The EPA has no power to declare CO2 as "pollution"

[DGS49]

Supreme Court will hear biggest climate change case in a decade

WASHINGTON — In the most important environmental case in more than a decade, the Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments in a dispute that could...

www.post-gazette.com

This story from my local birdcage liner outlines how Leftists in government have for many years been trying to define CO2 as "pollution," so that they can regulate industry and transportation and agriculture and electric power to death.

But the Clean Air Act has a whole list of shit that CONGRESS defines a "pollution," and the EPA has no right to expand that list. [Just as bureaucrats have no power to classify discrimination against sexual irregulars as "sex discrimination." But I digress].

So now we are in the perverse situation of asking the USSC to prohibit the Administration from doing something that IT HAS NOT YET DONE. It only WANTS to do it. And since the USSC can only rule on actual cases and controversies (not differences of opinion), one expects CJ Roberts to try to get out of this issue altogether.

Nevertheless, CO2 is not pollution, any more than clean water is pollution or dirt. They are things that could conceivably cause harm. That's it.

For those of us who voted for DJT solely for his promise to nominate Constitution-loving judges and justices, this is where it will all pay off. God bless that foul, vulgar, petty, spiteful man.

 

[1srelluc]

Just another in a long line of dem self-perpetuating miseries the dems have foisted upon us, mainly to pick our pockets and line theirs.

One merely has to look into who gains monetarily off the climate change hoax and the amounts they donate kick-back into dem coffers to see we are being played.

 

[Donald H]

Let's just face the facts folks, the battle against Climate Science has been won by the denialists.

Any meaningful actions to mitigate against global warming and climate change will have to come as a result of the effect felt by countries most influenced.

And if there are no disasterous effects from climate change then nobody has anything to worry about.

The oceans will recede and everything will return to normal.

It was extremely presumptuous anyway to think that the God didn't have it all under 'HIS' control!

 

[beautress]

Supreme Court will hear biggest climate change case in a decade

WASHINGTON — In the most important environmental case in more than a decade, the Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments in a dispute that could...

www.post-gazette.com

This story from my local birdcage liner outlines how Leftists in government have for many years been trying to define CO2 as "pollution," so that they can regulate industry and transportation and agriculture and electric power to death.

But the Clean Air Act has a whole list of shit that CONGRESS defines a "pollution," and the EPA has no right to expand that list. [Just as bureaucrats have no power to classify discrimination against sexual irregulars as "sex discrimination." But I digress].

So now we are in the perverse situation of asking the USSC to prohibit the Administration from doing something that IT HAS NOT YET DONE. It only WANTS to do it. And since the USSC can only rule on actual cases and controversies (not differences of opinion), one expects CJ Roberts to try to get out of this issue altogether.

Nevertheless, CO2 is not pollution, any more than clean water is pollution or dirt. They are things that could conceivably cause harm. That's it.

For those of us who voted for DJT solely for his promise to nominate Constitution-loving judges and justices, this is where it will all pay off. God bless that foul, vulgar, petty, spiteful man.

You might be right, or other scientists may have a causa celebre against CO2: Carbon dioxide poisoning: a literature review of an often forgotten cause of intoxication in the emergency department

"Carbon dioxide poisoning: a literature review of an often forgotten cause of intoxication in the emergency department"​

"Studies conducted in the 1980s showed that there were 89 deaths per year in the USA alone, during work in confined spaces; 22% occur during rescue efforts [4]. A number has not decreased since. A recent study of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in 2015 still estimated the number of deaths involving confined spaces to be around 90 per year. Unfortunately, the number of killed rescuers has risen to two thirds of those deaths [5].

More specifics here: Carbon dioxide poisoning: a literature review of an often forgotten cause of intoxication in the emergency department

 

[DGS49]

The left-right Climate Change debate is as follows: the Left wants us to figuratively shoot ourselves in the foot in order to REDUCE (not eliminate) the amount warming that will likely occur. The Right says, "Warming will occur regardless," and we have the confidence to presume that technology will address the harmful effects of Climate Change, and that future technology will be CHEAPER than the horrible sacrifices that the Left wants us to accept NOW - on speculation.

 

[DGS49]

Europe’s quandary buttresses the Supreme Court’s answer to ‘major questions’ on energy

The fight against executive overreach and the relentless progressive campaign against U.S. energy security couldn’t be more important.

thehill.com

More on the case. Leftists will lose. America will win.

 

[fncceo]

You have to admire the audacity of it ... to outlaw the very bi-product of every living animal on the face of this Earth ...

... no evil mastermind in history has every come up with a more diabolical plan.

 

[Rigby5]

You have to admire the audacity of it ... to outlaw the very bi-product of every living animal on the face of this Earth ...

... no evil mastermind in history has every come up with a more diabolical plan.

Obviously if something is a waste product of respiration, then it can then be fatal if in too large of a concentration.
Do we outlaw human excrement in our drinking water? Of course we do.

And no one ever suggested we "outlaw" CO2, but to not necessarily let it increase by 40% in the atmosphere, adding more than 50 tons of carbon to the air every year, as we are doing now.

This is very simple.
Solar heat comes in as photons.
If that heat does not leave, the planet becomes like Venus and the surface the temperature of molten lead.
The amount of heat that can leave is dependent upon the amount of carbon at the boundary to space.
That is because carbon converts photonic energy into vibratory heat, which can not escape into the vacuum of space.

 

[martybegan]

Let's just face the facts folks, the battle against Climate Science has been won by the denialists.

Any meaningful actions to mitigate against global warming and climate change will have to come as a result of the effect felt by countries most influenced.

And if there are no disasterous effects from climate change then nobody has anything to worry about.

The oceans will recede and everything will return to normal.

It was extremely presumptuous anyway to think that the God didn't have it all under 'HIS' control!

Less denialists and more the people that don't think the only solution is world socialism

That's what the modern left and enviro-nuts are proposing.

 

[Rigby5]

Europe’s quandary buttresses the Supreme Court’s answer to ‘major questions’ on energy

The fight against executive overreach and the relentless progressive campaign against U.S. energy security couldn’t be more important.

thehill.com

More on the case. Leftists will lose. America will win.

That is silly.
I remember when the USS Nautilus went under the North Pole in 1957.
It was summer, but solid ice.
There was not a single bit of open water anywhere near the North Pole.
But now there is open water every summer, and the Northwest Passage is staying open now even in winter.
Obviously a huge change in the world climate has gone on in less than 50 years.

 

[Rigby5]

Less denialists and more the people that don't think the only solution is world socialism

That's what the modern left and enviro-nuts are proposing.

That is silly, as socialism has nothing to do with the environmental concerns, which obviously are real.

 

[fncceo]

Environmentalism is a watermelon ...

Green on the outside, red on the inside.

 

[martybegan]

That is silly, as socialism has nothing to do with the environmental concerns, which obviously are real.

Sorry, but it is one and the same. So far the only "solutions" proposed to our "crisis" is more government, less freedom, and lowered standards of living.

i.e. socialism.