Uhh...Capitalization is a standard grammatical form of EMPHASIS. (You DO realize that your first straw man sentence fragment is grammatically incorrect, don't you?)
The post to which I replied included the lunatic idea that forestry is based on clearcutting, not farming. That was the whole point. Duh.
It's your responsibility to educate yourself with fact, not mine. Ignorance on your part does not create a work requirement on my part.
Almost all non-plant life exhales CO2. Rotting bio creates CO2. CO2 seeps from the Earth itself. Look at percentages of components of the atmosphere for "greenhouse gases" then look at percentage of CO2 created by what you call the "energy sector". You are either disingenuous or confusing size with scale.
It's also irrelevant as the Earth's aggregate temperature is controlled by the Sun, is dynamic and buffered by a constantly changing atmospheric mix. We've been experiencing the typical relatively short warm period between ice ages. Do a little research on your own. Learn to fish, don't beg for one.
The last statement you make is either a second straw man directed at my comments or illustrates a complete ignorance of basic facts on your part.
"not clear cutting for land development, wood, and paper." You're as much a "scientist" as I am a concert pianist! More likely you've proclaimed yourself such to add false authority to your post.
"clear cutting" for land development is a requirement of land development. First you remove the vegetation, then you move the dirt into the shape you want, then you build whatever, then you plant on the remaining soil. This is why roads are straight.
Geez, THERE'S an idea! New plants can be grown! Didn't think about that, did you?
"clear cutting" for wood, and paper" - grammatically incorrect but that's nitpicking.
Trees are plants. Forestry is farming. Got it? The idea that evil loggers cut down trees and leave the land bare is...a myth. In North America, for example, there are more tress now than when the country was founded. Why? Because it's a farm crop. The most cost efficient way to HARVEST the CROP plant is to HARVEST the CROP plant then reuse the land. Farming trees for wood isn't like chasing whales around the ocean. Trees are just as much a farm crop as a plant that goes through a complete growth cycle in less than a year. Clear cutting is NOT how trees for wood and paper are harvested. A little research on your part before you make ignorant comments would help you appear less foolish.
Lastly, you are woefully incorrect about the source of CO2 in the environment. Human creation of CO2 through fossil fuel consumption is minimal compared to that created by the ecosystem. CO2 is good. It keeps the planet warm (cold is more deadly than heat) and helps photosynthesis. CO2 is also a minimaly influential greenhouse gas. Water vapor has far more effect.
Any fool who asks for a future historical perspective deserves disdain. Anyone who asks it in regard to predictive activities, doubly so.
Any fool who asks for the impossible (historical knowledge before the events occur) as a means to predict the relevance of fortunetelling...may as well invest in Bernie's fund.
...and is especially brilliant in asking for future history...
"Will the so-called 'quants' still be wanted by the banks and other financial institutions, or will they turn to more 'non-math' approaches?"
What's the matter, Brainiac? Can't come up with the odds? Forgot how to interpret tea leaves? Perhaps you should study the distribution of chicken bones thrown into dust...
Being an American citizen doesn't exempt surveillance in all cases. Conversation WITH known targets and being outside US land change the conditions. The basis goes back to separation of intel agencies where the NSA wasn't supposed to do stuff inside US lands. That was possible when phone numbers were trackable to physical locations because they used wires. US citizenship is not lifetime immunity.
Also, there's a 70-year gag agreement when you leave NSA. These "leakers" just broke that.
This is a non-story that stinks of pre-election "mud on a wall."
Well, that's a good point because "official" government statistics are usually garbage unless you know the methodology.
$35K for a college IT grad? College IT today is the equivalent of 15-year-old nerd ten years ago. $35K is probably close to an elementary school teacher but without the vacation, discounted healthcare, etc.
Semi-skilled factory workers have a total cost of $55K+ except in very depressed areas. Even so, it's very, very hard to get find people who are capable of doing that.
I was born but not yesterday. $35K for a college grad IT must be community college data entry. Pfff...
6.6% unemployment would be nirvana to many parts of Western Europe. 5% umemployment is virtually full employment for all able-bodied people. Try finding responsible, capable people at a good rate when the employment rate is less than 8 or 9%. It's very, very hard to find capable people when none are available unless you're willing to spend an exorbitant amount of money.
One of the factory owners I know in Atlanta told me the problems they have with 5% unemployment. Half the people who apply cannot perform simple math on fractions. Half of the ones who can do the math never show up for the drug test. Half of the people who do show up fail the drug test.
What is half of half of 5%? 1.25%
The "news" here is that a wealthier-than-average part of the U.S. in a liberal area attracts deadbeats. Oh, sorry, that's not news...
OK, so the locks have a weakness. What was the point of the statement that they're used in the White House, Pentagon, etc.? You would need access to the lock and Joe Blow ain't gettin' there. Ergo, the statement attempts to create importance where there is none.
Try just walking up to any of the places mentioned in the OP. Can't be done. Layered security? T'ain't kiddin.!
You are confusing the terms "kill" and "murder." They are not the same thing, not even close.
Killing to protect the society from imminent danger or to deal vengeance upon those who have murdered or supported murder is honorable and justified. Hesitancy.doubt/inaction is selfish, wantonly endangers others and a cavalier disregard for responsibility, the sanctity of life and promotes more capricious violence by allowing it to continue without retribution.
You most certainly have the freedom to be cavalier with your own life. Your stated views endanger others.
This is the way of life. It's abundantly clear through all history and nature. Prove it to yourself, threaten a bear cub.
A pleasant discovery about Avir and another reason to use it instead of AVG (even the new no-nag variant):
The integrated scanners in AVG and Avir will report a file which is suspected of being bad when you try to copy, move, rename or otherwise access the file.
AVG prohibits you from using the file unless you disable AVG's realtime protection because it disobeys your instruction to ignore the status and keep processing.
Avir will warn you but does NOT prohibit you from file operations after you've chosen to ignore the warning. AVG treats you like an imbecile, Avir lets you decide if the perceived threat is a problem. That was true even with AVG 7.
It is quite common for heuristic detection to report a compressed executable is dangerous. With Avir, you pick the option to ignore and keep running. With AVG 7 or AVG 8, you pick the option to ignore and YOU are ignored.
AVG also kicks up quite a few erroneous hits for less-than-common compilers. Example: It will prohibit running MPEG2Repair http://users.adelphia.net/~mwilczyn/mpeg2repair/. If you have UltraISO and AVG 7 or AVG 8, try making an ISO which includes mpeg2repair.exe and see what happens. AVG will complain and will refuse to accept your desire to override.
I recently gave up on AVG. It was a nice free option until this version 8. Surely, Grisoft knew this was a big problem for a long time. They're not the only people who thought this approach of extra verification would be a good idea. MCAfee did it, Opera (I think) just linked up with one of the Microsoft spawns that tests everything and drags web use to a crawl. It's as poor an idea as "background" disk defragging which does nothing other than work the drives because it's not possible to sort a drive which is in flux.
Avast! is frequently recommended as a free anti-virus. BUT...do some research and you'll see it's not that great at catching known junk. ESET does test very well but you only get 30 days of free use. Avir's free version does seem to offer full integration (in-line scanning, auto updates, etc.) which I don't remember being there a few years ago when freeware scanners only worked on-demand. http://www.free-av.com/ It tests very well, actually, better than AVG and Avast!
In their defense, if I remember correctly, AVG DID offer free fully integrated inline scanning first with a decent catch rate. Why did it take them so long to comprehend version 8 was a hog and would generate so much anger and resentment? Who knows. Maybe their time has past just line PKZip...
Aluminum and copper have different coefficients of expansion.
The "infinite wisdom" of the government, which you mock out of ignorance and stupidity, is the reason many houses are still standing. Aluminum wire and copper connections work themselves apart, similar to chip creap. That leads to sparks which leads to fires.
Wow. You're really enamored with yourself, aren't you? How old is the Sun? How old is the Earth? How complex is the atmosphere? To those you wish to claim omniscience based on a pittance of data?
I'm not a Psychiatrist and I can't help you. I'm sure you can find the help you need locally. Please stay away from sharp edges in the interim.
"Somehow" was a polite way to mock the insane idea that human beings can control the climate. If that were true, make it rain here and not Iowa. If it were true, weather would not be a prediction, it would be a prescription.
Scientific proof requires duplication and verification. People can't control the weather. Therefore, no scientific proof. "Science" cannot prove or disprove everything. It has only a limited realm to which it can be applied. NOAA studies weather and tries to create modeling methods to predict weather. Like all models, they are imperfect. I'm not sure the relevance of the link you gave to your post as it supports my comments and shows yours to be contradictory.
You are correct. Implementation of the concept of separation of powers is not so perfect. There is no good mechanism for the SCOTUS to be challenged or held accountable. Historically, sometimes they were ignored, a Chief Justice was excluded from meetings with the other Justices and so on.
What happened with the captives at Gitmo is a good example. The land is not U.S. territory, it is leased from Cuba as a military base. That means, according to prior SCOTUS rulings, the civilian laws of the U.S. cannot be applied to actions there. The Geneva Conventions are a treaty which, like all other treaties, is only binding to the signatories. The captives in Gitmo are not uniformed combatants of a legitimate soverign power, let alone a signatory of the conventions. Nonetheless, SCOTUS determined they should be given equal status with uniformed combatants. Most recently, SCOTUS determined detainees have the right to seek a review of their conditions for containment with a U.S. Federal Judge. Such a right does not belong to U.S. citizens when they are detained. UCMJ and Executive orders govern military behavior. UCMJ was created by the Congress. Now, SCOTUS has stated it holds the powers of the Executive and Representative branches. It also contradicts both prior rulings I mention. That doesn't even touch on the aspect of Congress creating the law which specifically dealt with the non-uniformed combatants issue.
Nope, you typed, "That is because they refuse to formally acknowledge both the causes and damage caused by the greenhouse effect. Which is precisely what this article is about."
Q: What is the "cause" of the greenhouse effect to which you refer? A: The "cause" of the greenhouse effect is an atmosphere and the Sun.
You don't display comprehension of what the greenhouse effect really is, now or ever. The "greenhouse effect" refers to temperature regulation across the planet caused by an atmosphere to, more or less, create a stable temperature. This is why all living organisms do not burn up when they are exposed to the Sun and do not freeze when the the Sun is obscured by the rotation of the planet.
Words have meanings, so do phrases.
What "damage" is "caused by the greenhouse effect."? What is the basis from which this alleged "damage" is measured?
The concept of "damage" is totally subjective, just as the concept "weed" is subjective. A weed is nothing more than a plant growing in a location for which a person wishes it was not growing.
"Sounds like a lot of compelling to act is going on there too."
Compelling act to definitively state reasoning is all I see.
Look at the parenthetical phrase in the same sentence of the Act in which you highlighted the word, "shall."
"(from time to time)" is vague and leaves the decision of when it is "time" to the Executive branch. The reality is the Administrator of the EPA is subservient to the President and serves at the President's discretion.
Look at your second quote, from the ruling. "the Act's clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do...."
I see the word "if" used twice in that sentence. First, the EPA would have to prove greenhouse gases contribute to climate change in a significant manner. They don't. It's as simple as that. Remember, the molecules in question are carbon dioxide. People exhale it, plants remove that carbon from the air and grow. The aggregate temperature of Earth has been stable or dropping for the past 10 years. Fluid modeling is not sophisticated enough to model the entire ecosystem of the Earth.
The second clause has even more leeway. The combination of "if", "cannot" and "discretion" combine to match what I just stated. There is no undeniable proof of a causal relationship. We can even add the phrase "will not execute its discretion" because, in its discretion, proof of such a causal relationship cannot be obtained so the discretionary decision is not to waste time and resources chasing that which cannot be caught.
Again, empowerment is not the same as command to execute an action.
You seem to be "reading" what you want the words to state, not what they actually state.
