Blue Planet in Green Shackles

Vaclav Klaus Speech at National Press Club May 27, 2008

Here is the speech that has the enviro-liars and believers in "starvation theology" (my term for nut cases like Al Gore, Ted Turner, and Eric Pianka who hope for the starvation and miserable death of billions of souls) quaking in their boots. I heard some excerpts on Limbaugh but the rest of the media, including even supposedly conservative outlets, have been strangely silent. So here it is in all its glory. Choke on it.

"It is a great pleasure to be here. Let me thank all those who helped to make the English translation and publication of my book "Blue Planet in Green Shackles" possible, especially Fred Smith and his Competitive Enterprise Institute, and those who co-organized the presentation of it in this very prestigious place. I am really excited to finally hold in my hands - after the Czech, German and Dutch editions - the English version of my book.
The authors often claim that their books speak for themselves. I cautiously agree and will, therefore, speak not about the book itself but about my motivations to write it.
To make my position and my message clear, I should probably revoke my personal experience. My today's thinking is substantially influenced by the fact that I spent most of my life under the communist regime which ignored and brutally violated human freedom and wanted to command not only the people but also the nature. To command "wind and rain" is one of the famous slogans I remember since my childhood. This experience taught me that freedom and rational dealing with the environment are indivisible. It formed my relatively very sharp views on the fragility and vulnerability of free society and gave me a special sensitivity to all kinds of factors which may endanger it.

I do not, however, live in the past and do not see the future threats to free society coming from the old and old-fashioned communist ideology. The name of the new danger will undoubtedly be different, but its substance will be very similar. There will be the same attractive, to a great extent pathetic and at first sight quasi-noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of something above him, (of something greater than his poor self), supplemented by enormous self-confidence on the side of those who stand behind it. Like their predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality. In the past it was in the name of the masses (or of the Proletariat), this time in the name of the Planet. Structurally, it is very similar.
I see the current danger in environmentalism and especially in its strongest version, climate alarmism. Feeling very strongly about it and trying to oppose it was the main reason for putting my book together, originally in Czech language, in the spring of 2007. It has also been the driving force behind my active involvement in the current Climate Change Debate and behind my being the only head of state who in September 2007 at the UN Climate Change Conference in New York City openly and explicitly challenged the undergoing global warming hysteria.
My central concern is - in a condensed form - captured in the subtitle of this book. I ask: "What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?" My answer is: "it is our freedom." I may also add "and our prosperity".
The book was written by an economist who happens to be in a high political position. I don't deny my basic paradigm, which is the "economic way of thinking", because I consider it an advantage, not a disadvantage. By stressing that, I want to say that the Climate Change Debate in a wider and the only relevant sense should be neither about several tenths of a degree of Fahrenheit or Celsius, about the up or down movements of sea level, about the depths of ice at North and Southern Pole, nor about the variations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The real debate should be about costs and benefits of alternative human actions, about how to rationally deal with the unknown future, about what kind and size of solidarity with much wealthier future generations is justified, about the size of externalities and their eventual appropriate "internalization", about how much to trust the impersonal functioning of the markets in solving any human problem, including global warming and how much to distrust the very visible hand of very human politicians and their bureaucrats. Some of these questions are touched upon in my book.
My deep frustration has been exponentially growing in recent years by witnessing the fact that almost everything has already been said, that all rational arguments have been used and that global warming alarmism is still marching on. It could be even true that "We are now at the stage where mere facts, reason, and truth are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda" (R. McKittrick, private correspondence).
We are regretfully behind it. The whole process is already in the hands of those who are not interested in rational ideas and arguments. It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only because a large number of academic careers has evolved around the idea of man-made global warming. It is, further, in the hands of politicians who maximize the number of votes they seek to get from the electorate. It is also - as a consequence of political decisions - in the hands of bureaucrats of national and more often of international institutions who try to maximize their budgets and years of careers as well regardless the costs, truth and rationality. It is in the hands of rent-seeking businesspeople who are - given the existing policies - interested in the amount of subsidies they are receiving and look for all possible ways to escape the for them often merciless, but for the rest of us very positive, general welfare enhancing functioning of free markets. An entire industry has developed around the funds the firms are getting from the government.
The basic questions of the current climate change debate are sufficiently known and well-structured:
1) Do we live in an era of a statistically significant, non-accidental and noncyclical climate change?
2) If so, is it dominantly man-made?
3) If so, should such a moderate temperature increase bother us more than many other pressing problems we face and should it receive our extraordinary attention?
4) If we want to change the climate, can it be done? Are current attempts to do so the best allocation of our scarce resources?
My answer to all these questions is NO, but with a difference in emphasis. I don't aspire to measure the global temperature, nor to estimate the importance of factors which make it. This is not the area of my comparative advantages. But to argue, as it's done by many contemporary environmentalists, that these questions have already been answered with a consensual "yes" and that there is an unchallenged scientific consensus about this is unjustified. It is also morally and intellectually deceptive.
Václav Klaus is President of the Czech Republic.

Vaclav Klaus Full text of "Answers to questions from the House of Representatives of the US Congress Committee on Energy on mankind's contribution to global warming and climate change"

This is becoming quite difficult to find on searches through both google and yahoo. Environmentalism is the new communism, complete with propaganda, lies, threats and attempts to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries. This is one of the clearest expositions of the threat to freedom from the international environmental movement intent on conquering the world. I place it here to provide continued access lest the forces that are making this article ever more difficult to access continue to prevail. Vincet Veritas!

Answers to questions from the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress, Committee on Energy and Commerce, on the issue of mankind’s contribution to global warming and climate change
SOURCE ACCESSED May 28,2008 http://klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=IgDUIjFzEXAz

Concerning mankind’s contribution to climate change and in keeping with obligations towards the welfare of our citizens: what, in your view, should policymakers consider when addressing climate change?
The – so called – climate change and especially man-made climate change has become one of the most dangerous arguments aimed at distorting human efforts and public policies in the whole world.
My ambition is not to bring additional arguments to the scientific climatological debate about this phenomenon. I am convinced, however, that up to now this scientific debate has not been deep and serious enough and has not provided sufficient basis for the policymakers’ reaction. What I am really concerned about is the way the environmental topics have been misused by certain political pressure groups to attack fundamental principles underlying free society. It becomes evident that while discussing climate we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment but a clash of views about human freedom.
As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism. This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection – similarly to the old Marxists – wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning of the whole world.
The environmentalists consider their ideas and arguments to be an undisputable truth and use sophisticated methods of media manipulation and PR campaigns to exert pressure on policymakers to achieve their goals. Their argumentation is based on the spreading of fear and panic by declaring the future of the world to be under serious threat. In such an atmosphere they continue pushing policymakers to adopt illiberal measures, impose arbitrary limits, regulations, prohibitions, and restrictions on everyday human activities and make people subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision-making. To use the words of Friedrich Hayek, they try to stop free, spontaneous human action and replace it by their own, very doubtful human design.
The environmentalist paradigm of thinking is absolutely static. They neglect the fact that both nature and human society are in a process of permanent change, that there is and has been no ideal state of the world as regards natural conditions, climate, distribution of species on earth, etc. They neglect the fact that the climate has been changing fundamentally throughout the existence of our planet and that there are proofs of substantial climate fluctuations even in known and documented history. Their reasoning is based on historically short and incomplete observations and data series which cannot justify the catastrophic conclusions they draw. They neglect the complexity of factors that determine the evolution of the climate and blame contemporary mankind and the whole industrial civilization for being the decisive factors responsible for climate change and other environmental risks.
By concentrating on the human contribution to the climate change the environmentalists ask for immediate political action based on limiting economic growth, consumption, or human behavior they consider hazardous. They do not believe in the future economic expansion of the society, they ignore the technological progress the future generations will enjoy, and they ignore the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society is, the higher is the quality of the environment.
The policymakers are pushed to follow this media-driven hysteria based on speculative and hard evidence lacking theories, and to adopt enormously costly programs which would waste scarce resources in order to stop the probably unstoppable climate changes, caused not by human behavior but by various exogenous and endogenous natural processes (such as fluctuating solar activity).
My answer to your first question, i.e. what should policymakers consider when addressing climate change, is that policymakers should under all circumstances stick to the principles free society is based on, that they should not transfer the right to choose and decide from the people to any advocacy group claiming that it knows better than the rest of the people what is good for them. Policymakers should protect taxpayers’ money and avoid wasting it on doubtful projects which cannot bring positive results.
How should policies address the rate and consequences of climate change and to what extent should regulation of emissions of greenhouse gases be a focus of any such policies?
Policies should realistically evaluate the potential our civilization has, as compared with the power of natural forces influencing climate. It is an evident waste of society’s resources to try to combat an increase of solar activity or the movement of ocean currents. No government action can stop the world and nature from changing. Therefore, I disagree with plans such as the Kyoto Protocol or similar initiatives, which set arbitrary targets requiring enormous costs without realistic prospects for the success of these measures.
If we accept global warming as a real phenomenon, I believe we should address it in an absolutely different way. Instead of hopeless attempts to fight it, we should prepare ourselves for its consequences. If the atmosphere warms up, the effects do not have to be predominantly negative. While some deserts may get larger and some ocean shores flooded, enormous parts of the earth – up until now empty because of their severe, cold climate – may become fertile areas able to accommodate millions of people. It is also important to realize that no planetary change comes overnight.
Therefore, I warn against adopting regulations based on the so- called precautionary principle which the environmentalists use to justify their recommendations, the clear benefit of which they are not able to prove. Responsible politics should take into account the opportunity costs of such proposals and be aware of the fact that the wasteful environmentalist policies are adopted to the detriment of other policies, thus neglecting many other important needs of millions of people all over the world. Each policy measure must be based on a cost- benefit analysis.
Mankind has already accumulated tragic experience with one very proud intellectual stream that claimed that it knew how to manage society better that spontaneous market forces. It was communism and it failed, leaving behind millions of victims. Now, a new -ism has emerged that claims to be able to manage even nature and, through it, people. This excessive human pride – just as the previous attempts – cannot but fail. The world is a complex and complicated system that cannot be organized according to an environmentalist human design, without repeating the tragic experience of wasting resources, suppressing people’s freedom, and destroying the prosperity of the whole human society.
My recommendation, therefore, is to pay attention to the thousands of small things that negatively influence the quality of the environment. And to protect and foster fundamental systemic factors without which the economy and society cannot operate efficiently – i.e. to guarantee human freedom and basic economic principles such as the free market, a functioning price system and clearly defined ownership rights. They motivate economic agents to behave rationally. Without them, no policies can protect either the citizens or the environment.
Policymakers should resist environmentalist calls for new policies because there are too many uncertainties in scientific debates on climate change. It is impossible to control natural factors causing climate change. The negative impact of the proposed regulation on economic growth is to the detriment of all other possible risks, including the environmental ones.
What will be the effect on national economies, consumer well-being, job creation, and future innovation under various climate change policy scenarios that have come to your attention?
If the policymakers accept the maximalistic environmental demands, the effects on national economies will be devastating. It would stimulate some, very small parts of the economy while leaving a bigger part of it choked by artificial limits, regulations, and restrictions. The rate of growth would decline and the competitiveness of the firms on international markets would be seriously affected. It would have a negative impact on employment and job creation. Only rational policies, making spontaneous adjustments possible, can justify government intervention.
What impact and effectiveness will so-called cap-and-trade policies have upon the reduction of climate change threats and our ability to address these threats in the future?
Cap-and-trade policies are a technical tool to achieve pollution reduction goals by more market compatible means. They can help if the general idea behind the scheme is rational. I do not believe the whole idea to combat climate change by emission limits is rational and I, therefore, consider the technicalities of its eventual implementation to be of secondary importance.
What is the moral obligation of developed countries to the developing countries of the world? Should developed countries embark on large emissions reduction schemes while developing countries are allowed to continue to increase emissions unabated?
The moral obligation of developed countries to the developing countries is to create such an environment which guarantees free exchange of goods, services, and capital flows, enables utilization of comparative advantages of individual countries and thus stimulates economic development of the less developed countries. Artificial administrative barriers, limits and regulations imposed by developed countries discriminate the developing world, affect its economic growth, and prolong poverty and underdevelopment. The environmentalist proposals are an exact example of such illiberal policies that are so harmful for the developing countries. They will not be able to cope with the limits and standards imposed on the world by irrational environmental policies, they will not be able to absorb new technological standards required by the anti-greenhouse religion, their products will have difficult access to the developed markets, and as a result the gap between them and the developed world will widen.
It is an illusion to believe that severe anti-climate change policies could be limited to developed countries only. If the policies of the environmentalists are adopted by developed countries, sooner or later their ambitions to control and manage the whole planet will spread the emissions reduction requirements worldwide. The developing countries will be forced to accept irrational targets and limitations because “earth is first” and their needs are secondary. The environmentalist argumentation gives ammunition to protectionists of all colors who try to eliminate competition coming from newly industrialized countries. Therefore, the moral obligation of the developed countries is not to introduce large emissions reduction schemes.
Václav Klaus, March 19th, 2007

I will comment on this at a later date. MEB

Dengue Outbreak in Brazil Leads to Call for Doctors from Repressive Marxist Regime Cuba

That's not really the headline, but if there were any honest journalists left, that's how the headline should read. For the full story see http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/04/03/brazil.dengue.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview.

This simple story illustrates all kinds of ominous things regarding the world's problems. First of all, Dengue is a mosquito-borne illness cause by a a virus called Flavivirus. There are no antibiotics for it, there are no vaccines - in fact there is nothing a doctor can do other than provide supportive care. So it is ridiculous to think 45000 Commie doctors from a regime that has exported violence for 50 years while it's own people starve and are imprisoned and executed can provide any help. Second of all, Brazil is a huge country and has plenty of its own doctors if that really mattered. So one of the ominous things this article shows is the massive, public stupidity that exists in the world. Anyone with a high school education should know that most viruses aren't treatable. And any journalist who is researching this story ought to especially know this, and even more, any government official calling for importing 45000 representatives of a terrorist regime ought to know better.

The state of journalism in the US is pathetic beyond belief. That such a story would be written without commentary and passed by an editor beggars belief. Since the majority of people are dependent on a failed marxist-modeled educational system and an elite-controlled media, there is really no hope of this ever changing without massive change in governmental and societal institutions (read revolution). We deserve to be mis-treated in this way because we let it happen and pay taxes and elect idiots who keep this system going.

Another point is that Cuba has a large excess of well-trained physicians. Castro decided to train lots of doctors because in his addled mind that would mean more money for the economy. Doctors don't help the economy other than helping keep the workers healthy. Castro's socialized medicine budget does not include medications and tests etc. so he has all these trained doctors with no resources. So he sends them around the world for propaganda purposes. Every Latin American country gets Cuban doctors, paid for by Venezuela's Chavez, for propaganda purposes. If you'll remember, after the Katrina flood in New Orleans, some professional racist, (can't remember if it was Jesse Jackson or one of those other professional racists), even sent some flood victims to Cuba. Castro does not do this out of the goodness of his heart; there is a always a quid pro quo like letting in a few hundred "diplomats" to foment marxist revolution. Not a good thing.

Which brings up why Brazil has a marxist government official in the first place. Of course, their current president Lula is a marxist revolutionary, so you would expect to see a trickle-down effect as the lower levels are filled with communists idiots. One of the largest countries in the free world turning Marxist is not a good thing.

Which brings up the whole loss of South and Central America to communism in the last decade. Venezuala's Chavez is a Marxist narco-terrorist. Chile has another socialist just like Allende who was only prevented from turning Chile into another Cuba by the heroic efforts of one of the great men of the 20th century, Pinochet. Evo Morales in Bolivia, and other socialists add up to a complete repudiation of the Monroe doctrine that has kept this hemisphere relatively peaceful for 200 years. And Central America has the Sandinistas back in control and the Chinese Communists controlling the Panama Canal. Ominous signs of a future meltdown.

The main vector (carrier) of Dengue is a type of mosquito Aedes aegypti. This pest was essentially eradicated in the 50's and 60's by spraying DDT. Spraying with DDT is long gone and the countries other than the US have no infrastructure left to spray anyway. Aedes is a household pest that could be controlled by local spraying of buildings which wouldn't harm the environment even if DDT was harmful (and it's not). So Dengue being a problem shows that Brazil has lost the infrastructure necessary for public health measures. As has the rest of the Americas. Another ominous sign.

And so there you have it. A simple public health story shows the advance of totalitarianism, the decay of infrastructure, the stupidity of the press and the public, the loss of meaningful education, the loss of American prestige and inability to enforce the Monroe doctrine, the damage that junk-science environmentalism is doing, and a look at the future. Fiat Lux.

Global Warming

As a trained environmental scientist, former physical scientist with the Bureau of Reclamation, and Biological consultant, I have a pretty good idea of the issues in global warming. I am not a climatologist or meteorologist though.

I could spend a lot of time and space discussing the relevant studies. The basic take-home messages would be: 1) Global warming is occurring, but at a low rate. 2) There is, however, no direct evidence that human activities have anything to do with it. 3) There is even less evidence that we could do anything to change it.

But I want to concentrate on how the pro- and anti- human-caused global warming forces present their message. The pro-warming forces use little science. At best they seize hold of an occasional, isolated study that has no larger bearing and then launch into a tirade. (Like the polar bear numbers being less in 1 area of the Arctic. Actually total polar bear numbers are increasing.) Their arguments are long on emotion and short on science. They tend to call their opponents unpleasant names - a sure sign of lack of evidence. And, most tellingly from my background as a scientist, they almost never even acknowledge contrary studies, nor do they try to refute or explain them. Now any good scientist realizes that you can't pick and choose only data that fits your model. But the pro-global warming forces do just that.

The anti-global warming forces almost always acknowledge opposing data and then try to explain or refute it. ( Like I did above with polar bears.) They rarely, if ever, call the pro-global warming forces names. They use phrases like "usually", "almost all", "rarely, if ever" and other non-absolute phrases because how can you say never to anything unless you're omniscient like God? And yet the pro-global warming forces almost always do this.If you have an open mind, think about what I'm saying.

Try not to be offended because I take a contrary position to your cherished belief. And note the tactics of both sides, and then decide for yourself which side is logical, which side is scientific-based, and more importantly which side is right. And it isn't the pro-global warming caused by humans' side.

Vincet Veritas, MEB

Good is Evil

Things are happening almost daily that would have been unthinkable just a few short years ago. In short, just like Isaiah in the Bible says, evil is called good and good is called evil.

The US Supreme Court now decides that global warming is caused by human production of CO2 and that the Clean Air act can by used to force compliance with the un-ratified Kyoto protocol. What an incredible chain of demonstrably false claims! Quite similar to Roe v. Wade, based on emanations from a penumbra or some such rot. The Supreme Court of course has no Constitutional powers to comment on pseudo-science, it is not granted the ability to define pollutants, nor can it decide to tell Congress what a law that it passed really means. In a sane world all 5 black-robed minions of Hell would be impeached and hanged for daring to take our liberties. But we no longer live in a sane world, just as Isaiah warned.

Chastity is ridiculed openly. Abstinence is considered impossible. A student in California who was being mocked by anti-religious bigots answered that such statements were "so gay" and is disciplined while the true bigots go unpunished.

Those who practice homosexual behavior are being granted privileges like marriage and adoption based on nothing more than a shared perversion. Anyone who opposes this is crucified. A hapless General notes that homosexual behavior is immoral and he is attacked.

The list goes on and on.

Abraham Lincoln once asked and answered the following question.

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

Vincet Veritas, MEB

Supreme Court Takes Over Environment

Today's Supreme Court Ruling is ominous. Basically, the Court ruled (5-4) that the EPA must treat CO2 as a polluting gas. This may seem innocuous but if you look at what this ruling means the future of the US just ended - not with a bang or even whimper, but with 5/9 black-robed minions from hell who pretend to be our absolute rulers.

First of all, the court settled the issue of standing once and for all. Standing means whether a suing party has a legal leg to stand on. Standing is what prevents every nut in the world from filing nuisance lawsuits without end. No foreign citizen has standing. Most individual citizens have no "standing" either. So, the local crackpot can't file a million suits a day against President Bush or Speaker Pelosi (depending on political persuasion). Basically, you have to be an injured party and prove harm.

Up until the last part of the 20th Century, various environmental special-interest groups had no standing. But the courts eventually got enough liberals that one ruled that environmental suits were somehow different - and almost anyone could sue. This ruling had the effect of stopping almost every activity involving the environment in the US without extraordinary effort to please the Sierra Club and all other activist organizations. In a sense, the Sierra Club was holding the US hostage. There was no way to build a road across that swamp unless you paid them and their supporters via payments for inflated legal services, environmental impact studies paying Sierra Club members and various other extortion. Oil exploration, mining, timber harvests and timber care operations like thinning were brought to a virtual standstill.

The result was higher prices, off-shoring much of our material acquisition, and lots of money in various extremist's coffers - leading to even more lawsuits etc. This ruling accepts all of the organizations involved as having "standing". Now there will be no limit to lawsuits from extremist environmental groups. The economy will worsen and our balance-of-trade will worsen. The destruction of the US has been a long-term goal of all these organizations anyway. Many pretend otherwise, but they have always sought the destruction of the US as their primary goal. Take the Sierra Club. It's founders and money suppliers were radicals, communists, and communist sympathizers of the worst kind. Over the years, a somewhat benign group of nature-lovers, has turned into a well-funded extremist organization bent on political conquest - and who cares about the environment. You only need to look at this month's national club election to see this. A few years ago, there was quite a fight within the group about illegal immigration and trade etc. Illegal immigrants were worsening overpopulation - which was one of the left's favorite bugaboos for a while. Opponents pointed out that 20 million illegal aliens with high birth rates would harm the environment. The leaders of the Sierra Club realized that their real goal of overthrowing the US was now best served by ignoring population. 20 million new liberal voters would increase liberal power and thus was worth any damage to the environment. In a series of contested elections and parliamentary moves, the opponents were neutralized. Now, basically only candidates approved by the current crop of leftists are allowed to run - that is allowed "standing" if you will. (Fascinating how this group that demanded that anyone be able to sue, now limits who can run for office by not giving them "standing". Just like Jesus said, the evil are often a lot smarter in their way than the good.) The current crop of chosen candidates include a few token opponents of illegal aliens only.

Besides granting standing, the court also gave a windfall to these organizations who can now charge inflated legal services to the US taxpayer for all the work in this suit. Lots of new money to these radical environmentalists will lead to more lawsuits.

Thirdly, the specific ground for the suit was whether the EPA could be forced to do something specific even though there was no granting of such powers in the original law. By allowing a vague regulatory statute to be defined by radical groups suing the government (rather than the agency itself as directed by our government), this opens up all kinds of other similar lawsuits. It's kind of like allowing the inmates to run the asylum. The results will not be pretty for society which will have to fund and enforce the stupid and unproven things that the radical environmentalists can think up.

Fourth, these radical groups are becoming less and less nature advocates and more and more political power brokers. The latest Sierra Club literature is mostly about the evils of Republicans and other conservatives and very little about the environment. Rewarding the bringers of this suit will turn them even more to politics and lawsuits rather than voter education and nature programs.

Fifth, the Clean Air Act that the EPA uses as a guide will be interpreted as ratifying the KYOTO protocol. For those of you who don't know, the Kyoto protocol limits CO2 production by Europe and the US but places no limits on India, China, and the like. Since there are no environmental laws in these places, and their economy is so large and growing so fast, any sane person could see that this law would not help lower CO2 at all - it would only weaken western civilization by limiting our industrial and power production and transportation. We would then have to buy even more stuff from China because we couldn't produce it here. The Kyoto protocol also allows western countries to buy exemptions from other countries - basically extorting money from us. Even though the Constitution requires that the Senate must ratify treaties - and it never ratified Kyoto - by reinterpreting the clean air act, these radicals have bypassed the voters, the Constitution, and Congress by pretending that a previous law already passed included these provisions. Expect world pollution to skyrocket even as the US economy grinds to a halt.

Also, the Supreme Court has taken even more power from the people and the Constitution. Our freedom and right of self-government just suffered a fatal blow.

And the Supreme Court has taken upon itself the role of final arbiter of truth and science. Their opinion states that global warming caused by human activity (CO2 production) is a scientific fact - even though it obviously isn't. ( Or there wouldn't be so many scientists researching and publishing anti- human caused warming research) With this ruling stating that human-caused global warming is fact, anyone can sue anyone and demand that the CO2 production must be lowered. Any road project can be stopped as adding to the CO2. Even the purchase of safety vehicles could be controlled since they produce CO2. Absurd, you say? Well, just hang on and watch what happens and we'll see.

I could go on and on with the ramifications of this disastrous ruling. It will be tragic to see the damage this will do to our children. I expect the US to be a 3rd world country within my lifetime because of this ruling. Sic transit gloria mundi. "We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."(Ephesians 6.12) And we just lost.