How climate change alarmism laws are unconstitutional

[libre]

Further, Popper's criterion actually serves the 'alarmers' rather than the doubters.

See: Climate Science & Falsifiability | Issue 104 | Philosophy Now

Science may not do proof, but it certainly does do disproof. So although it may not be possible for climatologists to prove their case conclusively, it is possible to look at the contrary hypothesis and refute it. And the contrarians do have a hypothesis: it is that man-made carbon dioxide will not have a severe effect on global climate. This angle transforms the debate into a question about the degree to which the global climate will change given the known increase in greenhouse gases.

 

[Secret Chief]

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."

BBC = propaganda.
Bye.

 

[anotherneil]

"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."

"Allowing relocation" is the only suggestion.

You're quoting wording I didn't actually use in the last sentence, here, but I wouldn't object if you had omitted the quote marks in it; as can be seen in the first quote, I said "...action such as relocating." Yes, relocating and allowing it to take place is just one suggestion, but "mitigating action" is a set of actions.

But if you have a desire for me to propose other suggestions, it mainly involves plenty of things we already do. There's construction of levees, flood walls, and dams; there's also construction of elevated buildings, underground infrastructure development, implementing rainwater harvesting and water conservation where it would be beneficial or advantageous, changes in infrastructure that can reduce the urban heat island effects, investing in & producing technology that makes renewable energy more economically feasible (if you want to take the risk), and finding better & more efficient ways to utilize land.

Here's an EPA page full of suggestions, including many that don't involve the government imposing bans or fines for this or that:

Strategies for Climate Change Adaptation | US EPA

Links to resources for adaptation strategies for climate change.

www.epa.gov

How's that supposed to mitigate climate change?

It mitigates climate change by relocating people from places that that have been rendered less habitable or uninhabitable, to areas that are more suitable for habitation.

But that's not what the scientists are saying.

What isn't what scientists are saying? Who are the scientists you speak of? Please provide names.

Nope.

It's a straw man because I'm referring to a circumstance where people are making decisions based on an absence of data, and in your response, you're referring to a circumstance where people are making decisions based on the presence of data.

Your argument hinges on climate change legislation being a "religion," and this violates the 1st Amendment.

No, that's not what my argument is about; I'm not calling climate change legislation a religion. I'm saying that climate change alarmism isn't based on science, and has the same - looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck & quacks like a duck characteristics - establishment as a religion. As such, it makes legislation which targets human activity involving burning hydrocarbons & exhaling, on the basis of climate change alarmism, a law that respects an establishment of religion. This is what would infringe on the 1st clause of the 1st Amendment. See paragraphs 3, 7, 8, and 9 in the OP for this.

I'm also saying that even with scientific support of climate change, including the possibility that it's human-caused, there are things that can be done to deal with it that don't involve government-imposed bans, fines, taxes, etc. See paragraphs 1 and 6 in the OP for this.

In order to make this argument, you need to be able to define religion in a way that makes sense according to the 1st Amendment and how it would relate to the predictions of climate change science. This appears to be both an unsound and invalid argument.

It's not an argument pertaining to climate change science, it's an argument pertaining to climate change alarmism.

Nope. These technologies pose actual physical dangers even beyond their impact on the climate.

This claim doesn't refute that; it's a non sequitur.

As human population grows, our technology develops, and our globalization expands, we need to accept more restraints on how we use resources.

False dilemma fallacy; the free market can and does serve as a means for people who are creative and innovative to find ways to deal with problems. What you're advocating here is a socialist and pessimistic philosophy, and it is that which really causes disasters and suffering.

There's the strawman. Of course climate changes naturally.

Nope, it's not possible for it to be a straw man since it doesn't qualify. A straw man attack requires taking something from a debate opponent, changing it, and attacking the changed thing rather than the original thing from the debate opponent, so OP content can't be a straw man.

That's no reason to ignore our own impact on it.

This ignores paragraph 4 in the OP.

My point is that climate change existed long before you or anyone else started their gas-powered car or stove, so dealing with climate change isn't something new for life on Earth.

When you do something to change a climate that's changing and has been changing, you get change to the climate change, which is what you already had before - climate change. It's analogous to taking the derivative with respect to x of e^x - you get e^x.

Can you show that this was the purpose of the 1st clause?