The President is the Chief Executive Officer of the Executive Branch. All power of the Executive Branch comes as proxy for the Chief Executive. The Executive Branch does not have the authority to create obligations which the Chief Executive officer does not want. The EPA is part of the Executive Branch.
The SCOTUS ruling endorsed the authority of the EPA to create such regulations, it did not empower the EPA to create them exclusive of the Executive Officer. The SCOTUS did not somehow turn the EPA into a fourth branch of the Federal Government.
You have the best life expectancy, health care, nutrition, educational opportunitys and boundless economic opportunity that have ever existed in the world. You live like royalty compared to people 100 years ago. More than half the world's population still lives in structures made of dirt and clay.
Hurricanes happen. If that's an unacceptable risk for you, move.
Oh, boo hoo, you didn't have an American grocery store for a week. Road systems are designed for peak traffic during normal loads. Morons stuck around too long. Mississippi and Florida acted like adults. Louisiana threw a tantrum in collusion with the press.
The vast majority of the world's people chose to live near the coasts. There is plenty of room in the Southwestern U.S. I live on the East Coast and lots of the food we eat comes from California. The only date farms in the U.S. are in California and they are the largest producers of nuts, supplying the entire country including the largest chocolatier in the U.S., Hershey, located in Pennsylvania.
A lot of the infrastructure problems in California were created by the people. They chose not to expand electrical generation. A federal judge prohibits pumping water for months each year because of a so-called endangered fish which was getting caught int he pumps. (How many people actually die because of the lack of water created by that bozo?) The land is what it is. People adapt the land to their desires by adding infrastructure.
There is nothing which prohibits anyone from moving away from that area if they wish.
Pessimists complain and die earlier. Pessimists never accomplish anything. They are repellant. Pessimism is the way of cowards and the narcisistic.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhh...Capitalization is a standard grammatical form of EMPHASIS. (You DO realize that your first straw man sentence fragment is grammatically incorrect, don't you?)
The post to which I replied included the lunatic idea that forestry is based on clearcutting, not farming. That was the whole point. Duh.
It's your responsibility to educate yourself with fact, not mine. Ignorance on your part does not create a work requirement on my part.
Almost all non-plant life exhales CO2. Rotting bio creates CO2. CO2 seeps from the Earth itself. Look at percentages of components of the atmosphere for "greenhouse gases" then look at percentage of CO2 created by what you call the "energy sector". You are either disingenuous or confusing size with scale.
It's also irrelevant as the Earth's aggregate temperature is controlled by the Sun, is dynamic and buffered by a constantly changing atmospheric mix. We've been experiencing the typical relatively short warm period between ice ages. Do a little research on your own. Learn to fish, don't beg for one.
The last statement you make is either a second straw man directed at my comments or illustrates a complete ignorance of basic facts on your part.
"not clear cutting for land development, wood, and paper."
You're as much a "scientist" as I am a concert pianist! More likely you've proclaimed yourself such to add false authority to your post.
"clear cutting" for land development is a requirement of land development. First you remove the vegetation, then you move the dirt into the shape you want, then you build whatever, then you plant on the remaining soil. This is why roads are straight.
Geez, THERE'S an idea! New plants can be grown! Didn't think about that, did you?
"clear cutting" for wood, and paper" - grammatically incorrect but that's nitpicking.
Trees are plants. Forestry is farming. Got it? The idea that evil loggers cut down trees and leave the land bare is...a myth. In North America, for example, there are more tress now than when the country was founded. Why? Because it's a farm crop. The most cost efficient way to HARVEST the CROP plant is to HARVEST the CROP plant then reuse the land. Farming trees for wood isn't like chasing whales around the ocean. Trees are just as much a farm crop as a plant that goes through a complete growth cycle in less than a year. Clear cutting is NOT how trees for wood and paper are harvested. A little research on your part before you make ignorant comments would help you appear less foolish.
Lastly, you are woefully incorrect about the source of CO2 in the environment. Human creation of CO2 through fossil fuel consumption is minimal compared to that created by the ecosystem. CO2 is good. It keeps the planet warm (cold is more deadly than heat) and helps photosynthesis. CO2 is also a minimaly influential greenhouse gas. Water vapor has far more effect.
