The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

No, the more you learn the more you learn.
Unfortunately, today, bias-laden indoctrination is masked as "learning" or "education" from all quarters.

Magnets. How do they work?

I'll take the scientists, you take Forbes. In a hundred years we'll see who's right and who's bullshitting to make money.

Spoiler: you're going to lose.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Magnets. How do they work?

I'll take the scientists, you take Forbes. In a hundred years we'll see who's right and who's bullshitting to make money.

Spoiler: you're going to lose.

Forbes? No. NOAA.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

However, to your prior point about biases weighing in SCOTUS decisions, you see "Forbes" and have a Pavlovian response regarding business. Forbes is reporting what science did and found. (messenger --> shot)

That the USCNR reading are not rising, but falling, to me makes me wonder about their data collection techniques compared to the rest.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

That the USCNR reading are not rising, but falling, to me makes me wonder about their data collection techniques compared to the rest.

If you have science training superior to the 97% of scientists who form the consensus that climate change is both real and at minimum exacerbated by carbon emissions, then you should be publishing converse findings rather than arguing on USCHO.

The arguments you are making have been ginned up for the same purposes as the obfuscations about smoking and cancer were ginned up.

Cui bono isn't infallible, but it's useful. Ask yourself who is more likely to be just flat out lying: doctors or cigarette companies.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Ask yourself who is more likely to be just flat out lying: doctors or cigarette companies.

That's easy: Anyone looking to keep making a buck doing what they're doing ... whatever that product or output may be ...


I'm not making an argument; and I'm not looking to publish. I'm pointing out NOAA just released data that they produced, data that should have nailed this down. Clearly something in at least one data set they have produced is amiss.

[GrinCDXX]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Forbes? No. NOAA.
Forbes is reporting what science did and found. (messenger --> shot)

No. Forbes is offering pretend scientist, James Taylor's opinion on the significance of the data. That's not to say the data has no significance, but I think I'll wait for actual experts to weigh in on it

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

No. Forbes is offering pretend scientist, James Taylor's opinion on the significance of the data. That's not to say the data has no significance, but I think I'll wait for actual experts to weigh in on it

Clearly Mr. Taylor's opinion is there.
The data is what it is (-0.4 degrees C over a decade).
Significance? It's a decade worth of data on a billions of year old rock.

[Priceless]

Clearly Mr. Taylor's opinion is there.
The data is what it is (-0.4 degrees C over a decade).
Significance? It's a decade worth of data on a billions of year old rock.

Billions of years? I thought the planet was only 6000 years old?

[GrinCDXX]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Clearly Mr. Taylor's opinion is there.
The data is what it is (-0.4 degrees C over a decade).
Significance? It's a decade worth of data on a billions of year old rock.

I understand the data is what it is, but Taylor (and you apparently?) seems to think a ten year cooling period over 2% of the world's surface proves...something. Like I said, I think I'll wait to see if real life experts agree with him.

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

This is a good point, although I would usually ascribe it less to "muting" than the strategy of trying to find solutions that will not become immediately dated. Like car dealers, justices are "not selling you one car, but the next ten cars," and they are tethering their language to defensible principles for future Courts, regardless of makeup. Nobody wants to be remembered as the author of Dred Scott, Plessy, or Lochner.

Lets see how they come down on this. Bit surprised at who the defendents are, but you knew something along these lines was going to happen...

" Lawyers for two Guantanamo Bay detainees have filed motions asking a U.S. court to block officials from preventing the inmates from taking part in communal prayers during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. The lawyers argue that—in light of the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby decision—the detainees’ rights are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The motions were filed this week with the Washington D.C. district court on behalf of Emad Hassan of Yemen and Ahmed Rabbani of Pakistan. U.K.-based human rights group Reprieve said both men asked for the intervention after military officials at the prison "prevented them from praying communally during Ramadan."

"Hobby Lobby makes clear that all persons—human and corporate, citizen and foreigner, resident and alien—enjoy the special religious free exercise protections of the RFRA," the lawyers argued in court papers."

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I understand the data is what it is, but Taylor (and you apparently?) seems to think a ten year cooling period over 2% of the world's surface proves...something. Like I said, I think I'll wait to see if real life experts agree with him.

No, I find it interesting that NOAA has data that at first blush is contradictory to its past findings and conclusions.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Lets see how they come down on this. Bit surprised at who the defendents are, but you knew something along these lines was going to happen...

" Lawyers for two Guantanamo Bay detainees have filed motions asking a U.S. court to block officials from preventing the inmates from taking part in communal prayers during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. The lawyers argue that—in light of the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby decision—the detainees’ rights are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The motions were filed this week with the Washington D.C. district court on behalf of Emad Hassan of Yemen and Ahmed Rabbani of Pakistan. U.K.-based human rights group Reprieve said both men asked for the intervention after military officials at the prison "prevented them from praying communally during Ramadan."

"Hobby Lobby makes clear that all persons—human and corporate, citizen and foreigner, resident and alien—enjoy the special religious free exercise protections of the RFRA," the lawyers argued in court papers."

C'mon man, bettin' against the Law of Unintended Consequences is a sucker bet.


PS - "National Security Interests" trump "religious freedoms". -- Signed, the NSA

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

No, I find it interesting that NOAA has data that at first blush is contradictory to its past findings and conclusions.

And these people don't deal well with contradictory data, even if they try to explain it away as insignificant.

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Lets see how they come down on this. Bit surprised at who the defendents are, but you knew something along these lines was going to happen...

" Lawyers for two Guantanamo Bay detainees have filed motions asking a U.S. court to block officials from preventing the inmates from taking part in communal prayers during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. The lawyers argue that—in light of the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby decision—the detainees’ rights are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The motions were filed this week with the Washington D.C. district court on behalf of Emad Hassan of Yemen and Ahmed Rabbani of Pakistan. U.K.-based human rights group Reprieve said both men asked for the intervention after military officials at the prison "prevented them from praying communally during Ramadan."

"Hobby Lobby makes clear that all persons—human and corporate, citizen and foreigner, resident and alien—enjoy the special religious free exercise protections of the RFRA," the lawyers argued in court papers."

Probably never make the Supremes. This will just come down to the question of "least restrictive means" of the government to address security issues. Do they have the right to pray "communally", as they allege, or can the government make them pray alone. Pretty easy answer to that one, I'd guess.

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Probably never make the Supremes. This will just come down to the question of "least restrictive means" of the government to address security issues. Do they have the right to pray "communally", as they allege, or can the government make them pray alone. Pretty easy answer to that one, I'd guess.

Not if their religion dictates communal prayer however.

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Not if their religion dictates communal prayer however.

Not being a Muslim myself I can't speak to the intricacies of their prayer practices. However, I think in general communal prayer is the "preferred" way, but not necessarily required.

That said, even if it was a strict requirement of their religion, they are still going to lose. The point of the statute, as I understand it, was to restore the "compelling state interest" test back into an analysis of these types of restrictions. The statute doesn't say you can never restrict someone's religious practices (prisoner claims a religious requirement to pray alone, on a secluded beach, for instance). You just need a compelling state interest.