Yes, given that climate change has always been happening, even before human beings came into existence; I think that's sufficient to show that this same climate change will continue to be present even if human being completely stopped burning hydrocarbons.

It seems more likely that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." makes more sense when discussing spiritual beliefs

The 2nd clause (freedom of religion) isn't part of the point of contention for this thread; and discussing spiritual beliefs itself is covered by the freedom of speech & freedom of the press clauses.

Government is about being a system of coercion, and it's one thing when the government is using coercion to compel someone to not victimize someone else, but the point of contention is the government using coercion aimed at people who want to cook their food on their gas stove, drive their gas-powered vehicle, or receive power for their homes or businesses from power plants that burn hydrocarbons in order to prevent them from doing those things just because some alarmist is screaming "The sky is falling! Uh, ok, well it might happen someday, eventually, because we humans are changing the climate change - I suppose?"

rather than scientific concepts.

Actually that's debatable; I don't see why it couldn't be argued that scientific concepts could also be construed as religious, specifically if there's a law that compels anyone to accept scientific concepts if they don't want to be thrown in prison. As far as I know, there aren't any such laws. Science isn't about forcing anyone to accept anything, since it's falsifiable, people have to be willing to agree to accept it (or not willing and to reject it), and it's about being shown or observing those scientific concepts for ourselves.

Can you imagine throwing people in prison for rejecting evolution, especially those who choose to reject because of their religious beliefs? No one should be thrown in prison for rejecting evolution, but it's their problem if they turn down treatment for an illness that was derived & developed from scientific knowledge of evolution; there's another thread that I started where I discuss this.

The dangers of fossil fuel use are well-established.

They're hydrocarbons & you're essentially reiterating here something you already claimed earlier.

 

[anotherneil]

Ok.
I am a climate scientist.
What is your question?
In general scientists have consensus that our current curbs and policies are inadequate to avoid human caused catastrophic climate change by the end of this century and more stringent actions are way overdue.
Do you wish me to refer to academic papers on this matter?

Alright, here are a couple of questions for you:

What do you think of this? Global Warming Petition Project

From Table 3, (% of) all authors that endorse AGW: 34.8% - Radware Bot Manager Captcha
That's rather far from being a consensus that endorses AGW - would you agree?

I've watched around 150 video recordings of presentations by climate scientists; I was actually able to see and hear them speaking for myself, talking about climate change, and I could look them up online to see their bios, background & credentials.

Just to name a few: Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon, Judith Curry, Freeman Dyson, Roy Spencer, William Happer, Bob Carter, Ivar Giaever, Patrick Moore, John Christy, Tim Ball, Murry Salby, David Evans, Don Easterbrook, David Legates, Kary Mullis, Garth Paltridge, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, and Chris de Freitas - they do not endorse AGW; here are a couple who do endorse AGW: Tim Palmer & Guy McPherson.

Those who endorsed AGW seemed to be far outnumbered by those who don't endorse AGW and say that there's no cause for alarm by between 25 and 30 to 1. That's about 1/10th of that 34.8% from Table 3 above.

I suppose you could refer to academic papers if you wish; what do you think of the peer review mills controversy?

 

[anotherneil]

Answer me honestly: do you seriously believe you have met your burden of proof in the OP, that you sufficiently evidenced/argued all controversial factual claims as well as your conclusion(s)?

I seriously believe that I'm irrelevant to the topic; it's not about me. Decide for yourself whether to accept or reject what I have posted.

 

[anotherneil]

It reminds me of the alarmist warnings of icebergs in the transmissions to the Titanic and other ships. It's not as if everyone died, so what was the big deal?

Not sure what your point is; are you suggesting that AGW is to blame for the sinking of the Titanic, or that God spoke through a member of the clergy to try to warn it about the iceberg but it was ignored - or what?

 

[anotherneil]

If you are claiming that the above are religious "we must make sacrifices and pay "carbon" taxes, or else we'll all burn up from global warming" claims, there is no way to take you seriously in this thread.

I don't matter; this thread isn't about me.

 

[anotherneil]

We have a lot of scientific information on what happens when the temperature changes. We do know the melting point of ice, we observe the melting polar icecaps. We see the resulting rising sea levels and the drought and flooding that are becoming more and more of a problem.

