Justice Kagan warns parts of East Coast could be 'swallowed by the ocean' in dissent in EPA case

Says the person who never listens to NPR, obviously. If I am wrong, produce an example of the kind of thing that you contend, they will be doing. If you can't, it shows which end of your body, you're talking out of.

 

The average folks will band up and hunt them down. There is nowhere for them to hide except deep in the ocean and remain there for life.

 

ahh, so says a Democrat voter. I do feel sorry for you if you believe the garbage that is fed to you from your chosen media.

But, you do a good job toeing the Democrat line; well done.

 

You have no valid idea let alone proof that your flooding is caused by global warning. At best you have a SWAG. Even the preponderance of climate scientists would not say affirmatively that global warming is causing your flooding. Only the uninitiated like Kagen would make such a claim. And I had this knowledge long before MAGA was anywhere. Is my knowledge tough to accept by the never Trump crowd?

 

These guys never try to verify what they're being told by the MSM of their choice.

It's not that difficult to run down the facts that falsify the entire AGW/climate change narrative; but, belief and indoctrination are very difficult, if not impossible, to overcome.

 

Gosh - do I believe my own eyes, or do I believe Random Guy on the Internet ... that being you.

Thinking, thinking ...

 

Your entire reply is a non sequitur. You are the one who made the claim:

sec said: ↑
it doesn't matter as she will be heralded as a shining beacon of truth by NPR et al.

I merely asked for an example of the kind of thing you assert will happen, in this case, as if you know this from former examples. I hady very strong doubts that you listened to NPR, making your contention meaningless, for want of any basis. Your reply, above, supports my educated guess, having hit the mark.

 

Of course the gist of my post went right over your head.

I didn't say you should believe me, I said you should challenge the information you're being given and accepting as true.

Science is about falsification. Theories have to be tested and compared to observations and results. If the theory withstands those attempts to prove it wrong, it can stand. If not - it has to be rejected.

The Greenhouse Gas Effect is a well established fact - in a laboratory setting and in controlled conditions.

But the earth is not a laboratory. Nor is it beholden to the Garbage In Garbage Out parameters theorists input to computer models.

The computer models are always wrong because they attempt to accurately reflect a long list of variables that are reasonably well understood, but not entirely; but, their greatest defect is that they all, save one, identify CO2 as a cause for warming.

The one model that comes closest to replicating the observations is the Russian model - and what is different about that model is they don't input CO2 as a significant warming variable.

That said, even the Russian model runs warmer than the real world observations.



No, I'm not trying to tell you what to think.

I'm saying that you're not thinking for yourself when you accept on faith that one side of a scientific issue is correct without examining legitimate challenges to the validity of the theory.

 

It's a double edged sword. The warmers can't ever get anything right. According to them, by now the Arctic should be ice free, millions of climate refugees should be roaming the planet, we should have hurricanes and cyclones every year, global flooding was supposed to force people away from the cost, etc. The doom and gloom predictions always fail. Should we force warmers to get it right before we listen. That might be a tad dangerous.

 

Well, AOC did give us only 12 years and that was a few years ago. Guess Kagan concurs.

 

"Parts of the East Coast could be swallowed by the ocean"

Please God, let it be NYC and Washington DC.

 

How about Newark and Boston, too??

 

Oceans always rise during interglacials and they will continue to rise until glaciers resume their advance, which if this interglacial is as long as the last one, will be in about 3,000 years. In the meantime, oceans will continue rising about 14 to 15 inches a century, if that's a problem for you, don't build at sea level.

I love the way these rich lefty gentry want to build right on the beach, fly about in private jets while insisting that everyone else ride buses and skimp on air conditioning to save their beachfront properties.

Can they see which fingers are sticking up?

Here from about 65 million years ago. The glaciers will resume advance well before this, which won't be fun, as 20,000 years ago, at the end of the last glacier advance, Chicago was under a mile of ice.



And that last glacier advance lasted 100,000 years and humans endured it. You know, now that I think about it, you could just be grateful that you will spend your life in an interglacial rather than complaining about it.

 

You know, I always thought the Sotomayor was the dumbest justice and this new one that thinks you have to be a biologist to identify a woman clearly isn't too swift either, but, Kagan is really ringing the dumb bell as of late. Their is her hair on fire climate cult crap and then there is this: Miss Kagan said, "I’m not talking about any particular decision or even any particular series of decisions, but if over time the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that’s a dangerous thing for democracy."

Dred Scott was very popular with Democrats



"Some things are so obvious that it surprises me that no one else says it. I am surprised no one pointed out to Justice Kagan that we have a Supreme Court to do that which is unpopular. The Court protects the Constitution from The Mob."

"Hands down the worst Supreme Court decision ever, Dred Scott held that African Americans, whether freemen or slaves, could not be considered American citizens. The ruling undid the Missouri Compromise, barred laws that would free slaves, and all but guaranteed that there would be no political solution to slavery. The opinion even included a ridiculous parade of horribles that would appear if Scott were recognized as a citizen, unspeakable scenarios like African Americans being able to vacation, hold public meetings, and exercise their free speech rights."

"The Supreme Court followed popular opinion and said black people have no rights."

A 1927 decision, in the beginning of the "progressive" era supported eugenics. "In an 8-1 decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court upheld the forced sterilization of those with intellectual disabilities 'for the protection and health of the state.' Justice Holmes ruled that 'society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind" and ended the opinion by declaring that 'three generations of imbeciles are enough.'"

That too, was very popular with 'progressives'.

"Eugenics was popular until 1945 when the horrors of Germany's concentration camps brought home just what 'cleaning' the gene pool involves."

"Korematsu v. United States. In 1944, the Supreme Court approved of the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. "

"Plessy v. Ferguson, which established separate but equal treatment of people by their race. Ah the days of colored water fountains and the like. This 1896 decision told black people to get to the back of the bus. (In this case, again, a streetcar.)"

"The striking of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 in 1883. It was basically the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Had justices followed the Constitution they would have spared black people 81 years of second-class citizenship."

Justices do a lot of damage when they follow the mob rather than the Law and the Constitution. Thank goodness for the majority on this Court.

Kagan needs to give this further thought.

 

Absolutely! But it's way worse than that.

On Earth we get to walk around on the surface. On Mars, you need an oxygen tank, breathing regulator and you're going to be seriously radiated, leading to cancer. The NASA plan for radiation is to go there fast and return soon. Space suits won't solve the problem. And, spaceships that could protect against radiation would have to be huge and heavy. So, NASA isn't doing that, either.

On Venus, the spaceships humans have sent have lasted only a few hours because of the heat, pressure, acid rain, etc. It's hot enough on the surface to melt lead - 900F. Surface pressure is the same as a mile deep in our oceans. There really is nothing we can do to live there. On the good side, the sulfuric acid rain doesn't reach the surface, because it's so hot that it evaporates before getting there.

It would be far easier to learn to live at the bottom of our oceans.

 

So, you can't answer his question!

I thought so.

 

I tend to see the gravity issue as the most insurmountable, because while it's at least not physically impossible for us with far advanced technology to create a magnetic field for Mars, it is literally impossible to increase its gravity.

It would be easier to modify our own biology long term.

 

The Dred Scott decision was completely correct what are you talking about?

Exactly how was Dred Scott incorrect given the constitution they were using at the time?

 

Obama gave us the warmest year on record, then he and Climate Czar Kerry made Martha's Vineyard their home ,,, to live out their remaining years under water.


Before being anointed a Supreme Court Justice, did Kagan serve even a nanosecond on the bench in any court?

 

Perhaps you live in a cave. I've never met a boomer of either party that is anti science and wants to burn the world down. Not a single one. What I do find is that conservative boomers seem to have more common sense. But that could be because conservative common sense makes more sense to me. Premise rejected.

 

Interesting point!

Another in favor of gravity being a problem for a Mars population might be that gravity could have significant importance in pregnancy and childbirth.

I was looking at the shorter term, as I think that any Mars colony will require a lot of work on the Mars surface. I haven't heard of plans for how to keep those workers alive.

So far, we can hardly get humans to Mars and back within acceptable radiation limits.

 

This reply post is much better than the smart-ass one I had in mind.

 

And should be removed from the bench for not following her oath of office. If she wants to promote such policies in the government she can then run for Congress.

 

Heal? What needs to heal? What is the proper temperature for the earth? How would a "healed" earth manifest itself exactly?

 

Maybe one of the glacial periods would be more suited for them?