asking for was why Jack considered the NRDC to be an invalid source of information
     
  10. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    100,142
    Likes Received:
    79,600
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Again let’s apply Occam’s razor - who is more likely to be correct - thousands of scientists and thousands of journalists in hundreds of different outlets, employment, positions throughout the world or a couple of discredited websites with poor to non existent fact checking

    I won’t hold my breath for your answer
     
  11. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    59,345
    Likes Received:
    55,582
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wasn't the Great barrier reef supposed to be dead by now?
     
  12. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    100,142
    Likes Received:
    79,600
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No it wasn’t
     
  13. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,367
    Likes Received:
    10,988
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The scientific method has been used to prove that the enhanced CO2 effect hypothesis is incorrect. There is no conspiracy involved in that finding, only correct application of the method.
     
  14. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,367
    Likes Received:
    10,988
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All sources have been provided.
     
  15. Pieces of Malarkey

    Pieces of Malarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2022
    Messages:
    3,830
    Likes Received:
    2,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Now it's irrelevant.
     
  16. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    59,345
    Likes Received:
    55,582
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Did you just actually never hear about the predictions or are you just going to deny that they were made?

    https://platogbr.com/failed-predictions/

    In 1999, a paper by a very eminent coral biologist appeared. It predicted, on the basis of climate models, that owing to increases in temperature attributable to climate change, mass coral bleaching would be occurring seven or eight times per decade by 2018 on all parts of the Reef (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999).[2] The implication was that by 2020, the reef would be totally devastated by these events. But, in 2022, the reef has record high coral cover.
     
    Pieces of Malarkey and AFM like this.
  17. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,179
    Likes Received:
    22,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The websites you ludicrously mischaracterize as discredited are in fact valuable aggregators of peer-reviewed research -- the basis of my skepticism regarding the AGW hypothesis.
    The Occam's razor fallacy: the simplest solution is not always the correct one. When faced with two equally credible theories, wisdom seems to indicate you should go for the simplest one. Simpler solutions are easier to verify; they're easier to execute.
    But, while mental models are a great way to make sense of the world, not all of them should be followed blindly. In fact, some should be studied in order to avoid them. While Occam’s razor is a popular mental model, I think it falls in the category of the ones that should be used with extreme caution. Because simpler explanations are not necessarily correct.

    Occam's razor fallacy: the simplest solution is not always the correct one
    upload_2024-7-7_10-10-35.png
    Ness Labs
    https://nesslabs.com › occams-razor

    And as for those thousands of scientists:
    "Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share."
    —Gunnar Myrdal
     
    Pieces of Malarkey and AFM like this.
  18. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,906
    Likes Received:
    1,688
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They do this a lot now because they can't address the claims themselves it is their way of avoiding having to face the evidence, they don't like that is why they are in retreat into avoidance a sure-fire way to remain ignorant and easily manipulated by others who are not interested in evidence but control over the masses.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  19. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,367
    Likes Received:
    10,988
    Trophy Points:
    113
  20. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    100,142
    Likes Received:
    79,600
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    let’s start with this fallacious statement and show you what an “aggregate of peer reviewed research actually looks like
    https://www.cochranelibrary.com/

    Do either WUWT or NTZ look anything like Cochrane? Cochrane is not even the pinnacle of medical aggregate sites. They are blogs who will allow anyone to post anything - there is no fact checking of the posts. I have NEVER seen WUWT retract any paper regardless of how whackadoodle it is and I have seen some doozies on there


    Lols! Not a rationale but a rationalisation and a rather pathetic one at that. When I use Occam’s razor we are weighing degree of supporting evidence and just on the surface the evidence supporting YOUR stance is pretty bloody thin. There are no defined hypothesis supporting any of the multitude aspects of climate change beyond “I don’ fink so”. A handful of websites spruiking a handful of mostly misinterpreted and misrepresented papers cannot compete with the hundreds (at least) of universities world wide supporting the science of climate change. They do not and cannot dispute the findings of independent organisations, science academies and the UN. But more importantly how many denialist sites are backed and supported by even one university? As far as I can tell ONE - Roy Spencer, someone who also believes in “intelligent design”:roll:

    More like tens of thousands world wide in 187 different countries in hundreds to thousands of different institutions. A fair proportion don’t even speak the same language! So your dead sociologist does not apply here
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2024
  21. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    34,179
    Likes Received:
    22,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. Religious bigotry has no place here.
    2. Your claim about NTZ and WUWT posting standards is false. You are unfamiliar with both.
    3. Alternative hypotheses: Vinos, Svensmark, Shaviv, etc.
    4. Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a key to understanding change.
    5. Myrdal was an economist.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2024
    Pieces of Malarkey and AFM like this.
  22. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    41,367
    Likes Received:
    10,988
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet application of the scientific method disproves the enhanced CO2 effect hypothesis which is the basis of the AGW movement.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  23. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    100,142
    Likes Received:
    79,600
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No it doesn’t and so far you have failed to prove you understand what the “scientific method” is and that failure is shown by your statement that there exists an “enhanced CO2 effect Hypothesis”. In fact it is doubtful given this that you have a clear understanding of the term hypothesis and how it is used in science
     
  24. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    100,142
    Likes Received:
    79,600
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Ad Hom - always know when I am winning when the oppositions can only supply an AdHom as a rebuttal.
    Prove that NTZ and WUWT have standards because it certainly does not appear so. I mean they publish stuff by Monckton who has been so thoroughly discredited that it is ridiculous
    Wow! Three people as opposed to?? Every science academy on the planet. How many of those three are backed by their universities? As opposed to every other university across the planet holding opposing opinions
    Kuhn? Bit outdated isn’t he?
    As for Mydal Yep! So?? Still doesn’t mean he is anywhere near right and he died in the 1980’s nearly forty years ago - again bit outdated
    On Kuhn
    https://physicsworld.com/a/thomas-k...ked,rational argumentation in paradigm shifts.
     
  25. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    59,345
    Likes Received:
    55,582
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is pretty awesome..... The climate Nazis can now go sit their ass in a corner
     
    Pieces of Malarkey likes this.

Share This Page