|
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 2933572)
Their job isn't to "interpret" what the Constitution says. Where in the Constitution (Art III) is SCOTUS given that power? :confused:
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is…If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each. So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution… the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.” Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803 Their job is to rule on the case before them and to determine if it is, or is not Constitutional. By doing this they shape the law of the land. For years the SCOTUS held that segregation laws, providing that conditions were separate but equal, were not in violation of the Constitution. Years later they reversed their decision and held that separate but equal was not Constitutional, forcing states to change their laws. The regulation of marriage is not an enumerated power of the federal government, however in 1967 the Court ruled that laws forbidding interracial marriage were unconstitutional, and more recently they ruled that laws against same sex marriage were as well. As a result of their rulings in both examples, states had to change their laws to comply, thus making the Court the final authority as to the law. This is why I mentioned the political circus surrounding the confirmation process. Politicians want to ensure that people are selected who will most likely interpret vague or poorly written laws in their favor. An example of this would be those who want judges to use the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment to rule against private ownership of guns, or those who want judges to rule against abortion because the Constitutional rights of the child are being ignored. |
Originally Posted by Itsajob
(Post 2933684)
Marbury vs Madison established the concept of judicial review.
|
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2933644)
You're peaching to the choir buddy. You didn't read my post, all data fits their hypothesis, you can't prove the climate isn't changing, so why try. Of course, man has some effect no matter what, how could they not? It's a scam, top to bottom. You have to completely avoid arguing whether it exists or not. Admit it exists, and keep grilling them on nuclear power, which they hate, so they don't stick us with renewable garbage that ends in energy rationing.
|
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 2933816)
Actually judicial review existed well before that case. And judicial review is not the same thing as "interpreting" the Constitution. The only appropriate methodology is original understanding, what did the words mean to the people who wrote them when they wrote them down?
|
Originally Posted by Itsajob
(Post 2933829)
You’re right about original understanding, but the justices are tasked with determining what that is. That is where they try to interpret
|
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 2933817)
Of course climate change exists, but there is no conclusive proof or even scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to it in any significant or measurable amount.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ I'd love to see a comprehensive refutation of that. |
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 2933879)
And that is their error. There is no "interpretation" needed.
Anyway, I don’t know how a thread on environmental issues drifted into the Constitution and the Supreme Court, but it was enjoyable. I can’t believe that people didn’t go all red/blue and get the thread locked. It was fun, but I guess we should hang this up and let others talk about the original intent of this thread. |
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 2933817)
Of course climate change exists, but there is no conclusive proof or even scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to it in any significant or measurable amount.
The reality is... People think it's real, so we have to react accordingly. The trick is to do it without destroying the economy (and global stability) in the process. Hard-core eco freaks (greta, AOC) don't seem to get that if everyone is struggling to find work, food, and housing carbon will be the very last thing on their minds. The first world needs to show the third world that there's a sustainable path to a better economy... otherwise they'll just keep slashing and burning as usual. Personally I have trouble taking any of them seriously as long as nuclear is off the table. Fission is perfectly safe and viable as implemented with modern technology. The waste is a temporary thing, we only need fission until fusion is available (5-50 years realistically). Focus on fusion instead of half-arsed bandaids like wind and solar... why are none of the carbon nazis pushing for THAT? |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 2934122)
Focus on fusion instead of half-arsed bandaids like wind and solar... why are none of the carbon nazis pushing for THAT?
|
Originally Posted by Longhornmaniac8
(Post 2933891)
This is factually incorrect. To believe that at this point is simple willful ignorance. It's not a question of who you believe, or whether there's good science on both sides, it's a question of either accepting the science or rejecting it. Here's some light reading:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ I'd love to see a comprehensive refutation of that. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 2934122)
The reality is...
People think it's real, so we have to react accordingly. There is no need to cater to the insane asylum. That being said, if the government should be doing research at all (it shouldn't) then I agree fusion should be the focus. When fusion is viable, the world changes forever. |
|
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 2934508)
No, we don't.
There is no need to cater to the insane asylum.
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 2934508)
That being said, if the government should be doing research at all (it shouldn't) then I agree fusion should be the focus. When fusion is viable, the world changes forever.
|
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 2934537)
Interesting quote from your link: It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus
|
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 2934759)
Except that there isn't consensus in the scientific community on the cause of climate change.
