The “Right to Fight Climate Change”

Guest “You can’t fix stupid” by David Middleton

While RealClearEnergy almost always has at least a few links to good articles, actually related to energy, it almost always has a few links to truly idiotic articles that have nothing to do with energy. Today was no disappointment…

Restoring Financial Regulators’ Right to Fight Climate Change Staff, Gizmodo

Having read the U.S. Constitution at least a few times, I just had to click on the link to see if it explained how regulators obtained that right in the first place, who took it away and how something that never existed could possibly be restored…

Restoring Financial Regulators’ Right to Fight Climate Change

Dharna Noor and Walker Bragman
Monday 9:11AM

This Earther report is being co-published with the Daily Poster.

The Biden administration has pledged to make the climate crisis a top-tier issue, authorizing a “whole of government” to take on climate change. That would mean the responsibility to legislate environmental action wouldn’t be left up only to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, but would extend to all agencies, including financial regulators.

[…]

Gizmodo

And that’s as far as I read… It’s an article that actually packed more stupid into one paragraph than I could have ever imagined to be humanly possible. The headline triggered both the Ron White and Billy Madison alerts and for the first time ever, tripped the 21 Jump Street switch…

Jenko:
[is asked if he knows the Miranda Rights] Look, it obviously starts with… you have the right to remain silent…

Schmidt:
[whispers] You have the right to an attorney.

Jenko:
You have the right to remain… an attorney.

Deputy Chief Hardy:
Did you just say you have the right to be an attorney?

Schmidt:
You do have the right to be an attorney if you want to.

21 Jump Street, 2012

You do have the right to fight climate change, if you want to…

Which document bestowed regulators with special rights? “Regulators” have lawful powers to regulate… There’s no special regulators’ right to fight climate change. This is 21 Jump Street stupid. It’s as stupid as if Cervantes had written, “Restoring Don Quixote’s right to tilt at windmills.”

With such an intriguingly stupid headline, I just had to click on the link and the first paragraph was Billy Madison on steroids stupid…

That would mean the responsibility to legislate environmental action wouldn’t be left up only to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, but would extend to all agencies, including financial regulators.

Dharna & Walker

The same document that doesn’t bestow special rights upon “regulators” also denies legislative authority to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, all other agencies and regulators…

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 1.

This passage isn’t difficult to find. It’s not like having to read The Federalist Papers… It’s the first fracking paragraph after the Preamble.

Dharna and Walker are hereby awarded Ron White and Billy Madison lifetime achievement awards and the first ever 21 Jump Street Jenko gold medal.

4.5 20 votes
Article Rating
61 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nick Schroeder
March 17, 2021 2:11 pm

Due process.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  David Middleton
March 17, 2021 4:45 pm

Ya’ gotta be careful with this kinda schist David. Although I have no problem with it, the woke Libtards in SilliValley think that kind of language gives them the “Terms of Service” right to bit-bucket said content and also the offending authors on social media and other internet services.

Last edited 4 months ago by joelobryan
John Endicott
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 18, 2021 3:04 am

In other words Joel, David should self-censor himself so that the SilliValley folks don’t censor him? They’ll censor him anyway, because he doesn’t have the approved views, so he might as well carry on as normal and let the snowflakes in SilliValley do whatever they’re gonna do.

Rud Istvan
March 17, 2021 2:27 pm

I fear we will see more and more of this sort of nonsense.
So far, we have among the ‘gems’:
-the present Biden border crisis is Trump’s fault (because pent up demand)
-the military backs away from genderless PCPT because women fail a lot
-maternity combat flight suits
-circle backs
-a very late first ‘live’ presidential press conference next week with all questions submitted and approved in advance!

There are two things you cannot fix: stupid, and dementia.

TonyL
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 17, 2021 2:54 pm

What happened to the constitutionally mandated State of the Union adress on the traditional and customary date?
We have already been informed that the SOTU address “will not look like others in the past”.
Because COVID!!!!! OMG COVID!!!
{Rumors are that the SOTU will be done remotely, via video feed.}

Question:
What is “Deep Fake” video editing?

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  TonyL
March 18, 2021 5:28 am

What is “Deep Fake” video editing?

https://youtu.be/bfHV9BbWc6g
😉

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 17, 2021 3:21 pm

Is out of order. Dunno why. Meant as a reply to the immediately below comment.
Replying as a licensed 1976 but now non-practicing lawyer, the SOTU is mandated by A2§3, clause 1. It says ‘from time to time’. Biden Breaking with tradition, absolutely. Violating the Constitution, not yet.

Last edited 4 months ago by Rud Istvan
Rory Forbes
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 17, 2021 9:08 pm

1. It says ‘from time to time’. Biden Breaking with tradition, absolutely. Violating the Constitution, not yet.

I’m guessing his handlers are waiting until he’s built up a list of accomplishments that haven’t blown up in their faces immediately. Then there will be the months of preparation he’ll need, not to mention the editing.

