Posted on 11/03/2018 12:15:15 PM PDT by ETL
A case similar to this was thrown out of court in California. I’m paraphrasing and adapting the judge’s quote to fit this case: “What will your future look like without electricity”.
Basically the judge in the other case said he cannot possibly say that human development has been bad for humankind. We live obviously better lives thanks to technologies that came before us; to complain about them now is regressive. Who wants to go back to living like people did in 1800? These kids claiming danger if things don’t change have to give thought to what life would be like if they get the change they demand. Higher taxes, higher food costs and fewer food choice, limited trade and limited access to goods and services, more expensive energy costs and costs of living in general, more expensive or even rationing of travel just a couple off the top of my head.
If we assume global warming is true, them someone - on behalf of generations yet unborn - should sue these smelly little Nazis for cooling down the world and hastening the end of all life on the planet.
Exactly. What judge could possibly rule on this. What about the interests of other people. If these kids are worried about life in 30-50 years, what about life over the next 10 or 20 years?
I still say that they go about this all wrong. But their true agenda is hidden. If they argued that we want cleaner air, most people would agree. They want to regress human advancement. Modern day Luddites, except it is in part a charade and they will actually stymie development if they institute some kinds of carbon credit currency - that will benefit the people in energy today and raise the cost of developing more efficient energy systems as newcomers have to buy carbon credits from someone. It will become hoarded and speculative, like BitCoin is. It’s partly a scheme to entrench certain industries - just as Obamacare was a boondoggle to make health insurers more entrenched and profitable.
Health insurance =/= health care and carbon credits =/= cleaner environment.
They have no standing, case closed.
The government has endangered my future by allowing uncontrolled mass immigration from third world countries.
The government has endangered my future by refusing to privatize Social Security, passing Obamacare, not adopting universal school choice, etc., etc., etc.
Golly. I always thought that people who think like I do needed to organize, persuade others and win elections. Now I find out that all we need is an activist judge. I'll ask around. It'd be nice to find a good one who would take my case, issue national injunctions on the above, and clear up all these issues by next Tuesday.
If there's nothing a district court judge can't do, why not?
Come to think of it, the government has endangered my future by allowing liberals to vote, allowing liberals to have children, and allowing liberals to speak and publish freely. This will get interesting before I get done.
“”Government attorneys are not expected to challenge the scientific consensus that human activities, including the burning of fossil fuels, cause global warming. But the outcome could hinge, in part, on how Aiken weighs other technical issues. Each side has recruited a roster of high-profile scientists and economists, including Nobel laureates, to bolster their argument.””
“EACH side” must mean there will be a Pro and a Con argument, right? “government won’t challenge scientific consensus” - WHY NOT? Then why bother defending the lawsuit? What are they going to argue?
Where on earth is it written that EVERYONE must protest something today? What lives these pukes must lead! Their very personal appearance shows that they don’t give any thought to how they look or present themselves - fat, sloppy, dumpy, big mouths - nothing appealing about them that would make anyone want to spend any time listening to anything they have to say. How about if we protest the ugliness of those we must share the planet with?
In that the US has reduced C02 emissions by 28% since 1990 this is going to be tough to prove. It seems this phony lawsuit would do better against the UN instead.
In a civil suit a plaintiff must prove some sort of physical or financial injury. But in the new liberal world, just thinking you could be harmed is a cause for claiming emotional pain and suffering.
This action could open doors to some terrible consequences down the road.
“”Come to think of it, the government has endangered my future by allowing liberals to vote, allowing liberals to have children, and allowing liberals to speak and publish freely. This will get interesting before I get done.””
How true!! We’ll be here rooting for you - hoping for your success! But I really think you have to look like you haven’t had a bath in a month of Sundays, got your clothes out of a homeless person’s grocery cart, stink to high heaven - you get the picture!
“The Courts and Justice are largely a joke now.”
That’s not funny.
I can do that.
“Where on earth is it written that EVERYONE must protest something today?”
It is not just written but taught every day in almost every school in America.
I will say that you have much more logical arguments for court cases than any of the “global climate alarmists” do. The problem is that activist judges don’t seem to be interested in any logical complaints.
Putting the courts in charge of the climate, what could go wrong?
I am tired of hearing this B.S. that Roberts is “compromised”. It is nonsense from start to finish.
The federal courts are insane. They need to be eliminated.
YOUR TAX DOLLARS BEING WASTED.
My guess is Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagin, Soto Mayor and ROBERTS will side with these brats.
There are NO merits to this case whatsoever because there is ZERO evidence that the CO2 contributed by humans is in any way harmful, However there is a preponderance of evidence that CO2 is beneficial to plant life and filtering solar radiation.
The fact that a court would even consider a case like this is further evidence that our legal system has been hijacked as a socialist tool
not to mention the arrogance of progressive faith based false theories around climate change, which automatically assumes that Humans are not part of nature and that our activities and byproducts of our activities are somehow shameful and must be modified to fit socialist progressive ideals and coddle their falsifiable theories
You should get some rest. I wouldn't want you to get sick, too. As Doc Holliday said in Tombstone, that strain might be more than you, or we, could bear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.