How climate change alarmism laws are unconstitutional

[anotherneil]

It is a well-established scientific fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and it is well-known that human activity can and does produce carbon dioxide; same goes with some other greenhouse gases, such as methane.

I don't think there's any significant objection to the position that climate change is real, it does impact the environment, it is partially caused by human activity, and it has been happening ever since the planet formed an atmosphere.

However, the doom and gloom being projected by the climate change alarmists is not in fact a well-established scientific fact. It entails predictions that are not well-rooted in the scientific method; for instance, science involves observation and repeatability, and with predictions of human-caused global warming reaching achieving, and exceeding disastrous & catastrophic levels, such observations have not yet occurred (thus have not yet been repeated). The main fundamental trait of science is that a theory can be falsified; how does one falsify something that hasn't been observed, yet?

BTW yes, I get that it's desirable to avoid a disaster or catastrophe if possible, and I'm not saying that individuals shouldn't be able to make whatever personal decisions they want to make regarding human-caused global warming or climate change.

If there really is some sort of worldwide desire by all (or most) nations and the UN to (as they put it) "combat" climate change, then they'd be accommodating to at least allowing people living in places that are being affected by adverse changes in the environment to take mitigating action such as relocating.

The point is that there's more than one way to deal with a problem other than government-imposed bans, fines, taxes, etc.

When the government imposes, "carbon" taxes, bans ICE vehicles, gas-powered items (stoves, water heaters, home heating systems, etc.), coal-fired power stations, etc., and imposes fines for violating such laws, and they're doing it on the basis of climate change alarmism, then it's unconstitutional.

It infringes on the 1st clause of the 1st Amendment, which prohibits merger of church and state.

With climate change alarmism, it involves the claim that we must make sacrifices and pay "carbon" taxes, or else we'll all burn up from global warming; that's essentially no different from any conventional religion saying "pay for your sins or you'll burn in hell."

 

[Wandering Monk]

So you don't want government making laws on the basis of religious premises? I guess that means government imposed abortion bans based on religious views is also unconstitutional, right?

 

[anotherneil]

So you don't want government making laws on the basis of religious premises? I guess that means government imposed abortion bans based on religious views is also unconstitutional, right?

Any ban based only on religious views are unconstitutional, including abortion. The difference between abortion and climate change alarmism is that with abortion, there actually is a victim (an innocent, defenseless baby in the womb that's being slaughtered), and with climate change alarmism, there's the "we have to do this now, or else we're all going to suffer someday for failing to do it" type of fearmongering from crony capitalists.

Another way to look at this is to consider how "thou shall not steal" is an example of a religious view; laws against stealing would be unconstitutional if it was based on religious views and nothing more, but since there's a victim involved in stealing, then it is not unconstitutional.

Laws protecting victims are independent of religious views; the constitutional prohibition of merger of church and state doesn't mean laws have to be mutually exclusive of things that happen to coincide with religious views, otherwise rapists could simply from their own church that has as one of its commandments that "thou shall not rape", then use that to their advantage to have all laws that make rape a crime ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The point is that there's more than one way to deal with a problem other than government-imposed bans, fines, taxes, etc.

What are your suggestions?

It infringes on the 1st clause of the 1st Amendment, which prohibits merger of church and state.

With climate change alarmism, it involves the claim that we must make sacrifices and pay "carbon" taxes, or else we'll all burn up from global warming; that's essentially no different from any conventional religion saying "pay for your sins or you'll burn in hell."

Except there is scientific data to support the impacts of climate change which are more than your generalization of "we'll all burn up." Climate change alarmism isn't a religion if there's data supporting the impacts that come with a changing climate.

 

[The Hammer]

I mean. That's the first time I've heard it put this way, albeit wrongly, before.

 

[Secret Chief]

Thankfully, the 1st clause of the 1st Amendment only exists in the US.
The climate change emergency is real and it is happening now. The wettest, the warmest, the largest, the most, the least...

- Why is it raining so much?

- Climate change: How do we know it is happening and caused by humans?

 

[Revoltingest]

I see no constitutional argument.

 

[anotherneil]

What are your suggestions?

5th OP paragraph.