Last edited 4 months ago by Rory Forbes
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 17, 2021 3:32 pm

-a dire need to have a “Help is Here” tour to promote $2-trillion flushed down the chute from the progressive candy store

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 17, 2021 6:08 pm

Rud,
What is wrong with maternity combat flight suits? Do you object to women flying or the
Air Force protecting unborn children?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 17, 2021 6:18 pm

My father was a 21 year AF combat pilot. IW, you obviously have no idea of which you speak. Any female pilot after the first trimester (when a female pregnancy flight suit would be required,) would abort her fetus on the mildest of flight maneuvers. I flew with him AFTER he retired. Have you ever done that?

Martin C
Reply to  David Middleton
March 17, 2021 10:06 pm

. . sorry David, i CANT resist this – Biden probably thinks a G-suit is related to a G-spot . .! 🙂 🙂

( . . yes, a million apologies . . ! 🙂 _

Redge
Reply to  Martin C
March 17, 2021 11:51 pm

I think that’s Cuomo 😃

MarkW
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 17, 2021 6:20 pm

I love the way progressives always mischaracterize the arguments of those who disagree with them. It’s almost as if they know that they can’t win using real arguments.

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
March 17, 2021 8:23 pm

Izzy-dumb-or-what…. is a LOSER in every argument it has tried to enter.

But it just keeps yapping, even though it KNOWS what the outcome will always be.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 17, 2021 9:14 pm

Dear Gawd, Izzy, are you being intentionally obtuse or do you just not understand what a “flight suit” does and how it works? Maybe you just don’t understand what pregnancy means.

Perhaps you’re just illustrating this thread’s theme … “you can’t fix stupid.”

Last edited 4 months ago by Rory Forbes
Izaak Walton
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 17, 2021 9:36 pm

This was a policy started in 2019 under President Trump and refers to normal flying duties rather than combat operations. It allows female pilots to continue flying which they are allowed to do without having to go to the expense of altering their flights suits themselves.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 18, 2021 12:02 am

Female pilots are still prohibited from flying in the first trimester of pregnancy, deploying overseas, and flying ejection-seat aircraft, such as fighter jets. So what they’re calling “flight suits” are, for all intents and purposes just duty overalls (with a slightly wider girth for late term pregnant pilots). Clearly there are no G-suits for pregnant ladies.

Disputin
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 18, 2021 4:10 am

No, COMBAT flight suits are needed for combat!

Abolition Man
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 17, 2021 9:16 pm

Izaak,
Thank you for demonstrating so ably the point David was trying to make with this post! I hope your idea of patriotism doesn’t include female pilots aborting their fetuses in high-G maneuvers!
Maybe for the safety of the child women should be excluded from regular flight operations after the first trimester? Morning sickness, radiation exposure; there is a long list of potential problems if you stop and think about it!

fred250
Reply to  Abolition Man
March 17, 2021 9:23 pm

“and think about it!”

And there you have Izzy-dumb’s problem to a “t”..

You just ask too much of him.

Last edited 4 months ago by fred250
Izaak Walton
Reply to  Abolition Man
March 17, 2021 9:38 pm

As I stated above female pilots are currently allowed to fly while pregnant. All that has changed is that they now get uniforms that fit them while doing their duty.

Disputin
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 18, 2021 4:12 am

Combat flight suits are needed for combat, only.

Redge
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 18, 2021 12:08 am

This was proposed by Trump in 2020, so Biden’s announcement is just capitalising on Trump’s proposal.

See here, here, and here.

No pregnant pilots were allowed to fly combat aircraft after their third trimester and still won’t be. Pregnant pilots will be allowed to fly drones and non-combat aircraft to protect their unborn child.

The idea is to prevent retraining once the pilots return to duty.

Whilst I can’t speak for Rud, I feel sure he meant actual combat, not just flying.

hiskorr
Reply to  Redge
March 18, 2021 5:49 am

Please explain “…after their third trimester…”?

Teddy Lee
Reply to  Izaak Walton
March 18, 2021 1:50 am

Izaak.
G forces might be an issue. Full approval from Planned Parenthood though.

Ron Long
March 17, 2021 2:43 pm

Go get them, David! The thought of the military fighting climate change, instead of standing guard against actual enemies, is a chilling thought. I met a retired 3 star Marine General and played golf with him and did a write-up for drone utilization for him, and he and a handful of other generals resigned during the Obama years, “just could not stomach the idiocy”. This is where the Biden crowd, actually Obama retreads, started their looney ideas, and this is not going to end well.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Ron Long
March 18, 2021 6:46 am

I met a retired 3 star Marine General and played golf with him and did a write-up for drone utilization for him, and he and a handful of other generals resigned during the Obama years, “just could not stomach the idiocy”.”

