3 ms·

What you're advocating is that science would be done by judicial branch, not by science. More so when the new EPA policy depends of a subjective matter and we

What you're advocating is that science would be done by judicial branch, not by science. More so when the new EPA policy depends of a subjective matter and we know what the position of the new chief is.

yorwba 9y ago
I apparently have a different understanding of what "doing science" means. To me, it means performing experiments, taking measurements, testing theories etc. the result of which is usually some kind of scientific publication. I'm obviously not advocating that this kind of work be done by the judicial branch. So what am I imagining the judicial branch to do? Assume the new leadership of the EPA decides to introduce some new policy based on bogus cherry-picked studies that deny the reality of climate change. When people rightfully complain that this is not the "best available science", the case goes to a judge. The judge now has to decide whether or not the HONEST act was violated. To do that, since they are themselves not in a position to judge the science involved, they will likely have to rely on expert testimony. Given the overwhelming consensus in the scientific literature, a judge would have to be quite crooked indeed not to find that studies that completely fail to reflect this are not the "best available science". They should thus find in favor of environmentalists against the EPA. Am I too naive in imagining this outcome?
- politician 9y ago
  Naive, yes, but no offence intended. You seem sincere, but consider that many judges are political appointees trained in legal matters. They will leave "the science" up to expert witnesses who've been paid to say whatever they've been paid to say. Look at the court cases involving Purdue Pharma and Oxycontin, or Phillip Morris and Cigarettes, or any of the oil companies and their oil spills, or Nestlé and cases involving its water sources, or look at the government and gerrymandering. The evidence of judges identifying sound science and it affecting their decisions in major cases - those involving large amounts of money - is not comforting. But if that doesn't convince you, then perhaps you can show us where in the Constitution the judiciary is delegated this power to define truth. Have you never heard the cautionary story of Galileo?

yorwba 9y ago

I apparently have a different understanding of what "doing science" means. To me, it means performing experiments, taking measurements, testing theories etc. the result of which is usually some kind of scientific publication. I'm obviously not advocating that this kind of work be done by the judicial branch. So what am I imagining the judicial branch to do? Assume the new leadership of the EPA decides to introduce some new policy based on bogus cherry-picked studies that deny the reality of climate change. When people rightfully complain that this is not the "best available science", the case goes to a judge. The judge now has to decide whether or not the HONEST act was violated. To do that, since they are themselves not in a position to judge the science involved, they will likely have to rely on expert testimony. Given the overwhelming consensus in the scientific literature, a judge would have to be quite crooked indeed not to find that studies that completely fail to reflect this are not the "best available science". They should thus find in favor of environmentalists against the EPA. Am I too naive in imagining this outcome?

politician 9y ago
Naive, yes, but no offence intended. You seem sincere, but consider that many judges are political appointees trained in legal matters. They will leave "the science" up to expert witnesses who've been paid to say whatever they've been paid to say. Look at the court cases involving Purdue Pharma and Oxycontin, or Phillip Morris and Cigarettes, or any of the oil companies and their oil spills, or Nestlé and cases involving its water sources, or look at the government and gerrymandering. The evidence of judges identifying sound science and it affecting their decisions in major cases - those involving large amounts of money - is not comforting. But if that doesn't convince you, then perhaps you can show us where in the Constitution the judiciary is delegated this power to define truth. Have you never heard the cautionary story of Galileo?