# Supreme Court curbs EPA’s ability to fight climate change



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

Someone was asking me what could a conservative majority supreme court do to hurt the country.


"The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, a major defeat for the Biden administration's attempts to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming.

In addition, the court cut back the agency's authority in general invoking the so-called "major questions" doctrine — a ruling that will impact the federal government's authority to regulate in other areas of climate policy, as well as regulation of the internet and worker safety. 

The ruling was 6-3. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the conservative majority, with the three liberal justices dissenting.

The decision is one of the most consequential cases for climate change and clean air in decades."


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

KC Rock said:


> Someone was asking me what could a conservative majority supreme court do to hurt the country.
> 
> 
> "The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, a major defeat for the Biden administration's attempts to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming.
> ...


Sun spots, solar flares, they cause the earths atmosphere to expand, which in turns causes the earth to heat up. How do you stop those issues caused by the sun? Facts matter, opinions...not so much. This global warming, climate change...etc, are nothing more than population control. Only the gullible don't see the forest for the trees...


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

JeffreyD said:


> Sun spots, solar flares, they cause the earths atmosphere to expand, which in turns causes the earth to heat up. How do you stop those issues caused by the sun? Facts matter, opinions...not so much. This global warming, climate change...etc, are nothing more than population control. Only the gullible don't see the forest for the trees...


Yeah well. Go tell that to all the scientists, they prolly could use the humor.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

KC Rock said:


> Yeah well. Go tell that to all the scientists, they prolly could use the humor.


Real scientists already know the truth. Facts are facts and you've got none. That's why you didn't answer my question isn't it?
Question for you since your so enlightened...
How much Co2 is too much....in parts per million please?


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

KC Rock said:


> Someone was asking me what could a conservative majority supreme court do to hurt the country.
> 
> 
> "The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, a major defeat for the Biden administration's attempts to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming.
> ...


🙄


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

We are not READY to shut down our coal-fired plants. I hear that Germany is going to re-start theirs. 

Shifting over to renewable power has to be done in methodical steps, and the politicians are trying to move more quickly than the nation can go. Personally I am glad that the process has been slowed down a bit


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Climate change used to be called global warming, and before that, it was simply called seasons:


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

KC Rock said:


> Someone was asking me what could a conservative majority supreme court do to hurt the country.
> 
> "The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s...


Yeah, they also vacated a number of unconstitutional 2nd Ammendment decisions... the "assault weapons" ban in MD... the high capacity mag ban in NJ... and more. 👏 👏

It must suck to be you today... I mean... more than usual.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

KC Rock said:


> Someone was asking me what could a conservative majority supreme court do to hurt the country.
> 
> 
> "The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, a major defeat for the Biden administration's attempts to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming.
> ...


Your naivete (a euphamism for low information level) is showing.

Co2 is a necessity for life, not a pollutant.

We have endured Draconian regulations concerning exhaust gas for 50 yrs now. IQ scoes have remained stable while rates of COPD & asthma have skyrocketed, thus making the so called purpose of the regs counterproductive.

Please tell us how you have changed anything (if anything) in your life due to the warming we've experienced in the last 50 years. [co2] has almost nothing to do with climate.....Actually there has been no change in average world temps for over 20 yrs now, yert [co2] has gone up 25% in that time.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Addendum (having just seen the news on TV)--

The science notwithstanding, The Court ruled that the EPA overstepped its bounds, forcing regulations on us that should be deliberated & voted upon by Congress....

...this is the exact same reasoning behind their decision to not force the Executive Branch to re-institute the previous administration's rules on the border crisis....It's Congress' role to legislate and the Executive's role to execute those laws. (I don;t see you objecting to that second decision.)

This is not a dictatorship. The Executive Branch's duty is only to carry out the laws passed by Congress, not make it's own rules....The Court has not told the Executive Branch how to do things ("legislating from the bench") but has told it how it can't do them.

The Constitution has been protected-- fullfilling the role of The Court. Now it's time for Congress to do it's job.


----------



## Adirondackian (Sep 26, 2021)

Correction. Title should have read; "Supreme court stops government overreach spurred by pseudo-science".


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

doc- said:


> Your naivete (a euphamism for low information level) is showing.
> 
> Co2 is a necessity for life, not a pollutant.
> 
> ...











How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?


CO2 molecules make up only a small percentage of the atmosphere, but their impact on our climate is huge. The reason comes down to physics and chemistry.




news.climate.columbia.edu


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Now KC, Painterwife does the same thing. Posts a link that they aren't able to explain themselves, so they leave no comment.
What does the article mean to KCRock eta Red1 in their own words please?


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

JeffreyD said:


> Real scientists already know the truth. Facts are facts and you've got none. That's why you didn't answer my question isn't it?
> Question for you since your so enlightened...
> How much Co2 is too much....in parts per million please?


100 bucks says you can't list reputable scientist that agree with your, ahem "position"...


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Is that $100 cash or personal items like cigarettes from the commissary or your hall attendant? Are you able to ship?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

KC Rock said:


> 100 bucks says you can't list reputable scientist that agree with your, ahem "position"...


If you're sure you want to make that bet... let's make it that you will voluntarily leave this forum and never post here again (under any name) if we can find one. Better be careful... I found one in about 15 secs.


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

homesteadforty said:


> If you're sure you want to make that bet... let's make it that you will voluntarily leave this forum and never post here again (under any name) if we can find one. Better be careful... I found one in about 15 secs.


I'll take your money...


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I would not like that. KC will answer the tough questions that Painterswife just sticks her tongue out at. He is unafraid.