The burden of evidence in scientific realms say otherwise. But you already knew this. |
I'm not going to change my lifestyle bad on alarmists nonsense. Shame me all to want, I just don't care.
|
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 2933576)
You must get your news from CNN... :rolleyes:
Answer these questions: - why is the climate changing on Mars? - why did the climate change on Earth millions of years before the Industrial Revolution? - does the sun maintain a constant intensity/output? - is the orbit of the Earth around the sun a constant distance, or does it ever change? When you think about the answers to those questions then get back to us. The frustrating thing about climate change discussions is that people take it to the extreme on both sides of the argument. Similar to politics in the US. I agree that the natural effects you mentioned likely outweigh the man made effects (which DO exist). However, the unfortunate danger of this conclusion is that people will think they have a green pass to whatever they please with the environment. Consider this simple thought... Ignore the greenhouse effect discussions. Look at raw resources. We have a LIMITED amount of coal, oil, iron, etc on Earth. As a simple math problem, one day we will run out of 1) materials to use to feed our ever-growing society and 2) places to throw our trash away. We need to do a better job in using our resources in a more sustainable way. |
Originally Posted by lightspeed12
(Post 2935967)
Very good post, BUT let's take a more balanced point of view.
The frustrating thing about climate change discussions is that people take it to the extreme on both sides of the argument. Similar to politics in the US. I agree that the natural effects you mentioned likely outweigh the man made effects (which DO exist). However, the unfortunate danger of this conclusion is that people will think they have a green pass to whatever they please with the environment. Consider this simple thought... Ignore the greenhouse effect discussions. Look at raw resources. We have a LIMITED amount of coal, oil, iron, etc on Earth. As a simple math problem, one day we will run out of 1) materials to use to feed our ever-growing society and 2) places to throw our trash away. We need to do a better job in using our resources in a more sustainable way. |
Originally Posted by lightspeed12
(Post 2935967)
Ignore the greenhouse effect discussions. Look at raw resources. We have a LIMITED amount of coal, oil, iron, etc on Earth. As a simple math problem, one day we will run out of 1) materials to use to feed our ever-growing society and 2) places to throw our trash away. We need to do a better job in using our resources in a more sustainable way. |
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 2936007)
We are not running out of places to dispose of trash. And there is strong speculation that oil is in fact a renewable resource.
|
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ My question for all you deniers is, if this was a different topic would you disagree with a 97% consensus of educated specialists? If 97 out of 100 doctor's agreed on medical treatment would you argue that 3 of them said that oatmeal would cure your cancer? |
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 2936010)
Oil is renewable? Are you serious? Please cite your sources.
|
From Sonic flyer
Answer these questions: - why is the climate changing on Mars? Mars is warming because of a change in albedo or a change in the reflectivity of the surface. You also can't compare a planet with 1% the Earth's atmospheric volume to Earth. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html - why did the climate change on Earth millions of years before the Industrial Revolution? Climate does change through small changes in the Earth's orbit. These are actually accounted for and shown by the same scientists you are saying don't know what they are talking about. The difference you need to look at is the warming trend over the past 100 years vs the most aggressive warming trend on the Earth before the industrial revolution https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ - does the sun maintain a constant intensity/output? The sun's activity is on an approximate 11 year cycle. Much to short of a time period to effect climate - is the orbit of the Earth around the sun a constant distance, or does it ever change? Already spoken to above When you think about the answers to those questions then get back to us |
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2936027)
He's referring to the abiotic theory, however, it is false, there is no such thing as a renewable resource, it violates the laws of thermodynamics.
|
Originally Posted by Coopcoop
(Post 2936026)
My question for all you deniers is, if this was a different topic would you disagree with a 97% consensus of educated specialists?
|
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 2936043)
A "renewable" resource was never meant to mean infinite. All energy sources are replenished, some at a much slower rate than they are consumed. Oil, coal, natural gas, uranium take millions to hundreds of millions of years to replenish. Renewable sources are replenished at a rate that greatly exceeds consumption or are so plentiful that we couldn't even dream of consuming them. Solar, wind, hydro, etc cannot be "exhausted" but our ability to harness/efficiency of capture and storage is limited.
|
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 2936010)
Oil is renewable? Are you serious? Please cite your sources.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/tec...ng-into-oil-03 Research the abiotic petroleum origin and you'll discover there are a lot of geologists and scientists that hypothesize that petroleum is in fact a natural process in the earth, and not dead dino guts. In other words the earth keeps generating more of it over time. Also, peak oil, is a myth. |
Originally Posted by Coopcoop
(Post 2936026)
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ My question for all you deniers is, if this was a different topic would you disagree with a 97% consensus of educated specialists? If 97 out of 100 doctor's agreed on medical treatment would you argue that 3 of them said that oatmeal would cure your cancer? |
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 2936102)
Stats are like bikinis... what they reveal is interesting but they hide the most important parts. Also, lies, damn lies, and statistics.
|
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 2936149)
Statistics is not science....so, you know.
