• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Americans don't have a right to a climate capable of sustaining human life"

ataraxia said:
And so that means what? That we should deny science and just keep looking for Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about denying science? Good Science stands on its own merit. I have yet to see any valid data.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
It's about whether you, the person reading this, think American's have a right to a climate capable of sustaining human life.
Click to expand...
I think that could be argued as an extension to the general right to life.

I’m not sure I trust the paraphrasing which suggests someone actually stated that this isn’t a right and, possibly related, I’d question whether any singular government could be deemed to have directly compromised that right in relation to climate change given that it is an entirely world-wide and multi-generational issue. It might be a more relevant right in relation to direct environmental risks like chemical spills or local air pollution.
 
ataraxia said:
This is no excuse to deny science or not pursue sound policy.
Click to expand...

Correct. However, evil oil companies don't burn the oil that creates the CO2, the consumer does that. Less consumption, less CO2. Environmental activists should know that all things equal, making $25,000 a year is better for the Earth than making $80,000 a year. Education in pursuit of that higher income (and higher consumption) is harmful to the Earth.
 
Luther said:
I didn't know there were "absolutes" in science?
Click to expand...

So we should ignore all science now. Got it, thanks.:lamo

Think about that next time you get on a plane.
 
AlphaOmega said:
Who said anything about denying science? Good Science stands on its own merit. I have yet to see any valid data.
Click to expand...


What qualifies you to know it better than every single scientific organization on the entire planet?
 
Read em and weep, conservatives:

The US government has not disputed that climate breakdown is real, or that an environmental crisis looms. In fact, government experts generally agree with the plaintiffs’ experts on the science. Government attorneys have instead argued that the court does not have the legal authority to tell the federal government what to do about climate change, and that a trial would be too burdensome. They have also argued that Americans don’t have a right to “a climate capable of sustaining human life”.
Click to expand...

Absolutely awesome coming from the "Pro Life party." The Party of Life who believes we don't have a right to a climate capable of sustaining human life. The same sordid batch of absolute morons who insist this world was created by a deity.

Absolutely insane.
 
ataraxia said:
What qualifies you to know it better than every single scientific organization on the entire planet?
Click to expand...

I have been a scientist since 1986. I specialize in verifying scientific data. Would you like to see if you can get past the remedial set of data verification and validation questions?
 
AlphaOmega said:
I have been a scientist since 1986. I specialize in verifying scientific data. Would you like to see if you can get past the remedial set of data verification and validation questions?
Click to expand...

Based on your posting history, that is a rather dubious claim. Can you definitively prove said claim to be factual ? My prediction is the answer is NO. Feel free to prove that to be incorrect.
 
AlphaOmega said:
I have been a scientist since 1986. I specialize in verifying scientific data. Would you like to see if you can get past the remedial set of data verification and validation questions?
Click to expand...

Somehow I doubt it. You don’t really have a scientific mindset. You don’t seem to have a good grasp of how science works. Maybe you got a degree, and are not practicing anymore, or never used it in the first place. You speak science like a foreigner, with a very foreign accent.

Whatever the case, what makes you think that as a single individual do you know better than the unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization of your peers on the entire planet?
 
Aberration said:
This is absolutely correct. You do not have such a right. Just like you don’t have the right to see the Sun come up tomorrow.

It’s absurd to think you have a right to dictate the laws of nature bend to your desire.

These idiots should go enforce their right on Mars.
Click to expand...
I'd have put it more diplomatically, but... amen.

And to add to one thing, since I don't often get to bring this up: Please sign my change.org petition demanding the right to jump off cliffs and be unfettered from gravity, soaring to new heights rather than plummeting to our deaths.
 
ataraxia said:
Somehow I doubt it. You don’t really have a scientific mindset. You don’t seem to have a good grasp of how science works. Maybe you got a degree, and are not practicing anymore, or never used it in the first place. You speak science like a foreigner, with a very foreign accent.

Whatever the case, what makes you think that as a single individual do you know better than the unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization of your peers on the entire planet?
Click to expand...

Then you should have no problem answering the remedial questions.
 
Aberration said:
This is absolutely correct. You do not have such a right. Just like you don’t have the right to see the Sun come up tomorrow.

It’s absurd to think you have a right to dictate the laws of nature bend to your desire.

These idiots should go enforce their right on Mars.
Click to expand...