Similarly, we can infer how slight temperature changes are going to have consequences across the planet which contribute to famine, wildfire, and other health risks. NASA has a list of ways that climate change is already affecting Americans here: Climate change impacts.

The above is just the tip of the iceberg.

Well, I'm still here, alive & doing ok. Do you think humans are somehow at fault for these events, and they're not simply naturally occurring events that have been happening since long before human beings showed up for the party and started burning hydrocarbons?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

But if you have a desire for me to propose other suggestions, it mainly involves plenty of things we already do. There's construction of levees, flood walls, and dams; there's also construction of elevated buildings, underground infrastructure development, implementing rainwater harvesting and water conservation where it would be beneficial or advantageous, changes in infrastructure that can reduce the urban heat island effects, investing in & producing technology that makes renewable energy more economically feasible (if you want to take the risk), and finding better & more efficient ways to utilize land.

Here's an EPA page full of suggestions, including many that don't involve the government imposing bans or fines for this or that:

Strategies for Climate Change Adaptation | US EPA

Links to resources for adaptation strategies for climate change.

www.epa.gov

It's not so much that I desire it as much as you are proposing we don't take actions against a problem you agree is there while only hinting at solutions.

It mitigates climate change by relocating people from places that that have been rendered less habitable or uninhabitable, to areas that are more suitable for habitation.

Then aren't we going to have to regulate this, along with all the usual regulations that deal with the other solutions you and the EPA suggest? For instance, migration is already becoming a big issue that requires some very serious regulation to manage. It takes money (thus taxes) to manage.

This is also true for infrastructure changes. Also, for healthcare costs that are likely to go up considering the impact that changing climate has on biodiversity, increasing things the likelihood of diseases while still utilizing fossil fuels that are carcinogenic and cause lung diseases.

What isn't what scientists are saying? Who are the scientists you speak of? Please provide names.

Your original claim that "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."'

According to NOAA:

"...climate change refers to more than an increase in temperature. It also includes sea level rise, changes in weather patterns like drought and flooding, and much more. Things that we depend upon and value — water, energy, transportation, wildlife, agriculture, ecosystems, and human health — are experiencing the effects of a changing climate."

Climate change impacts

Though we often think about human-induced climate change as something that will happen in the future, it is an ongoing process. Ecosystems and communities in the United States and around the world are being impacted today.

www.noaa.gov

You agree with this. In other words, what "alarmists" are actually suggesting are some of the things we are already experiencing.

You can check NOAA's sources. If you need people, here's a page listing some of their scientists:

Meet Our People - NOAA Research

A Uniquely Human Endeavor Meet Our People Meet Our People

research.noaa.gov

It's a straw man because I'm referring to a circumstance where people are making decisions based on an absence of data, and in your response, you're referring to a circumstance where people are making decisions based on the presence of data.

There isn't an absence of data for the impacts of climate change unless you are referring to the generalization of "we'll all burn up" as you did in your OP. That would make your argument a strawman: creating something that is easily pushed down.

No, that's not what my argument is about; I'm not calling climate change legislation a religion. I'm saying that climate change alarmism isn't based on science, and has the same - looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck & quacks like a duck characteristics - establishment as a religion. As such, it makes legislation which targets human activity involving burning hydrocarbons & exhaling, on the basis of climate change alarmism, a law that respects an establishment of religion. This is what would infringe on the 1st clause of the 1st Amendment. See paragraphs 3, 7, 8, and 9 in the OP for this.

The Constitution specifies religion. If you aren't calling climate change legislation a religion, then simply saying it's close enough (the duck idiom), then it doesn't apply.

I'm also saying that even with scientific support of climate change, including the possibility that it's human-caused, there are things that can be done to deal with it that don't involve government-imposed bans, fines, taxes, etc. See paragraphs 1 and 6 in the OP for this.

Anything that can be done will involve some sort of government regulation. That's the nature of government. I addressed that earlier for reference.

It's not an argument pertaining to climate change science, it's an argument pertaining to climate change alarmism.

Then it might be good to specifically show how these regulations you speak of are being driven by alarmism and not science. Calling it "alarmism" is a claim you need to defend. You have already agreed that fossil fuel use is a factor in changing climate and that this will have impacts. Is it alarmist to attempt to legislate according to what scientists are suggesting will happen if we continue to rely on fossil fuels?

This claim doesn't refute that; it's a non sequitur.

Doesn't matter if we're talking about bans on fossil fuel energy. It's a factor in the regulation that can't be ignored.

False dilemma fallacy; the free market can and does serve as a means for people who are creative and innovative to find ways to deal with problems. What you're advocating here is a socialist and pessimistic philosophy, and it is that which really causes disasters and suffering.

The free market isn't really free. It's invisible hand is always going to be stunted by the people manipulating it.

It is necessarily socialist: it is a problem impacting everyone and humans need to cooperate socially to solve big problems like this.

it is pessimistic in that it is currently not pragmatic to assume that people will seek solutions without an immediate incentive that overwhelms the desire for profit. Do you believe this can happen?

What we are talking about is a global problem brought about by an industry that has been driven by profit: either economically or politically. The "free" market solution has been stunted by can kicking brought about by thise more invested in their personal economics. It's not a false dillema fallacy when the stark reality of it is staring you in the face.

A free market solution to climate change isn't an option when there's no likelihood of a free market in the first place.

Nope, it's not possible for it to be a straw man since it doesn't qualify. A straw man attack requires taking something from a debate opponent, changing it, and attacking the changed thing rather than the original thing from the debate opponent, so OP content can't be a straw man.

You made the argument that climate change alarmism says we are all going to burn so therefore it is essentially religious. You are countering arguments for climate change legislation by generalizing their argument to the point that it is easy to refute, even if it is not exactly what they are saying.

This ignores paragraph 4 in the OP.

My point is that climate change existed long before you or anyone else started their gas-powered car or stove, so dealing with climate change isn't something new for life on Earth.

When you do something to change a climate that's changing and has been changing, you get change to the climate change, which is what you already had before - climate change. It's analogous to taking the derivative with respect to x of e^x - you get e^x.


Yes, given that climate change has always been happening, even before human beings came into existence; I think that's sufficient to show that this same climate change will continue to be present even if human being completely stopped burning hydrocarbons.

Of course climate has always been changing. That's also acknowledged by climate science. The specific rise in temperatures we are currently seeing can be attributed to our specific use of fossil fuels. If we stop burning fossil fuels, we are likely to see a change in the rise of temperatures.

We could ignore that and continue our use of fossil fuels and throw our hands up and say "Oh well, climate changes." And we unfortunately are likely past the point that we won't see major impacts if we discontinue fossil fuel use. It would be foolish to give in to this can kicking: at some point we have to give up using this non-renewable, carcinogenic, polluting technology and preventing more change in our climate is a darn giod reason to do it now so we can avoid making climate change worse.

The 2nd clause (freedom of religion) isn't part of the point of contention for this thread; and discussing spiritual beliefs itself is covered by the freedom of speech & freedom of the press clauses.

It's a premise in your argument.

Government is about being a system of coercion, and it's one thing when the government is using coercion to compel someone to not victimize someone else, but the point of contention is the government using coercion aimed at people who want to cook their food on their gas stove, drive their gas-powered vehicle, or receive power for their homes or businesses from power plants that burn hydrocarbons in order to prevent them from doing those things just because some alarmist is screaming "The sky is falling! Uh, ok, well it might happen someday, eventually, because we humans are changing the climate change - I suppose?"

There's the strawman again. Climate scientists aren't calling for legislation because "the sky is falling" and at this point they are arguing that their predictions were accurate and we need to prevent further harm. You have already acknowledged this is the case.

Can you imagine throwing people in prison for rejecting evolution, especially those who choose to reject because of their religious beliefs? No one should be thrown in prison for rejecting evolution, but it's their problem if they turn down treatment for an illness that was derived & developed from scientific knowledge of evolution; there's another thread that I started where I discuss this.

There's a difference between a personal medical choice and infrastructure that impacts the health and wellbeing of everyone. Climate change impacts more fundamental rights beyond choices of stoves and transport. A person denying climate change isn't hurting anyone else. A person spewing carcinogenic pollution into the air is.

They're hydrocarbons & you're essentially reiterating here something you already claimed earlier.

Yes. Those are true things.

 

[libre]

Do you think humans are somehow at fault for these events, and they're not simply naturally occurring events that have been happening since long before human beings showed up for the party and started burning hydrocarbons?