Name names. And please document this “idiocy” quote.

Lots of chicken hawk complaining here, from folks who had “other plans” as young adults. Per silver spooner elitist Tucker.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/dec/16/carly-fiorina/carly-fiorina-claims-military-generals-retired-ear/

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 18, 2021 9:14 am

The only problem with politifact, is that they rate everything a conservative says as untrue, and everything progressives say as true. Without any regards to the actual facts.

Steve Case
March 17, 2021 2:54 pm

Ron White, “You can’t fix stupid.” I hadn’t seen that one, and even though the title says, “You can’t fix stupid,” I didn’t see it coming. So now I know where that cute phrase comes from, thanks for posting (-:

Ron Long
Reply to  David Middleton
March 17, 2021 5:41 pm

Whatever you do, David, don’t post the Ron White 14 foot grizzly video.

Mr.
Reply to  David Middleton
March 18, 2021 11:43 am

They caught The Tater.
Satellites had to link up in outer space to track him down though.

Vuk
March 17, 2021 3:06 pm

What is needed is the ‘Climate Change Revolution’, regretfully old revolutionaries (Americans) have gone soft and more recent ones (Russians and Chinese) are not interested.

Itdoesn't add up...
March 17, 2021 3:13 pm

Don’t jest too far. Regulators are capable of inflicting serious damage. All it takes is someone minded to do it and no-one to stop them because they have a Presidential free pass. There could be some serious stupidities coming down the track. I don’t want to go giving them ideas.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Itdoesn't add up...
March 17, 2021 4:05 pm

Can’t we organize a false flag attack and get the libtards to ban the word “fight” ??

MarkW
Reply to  Itdoesn't add up...
March 17, 2021 4:41 pm

Democrats who spent the last 4 years declaring that the fillibuster was necessary for the Senate to work properly have just declared that since Republicans won’t work with them to pass the stuff Joe wants passed, they are going to have to get rid of the fillibuster.

If progressives didn’t have double standards, they would have no standards at all.

n.n
March 17, 2021 3:24 pm

Climate stasis. Fight for 0.1%… 1%… 10%… spread, unreal, just imagine.

PCman999
March 17, 2021 4:07 pm

When did the collective stupidity start? Climate Emergency? Climate Change? Global Warming? Ozone Layer? Acid Rain? Abortion isn’t Murder? DDT? One religion is as good as another? …. Truly, when did the madness start? What’s wrong with going with the evidence? Even 400 years ago Galileo, who had to go insult his friend the Pope, got convicted because he couldn’t prove what he taught as truth (he had been allowed to teach Geocentrism as theory though). The telescopes and instruments of the time weren’t good enough. Eventually he was proved wrong and Kepler won out. Yes, Galileo, that champion of scientific truth, was wrong – and the pigheaded, fight-picker also insulted Kepler for his theory of planets moving in ellipses whereas Galileo was certain they moved around in perfect circles.

gringojay
Reply to  PCman999
March 17, 2021 4:40 pm

Let’s see …

2960AF1E-11D2-4697-9EA5-5FE6DA2A1F97.jpeg
n.n
Reply to  PCman999
March 17, 2021 5:46 pm

A baby when she is wanted.

A fetus… a technical term of art, a Fetal-American when she is a “burden”, to socially distance her abortionist, to be cannibalized for her profitable parts, and sequester her carbon pollutants.

Yes, abortion is not homicide. Elective abortion is not premeditated murderer. It is social progress. Social justice. Medical progress, too. Planned Parent/hood is forward-looking and equitable.

That said, feminists and masculinists agree, keep women appointed, available and taxable.

Let us bray for lives deemed unworthy of life. In Stork They Trust.

Pat Frank
Reply to  PCman999
March 17, 2021 7:09 pm

Galileo had no problem with Kepler’s ellipses. Galileo’s Dialogue was meant for a lay audience. It wasn’t meant to be an astronomy text. Galileo simplified his description of planetary motion using circles to keep the explanation uncomplicated for his intended readership.

Galileo was the premiere mathematical physicist of his day. It is utterly fatuous to argue that Galileo rejected Kepler’s elliptical motions.

Further, Galileo noted the cycling of sunspots motions over the year, and was able to readily explain them using both terrestrial motions – daily axial rotation plus annual rotation around the sun.

Galileo also noted the phases of Venus, which proved its annual orbit around the sun.

The two Copernican motions of Earth provided the only reasonable explanation for these observations.

Tycho Brahe compromised in the face of this proof, by proposing an altered solar system, where all the planets except Earth circle the sun. The sun and the remaining planets then circle Earth. That idea didn’t last very long.

I’d like to you quote Galileo as writing insultingly of Kepler. Stillman Drake, a noted scholar of Galileo, wrote that, “Kepler and Galileo [recognized] superlative merit in each other. This
remained the case even though the malice of third parties was more than once applied to set the two men at odds if possible.

It’s clear, PC, that your comment here is just a vehicle to unfairly denigrate Galileo, who is a long-standing target of fanatical Catholics.

Robert of Texas
March 17, 2021 4:40 pm

I can’t believe you underestimated the stupidity of Green Activists. They will destroy everything around them given time and support from enough equally stupid voters.

Luckily we still have a semi-functioning court system that has a few judges who have not only read but understood the Constitution and it intent.

n.n
Reply to  Robert of Texas
March 17, 2021 5:54 pm

Stupid, perhaps. Morons, probably. Maybe just green… green with the customary secular motive: redistributive change, capital/greenbacks and control. A narcissistic flare to cap their excess and shade the Green Blight.

Scissor
March 17, 2021 4:45 pm

With regard to burning stupid, it’s not a good idea to keep a ton of fireworks in one’s house.

n.n
Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 17, 2021 5:59 pm

Your choice is to take a knee or they will shoot to kill.

There are precedents for Planned Population schemes… wicked solutions. That said, the tell-tale hearts beat ever louder.

Herbert
March 17, 2021 5:32 pm

From Wikipedia-
“Michigan v. EPA 576 US 743 (2015) is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analysed whether the EPA must consider costs when deciding to regulate rather than later in the process of issuing the regulation.
Writing for a 5-4 majority,Justice Antonin Scalia held that the EPA must consider costs and that it interpreted the Clean Air Act unreasonably when it determined that it did not need to consider costs when it issued a “finding”that it was “necessary and appropriate” to regulate.
Critics of the EPA praised the Court’s decision, while other commentators criticised Justice Scalia’s decision to ignore health impacts in his opinion.Some commentators….suggested that the decision may derail President Barack Obama’s climate change agenda entirely.”
May one speculate that many of the bureaucracies empowered by the Biden directives will ignore the SCOTUS judgement and instead issue findings irrespective of the cost to businesses and individuals.

Curious George
March 17, 2021 5:32 pm

Do I have the right NOT to fight climate change?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Curious George
March 17, 2021 5:51 pm

Do I have the right NOT to fight climate change?

Apparently, not any longer. Stupidity is not only overtaking society, it has become mandatory.

Editor
March 17, 2021 5:45 pm

David, somewhat off topic… You’ll know when to use this tidbit that occurred to me last week:

Always keep in mind that NOAA’s World Data Center for Meteorology, formerly known as the NOAA National Climate Data Center (NCDC), is located in Ashville, North Carolina, which is found in Buncombe County. Buncombe County is the source of the word BUNKUM (synonym for the word nonsense).  

Unfortunately that tidbit didn’t occur to me when I was writing the Dad Why Are You A Climate Denier short stories.

Regards,
Bob

observa
March 17, 2021 7:13 pm

The only green you want to embrace-
Sea of green as thousands pack Sydney pubs for St Patrick’s Day (msn.com)
with a cold carbonated Guinness or two.

Craig from Oz
March 17, 2021 7:19 pm

Gizmodo are still a company?

Colour me shocked.

j hinton
March 17, 2021 8:16 pm

Gave up movies after seeing one too many Meryl Streep film and stuck with music. Always been illiterate when it comes to comedians, just winged it, but I finally understand the Ron White meme. Thanks for the video that explains the picture.

Absent an earth shattering comet/asteroid strike, the next year or so is going to plumb new depths in stupid.

Moho deep stupid.

rwisrael
March 17, 2021 9:28 pm

The Constitution is no longer relevant.

Independent
Reply to  rwisrael
March 17, 2021 9:49 pm

Of course it’s relevant. That’s why the far-left anti-American party is doing everything they can to destroy it.

Steve Z
March 18, 2021 9:08 am

If an individual claims the “right to fight climate change”, he/she can:

1) Only use candles for lighting at night
2) Not use electrical appliances if they are connected to gas-fired or coal-fired power plants
3) Do not use a gas or oil furnace to heat their homes, or use air conditioning
4) Only use horses or bicycles for transportation (not cars, buses, trains, or planes)
5) Never charge their computers and cell phones except by solar panels
6) Wash all dishes and clothes by hand in cold water
7) Never use motorboats or snowmobiles

But the rest of us also have the right to use electric appliances (if we pay the bills), heat and air-condition our homes (if we pay the bills), drive a car (with a valid license), and ride buses, trains, or planes (if we buy tickets). Regulators claiming to “fight climate change” don’t have the right to deprive us of those rights, as long as we pay for the service.

%d bloggers like this: