A duck hunt for global warming

(snip)
SUPREME COURT Justice Antonin Scalia needs to go duck hunting. It is the only way for him to understand global warming.
Article Tools

He made that clear in oral arguments this week on whether states can sue the Environmental Protection Agency over the agency's refusal -- with the backing of the White House and the auto industry -- to regulate emissions of the greenhouse gases of global warming. Just moments after James Milkey, Massachusetts assistant attorney general, opened his statement on how the state "will be hit particularly hard" by rising oceans, Scalia pounced on him with: "I thought that the standing requires imminent harm. If you haven't been harmed already, you have to show the harm is imminent. Is this harm imminent?"
(snip)

(snip)
If Scalia checks out his hunting grounds, he might see the cataclysm more clearly.
(snip)

(snip)
Louisiana duck hunters are among the many folks feeling the consequences of inaction on global warming. In Louisiana, a 2005 Shreveport Times story quoted duck hunters who said their hunting has gotten much worse in the last several years. The story was written following a National Wildlife Federation report warning that a warmer planet would mean traditional duck breeding grounds in North America's prairies could dry up and traditional wintering wetlands in the South could flood.
(snip)

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/12/02/a_duck_hunt_for_global_warming/

Alright, I really don't want Bush choosing any more Supreme Court but now with a Democratic Senate to hold the Decider's worst instincts in check we might actually be able to get someone a little more moderate than Scalia.

On the other hand the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.

edited to correct spelling

at the last moment and avert catastrophe at some point several years from now if we don't act immediately and decisively right now? We have already seen one great America city drown under the indifferent eyes of these monsters. I guess it is of no great importance to Scalia if Boston goes the way of New Orleans.:grr:

like Cheney

" The Ross Ice Shelf, a massive piece of ice the size of France, could break off without warning causing a dramatic rise in sea levels, warn New Zealand scientists working in Antarctica.

A New Zealand-led ice drilling team has recovered three million years of climate history from samples which gives clues as to what may happen in the future."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1201-01.htm

Maybe if this ignoramus was standing on the Ross Ice Shelf when it collapsed, he could understand "imminent harm".

As an engineer, I just don't get the neocons being so damned proud of their ignorance of science and denial of any facts that do not match with their ideology. Justice Scalia made clear that he's "not a scientist. That's why I don't want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth."

I fervently wish that there was a way that I did not have to deal with the results of Scalia's and his wing nut colleagues' rulings.

the facts as revealed by the telescope that contradicted their beliefs they simply stated that the telescope only 'revealed delusions'.

It takes a lot to break through unfounded belief.

When someone believes something based on facts, they will accept new facts whether in support or contradiction of their earlier belief and adjust as they can. When someone hold a belief based on faith facts become irrelevant or at least less so.