Riddle you this: If climate change is the impending catastrophe that most scientists are claiming, why do said scientists rely on the unproven theory of AGW climate change (that man is the main or only causer of climate change)? Why do said scientists monitor, solely, CO2 which is less than 5% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
 
AlphaOmega said:
Then you should have no problem answering the remedial questions.
Click to expand...

I don’t claim to be a climate change scientist ( although I also have a doctorate in the sciences, but a tangential field. I stay in my lane, like any scientist). Why don’t you post that challenge to your peers (supposedly) at, say, the National Academy of Sciences? I am sure they would love to be educated and enlightened by you.
 
Obscurity said:
The Party of Life who believes we don't have a right to a climate capable of sustaining human life.
Click to expand...
The verdict is legal boilerplate for "We, the courts, have no jurisdiction over what you propose is necessary for the preservation of a climate capable of sustaining human life. Your blatant end run around the nation's legislatures has failed. You've wasted our time. Your contempt for democracy is an embarrassment to our nation. Case closed."

But sure, delight yourself imagining the entire Republican Party totally indifferent to whether the Earth can sustain life. I also hear they hate water and sunlight.
 
ataraxia said:
I know what the rightists here are going to say. They are going to say that there is no such thing as a right to a sustainable climate in the constitution. Therefore any attempt to control the climate is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

That would be dumb. Rights are inherit. The constitution doesnt grant them. It PROTECTS them. And there is no right not to be killed nature.
 
cabse5 said:
Riddle you this: If climate change is the impending catastrophe that most scientists are claiming, why do said scientists rely on the unproven theory of AGW climate change (that man is the main or only causer of climate change)? Why do said scientists monitor, solely, CO2 which is less than 5% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
Click to expand...

As a composition of gas C02 is 4 hundred of a percent at 415 parts per MILLION.
 
jonny5 said:
That would be dumb. Rights are inherit. The constitution doesnt grant them. It PROTECTS them. And there is no right not to be killed nature.
Click to expand...

The right to life is constitutional. If greedy corporations are endangering that, the public needs to be protected from them.
 
ataraxia said:
The right to life is constitutional. If greedy corporations are endangering that, the public needs to be protected from them.
Click to expand...

The right to live is inherint, not constitutional. The constitution doesnt create rights. But it does empower the govt to protect life from human action. But thats a valid argument. If greedy corporations are indeed causing the climate to harm citizens, then they should be punished. There just isnt any proof of harm.
 
jonny5 said:
The right to live is inherint, not constitutional. The constitution doesnt create rights. But it does empower the govt to protect life from human action. But thats a valid argument. If greedy corporations are indeed causing the climate to harm citizens, then they should be punished. There just isnt any proof of harm.
Click to expand...

If the unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet is not any proof, then what could ever be?
 
ataraxia said:
If the unanimous consensus ?
Click to expand...

There was quite a bit of consensus that the earth was flat at one time. Are you now sure the earth is not flat?

This is an oxymoron anyway. Scientists make conclusions based on proven facts repeatable by using consistent scientific methodology. Not on peer pressure.

Lets listen to a real weatherman that has been studying climate for decades...


Founder of the Weather Channel

 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
I don’t claim to be a climate change scientist ( although I also have a doctorate in the sciences, but a tangential field. I stay in my lane, like any scientist). Why don’t you post that challenge to your peers (supposedly) at, say, the National Academy of Sciences? I am sure they would love to be educated and enlightened by you.
Click to expand...

What is the formal name of the study you are referring to?
 
akyron said:
There was quite a bit of consensus that the earth was flat at one time. Are you now sure the earth is not flat?
Click to expand...

And we are the center of the universe.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Teen activists face US government in crucial hearing over climate trial | Environment | The Guardian

this is not about the validity of the trial, or whether climate change is real.


this is not about the validity of the trial, or whether climate change is real.


this is not about the validity of the trial, or whether climate change is real.



this is not about the validity of the trial, or whether climate change is real.

It's about whether you, the person reading this, think American's have a right to a climate capable of sustaining human life.

I say yes, because I want to live and I want my grandkids and their grandkids to live.
Click to expand...

Life, liberty, property form the fundamentals of natural rights. People polluting or destroying the environment in ways that makes sustaining human life impossible certainly impacts that. So the base of their argument is wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom