Splitting hairs over the precise term used to describe the left wing propaganda campaign designed to control our lives and make life more inconvenient for human beings can be called climate change, global warming-- whatever your heart desires.
I don't care about the term used. I care about the
facts. And the facts are that there is a clear warming trend that is evident. That's not at issue. At issue is one question:
why is there a warming trend and what will the repercussions of warming be, if there are any? That is, what mechanisms, natural or not, are currently operating that are causing the warning trend? Are those mechanisms part of something cyclical? What will it mean for our planet and for the ecosystem upon which we rely on to survive?
None of those questions, per se, are political. They are legitimate questions that everyone, regardless of political party, should want answered. That we have managed to take a purely scientific issue and turn it into a political circus speaks volumes about the games that the politicos - of all colors - play.
The vast majority of co2 emissions on earth originate from livestock flatulence. That is a demonstrable fact. The considerable number of leaked emails from the top "global warming" experts reveal that numbers were made up, exaggerated, ignored and conclusions were reached based on assumptions without any basis in fact. Please do a little bit of critical reading on this topic before commenting.
Of course the majority of CO
2 is from livestock flatulence. Did I ever suggest otherwise? As a matter of fact did I ever
mention CO
2 in my post at all? While the top "global warming" experts seem to have interpreted and extrapolated data poorly (and believe me, most people - even most mathematicians - aren't well-versed in the mathematics necessary to do proper data analysis) and others seem to have relied on these poor results as the basis for further research I've yet to see a
smoking gun that conclusively proves that they outright manufactured the data out of thin air towards some nefarious purpose. Is it possible that they did? Sure. I'm just not convinced that's the case.
The two Federal judges who struck down the law already have already issued detailed, ironclad decisions on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. I suggest that you educate yourself on the topic before commenting on things you don't understand.
Actually, I'd hardly call either of those decisions ironclad. One is well-reasoned, the other not so much. But even the well-reasoned one isn't ironclad. At any rate it's up to the supremes now. As for commenting on things I don't understand... I'm afraid that I could never hope to match your legal acumen and extensive education on the subject. What law school did you graduate from again?