Your OP intimated that you were already in agreement that climate change was influenced by humankind.
This reply seems to suggest you believe that man is not at fault.

This appears to me a contradiction, if you would clarify.

 

[sayak83]

Alright, here are a couple of questions for you:

What do you think of this? Global Warming Petition Project

From Table 3, (% of) all authors that endorse AGW: 34.8% - Radware Bot Manager Captcha
That's rather far from being a consensus that endorses AGW - would you agree?

I've watched around 150 video recordings of presentations by climate scientists; I was actually able to see and hear them speaking for myself, talking about climate change, and I could look them up online to see their bios, background & credentials.

Just to name a few: Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon, Judith Curry, Freeman Dyson, Roy Spencer, William Happer, Bob Carter, Ivar Giaever, Patrick Moore, John Christy, Tim Ball, Murry Salby, David Evans, Don Easterbrook, David Legates, Kary Mullis, Garth Paltridge, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, and Chris de Freitas - they do not endorse AGW; here are a couple who do endorse AGW: Tim Palmer & Guy McPherson.

Those who endorsed AGW seemed to be far outnumbered by those who don't endorse AGW and say that there's no cause for alarm by between 25 and 30 to 1. That's about 1/10th of that 34.8% from Table 3 above.

I suppose you could refer to academic papers if you wish; what do you think of the peer review mills controversy?

I have no idea where you got those links. They are entirely false.
In 2015 Pew Survey shows that 87-90% of scientists (all scientist, not merely climate scientists) agree that human caused global warming is happening and is a serious or somewhat serious problem.

Elaborating on the Views of AAAS Scientists, Issue by Issue
So whatever you are watching or listening to has absolutely zero legitimacy.
Peer review mills mostly cater to marginal academic work done by "scientists" working in 4th or 5th tier colleges who are mostly ticking CV requirements to get a teaching post. They have nearly zero relevance to the scientific work being discussed by field leaders and premiere institutes. The work on anthropogenic climate change that are presented in the IPCC reports for example are entirely unaffected by such practices. Frankly its the difference between a village sack race and Olympics 100 m competition.

Scientific organizations have a curated list of top ranked journals where high quality work is published. You can look at the list here,
Journal Rankings on Global and Planetary Change
We also keep a list of suspected journals where fake research is published.
http://www.dgpis.gob.mx/PDF/Difusion/RevistasDepredadoras.pdf

 

[F1fan]

I seriously believe that I'm irrelevant to the topic; it's not about me. Decide for yourself whether to accept or reject what I have posted.

No, I'm critical of your indifference to serious warnings about nature and how ignoring warnings can lead to serious consequences. You're actively saying "don't worry about the warnings". Now you could be right that the worst consequences don't happen, but we don't know one way or another. What we can project is IF the worst happens it will be catastrophic for societies all over the world. There will be many not directly affected because they have the resources to offset the changes. But for the poor, and the middle class citizens all over the planet? They will face dire challenges. Just look at how insurance rates have gone up in recent devades to offset the increasing number of natural disasters. Those costs are affecting the poor and middle class harder. Cost of living is going up in all areas, as food needs to resist drought and floods, and more changes in heat and insects. Someone has to pay for the scientists engineering these crops so they can resist climate change. How about increasing demand on electric grids as summers are getting hotter, and the populan ages and needs comfort?

Don't worry about until you see an iceberg, but it's too late to steer out of the way of a consequence fatal for many?

 

[wellwisher]

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."

If the earth had no water, the average earth surface temperature would be 153F. This is higher than the world record of the earth for a single day at a single location.

The current official highest registered air temperature on Earth is 56.7 °C (134.1 °F), recorded on 10 July 1913 at Furnace Creek Ranch, in Death Valley in the United States.

The current surface temperature of the earth is 59F. Why do the boneheads of science, place a few degrees change, attributed to man made ahead of the water moderating 95F difference due to water, if water is so potent in terms of global temperature control. This control by water could explain why the CO2 centric computer models, always predict too high, in terms of their temperature predictions compared to the real earth. They do not take into account water, properly. How could the consensus be so dumb? The answer is, water is far more complicated to model. They took the easy road but, one of much lower predictive accuracy.