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

GTX63 said:


> Now KC, Painterwife does the same thing. Posts a link that they aren't able to explain themselves, so they leave no comment.
> What does the article mean to KCRock eta Red1 in their own words please?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

GTX63 said:


> I would not like that. KC will answer the tough questions that Painterswife just sticks her tongue out at. He is unafraid.


That is a point to consider.

Warning KC... the scientist is interviewed by the USA Today and even they say he makes good point. Not to mention he is a noted well known geologist. Come on guy... I'm trying to throw you a bone


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

KC Rock said:


> View attachment 111810


Old news... been used before


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

KC Rock said:


> View attachment 111810


I am not certain that you would know how to use crayons.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

KC Rock said:


> Someone was asking me what could a conservative majority supreme court do to hurt the country.


You sure someone asked you that? You sure it wasn't......no one?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Hiro said:


> I am not certain that you would know how to use crayons.


I have zero doubt.

He’d eat them all, and then poop a “Pride Log”, which he’d proudly display on the kitchen table. 

Of course, his mother would immediately screech and tell him to go back to the basement, and THAT might leave him wondering what to do next.

Perhaps CNN has an instruction for that.


----------



## Max Overhead (Feb 22, 2021)

From the horse's mouth:
_
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself_.“
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

These elitists aren't acting in good faith; they've been predicting the end of the world for about seventy years now, always just ten years away, and they're not shy publishing books which advertise the need to reduce the world's population. That's no conspiracy, it's published fact. If co2 were devastating to our planet's atmosphere, the answer would be to eliminate all animal life on earth. This would drastically reduce co2 levels, at which point plant life would perish. 
The cult of "climate change" is dead set on death, whether their adherants realize it or not. Shutting down reliable energy sources will kill millions. I don't know if KC Rock and painterswife and others believe what they write or if it's just their paid work; homesteaders should know better (should talk to their oldsters) and know that this is all bad and against life and should be repudiated wherever it's met with. 









Tony Heller


View Tony Heller on Odysee




odysee.com


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

KC Rock said:


> I'll take your money...


When you get a little older, you will realize when you can't win a bet. 

With age comes wisdom. Maybe you will get there. Keep striving!


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I wonder how warm the earth was during the time Ohio and many parts of the eastern US were under the sea. It seems the scientists have lost those temperature records.

I just hope we don't see dragonflies with 2 foot wingspans during this round of global warming. 





__





The biggest insect ever was a huge "dragonfly"


The largest known insect of all time was a predator resembling a dragonfly but was only distantly related to them. Its name is Meganeuropsis, and it ruled the skies before pterosaurs, birds and bats had even evolved.




eartharchives.org


----------



## StL.Ed (Mar 6, 2011)

KC Rock said:


> View attachment 111810


Were you eating your crayons again? No wonder the adults keep taking them away.
I'm guessing they don't let you have pointy objects, such as pens or pencils, either,


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

KC Rock said:


> 100 bucks says you can't list reputable scientist that agree with your, ahem "position"...


Dr. S Fred Singer....professor emeritus environmental sciences atmospheric physicist....start there.
Im sure..ahem...that you'll try to bring up Michael Mann. Then we'll have to discuss the East Anglia emails and the hockey stick graph.
Where's my 100 bucks?
Bet you can't say what the number in parts per million of Co2 is too much? You couldn't answer it before, why not? Afraid?


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

KC Rock said:


> How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?
> 
> 
> CO2 molecules make up only a small percentage of the atmosphere, but their impact on our climate is huge. The reason comes down to physics and chemistry.
> ...


You don't want to get into this with me. I can discuss it in detail from the quantum mechanics to the thermodynamics to the physics to the metoerology...The fact is that at concentations above ~ 100ppm, co2 has as little effect on the temperatures of the air as wind resistance has on the trajectory of a bowling ball dropped from the Leaning Tower. It can be ignored.

Look up "Extinction of Absorption," then get back to us.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

KC Rock said:


> 100 bucks says you can't list reputable scientist that agree with your, ahem "position"...


Drs. Curry, Spencer, Pielke Sr & Jr., Crockford & Ball all have blogs/websites and are "skeptics" for starters. Dr Lindzen is a long time denier of "AGW" and testifide to Congress along with Dr. Currry, among others.There are hundreds more. A study last year that showed over 60% the new research published on atm science/climatolgy are either neutral or skeptical on the subject of co2 vs climate.

You probably don;t know the story behiind the famous "98% of climate scientists agree that co2 causes GW" thing-- A certain obscure Masters Degree candidate sent out a questionanaire to *10,000* scientists (most of whom weren't climate scientists) and only *100* even bothered to fill it out and return it.. Those 100, of course, were on the Lunatic Fringe of politiacal activists...Look it up.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

I personally am fine with strict pollution regulations. As long as China and India and the rest of the world follow and adhere to the same standards. It’s silly for us to try to compete on the world market when it’s not a level playing field. Also silly for us to be trying to save the world when huge populations are making no effort.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Danaus29 said:


> I wonder how warm the earth was during the time Ohio and many parts of the eastern US were under the sea. It seems the scientists have lost those temperature records.
> 
> I just hope we don't see dragonflies with 2 foot wingspans during this round of global warming.
> 
> ...


When we were living in Colorado for college, my geology professor took us up to the mountains for a field trip. It was so strange seeing all of the fossilized evidence of ocean life up there on a mountainside (and some really cool fossilized dinosaur footprints to boot, walking along what used to be the shoreline), and imagining the whole area of plains below us covered in ocean. I kind of knew what had happened there historically from reading books and sitting in classes, but the reality didn't actually dawn on my brain until we stood there and looked, high above the valley floors below that used to be under water.

