I have been following events in the US House of Representatives where the US Congress was poised to pass legislation that would overturn a scientific finding on the dangers of global warming. The bill is intended to prevent the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions, which the agency declared a threat to public welfare in 2009. That assessment serves as the EPA’s legal basis for regulation, so repealing the ‘endangerment finding’ would eliminate its authority over greenhouse gases.
Several top climate scientists including the few qualified sceptics testified last week in front of Congress in an attempt to show the scientific case for global warming and therefore allowing the EPA to do its job.
But but as a podcast on the Scientific American site reports;
"Congress has finally acted on global warming - by denying it exists."
Not even the sceptical scientists deny that global warming exists, and as far as I know they even all apportion part of the blame to Human emissions. So for a legislative authority to actually declare that it doesn't even exist is bizarre. It really is like passing a law against gravity. That a scientifically sound finding had no bearing on the decision to push the legislation is a global embarrassment.
How can it be ethical, never mind legal, to pass judgement on scientific findings rather than their implicatiopns? This seems a clear case of politicians with their heads in the sand trying to avoid the implications of scientific findings.