Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Gore rule activated by Porker. First person to mention Gore forfeits the thread for their own side. Great job there, Ace. Those who can talk about the science, do. Those who can't, they whine about Gore.
Porker, I'm trying to classify you on the intelligence scale here. You're definitely sub-100, but that could still have you well above the denier average. Keep talking, so I can figure out how just far down you are. I don't think you're below jc-level, but I'll need more evidence.
Oh my, another ignorant flap-yapper presenting nothing but vapid verbage and disproven lies.
It's important to _not_ try to figure out why most of the deniers here are so damn stupid.
As Nietzsche stated, "When you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes back into you."
That is, if you gaze into the abyss of denier stupidity too deeply, some of the stupid will end up clinging to you.
Hence, you just laugh at them and move on, like the rest of the world does.
So PC is pointing to Rush Limbaugh's failed prediction as proof of something.
That's what I mean. You don't dare delve to deeply into that kind of stupid. You might not come back.
You know the pigs we raised were really pretty smart animals. What happened to you, Porker?
Global warming/cooling is irrelevant.
Environmental protection is the right course; pollution is the wrong course. It's really that simple.
Finding renewable energy sources and maximizing their utilization is the right course; stubbornly insisting on remaining reliant on non-renewables, until they're gone, is the wrong course. It's really that simple.
There is nothing about AGW that involves keeping the planet clean. AGW is a transparent effort by the power elite to impose worldwide Marxism.The AGW cult and the environmentalist movement are so transparently a Marxist/statist movement. It is amazing that some people can't see it for what it is.
Really? So one must pollute to show one's capitalist credentials? lol
Are we debating environmental laws or AGW?
We're waiting for you to prove that wanting to keep the planet clean is Marxist,
unless you're implying that Marxism isn't all that bad.
AGW is a political movement not a scientific one.
Sadly...you silly leftists can't see the truth.
Global warming/cooling is irrelevant.
Environmental protection is the right course; pollution is the wrong course. It's really that simple.
Finding renewable energy sources and maximizing their utilization is the right course; stubbornly insisting on remaining reliant on non-renewables, until they're gone, is the wrong course. It's really that simple.
No one disagrees with your simplistic post, but you must find dragons to slay...
AGW is claimed to be about lowering CO2 emissions. Guess what? CO2 is NOT pollution and no known CREDIBLE studies prove its limitation will reduce warming...even if warming were present.
As such, the AGW cult you worship is not about reducing pollution it is about centralizing power into the hands of a small elite. When you understand this, you will have reached a level of understanding most sixth graders can achieve.
Global warming/cooling is irrelevant.
Environmental protection is the right course; pollution is the wrong course. It's really that simple.
Finding renewable energy sources and maximizing their utilization is the right course; stubbornly insisting on remaining reliant on non-renewables, until they're gone, is the wrong course. It's really that simple.
No one disagrees with your simplistic post, but you must find dragons to slay...
AGW is claimed to be about lowering CO2 emissions. Guess what? CO2 is NOT pollution and no known CREDIBLE studies prove its limitation will reduce warming...even if warming were present.
As such, the AGW cult you worship is not about reducing pollution it is about centralizing power into the hands of a small elite. When you understand this, you will have reached a level of understanding most sixth graders can achieve.
Then why do conservatives want to get rid of the EPA?
Global warming/cooling is irrelevant.
Environmental protection is the right course; pollution is the wrong course. It's really that simple.
Finding renewable energy sources and maximizing their utilization is the right course; stubbornly insisting on remaining reliant on non-renewables, until they're gone, is the wrong course. It's really that simple.
No one disagrees with your simplistic post, but you must find dragons to slay...
AGW is claimed to be about lowering CO2 emissions. Guess what? CO2 is NOT pollution and no known CREDIBLE studies prove its limitation will reduce warming...even if warming were present.
As such, the AGW cult you worship is not about reducing pollution it is about centralizing power into the hands of a small elite. When you understand this, you will have reached a level of understanding most sixth graders can achieve.
Then why do conservatives want to get rid of the EPA?