|
|
https://www.cdapress.com/archive/article-658d1073-442a-5e78-93c8-6a961ea092a6.html https://www.cdapress.com/archive/article-3ba6fa2c-d9e4-5754-8e99-2781dbbc4eba.html https://www.cdapress.com/archive/article-bda8da1c-3d2b-5977-aba6-356f2489e87a.html Might want to check your sources a little closer next time. Pretty sure NASA and 97% of the scientific community is a little more reputable than chemtrails man. |
Originally Posted by Coopcoop
(Post 2936213)
LMAO. Classic. A two second Google search showed that the "scientist" who prepared your chart also believes in chemtrails.
|
Originally Posted by Coopcoop
(Post 2936213)
LMAO. Classic. A two second Google search showed that the "scientist" who prepared your chart also believes in chemtrails.
https://www.cdapress.com/archive/article-658d1073-442a-5e78-93c8-6a961ea092a6.html https://www.cdapress.com/archive/article-3ba6fa2c-d9e4-5754-8e99-2781dbbc4eba.html https://www.cdapress.com/archive/article-bda8da1c-3d2b-5977-aba6-356f2489e87a.html Might want to check your sources a little closer next time. Pretty sure NASA and 97% of the scientific community is a little more reputable than chemtrails man. Also, just this week, an airline pilot called to tell me, "Cliff, we pilots see these jet tankers dumping chemtrails almost every day. We're told that it's 'a priority military project.'" Who is this treasonous pilot??? |
Currency - the website Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C. shows that it was updated in March of 2018. Well that is a pretty good start. Until we look into his sources which include 2 books from the 1970s and some mythical science foundation papers I could not find. Reliability - Most of the information on Cliff's website is opinion without stating sources. He makes claims without any evidence or sources listed. He has a complete section dedicated to climate change and how it is not real showing a definite bias towards this thinking. Authority - So we know this was composed by Cliff Harris and Randy Mann. What we don't know is anything about their credentials. His biggest achievement seems to be "Climatologist Cliff Harris has been often rated as one of the top ten climatologists in the world for nearly 4 decades." Often rated by whom? His aunt? He does not show that he has any college degree, only stating that he has "over 300 credits from several different universities”. There is also no sponsor or publisher of the website besides Mr. Harris's own company. He has never been published in any sort of scientific paper let alone a peer reviewed journal but he did author "Weather and Bible Prophecy" with Randy Mann. https://www.amazon.com/Weather-Bible.../dp/B00VGS3LN8. Apparently this includes topics such as: - How God is using the weather to get our attention. - When are the major climate and cultural cycles colliding? - What are the futures prophecies based on the Bible? - How did the weather influence major events in the Bible? - How the weather could play a role in the "End Times." - What will the "New Jerusalem" be like? Accuracy - The information is clearly biased and is not supported by any concrete evidence. He did provide sources for his chart which were: "Climate and the Affairs of Men" by Dr. Iben Browing. "Climate...The Key to Understanding Business Cycles...The Raymond H. Wheeler Papers. By Michael Zahorchak Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois. Two of those sources are books and I could not find any evidence of Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois. His "evidence" is based on books, not scientific research. The first author "Iben Browning (January 9, 1918 – July 18, 1991) was an American business consultant, author, and "self-proclaimed climatologist."[1]: p. 2 He is most notable for having made various failed predictions of disasters involving climate, volcanoes, earthquakes, and government collapse.[2]: p. 11" [1]Farley, John E. Earthquake Fears, Predictions, and Preparations in Mid-America. Southern Illinois University Press. [2]Spence, William; Herrmann, Robert B.; Johnston, Arch C. & Reagor, Glen (1993), "Responses to Iben Browning's Prediction of a 1990 New Madrid, Missouri, Earthquake" (PDF), U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 1083. The second author wrote books on business and investing. I couldn't find anything more about this author. Needless to say not great sources. The information was not peer reviewed, He incorrectly calls the IPCC the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control. The chart does not even have a scale on the Y-axis and the few temperatures listed are in Fahrenheit not the scientific standard of Celsius. Purpose - The website is set up to try and sell not only advertising (advertisers click here) but also "Daily commodity and long range weather service for only $11.95/month!" Additionally you can contact them if you are an attorney and have them present "forensic meteorology" by using his 100 scrapbooks. All that goes to show his information is not for scientific purposes but rather to make money. All in all if you just took two minutes to look into the quality of the information you are trying to spread you would save us all a lot of time and even prevent the spread of horrible misinformation. Unfortunately I know that is not what your intentions are. I know this will fall on deaf ears with you but I hope that if anyone else on this forum was going to believe the drivel you have presented this will make them think twice and maybe just maybe they will look into the glut of real scientific papers themselves. Or you know, they could just take the easy way out and believe the 97% of scientist and over 200 international scientific organizations that believe that humans are causing a severe impact on our climate. |
First worlders can handle even the most dire predictions. It’s the nations that can’t even feed themselves today that will have problems.
