[rktman]

"If there is no proven scientific basis for the Green Agenda, then it should be abandoned." Yeah, probably not gonna happen. Way too much dinero at stake for politicians and claus's pals to lose. Besides which, the current cabal would provide the "truth" about the issue. Because 'truth' versus 'facts', they choose 'truth. Don't let facts get in the way.

[butlerweave]

Teaching fiction as fact

[GaltAdonis]

Banning fossil fuels will only help to eliminate
a large percentage of the Earth's human population.
And that is it's real intended purpose.

[LastDayz]

How about a class action lawsuit for not upholding your oaths of office or raising property taxes above the legally prescribed limit?

[ComputerGuy]

Old Billy was right.

[imabadboy99]

Depends on if you get an obama judge or a trump judge.

[M Kehoe]

Ping.

5.56mm

[hardspunned]

I think everyone involved in the innocent carbon fuels industry has a claim against this sinister global climate change flimflam. Go for it.

[butlerweave]

With all the money wasted on the Green Agenda should prove it’s fake , how many billions of dollars did Obama throw at it ?

[Dad was my hero]

It’s a religion, why can’t we just have a band under separation of “church and state?”

[consult]

Great article. Would love to see if modelling studies (lowest form of scientific evidence, like a hypothesis, garbage in, garbage out) would be enough to “prove” they are right.....when history tells us they have been wrong up until now.

[Coffee... Black... No Sugar]

It’s a religion. Separate it from the State.

[semimojo]

With witnesses battling it out in a single forum, the court could assess whether it’s more likely than not that the world faces catastrophic destruction.

I'm trying to think of a worse place to settle a scientific debate than the courts and am having a hard time coming up with one.