Glad you asked, but sad that you will not learn from the answer:
1. The principle of federalism has been virtually ruled out of existence. Encroachments by both the executive and by the legislature have been sanctioned by the courts. The change from the view of the framers can be seen since the New Deal
2. The reason is the creation of more and more bureaus and agencies endowed with ever broader responsibilities and discretion in defining the rules that govern our activities and our lives. And these rules have the full force of law! Congress has increased the number of rules whose infractions are criminalized, waiving the common law requirement that one knows he is breaking the law. Today, one can be jailed for violating a regulation that one had no reason to know even existed!
.
- While the officials in these agencies are generally good people, they become focused on their particular portfolio of duties, that, often, they cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions.
- A remedy would be the ability of citizens to sue the federal government to protect their legitimate interests, for damages. While currently unconstitutional, the Congress can waive sovereign immunity,
- Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.
- While not unconstitutional, regulation may be considered extra-constitutional. There may be some point where it is considered to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to an agency or bureau. Under Obamacare, or Dodd-Frank Reform we see legislation where regulators have not yet determined what the regulation should be…how can Congress allow a law without knowing what the impact will be? Senator James Buckley 3. [Yet, from the earliest of Progressive administrations, we find the belief that government bureaucrats, and technocrats, and agencies know better than those involved in the myriad voluntary transactions as to how much each should have.
- a. “Progressives looked to insulate administrators not only from the chief executive, but from politics altogether. It is the Progressives' desire to free bureaucratic agencies from the confines of politics and the law that allows us to trace the origins of the administrative state to their political thought. The idea of separating politics and administration--of grounding a significant portion of government not on the basis of popular consent but on expertise--was a fundamental aim of American Progressivism and explains the Progressives' fierce assault on the Founders' separation-of-powers constitutionalism.” The Birth of the Administrative State Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government]
Global warming/cooling is irrelevant.
Environmental protection is the right course; pollution is the wrong course. It's really that simple.
Finding renewable energy sources and maximizing their utilization is the right course; stubbornly insisting on remaining reliant on non-renewables, until they're gone, is the wrong course. It's really that simple.
No one disagrees with your simplistic post, but you must find dragons to slay...
AGW is claimed to be about lowering CO2 emissions. Guess what? CO2 is NOT pollution and no known CREDIBLE studies prove its limitation will reduce warming...even if warming were present.
As such, the AGW cult you worship is not about reducing pollution it is about centralizing power into the hands of a small elite. When you understand this, you will have reached a level of understanding most sixth graders can achieve.
Then why do conservatives want to get rid of the EPA?
Glad you asked, but sad that you will not learn from the answer:
1. The principle of federalism has been virtually ruled out of existence. Encroachments by both the executive and by the legislature have been sanctioned by the courts. The change from the view of the framers can be seen since the New Deal
2. The reason is the creation of more and more bureaus and agencies endowed with ever broader responsibilities and discretion in defining the rules that govern our activities and our lives. And these rules have the full force of law! Congress has increased the number of rules whose infractions are criminalized, waiving the common law requirement that one knows he is breaking the law. Today, one can be jailed for violating a regulation that one had no reason to know even existed!
.
- While the officials in these agencies are generally good people, they become focused on their particular portfolio of duties, that, often, they cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions.
- A remedy would be the ability of citizens to sue the federal government to protect their legitimate interests, for damages. While currently unconstitutional, the Congress can waive sovereign immunity,
- Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.
- While not unconstitutional, regulation may be considered extra-constitutional. There may be some point where it is considered to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to an agency or bureau. Under Obamacare, or Dodd-Frank Reform we see legislation where regulators have not yet determined what the regulation should be…how can Congress allow a law without knowing what the impact will be? Senator James Buckley 3. [Yet, from the earliest of Progressive administrations, we find the belief that government bureaucrats, and technocrats, and agencies know better than those involved in the myriad voluntary transactions as to how much each should have.
- a. “Progressives looked to insulate administrators not only from the chief executive, but from politics altogether. It is the Progressives' desire to free bureaucratic agencies from the confines of politics and the law that allows us to trace the origins of the administrative state to their political thought. The idea of separating politics and administration--of grounding a significant portion of government not on the basis of popular consent but on expertise--was a fundamental aim of American Progressivism and explains the Progressives' fierce assault on the Founders' separation-of-powers constitutionalism.” The Birth of the Administrative State Where It Came From and What It Means for Limited Government]
You could leave environmental protection up to the states if the environment were only a state by state issue.
It's not.
(See how easy it is to make an excellent point in only a few words?)