Except there is scientific data to support the impacts of climate change which are more than your generalization of "we'll all burn up."

The fact that there is scientific data to support the impacts of climate change is in line with what I wrote in the 2nd OP paragraph, and that isn't my generalization - that honor goes to the crony capitalists behind the propaganda curtain, along with their unwitty climate change alarmist minions.

Climate change alarmism isn't a religion if there's data supporting the impacts that come with a changing climate.

Straw man.

Those who want to want to impose a sin tax or ban on things like gas, oil, coal, conventional power plants, and ICE vehicles because they believe that everything will be fine if we make such sacrifices as though the only reason climate change exists is because of human activity are trying to use the government to impose their religion.

To reiterate what I already covered in the OP, the climate has been changing ever since the planet developed an atmosphere. Both natural events and biological entities - every single one of them - can and do have an impact on changing the climate, including changes to climate change. If no life had ever existed on this planet, the climate would be completely different from what it is now.

It is incorrect to believe that there won't be any climate change without the use of gas, coal, and oil, and one of the purposes of the 1st clause of the 1st Amendment is to protect people from such beliefs, just like it's there to protect virgins from being sacrificed by being tossed into that angry volcano.

 

[McBell]

I see no constitutional argument.

I am still waiting for the OP to explain how climate change laws are unconstitutional.

Thus far all they have done is make the bold empty claim.

 

[anotherneil]

Thankfully, the 1st clause of the 1st Amendment only exists in the US.
The climate change emergency is real and it is happening now. The wettest, the warmest, the largest, the most, the least...

- Why is it raining so much?

- Climate change: How do we know it is happening and caused by humans?

Propaganda & don't forget that Eric Blair worked for the BBC.

The modern precise recording of scientific data only goes back by up to around 150 years. There is no scientific data from weather satellites from 65 years ago or more.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; breaking a record is not the same as "it never happened before."

 

[anotherneil]

I see no constitutional argument.

Precisely; there is no constitutional right for the government to impose such sin taxes, bans, etc.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Propaganda & don't forget that Eric Blair worked for the BBC.

The modern precise recording of scientific data only goes back by up to around 150 years. There is no scientific data from weather satellites from 65 years ago or more.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; breaking a record is not the same as "it never happened before."

Also that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Precisely; there is no constitutional right for the government to impose such sin taxes, bans, etc.

What is your reasoning based on which parts of the Constitution?

 

[McBell]

Also that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I completely agree.
Thus the reason I am giving the OP a chance to present something other than bold empty claims.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Propaganda & don't forget that Eric Blair worked for the BBC.

The modern precise recording of scientific data only goes back by up to around 150 years. There is no scientific data from weather satellites from 65 years ago or more.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; breaking a record is not the same as "it never happened before."

There is CO2 evidence from ice cores that goes back about 800,000 years. By knowing the concentrations in that continuum of the core and looking at the flora and fauna from the same era tells us a lot about how warm it was at those levels across the world.

Ice cores and climate change - British Antarctic Survey

Introduction Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, and the longest ice cores extend …

www.bas.ac.uk

Climate explained: what the world was like the last time carbon dioxide levels were at 400ppm

The last time global carbon dioxide levels were around 400ppm was four million years ago. On average, the world was 3°C warmer, but in high northern latitudes, it was up to 14°C warmer than today.

theconversation.com

 

[anotherneil]

What is your reasoning based on which parts of the Constitution?

I already covered this in the OP (or perhaps I don't understand what you're trying to ask).

 

[Revoltingest]

I already covered this in the OP (or perhaps I don't understand what you're trying to ask).

Claim without cogent reasoning.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I completely agree.
Thus the reason I am giving the OP a chance to present something other than bold empty claims.

Can't be any other way. Evidence and a little education can be a great asset pro and con.

 

[anotherneil]

Claim without cogent reasoning.

This is not an argument, and it's not helpful or useful to me. If you wish to provide a rebuttal to my OP argument, then please do so.

 

[McBell]

This is not an argument, and it's not helpful or useful to me. If you wish to provide a rebuttal to my OP argument, then please do so.

There is no need to rebut bold empty claims.
Which means your OP is not an argument.
It appears to be nothing more than an emotional rant.