- Joined
- May 17, 2019
- Messages
- 20,649
- Reaction score
- 2,465
- Location
- Idaho
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
This is no excuse to deny science or not pursue sound policy.
I didn't know there were "absolutes" in science?
This is no excuse to deny science or not pursue sound policy.
And so that means what? That we should deny science and just keep looking for Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate?
I think that could be argued as an extension to the general right to life.It's about whether you, the person reading this, think American's have a right to a climate capable of sustaining human life.
This is no excuse to deny science or not pursue sound policy.
I didn't know there were "absolutes" in science?
Who said anything about denying science? Good Science stands on its own merit. I have yet to see any valid data.
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”.
What qualifies you to know it better than every single scientific organization on the entire planet?
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?
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?
I'd have put it more diplomatically, but... amen.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.
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?
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.
Then you should have no problem answering the remedial questions.
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."The Party of Life who believes we don't have a right to a climate capable of sustaining human life.
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.
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?
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.
The right to life is constitutional. If greedy corporations are endangering that, the public needs to be protected from them.
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.
If the unanimous consensus ?
I thought that we’re a Republic?
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.
There was quite a bit of consensus that the earth was flat at one time. Are you now sure the earth is not flat?
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.