I remember after former VP Gore started to push his carbon credit, get rich quick scheme, the leading tenured expert in atmospheric water was politically black balled, for not reinforcing the man made hysteria. His water model was not fear mongering enough and he would not place his thumb on the scale.

If we look at water, water is the only molecule on earth, that exists naturally as solid, liquid and gas, all at the same time, on earth. CO2 is a one trick pony and is always gas on earth; beyond commercial applications like dry ice. This means water affects climate and global temperate in three ways, all at the same time on earth; poles, oceans and atmosphere. This is way more complex, than the one trick pony CO2, which may be why the consensus chose the easy one; easier for inflated number fear mongering.

Let us up the complexity. The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of the universe has to increase. This means change, such as climate change, is inevitable based on the second law. Can anyone list any year, in the history of the earth, where nothing changed from the previous year? The boneheads of science are essentially saying the 2nd law; change in climate, on the surface of the earth is based on CO2; man made climate change due to fossil fuels. This is not a very good assumption when water has to many more outlets. Change, like climate change, is like the old song of your parents, that is recorded anew and appears to be new, for the next generation. Liberal love their fads, even if based on retreaded entropy tires that belong to someone else.

If you look at water and the earth's surface entropy increase, water is the big dog of climate change. Water is the primary muscle behind all the weather; tornados, hurricanes, blizzards, tidal waves, etc. Nobody is worrying about large CO2 storms. There are not fixing CO2 to help prevent CO2 hurricanes. Only a water storm can do direct destruction; the focus of the global entropy increase. Busting up the house is an expression of entropy; more complex by making rubble.

Science can now show that water is not restricted to the surface of the earth. There is as much water in the upper mantle of the earth, as on the surface. Water has even been found all the way to the core of the earth. We are truly a water planet. Water in these very exotic states, is a spit fire and is a prime vehicle for the 2nd law increase economy even within the inner earth; dynamic variable.

Since water is continuous from core, to the mantle, through the crust into oceans and up into the atmosphere, the inner earth is also connected to the surface and atmosphere, in terms of integrated changes in entropy. CO2 plays a role, but the engine of global inner and outer earth change; planetary change, will be run by water in its many phases; gas, liquid, solid, supercritical, super ionic, ionic and metallic.

One good thing about a consensus is you can fire them all, at the same time, for making a deal with the devil.

 

[Secret Chief]

Coral around the world is turning white and even dying as recent record ocean heat takes a devastating toll.
It has triggered the fourth global mass coral bleaching event, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

- Coral bleaching: Fourth global mass stress episode underway - US scientists

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

Gas stoves are banned based upon arguments about health dangers, but these presume that people won't use range hoods. I'd say that laws which presume citizens have no personal responsibility to be sensible are usually laws which over-reach. In my opinion extreme abortion bans are over-reach, for instance. They are political footballs at the public's expense. Of course, of course you have to expect people to in some way use sense when installing a gas stove. It is the same with automobiles. We expect everyone to drive on the right side of the road in their 60mph 1/4 ton hollow bullets.

Are they unconstitutional? In the sense that they weaken the country, yes. Laws that over-reach are unconstitutional.

 

[Curious George]

You have labeled a belief. Then equated a belief with religion based on your effort to show that this belief is not scientific. We have all sorts of laws based on beliefs that are unscientific. We even have laws based on beliefs that are wholly moral. None of these laws will be found unconstitutional based on the reasoning that they are not scientific. This is not how constitutional analysis works. And I am pretty certain after reading your post that that amendment does not mean what you think it means.

Btw

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

This is a non-sequitur.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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?

Ah, yes, because scientific models can literally never, ever be used to make predictions or extrapolations based on data and sound science. We can only ever assume something is going to happen AFTER it happens, and the scientific method has literally no predictive power whatsoever.

That's how science works.

 

[anotherneil]

Let's suppose that person A makes the claim, to person B, that science shows X, and person B is not familiar with the particular field of science regarding X. Must person B accept without question what person A says to them, whether or not they slap the "science" label onto their claim X? Should person B be punished by the government for rejecting person A's claim that science shows X, with bans, fines, imprisonment, etc?

In that scenario, I didn't specify a conflict of interests; now let's do that. Suppose financial gain (or jobs) were involved with person A making the claim that science shows X, such as government grants to people like person A to find X. That's one conflict of interest & wait, there's more. The politicians who came up with such grant programs who may have been incentivized with campaign funding or a nice paying job with a company owned by those offering campaign funding to create such grant programs. This is another conflict of interest.

This possibility is one reason (not the only reason) for why person B might be inclined to reject the "science shows X" claim by person A. It doesn't matter what other reasons person B might not want to accept a "science shows X" claim, and they're under no obligation to offer an explanation since they're not the one with the burden of proof (they're not the one initiating any claims).

So, it occurs to me that a US Citizen doesn't have to put up with their 1st Amendment being infringed just because someone claimed that science shows X.

By extension, this could put into question whether it's constitutional for the federal government to offer such grants (especially if taxpayer money is used to fund such grants).

The 1st clause of the 1st Amendment isn't the only right possibly being infringed by laws based on this climate change issue; they may also be unconstitutional because of the 5th and 14th Amendments, which provide due process and equal protection.

This means that any law that deprives anyone of life, liberty, or property is unconstitutional.

Many Americans practically rely on burning hydrocarbons to live, and it could be argued that laws banning hydrocarbons, or anything that burns hydrocarbons, infringes on the right to all three - live, liberty, and property.

There is wealth disparity with minorities, here in the US: 1. Wealth gaps within racial and ethnic groups

This means that laws that make it harder for minorities to make ends meet are unconstitutional.

An example is the disproportionate burden on minorities in New York by banning natural gas stoves and furnaces in new buildings, which means that they'll have to use electricity, which is more expensive: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/03/us/new-york-natural-gas-ban-climate/index.html

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Let's suppose that person A makes the claim, to person B, that science shows X, and person B is not familiar with the particular field of science regarding X. Must person B accept without question what person A says to them, whether or not they slap the "science" label onto their claim X? Should person B be punished by the government for rejecting person A's claim that science shows X, with bans, fines, imprisonment, etc?

In that scenario, I didn't specify a conflict of interests; now let's do that. Suppose financial gain (or jobs) were involved with person A making the claim that science shows X, such as government grants to people like person A to find X. That's one conflict of interest & wait, there's more. The politicians who came up with such grant programs who may have been incentivized with campaign funding or a nice paying job with a company owned by those offering campaign funding to create such grant programs. This is another conflict of interest.

This possibility is one reason (not the only reason) for why person B might be inclined to reject the "science shows X" claim by person A. It doesn't matter what other reasons person B might not want to accept a "science shows X" claim, and they're under no obligation to offer an explanation since they're not the one with the burden of proof (they're not the one initiating any claims).

So, it occurs to me that a US Citizen doesn't have to put up with their 1st Amendment being infringed just because someone claimed that science shows X.

By extension, this could put into question whether it's constitutional for the federal government to offer such grants (especially if taxpayer money is used to fund such grants).

The 1st clause of the 1st Amendment isn't the only right possibly being infringed by laws based on this climate change issue; they may also be unconstitutional because of the 5th and 14th Amendments, which provide due process and equal protection.

This means that any law that deprives anyone of life, liberty, or property is unconstitutional.

Many Americans practically rely on burning hydrocarbons to live, and it could be argued that laws banning hydrocarbons, or anything that burns hydrocarbons, infringes on the right to all three - live, liberty, and property.

There is wealth disparity with minorities, here in the US: 1. Wealth gaps within racial and ethnic groups

This means that laws that make it harder for minorities to make ends meet are unconstitutional.

An example is the disproportionate burden on minorities in New York by banning natural gas stoves and furnaces in new buildings, which means that they'll have to use electricity, which is more expensive: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/03/us/new-york-natural-gas-ban-climate/index.html

This is an extremely long-winded way of saying basically nothing.

Make concrete claims and show where the science is flawed, please.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

No.

However, the doom and gloom being projected by the climate change alarmists is not in fact a well-established scientific fact.

Except that it is. And it's been a fact for decades already. Scientists, including researchers from Exxon, have known about it since at least the early 1960's.

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).

So we should wait till the planet's ecosystems collapse and only take action when it's too late?

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.

"individual personal decisions" are not going to turn our entire fossil fuel based economy and industry around.
This requires global effort from top to bottom, starting at the top.

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."

The difference is that climate change and the resulting climate catastrophe of collapsing eco systems in based in facts and not superstition.