I keep asking what temperature the earth is supposed to be normally, but no one ever answers.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Mish said:


> I keep asking what temperature the earth is supposed to be normally, but no one ever answers.


Normally I like it around 70 to 72 with low humidity.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Normally I like it around 70 to 72 with low humidity.


Me too! I wonder what we have to do to stabilize to that temperature.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Redlands Okie said:


> I personally am fine with strict pollution regulations. As long as China and India and the rest of the world follow and adhere to the same standards. It’s silly for us to try to compete on the world market when it’s not a level playing field. Also silly for us to be trying to save the world when huge populations are making no effort.


I believe an issue isn't with regulation so much as with the who that is making them.
When an agency becomes politicized, that is a bad thing, regardless of party.
The EPA has become a member of whatever group is in power, with authority above congress and the ability to enact that authority almost immediately, without debate or a system of checks and balances.
You are correct that the US is a leader in controlling pollution among many other things. Whatever gains we make are wiped out by China alone.
If legislation for ie gun control cannot be passed, then the ATF can step in and enact regulation on its own. The same goes for EPA, DOT, HMS, and on and on.
The playing field for the world market will never be level; it will always tilt towards the heaviest marketeer.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541655448155131906


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

doc- said:


> Drs. Curry, Spencer, Pielke Sr & Jr., Crockford & Ball all have blogs/websites and are "skeptics" for starters. Dr Lindzen is a long time denier of "AGW" and testifide to Congress along with Dr. Currry, among others.There are hundreds more. A study last year that showed over 60% the new research published on atm science/climatolgy are either neutral or skeptical on the subject of co2 vs climate.
> 
> You probably don;t know the story behiind the famous "98% of climate scientists agree that co2 causes GW" thing-- A certain obscure Masters Degree candidate sent out a questionanaire to *10,000* scientists (most of whom weren't climate scientists) and only *100* even bothered to fill it out and return it.. Those 100, of course, were on the Lunatic Fringe of politiacal activists...Look it up.


And all I had to pick was one. heh 









Climate-science contrarian Roy Spencer's oil-industry ties


Roy Spencer doesn't disclose his leadership roles in climate skeptic groups financed by Exxon and other key players in what's been dubbed the "climate denial machine": the network of companies, think tanks and foundations that have sought to deny and downplay the scientific consensus that global...




www.facingsouth.org





"But Spencer doesn't disclose his leadership roles in climate skeptic groups financed by Exxon and other key players in what's been dubbed the "climate denial machine": the network of companies, think tanks and foundations that have sought to deny and downplay the scientific consensus that global warming is real and caused in large part by human activity."


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

the decision doesn't keep legislation from happening and it really doesn't do what the media is saying it did 

they are applying a decision to a issue 

the decision says alphabet agency's can't make up new regulation with out it being legislated 

you know like no new laws or convenient or inconvenient definitions changes without elected representation actually voting the changes into effect 

it significantly reduces the administrations ability to Legislate from the executive branch , this is a huge safety net 

legislating form the executive branch has never been the purpose nor intent of the office.

if a president can legislate from the Oval office then congress become irrelevant.

that is how you end up with a dictator


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Plants breathe CO2
Plants exhale oxygen.
People breathe oxygen
People exhale CO2
We need more plants, more trees, more gardens and farms.
The cities with their millions of acres of concrete and glass, natural solar batteries that contribute nothing to the planet, that's the problem.
Cities are the toxic boils on the surface of the planet, those parasites living on those open sores are blaming farmers and ranchers (cow farts) for "climate change"
If you want to combat "climate change", plant a tree, plant a garden, plant some flowers.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1542896792194502660


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Hiro said:


> I am not certain that you would know how to use crayons.


Yeah... he'd probably stick them up his nose like my son did when he was 4 y.o. or so.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

homesteadforty said:


> Yeah... he'd probably stick them up his nose like my son did when he was 4 y.o. or so.


Or cinnamon tic tacs!


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Mish said:


> Me too! I wonder what we have to do to stabilize to that temperature.


BioDomes??? Force fields???

But I'd want a couple of snows for winter 👏


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

KC Rock said:


> 100 bucks says you can't list reputable scientist that agree with your, ahem "position"...


@KC Rock , you seem to have dropped the bet idea like a hot potato... admit loudly and clearly that you were wrong and I'll forego my "100 bucks"... sorry I can't speak for the others... but I suspect they'll do the same.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

One volcano can burp far more "pollutants" into the air than all humans and cow farts combined, since the beginning of humans and cows.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

homesteadforty said:


> @KC Rock , you seem to have dropped the bet idea like a hot potato... admit loudly and clearly that you were wrong and I'll forego my "100 bucks"... sorry I can't speak for the others... but I suspect they'll do the same.


I told him that whatever his commissary had in stock and what was allowed to be shipped off the property was fine with me. I'm sure they will have to inspect it first.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

homesteadforty said:


> @KC Rock , you seem to have dropped the bet idea like a hot potato... admit loudly and clearly that you were wrong and I'll forego my "100 bucks"... sorry I can't speak for the others... but I suspect they'll do the same.


He won’t. In his bet, he said “reputable”, and he’s such a mindless ideologue that all his mental-handlers have to say is “_that one’s a doody-head_”, and that one becomes disputable.

Besides, the only time that kid ever sees $100 is during that magical 15 minutes on his birthday, between when his Gam Gam gives it to him and his mom takes it away to put against what she paid for his last peeping-Tom fine.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> He won’t. In his bet, he said “reputable”, and he’s such a mindless ideologue that all his mental-handlers have to say is “_that one’s a doody-head_”, and that one becomes disputable.
> 
> Besides, the only time that kid ever sees $100 is during that magical 15 minutes on his birthday, between when his Gam Gam gives it to him and his mom takes it away to put against what she paid for his last peeping-Tom fine.


I just figured he wouldn't do it because he has no honor... but I like your explanation better.


----------



## altair (Jul 23, 2011)

doc- said:


> Co2 is a necessity for life, not a pollutant.
> 
> Please tell us how you have changed anything (if anything) in your life due to the warming we've experienced in the last 50 years. [co2] has almost nothing to do with climate.....Actually there has been no change in average world temps for over 20 yrs now, yert [co2] has gone up 25% in that time.


Water's also a necessity but can still kill you.

These websites show otherwise Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov) Tim Osborn: HadCRUT5 global temperature graphs (uea.ac.uk)


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

homesteadforty said:


> I just figured he wouldn't do it because he has no honor... but I like your explanation better.


Definitely no honor, but we’ve already proven he is a sock-puppet, so what did you expect?

@Heritagefarm
@red1
@KC Rock


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Definitely no honor, but we’ve already proven he is a sock-puppet, so what did you expect?
> 
> @Heritagefarm
> @red1
> @KC Rock


You omitted the backup @Roy Gilbert


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Hiro said:


> You omitted the backup @Roy Gilbert


Forgot about that one.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

I wish IP would return since it appears socks are ok again.

Just my $.02


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

doc- said:


> Please tell us how you have changed anything (if anything) in your life due to the warming we've experienced in the last 50 years. [co2] has almost nothing to do with climate.....Actually there has been no change in average world temps for over 20 yrs now, yert [co2] has gone up 25% in that time.


I have no dog in the co2 fight but there is no doubt in my mind that it's gotten warmer. Where I used to live we would have 3 - 4 feet of ice on brackish waters every winter. I learned to ice dive there. They ran Cast Guard ice breakers in the channel to get shipping through. Neither of those things has happened in near to 30 years. It's unusual to get a layr of skim ice now.

As to what has changed in my life... I moved further back in the woods and mountains to stay cooler. That move also took me away from the heat sink cities. I start getting uncomfortable much above 70 degrees.

I don't know about "average world temps" but it's easy to see some places are getting a lot warmer. Maybe other places are getting colder in winter to offset the warmer summer months.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Mish said:


> Me too! I wonder what we have to do to stabilize to that temperature.


I dunno, but it would sure play heck with things! We need temp changes to create weather!


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

homesteadforty said:


> @KC Rock , you seem to have dropped the bet idea like a hot potato... admit loudly and clearly that you were wrong and I'll forego my "100 bucks"... sorry I can't speak for the others... but I suspect they'll do the same.


I picked one of your "scientists" and found out he is a shrill for an oil corp. Strike 3 and you-all are out. 










Oh no! He's using data from NASA!


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

KC Rock said:


> I picked one of your "scientists" and found out he is a shrill for an oil corp. Strike 3 and you-all are out.


Sorry, the agreement, that YOU proposed, was that we show YOU one scientist... (see post #14). We did that... in fact @Doc listed many.

You did not pick any of _my_ scientists... because I have yet to name any.

As I said... no honor.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

homesteadforty said:


> I have no dog in the co2 fight but there is no doubt in my mind that it's gotten warmer. Where I used to live we would have 3 - 4 feet of ice on brackish waters every winter. I learned to ice dive there. They ran Cast Guard ice breakers in the channel to get shipping through. Neither of those things has happened in near to 30 years. It's unusual to get a layr of skim ice now.
> 
> As to what has changed in my life... I moved further back in the woods and mountains to stay cooler. That move also took me away from the heat sink cities. I start getting uncomfortable much above 70 degrees.
> 
> I don't know about "average world temps" but it's easy to see some places are getting a lot warmer. Maybe other places are getting colder in winter to offset the warmer summer months.


I, similarly, have no doubt that our climate is changing, and am not sure in which direction. It seems that it’s getting hotter, but I’ve also moved from the Great Lakes to The South over the course of the last 20 years, and, when I was a kid, 30 years ago, the “Settled Science” said that we were all going to live short, miserable lives brought about by “Global Cooling”. It’s hard to make a sound judgement when you consider that 20, or even 30 years is an infinitesimally small period of time on which to judge something as incomprehensibly complex as the climates of Earth.

The thing that bothers me most about the whole issue is the pervasive dishonesty surrounding the whole situation. I’ve yet to see anything put forward that even suggests that what we’re experiencing today is outside the scope of what the Earth has gone through before, or even outside of the time that a near-man species has been here.

And, even if I’m to suspend belief long enough to assume that the current climate of Earth is unprecedented, everything that is being put forward as a “solution” is blatantly aimed more at the redistribution of wealth than it is at the correction of any environmental factors. The solutions being proposed by those who “really care” all seem to be pro-rated according to how much money the average individual of a given country has at their disposal. Those of us who bear any skepticism at all are punched down upon as if we’re failing to grasp very basic science, but the rhetoric seems to have very little to do with the pleas they’re making.

For example, it would not be unheard of for a “climate-science authority” sportsball star to admonish us racist rural-American, pre-Tier-IV tractor owners for raping the Earth and supporting the police-driven genocide of brown people, right before boarding his private jet to go dribble his puck and shoot some touch downs for the glory of the Grand Mullah Chairman of Kerplakistan.