Maybe climate change is just Mother Nature thinning the herd? Either way I don’t plan on adjusting my lifestyle ever. Even if we get people in power who want to carbon tax everything, those policies will end up hurting the poor and cause a revolt against those policies. Like we saw in France. I can afford four dollars a gallon without blinking. Most blue collar people can’t. |
Time's, Person of the Year, is fighting to ban commercial aviation. The good news is that if she gets her way, we can still fly planes for the rich elite, that will obviously be exempt from any ban.
|
Originally Posted by Coopcoop
(Post 2936464)
Oh dear. Pointing out the reliability of your source is not a logical fallacy. It is called evaluating source material. In the future you should really use the CRAAP method to evaluate the quality of the information you are sharing. I can't believe I'm wasting my time on this but maybe it will help some other wayward soul.
Currency - the website Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C. shows that it was updated in March of 2018. Well that is a pretty good start. Until we look into his sources which include 2 books from the 1970s and some mythical science foundation papers I could not find. Reliability - Most of the information on Cliff's website is opinion without stating sources. He makes claims without any evidence or sources listed. He has a complete section dedicated to climate change and how it is not real showing a definite bias towards this thinking. Authority - So we know this was composed by Cliff Harris and Randy Mann. What we don't know is anything about their credentials. His biggest achievement seems to be "Climatologist Cliff Harris has been often rated as one of the top ten climatologists in the world for nearly 4 decades." Often rated by whom? His aunt? He does not show that he has any college degree, only stating that he has "over 300 credits from several different universities”. There is also no sponsor or publisher of the website besides Mr. Harris's own company. He has never been published in any sort of scientific paper let alone a peer reviewed journal but he did author "Weather and Bible Prophecy" with Randy Mann. https://www.amazon.com/Weather-Bible.../dp/B00VGS3LN8. Apparently this includes topics such as: - How God is using the weather to get our attention. - When are the major climate and cultural cycles colliding? - What are the futures prophecies based on the Bible? - How did the weather influence major events in the Bible? - How the weather could play a role in the "End Times." - What will the "New Jerusalem" be like? Accuracy - The information is clearly biased and is not supported by any concrete evidence. He did provide sources for his chart which were: "Climate and the Affairs of Men" by Dr. Iben Browing. "Climate...The Key to Understanding Business Cycles...The Raymond H. Wheeler Papers. By Michael Zahorchak Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois. Two of those sources are books and I could not find any evidence of Weather Science Foundation Papers in Crystal Lake, Illinois. His "evidence" is based on books, not scientific research. The first author "Iben Browning (January 9, 1918 – July 18, 1991) was an American business consultant, author, and "self-proclaimed climatologist."[1]: p. 2 He is most notable for having made various failed predictions of disasters involving climate, volcanoes, earthquakes, and government collapse.[2]: p. 11" [1]Farley, John E. Earthquake Fears, Predictions, and Preparations in Mid-America. Southern Illinois University Press. [2]Spence, William; Herrmann, Robert B.; Johnston, Arch C. & Reagor, Glen (1993), "Responses to Iben Browning's Prediction of a 1990 New Madrid, Missouri, Earthquake" (PDF), U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 1083. The second author wrote books on business and investing. I couldn't find anything more about this author. Needless to say not great sources. The information was not peer reviewed, He incorrectly calls the IPCC the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control. The chart does not even have a scale on the Y-axis and the few temperatures listed are in Fahrenheit not the scientific standard of Celsius. Purpose - The website is set up to try and sell not only advertising (advertisers click here) but also "Daily commodity and long range weather service for only $11.95/month!" Additionally you can contact them if you are an attorney and have them present "forensic meteorology" by using his 100 scrapbooks. All that goes to show his information is not for scientific purposes but rather to make money. All in all if you just took two minutes to look into the quality of the information you are trying to spread you would save us all a lot of time and even prevent the spread of horrible misinformation. Unfortunately I know that is not what your intentions are. I know this will fall on deaf ears with you but I hope that if anyone else on this forum was going to believe the drivel you have presented this will make them think twice and maybe just maybe they will look into the glut of real scientific papers themselves. Or you know, they could just take the easy way out and believe the 97% of scientist and over 200 international scientific organizations that believe that humans are causing a severe impact on our climate. The most cathartic, systematic destruction I've seen on the topic in a while. Smarter people would see that if these are the kinds of "sources" that they find to cite, they probably don't have a great (any) scientific leg to stand on. Well done. |
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2936948)
Time's, Person of the Year, is fighting to ban commercial aviation. The good news is that if she gets her way, we can still fly planes for the rich elite, that will obviously be exempt from any ban.
|
Originally Posted by Slaphappy
(Post 2937819)
The funny thing is that The hong kong protesters won the polling overwhelmingly. But since TimeWarner is afraid of china they picked the Autistic Girl with fetal alcohol syndrome.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:02 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands