Gossiping about the weather is possibly the oldest human topic of conversation. Most of the time this is a harmless activity, but humans occasionally go through periods of superstition where they blame the weather on angry gods, human misbehavior, or witches.
We are unfortunate to live in a time when government has learned that they can profit through promoting the idea that people can change the weather (which they have caused) – by paying more taxes. This spectacularly irrational idea has been pounded into the heads of a couple of generations, and we now have a certain percentage of the population who could be classified as climate zombies.
“where they blame the weather on angry gods, human misbehavior, or witches”, or even Ministers (as in, say, ministry of culture, not of god.).
Our government sponsored scientists have finally caught up with the Mayan shamans, who also demanded human sacrifice to solve bad weather.
yea! that’s all true!! and when they catch their victim they throw them in a well with a bottle of lotion and say; “It rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again”, and after their skin is nice and soft they skin the victim and wear it, they then put lipstick on and dance in the mirror all tucked in… Oh Waite! I think that was The silence of the lambs I was thinking of.
Imagine for a moment that we listened to the hairshirt environmentalists, the Prophets of Doom, the leftist loons that crowd the halls of congress that in 2009 voted en masse to saddle our country with brutal 83% (yes, again, 83%) cuts in CO2 use. Imagine that the senate didn’t balk at this cap & trade bill, and O smiled widely as he signed it. Imagine also that politics and filibusters make it impossible to reverse this tyrannical act of congress, and so energy prices do rocket upwards as supplies crater.
Electricity is so expensive at $2 kilowatt hour (vs ~ 12 cents today) that many just have to drop power service. Gas is squeezed; prices would go so high I don’t even want to speculate, but, yes, the libs would find that many would only have mass transit as an option, yet the costs of maintaining mass transit would also be high. The price of everything goes through the roof, as the supply — of everything — falls through the floor. Jobs are lost by the millions, pay is reduced for existing jobs… this country doesn’t look anything like it does now, it is a catastrophe, virtually an apocalypse.
Imagine we did all this craziness, and then, lo and behold… the climate still changed! Boy, we sure would be shaking out heads in disbelief.
Even worse, imagine that the climate ‘stabilizes’, the alarmists take credit, and then double down on stupid at our peril.
Or worse yet, the climate does ‘tip’ and Hansen’s heirs continue to invent data, telling us all is well, and keep the sacrifices coming…
I found this recently released on Fas.org the other day.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42613.pdf
CRS: Climate Change and Existing Law: A Survey
of Legal Issues Past, Present, and Future
Summary
This report surveys existing law for legal issues that have arisen, or may arise in the future, on
account of climate change and government responses thereto.
At the threshold of many climate-change-related lawsuits are two barriers—whether the plaintiff
has standing to sue and whether the claim being made presents a political question. Both barriers
have forced courts to apply amorphous standards in a new and complex context.
Efforts to mitigate climate change—that is, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—have
spawned a host of legal issues. The Supreme Court resolved a big one in 2007—the Clean Air Act
(CAA), it said, does authorize EPA to regulate GHG emissions. Quite recently, a host of issues
raised by EPA’s efforts to carry out that authority were resolved in the agency’s favor by the D.C.
Circuit. Another issue is whether EPA’s “endangerment finding” for GHG emissions from new
motor vehicles will compel EPA to move against GHG emissions under other CAA authorities.
Still other mitigation issues are (1) the role of the Endangered Species Act in addressing climate
change; (2) how climate change must be considered under the National Environmental Policy
Act; (3) liability and other questions raised by carbon capture and sequestration; (4) constitutional
constraints on land use regulation and state actions against climate change; and (5) whether the
public trust doctrine applies to the atmosphere.
Liability for harms allegedly caused by climate change has raised another crop of legal issues.
The Supreme Court decision that the CAA bars federal judges from imposing their own limits on
GHG emissions from power plants has led observers to ask: Can plaintiffs alleging climate
change harms still seek monetary damages, and are state law claims still allowed? The one ruling
so far says no to both. Questions of insurance policy coverage are also likely to be litigated.
Finally, the applicability of international law principles to climate change has yet to be resolved.
Water shortages thought to be induced by climate change likely will lead to litigation over the
nature of water rights. Shortages have already prompted several lawsuits over whether cutbacks
in water delivered from federal projects effect Fifth Amendment takings or breaches of contract.
Sea level rise and extreme precipitation linked to climate change raise questions as to (1) the
effect of sea level rise on the beachfront owner’s property line; (2) whether public beach access
easements migrate with the landward movement of beaches; (3) design and operation of federal
levees; and (4) government failure to take preventive measures against climate change harms.
Other adaptation responses to climate change raising legal issues, often property rights related,
are beach armoring (seawalls, bulkheads, etc.), beach renourishment, and “retreat” measures.
Retreat measures seek to move existing development away from areas likely to be affected by
floods and sea level rise, and to discourage new development there.
Natural disasters to which climate change contributes may prompt questions as to whether
response actions taken in an emergency are subject to relaxed requirements and, similarly, as to
the rebuilding of structures destroyed by such disasters just as they were before.
Finally, immigration and refugee law appear not to cover persons forced to relocate because of
climate change impacts such as drought or sea level rise.
Climate Change and Existing Law: A Survey of Legal Issues Past, Present, and Future
Gator, I’d say that the climate would probably change, though. That’s nature, it’s going to get hotter or colder, or windier, or something. But temps are not going to rise like a rocket as per their hogwash predictions of doom. No way. So I guess if we made the insane cuts, they’d claim credit for the “leveling off” of temps. But they’d blame the apocalypse on something else. Probably Republicans…
Hey Eric! Yes, the only constant in climate is change. And the only constant on the left is stupidity. Sorry, forgot dishonesty… oh and whining… then there is feeling instead of thinking… oh never mind.
Senate rejects “Audit the Fed” bill.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ron-paul-audit-fed-bill-passes-house-185936757.html
I want to see this happen. Naturally, Ben Bernanke doesn’t like the idea