Posted on 12/05/2006 8:28:46 PM PST by neverdem
Idealistic lawyers and idealistic scientists often describe themselves as engaging in a search for truth.
The scientists follow the scientific method. They state their hypotheses, describe the ways they test them, present their findings — and wait for another researcher to prove them wrong. Lawyers’ practice is built on the idea that the best way to shake the truth out of a complex dispute is for advocates on each side to argue it, as vigorously as they can, in front of an impartial judge or jury.
These approaches work more or less well on their own. But when a legal issue hinges on questions of science, they can clash. And the collision can resound all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Last Wednesday, the nine justices heard arguments in the first global warming case to come before the court. Massachusetts, 11 other states and several cities and environmental groups are saying that the federal Environmental Protection Agency has ignored the requirements of the Clean Air Act and otherwise shirked its responsibilities by failing to regulate emissions of heat-trapping gases, chiefly carbon dioxide.
As the case made its way to the court, it generated interesting questions like whether states have a right to bring such a suit and whether E.P.A. action would amount to unauthorized interference in foreign policy.
But much of the argument hinged on scientific questions. Is the earth’s climate changing? If so, are human activities contributing to the change?
Mainstream science has answers to these questions (yes and yes). But while it is impossible to argue that earth has not warmed up a bit in the last century, there are still some scientists with bright credentials and impressive academic affiliations who argue that people don’t have much do to with it. As Justice Anthony M. Kennedy suggested...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
the legal definition of "beyond reasonable doubt" is that an ordinary person would act on such a conclusion in the most important areas of their life.
Some people will attempt Everest, secure in the knowledge that it's ten to one that they'll live. Others won't risk getting hit by lightning even under clear skies.
The real issue is this: how bad is it if we guess wrong on global warming and take steps to head off what later turns out to have been not much of a danger? (It costs us some money. Maybe a lot of money.) And, how bad is it if we guess wrong and don't take steps and the climate change gets away from us? (It costs us, for sure, billions of lives and thousands of trillions of dollars.)
So, better safe than sorry.
Well, not really - everybody in my class grasped at the "community standard" argument when asked this question, and the Prof spent more than a little time shooting it down.
For instance, you are using the utility function of money to make an argument for action against global warming - BUT, it is not your money, and not your utility.
Also, you are presupposing that global warming has a human cause, or at least that it can be ameliorated by human action - two facts very much not in evidence. Atmospheric CO2 is a lagging indicator of global temps, not a leading one - so causation is not even in question. Interestingly, sun spots are a leading indicator of global warming - let us test a utility question.
"Give me all the money you have, have ever had, or ever will have, and I will eliminate 1 sunspot."
Do you think I can do that, by a preponderance of the evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt?
Do you think that I can do that at all?
If your entire net worth bought you a one-degree delay for 10 nanoseconds, would you pay it?
Note I am using analytical heirerarchal structure, here. If we get enought folks to agree to give up everything, we might buy a one-second delay in a one-degree increase.
But I really doubt it.
How do you propose to give up using carbon-based fuel? Eat sand?
You eat carbon-based food, you fart. Something on the order of a few litres a day, in methane outgasses.
Pull my finger. ;)
bump
She misses the most important point about courts and science, which is that from a legal perspective, cross-examination is the way one determines the truth, and the rules have now devolved to the point where one is not allowed to cross-examine the scientists in nearly all cases involving government science.
You are of course correct that statistical analysis is used in medical protocols and studies. Mea culpa ...
Ping
OMG - YOu're taking a class given by John Banzhaf???????
No, it is taught by a guy named "Bob", who works for a three-letter agency. LOL.
The correct answers are yes and unknown.
But people weren't around to start the current ice age 40 million years ago.
Oh, OK........you scared me there for a minute....
Banzhaf would be teaching you how to legally abort real science by using junk science.
Don't bother.
john banzhaf teaches at my alma mater, the George Washington University law school. his speciality has always been litigiousness. i never took him bc i thought he was a wackjob even then.
He is a whack job as far as I'm concerned. He's the mastermind behind suing the fast food industry based upon the formula he "perfected" (his word, not mine) against the tobacco industry.
His latest brainchild is threatening doctors with malpractice suits if they don't nag patients into smoking cessation programs.............I would find such an attitude just as repulsive if he were talking about coffee or wine or donuts. Like doctors don't have enough to worry about.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.