It’s hard to take any of the Church of Climate Change zealots seriously when they’re so disingenuous.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

homesteadforty said:


> Sorry, the agreement, that YOU proposeds was that we show YOU one scientist


@Heritagefarm
@red1
@Roy Gilbert
@KC Rock isn’t going to get that. There is no honor or substance there.

There is no _there_ there.
It’s a child. A Tinman child, at that.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I, similarly, have no doubt that our climate is changing, and am not sure in which direction...
> 
> ...It’s hard to take any of the Church of Climate Change zealots seriously when they’re so disingenuous.


These two sentences sums it up pretty well for me too.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

KC Rock said:


> I picked one of your "scientists" and found out he is a shrill for an oil corp. Strike 3 and you-all are out.
> 
> View attachment 111838
> 
> ...


Crayon users may not pick up on the common baseline in your cherry picked chart of a 29 year baseline for climate alarmism. But, anyone with two brain cells will.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> @Heritagefarm
> @red1
> @Roy Gilbert
> @KC Rock isn’t going to get that. There is no honor or substance there.
> ...


It took a bit but I got it now.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I, similarly, have no doubt that our climate is changing, and am not sure in which direction. It seems that it’s getting hotter, but I’ve also moved from the Great Lakes to The South over the course of the last 20 years, and, when I was a kid, 30 years ago, the “Settled Science” said that we were all going to live short, miserable lives brought about by “Global Cooling”. It’s hard to make a sound judgement when you consider that 20, or even 30 years is an infinitesimally small period of time on which to judge something as incomprehensibly complex as the climates of Earth.
> 
> The thing that bothers me most about the whole issue is the pervasive dishonesty surrounding the whole situation. I’ve yet to see anything put forward that even suggests that what we’re experiencing today is outside the scope of what the Earth has gone through before, or even outside of the time that a near-man species has been here.
> 
> ...


Damn


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Damn


Damn, what?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Damn, what?


Damn well said


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

We all know climate change is a thing.
What we don't agree on is the cause.
In my pasture, I have found seashell fossils. Just tiny ones, but sea shells.
This is at 4200 ft above sea level.
At one time, this was under water and now it's not...... Climate change.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> We all know climate change is a thing.
> What we don't agree on is the cause.
> In my pasture, I have found seashell fossils. Just tiny ones, but sea shells.
> This is at 4200 ft above sea level.
> At one time, this was under water and now it's not...... Climate change.


Or something drained the lake.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

KC Rock said:


> And all I had to pick was one. heh
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Perhas you should read the artiucles you cite and not just rely on the National Enquirer -style headliines-- Spencer takes no money for serving on the boards of two conservative science institutes., which receive money from the petro industry.

Maybe educate yourself as to the source of money for research that goes along with the Liberal Party Line-- Follow the (Climate Change) Money. The real shame is that of the $1 Trillion spent on such lousy research, not one penny of it has prduced any effects on the climate.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

CC Pereira said:


> One volcano can burp far more "pollutants" into the air than all humans and cow farts combined, since the beginning of humans and cows.


There's a good deal of evidence that the warming seen from ~1985 to the present has been allowed (as opposed to "caused") by the EPA regs that resulted in cleaner air- less particulate soot & such- to block the sunlight from hitting the ground and warming it....We all know how a volcanic eruportion blocks the sunlight and causes a cooling, maybe for 10 yrs like after the huge Krakatoa eruption of 1883....(The "Warming" since then may well be just a return to normal temps after decade of abnormal cooling.


----------



## crabappleplum (9 mo ago)

This correction by the SC is necessary to prevent further abuses. When Hillary Clinton was sec. of state, she used the EPA to bully and put domestic companies out of business. This opened the door to foreign imports, specifically, heavy foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

The sun, Earth, and all of the other planets in our star system, have always had cycles, some regular, others not so regular. Continental drift, weather changes (such as seasons), ice ages, volcanic activity, solar minimum, solar maximum, and so much more, has been going on long before humans got here. Sure, humans do cause some of the pollution that occurs on Earth, and humans play a role in the temperature of certain areas ... such as higher temperatures in larger cities than surrounding areas, due to so much of the ground in larger cities being covered with dark pavement vs the ground being covered by soil, water, and plants, in areas between cities. Overall however, Earth would still continue to produce its own pollution, and to go through climatic changes, with or without humanity.

If there were no money or power to be gained from climate change, words like 'global cooling', 'global warming', and 'climate change', would rarely be used at all.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Evons hubby said:


> Or something drained the lake.


It would have to be quite a lake


----------



## crabappleplum (9 mo ago)

Zero Hedge has a pretty good article on this subject.

What If People Actually Controlled The Government? | ZeroHedge


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Long but accurate observation on the subject by Lord Monckton, a member of the House of Lords in GB, expert on GW & Law. The article addresses both the science and the principles of law. He makes the three dissenting justices look at least foolish, if not outright stupid. The New Pause Lengthens to 7 Years 10 Months


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)




----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Sometimes the trivially obvious must be stated out loud for all to appreciate--- The SC in its recent several decisions did NOT rule on the veracity or value of the programs & regs in question. They ruled on *the process* by which they were illegally enacted.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

doc- said:


> Sometimes the trivially obvious must be stated out loud for all to appreciate--- The SC in its recent several decisions did NOT rule on the veracity or value of the programs & regs in question. They ruled on *the process* by which they were illegally enacted.


Yes.

