I get much of my business through lawyers and thoroughly enjoy working with them, but lawyers are prone to the fatal conceit; the false idea that being smart in one thing makes them smart in all things.
When words fail to describe, I look for solace in the Bible and this verse seems so simple but true when looking for explanations: “Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.”
Romans 1:28 NIV
Doing what ought not to be done seems to explain so much right now!
While Montana is shipping coal out of state (and country) to be consumed for generating electricity - so much for “clean” EVs), how much product and finished goods come back to the U.S. from Asia that was produced via coal-fired plants in Asia (China, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, etc.)? Cars, clothes, consumer electronics and toys (to name a few), along with batteries, solar panels and wind power paraphernalia)?
Will Montana “seal-the-deal” and ban all these consumer products (or let Trump’s Tariffs deal the blow)?
Let’s force all he heavy equipment used for coal mining and transport (trains, transport ships, cruise ships, planes and semi-trailers) to be all-electric and stop polluting while we’re at it.
This is one of the nearly endless examples of why the climate extremists worked s hard to control the narrative: to make the obvious anti-scientific claptrap they use to gain power appear to be truth.
The science presented in this case that the earth is warming faster than ever in the geologic record is the start of the invoking fake science and factually incorrect statements of science. The lawyers are rarely trained in science. The earth’s history shows a continual change of climate and physical structure. Those are not impacted by humans. If the source of heat is a question for climatocatastrophists I suggest looking at the bright yellow ball in the sky. What the Montana case ignores is that the low population state is not in control over earth structure, weather, or climate; specifically not the change in any of these. I think the defense of this case was weakly presented while the leftwingnut libtards used the support of multinational leftist organizations. If the plaintiffs and their legal team were really concerned about the future of children and the environment they would have addressed pollution and conservation of natural resources. But as pointed out the lawyers and politicians played scientist.
Epistemic Trespassing!!
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11098-021-01657-6
I have professional degrees in two scientific disciplines, and experiences where lawyers were
making legal decision/rulings in areas where they have no expertise.
When words fail to describe, I look for solace in the Bible and this verse seems so simple but true when looking for explanations: “Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.”
Romans 1:28 NIV
Doing what ought not to be done seems to explain so much right now!
While Montana is shipping coal out of state (and country) to be consumed for generating electricity - so much for “clean” EVs), how much product and finished goods come back to the U.S. from Asia that was produced via coal-fired plants in Asia (China, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, etc.)? Cars, clothes, consumer electronics and toys (to name a few), along with batteries, solar panels and wind power paraphernalia)?
Will Montana “seal-the-deal” and ban all these consumer products (or let Trump’s Tariffs deal the blow)?
Let’s force all he heavy equipment used for coal mining and transport (trains, transport ships, cruise ships, planes and semi-trailers) to be all-electric and stop polluting while we’re at it.
Let’s just do what ought not to be done!
This is one of the nearly endless examples of why the climate extremists worked s hard to control the narrative: to make the obvious anti-scientific claptrap they use to gain power appear to be truth.
The science presented in this case that the earth is warming faster than ever in the geologic record is the start of the invoking fake science and factually incorrect statements of science. The lawyers are rarely trained in science. The earth’s history shows a continual change of climate and physical structure. Those are not impacted by humans. If the source of heat is a question for climatocatastrophists I suggest looking at the bright yellow ball in the sky. What the Montana case ignores is that the low population state is not in control over earth structure, weather, or climate; specifically not the change in any of these. I think the defense of this case was weakly presented while the leftwingnut libtards used the support of multinational leftist organizations. If the plaintiffs and their legal team were really concerned about the future of children and the environment they would have addressed pollution and conservation of natural resources. But as pointed out the lawyers and politicians played scientist.
Crazy to a whole new level…..