However, instead of the EPA giving out carbon emissions regulations, Congress will now be responsible for the regulations. And, _NO_ Midwestern Congressman will vote for something that will either shut down our farms or that will set us up for power failures. That means that the farmers that raise our food will not be shut down in order to lower the carbon foot print, and the Coal powered plants will not be shut down before there are renewable power plants to take their place


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Terri said:


> ....and the Coal powered plants will not be shut down before there are renewable power plants to take their place


Good.

On another forum, we were discussing EVs, and my argument also applies to Unrelible Energy Generation (you may call that "Renewables").---

The first steam locomotive went into operation in 1806....Demanding we all switch to EVs & Unreliables now would be the same as if President Jefferson had demanded an immediate switch away from horses to locomotives for everyone in 1806....It was 50 yrs before steam was ready for prime time,

There is huge evidence, theoretical, practical and economic, that Unreliables will NEVER be abe to supply our energy needs....It's just a matter of time before everyone is convinced that nuclear will be the way to go once petroleum reserves become depleted.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Current predictions are that the US population alone will be somewhere well over 400 million by 2050. That is less than 30 years for the public educated.
By then, there will be problems we can only wish were as small as energy.


----------



## cornbread (Jul 4, 2005)

*Somebody needs to curbs the EPA’s.*


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

doc- said:


> Sometimes the trivially obvious must be stated out loud for all to appreciate--- The SC in its recent several decisions did NOT rule on the veracity or value of the programs & regs in question. They ruled on *the process* by which they were illegally enacted.


Exactly as it should be.


----------



## Max Overhead (Feb 22, 2021)

GTX63 said:


> Current predictions are that the US population alone will be somewhere well over 400 million by 2050. That is less than 30 years for the public educated.
> By then, there will be problems we can only wish were as small as energy.


Last year, www.deagel.com had a population projection for the U.S. that was down to 100 million by 2025. I tried to find the link but no dice. Found this, though:
"On 4/20/21, Deagel.com, a military intelligence agency, has deleted their mysterious 2025 forecast spreadsheet that predicted a major collapse of the western countries.
The forecast used to exist at [link to deagel.com (secure)] and now that page just redirects to the home page.
The spreadsheet predicted a major drop in the US population from 332 million in 2019 to only 99 million in 2025 (-70%)."








Deagel 2025 Depopulation Forecast Has Been Scrubbed


I found out about the Deagel.com forecast I’d say around 2015. I’ve checked it a few times over the years, after big events that didn’t come true, and when others reported that th…




verumetinventa.wordpress.com





And this in the comments: 




__





United States of America


United States of America



web.archive.org




Nothing ever really disappears from the net.


----------



## cjennmom (Sep 4, 2010)

From what I understand, while what they wanted to do is a good thing, they did not, as the agency was established, have the power to do what they tried. They would need to submit for a change or upgrade of the way they’re allowed to work. Kind of like a volunteer crossing guard trying to write a ticket. Warranted or not, they don’t have the authority and it gets tossed out of court.




KC Rock said:


> Someone was asking me what could a conservative majority supreme court do to hurt the country.
> 
> 
> "The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, a major defeat for the Biden administration's attempts to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming.
> ...


----------



## TRanatza (10 mo ago)

Is no one going to mention that this is a good thing simply because the EPA is basically making laws with absolutely no recourse from the common citizen. The head of the EPA is not voted in, they are appointed. They can make sweeping changes that can cripple entire sectors of our economy on a whim and congress can do nothing because they have given that power to the EPA. Government agencies (not just the EPA) not only develop regulatory proposals but also enact the rules, based on analyses they themselves conduct.
This is too much power to vest in officials not accountable to the public at the ballot box.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

TRanatza said:


> Is no one going to mention that this is a good thing simply because the EPA is basically making laws with absolutely no recourse from the common citizen.


I think we all figured everybody already knew that. There are several old threads about the EPA and their overreaching policies that were enacted without public input, or knowledge in some cases.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

Other, equally qualified scientists controvert climate changes, that just happen to be politically convenient, but. . . .

So, how is it people who profit greatly from the climate control scam become filthy rich from it are the only ones qualified to determine which scientists are right?

Let us consider, for example, the Great Montana Flood. Initially, the claim was a lake released and carved out areas as far west as my home, near Grand Coulee Dam and so on. Decades later, those "experts" were shown to be in error. That is, ice dams built up and melted over and over again over ages.

In other words, climate changed. It cooled and it warmed, just as it always has. It was affected by sun spots, by volcanic eruptions and all the usual culprits (farting dinosaurs ?).

Yes, we can affect climate, but jumping on that bandwagon (going all in) is the stuff of fools. It is being promoted by politicians. Many of whom grow rich with each person gullible enough to buy an electric car, "because it will save the planet," if not the areas where the lithium is mined, or the farmers field necessary to your survival, because he cannot afford the cost of an electric combine (not just initial cost, but down time for charges).

In the end, too many seem clueless to the fact: (1) we have fifty-one constitutions to bind down government agents, because they cannot be trusted; (2) many public agents are in prison for theft, murder, arson, extortion, rape and so on; (3) and, the current batch of public agents did not, magically, become wholly moral and trustworthy, unlike those who came before.



KC Rock said:


> Yeah well. Go tell that to all the scientists, they prolly could use the humor.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

Had I gotten here earlier, I, DAMN SURE, would have.

Most those whining about this ruling don't even realize they reveal themselves as wholly incompetent to speak on the matter. They do so by either directly or indirectly admitting their ignorance on common law (e.g., the constitutions), and on that the U.S. Supreme Court did its job, which was to act as a check and balance against government tyranny.

FIRST, executive agencies cannot add to or take from the law. It is that simple. 

Here, the Court stood between We The People and rogue agents acting outside their scope of authority. That is, executive branch agents usurping legislative branch agents' authority. 

Ours is a representative government. It is not staffed by leaders, as too many public servants claim, but by representatives charged with doing the will of We The People, as long as our will does not conflict with constitutional proscriptions.




TRanatza said:


> Is no one going to mention that this is a good thing simply because the EPA is basically making laws with absolutely no recourse from the common citizen. The head of the EPA is not voted in, they are appointed. They can make sweeping changes that can cripple entire sectors of our economy on a whim and congress can do nothing because they have given that power to the EPA. Government agencies (not just the EPA) not only develop regulatory proposals but also enact the rules, based on analyses they themselves conduct.
> This is too much power to vest in officials not accountable to the public at the ballot box.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

And, some of the past climate change has been extreme. For example, at around 4,000 feet above sea level, on Blewitt Pass, which provides access between eastern and western Washington [state], billions of fossils show tropical plants once grew there.

Must have been the hardy type of tropical plants. The ones that could withstand winters of up to fifty below.



CC Pereira said:


> Climate change used to be called global warming, and before that, it was simply called seasons:
> 
> View attachment 111801


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

Gotta love the solutions of genius politicians who, also, are climate experts.

Here, in hydro country, some of our hills are littered with windmills. In part, that is because law requires electric utilities to buy the energy they generate.

Meanwhile, back at Grand Coulee Dam [and others], generators have to be started up to burn off the excess, unneeded, power they produce.

Sadly, people in the Seattle area and other coastal towns pay MUCH more than we do, here in Eastern Washington. Some of those genius politicians passed on their political realms being part of hydro operations, so they get their power from coal fired plans and so on.

Part of the "sadly" is, our electric utility agents sell what is generated to California, Colorado and so on and rather than to other parts of the state, because, well, government [agents] seem(s) to like profit too. 





Max Overhead said:


> From the horse's mouth:
> 
> _"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
> with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
> ...


----------



## dr. prepper (11 mo ago)

KC Rock said:


> Someone was asking me what could a conservative majority supreme court do to hurt the country.
> 
> 
> "The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, a major defeat for the Biden administration's attempts to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming.
> ...


----------



## dr. prepper (11 mo ago)

KC Rock said:


> Someone was asking me what could a conservative majority supreme court do to hurt the country.
> 
> 
> "The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, a major defeat for the Biden administration's attempts to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming.
> ...


----------



## dr. prepper (11 mo ago)

Video: Dutch Farmers Protest After Politician’s Decision to Close Dozens of Farms and Cattle Ranches to Reduce Nitrogen - The Arcane Laboratory


https://twitter.com/RadioGenova/status/1542024041980219399?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1542024041980219399%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fvigilantlinks.com%2F Thousands of tractor-driving Dutch protesters came out this week to continue demonstrations...




thearcanelaboratory.com




After all the data that’s out there it’s comical to me that people really think that there’s such a thing as climate change I mean the brainwashing it’s just so deep. Same people that are dragging everybody and poisoning the earth of the same P Peopl they are lying about the carbon issue they want to take your land the carbon they wanna reduces the human population. Denmark is fighting back right now because the government is trying to take their farms had the Supreme Court not shut those down our farmers here would be doing the same thing right now


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

@dr. prepper , if you believe there is no such thing as climate change, then explain the origins of the glaciers in Alaska. Explain the origins of the warm water sea which once covered most of the eastern US. There is ample evidence of climate change all over the world. But the climate was changing long before humanoid creatures learned to mine coal and then burn it to keep warm.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Danaus29 said:


> @dr. prepper , if you believe there is no such thing as climate change, then explain the origins of the glaciers in Alaska. Explain the origins of the warm water sea which once covered most of the eastern US. There is ample evidence of climate change all over the world. But the climate was changing long before humanoid creatures learned to mine coal and then burn it to keep warm.


He's referring to "Anthropogenic," rapid climate change. Everybody agrees the climate chsnges naturally over geologic time scales.

Another case where one's BS-o-Meter should sound wildly. Isn't it strange that the sides on this supposedly scientific subject should be so markedly aligned according to political point of view? That's a strong indication that at least one side doesn't use the science to form its opinion. 

Until the Warmist Liberals can explain why world temps fell from 1940 to 1985 despite the [co2] rising by 25% durng that period, or why the temps have remained unchanged for the last 25 yrs despite another 25% rise in [co2] then nobody should think fossil fuels are contributing anything to climate.


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

KC Rock said:


> Someone was asking me what could a conservative majority supreme court do to hurt the country.
> 
> 
> "The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, a major defeat for the Biden administration's attempts to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming.
> ...



I guess that is one way to put it...

Hey kid, you have to remember, nothing is better for the environment than a strong economy. 
Poor people cannot be philanthropists.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

KC Rock said:


> Someone was asking me what could a conservative majority supreme court do to hurt the country.
> 
> 
> "The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, a major defeat for the Biden administration's attempts to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming.
> ...


The Supreme Court did not curb anything… the constitution did that… the court merely pointed it out.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

doc- said:


> He's referring to "Anthropogenic," rapid climate change. Everybody agrees the climate chsnges naturally over geologic time scales.


Then he should have specified what he meant. And if everybody agrees that climate changes gradually, why is there all this fuss about global warming?


----------



## Max Overhead (Feb 22, 2021)

This shouldn't even be an argument on a homesteading forum. Climate change as it is promoted is a means to an end, and it conveniently makes humanity itself the enemy to declare war upon (excepting politicians and rich philanthropists). To promote the agenda you must promote the destruction of all reliable means of energy to achieve the goal of reducing the world's population. If co2 is toxic (it isn't, it's essential to life on earth) then you need to kill as many people and animals as possible in order to curb co2. Anyone on this forum promoting this agenda is either ignorant or sly, but they don't belong to a place which promotes independence and self-reliance. The climate change religion is collectivism par excellence.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Max Overhead said:


> *This shouldn't even be an argument on a homesteading forum*. Climate change as it is promoted is a means to an end, and it conveniently makes humanity itself the enemy to declare war upon (excepting politicians and rich philanthropists). To promote the agenda you must promote the destruction of all reliable means of energy to achieve the goal of reducing the world's population. If co2 is toxic (it isn't, it's essential to life on earth) then you need to kill as many people and animals as possible in order to curb co2. Anyone on this forum promoting this agenda is either ignorant or sly, *but they don't belong to a place which promotes independence and self-reliance. *The climate change religion is collectivism par excellence.


Interesting that you're advocating independence and self-reliance by telling us what to think and where we can discuss it.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

homesteadforty said:


> Interesting that you're advocating independence and self-reliance by telling us what to think and where we can discuss it.


Should not does not mean can not.


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

cjennmom said:


> From what I understand, while what they wanted to do is a good thing, they did not, as the agency was established, have the power to do what they tried. They would need to submit for a change or upgrade of the way they’re allowed to work. Kind of like a volunteer crossing guard trying to write a ticket. Warranted or not, they don’t have the authority and it gets tossed out of court.


The bureaucrats may have doing what they think is right by their perspective, or simply basking in their power, in either cast the have stepped way beyond their mandate, and they do work for US despite their protestations.


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

Max Overhead said:


> This shouldn't even be an argument on a homesteading forum. Climate change as it is promoted is a means to an end, and it conveniently makes humanity itself the enemy to declare war upon (excepting politicians and rich philanthropists). To promote the agenda you must promote the destruction of all reliable means of energy to achieve the goal of reducing the world's population. If co2 is toxic (it isn't, it's essential to life on earth) then you need to kill as many people and animals as possible in order to curb co2. Anyone on this forum promoting this agenda is either ignorant or sly, but they don't belong to a place which promotes independence and self-reliance. The climate change religion is collectivism par excellence.


The Netherlands is shutting down farms for nitrogen emissions, soon that will be US.

They actually told the people that they should get their food from china, china, china!


----------



## B&L Chicken Ranch and Spa (Jan 4, 2019)

Max Overhead said:


> If co2 is toxic (it isn't, it's essential to life on earth) then you need to kill as many people and animals as possible in order to curb co2.


If you kill all those people, wont methane become a problem with all of those bodies lying around?! (don't be mad, just a yoke )


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Max Overhead said:


> This shouldn't even be an argument on a homesteading forum.


Are you saying climate change doesn't affect our gardens?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

When I was in school, (back in the dark ages) they taught us that the area we lived in had been under a one mile thick glacier ten thousand years ago. On the farm I grew up on in Northern Michigan, we had huge boulders that were polished smooth from the glaciers. I don't remember seeing any glaciers on the farm or in the surrounding area. So my unscientific guess is, that it has warmed up in the past ten thousand years.


----------



## Max Overhead (Feb 22, 2021)

Yea, the climate changes. It's pure hubris to blame humanity for it, and it's absurd to blame co2. Geoengineering and weather modification can explain some aberrant weather, but to even look into that you have to be willing to question the authorities you took for granted had your best interests at heart. Questioning authority is a virtue, thanks very much. If you can't see the bigger picture, with Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 being published action plans, then you can't handle the bigger picture, or you are consciously working toward it, and being disingenuous toward this community.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Max Overhead said:


> ...If you can't see the bigger picture, with *Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030* being published action plans, then you can't handle the bigger picture, or you are consciously working toward it, and being disingenuous toward this community.


Biden top economic advisor accidently told us out loud what they're up to--
*"*BIDEN ADVISOR BRIAN DEESE: _Well, what I heard from the president today was a clear articulation of the stakes. This is about *the future of the liberal world order *and we have to stand firm. " _


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

doc- said:


> Biden top economic advisor accidently told us out loud what they're up to--
> *"*BIDEN ADVISOR BRIAN DEESE: _Well, what I heard from the president today was a clear articulation of the stakes. This is about *the future of the liberal world order *and we have to stand firm. " _


Many years ago when I was a kid, the political parties used to say that "God is on our side". Now, instead, I am hearing "Science is on our side".

Only, from what I remember from my long-ago science classes, both parties are full of.....guff. Because conclusions will be only as good as the data used, and either side will happily use data that has been deliberately distorted. Using distorted data does not seem to hurt anybody: for example I never did hear criticism of Al Gore for his statement that the USA will be too warm by now to have winter time snow.

Climate Change is useful politically, and so basic scientific principals are ignored


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

GTX63 said:


> Is that $100 cash or personal items like cigarettes from the commissary or your hall attendant? Are you able to ship?


Probably Pokemon cards.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

doc- said:


> Biden top economic advisor accidently told us out loud what they're up to--
> *"*BIDEN ADVISOR BRIAN DEESE: _Well, what I heard from the president today was a *clear articulation* of the stakes. This is about *the future of the liberal world order *and we have to stand firm. " _


I don't know. Doesn't sound right.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)




----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

kinderfeld said:


> I don't know. Doesn't sound right.


White House's Brian Deese saying high gas prices guard 'liberal world order' - YouTube


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

If you want to anger a Conservative lie to him, if you want to anger a Liberal tell him the truth.


----------