No, this isn't flamebait, it's a direct insult.
Any fool who asks for a future historical perspective deserves disdain. Anyone who asks it in regard to predictive activities, doubly so.
Any fool who asks for the impossible (historical knowledge before the events occur) as a means to predict the relevance of fortunetelling...may as well invest in Bernie's fund.
...and is especially brilliant in asking for future history...
"Will the so-called 'quants' still be wanted by the banks and other financial institutions, or will they turn to more 'non-math' approaches?"
What's the matter, Brainiac? Can't come up with the odds? Forgot how to interpret tea leaves? Perhaps you should study the distribution of chicken bones thrown into dust...
Being an American citizen doesn't exempt surveillance in all cases. Conversation WITH known targets and being outside US land change the conditions. The basis goes back to separation of intel agencies where the NSA wasn't supposed to do stuff inside US lands. That was possible when phone numbers were trackable to physical locations because they used wires. US citizenship is not lifetime immunity.
Also, there's a 70-year gag agreement when you leave NSA. These "leakers" just broke that.
This is a non-story that stinks of pre-election "mud on a wall."
Well, that's a good point because "official" government statistics are usually garbage unless you know the methodology.
$35K for a college IT grad? College IT today is the equivalent of 15-year-old nerd ten years ago. $35K is probably close to an elementary school teacher but without the vacation, discounted healthcare, etc.
Semi-skilled factory workers have a total cost of $55K+ except in very depressed areas. Even so, it's very, very hard to get find people who are capable of doing that.
I was born but not yesterday. $35K for a college grad IT must be community college data entry. Pfff...
6.6% unemployment would be nirvana to many parts of Western Europe. 5% umemployment is virtually full employment for all able-bodied people. Try finding responsible, capable people at a good rate when the employment rate is less than 8 or 9%. It's very, very hard to find capable people when none are available unless you're willing to spend an exorbitant amount of money.
One of the factory owners I know in Atlanta told me the problems they have with 5% unemployment. Half the people who apply cannot perform simple math on fractions. Half of the ones who can do the math never show up for the drug test. Half of the people who do show up fail the drug test.
What is half of half of 5%? 1.25%
The "news" here is that a wealthier-than-average part of the U.S. in a liberal area attracts deadbeats. Oh, sorry, that's not news...
OK, so the locks have a weakness. What was the point of the statement that they're used in the White House, Pentagon, etc.? You would need access to the lock and Joe Blow ain't gettin' there. Ergo, the statement attempts to create importance where there is none.
Try just walking up to any of the places mentioned in the OP. Can't be done. Layered security? T'ain't kiddin.!
You are confusing the terms "kill" and "murder." They are not the same thing, not even close.
Killing to protect the society from imminent danger or to deal vengeance upon those who have murdered or supported murder is honorable and justified. Hesitancy.doubt/inaction is selfish, wantonly endangers others and a cavalier disregard for responsibility, the sanctity of life and promotes more capricious violence by allowing it to continue without retribution.
You most certainly have the freedom to be cavalier with your own life. Your stated views endanger others.
This is the way of life. It's abundantly clear through all history and nature. Prove it to yourself, threaten a bear cub.
Agreed. Nothing which is remotely hosted, unless it's hosted on your own server, will ever be a serious office application.
Proprietary information is only proprietary as long as access is controlled.
Anyone who thinks a web-based office application is a good idea does not understand TANSTAAFL.
A pleasant discovery about Avir and another reason to use it instead of AVG (even the new no-nag variant):
The integrated scanners in AVG and Avir will report a file which is suspected of being bad when you try to copy, move, rename or otherwise access the file.
AVG prohibits you from using the file unless you disable AVG's realtime protection because it disobeys your instruction to ignore the status and keep processing.
Avir will warn you but does NOT prohibit you from file operations after you've chosen to ignore the warning. AVG treats you like an imbecile, Avir lets you decide if the perceived threat is a problem. That was true even with AVG 7.
It is quite common for heuristic detection to report a compressed executable is dangerous. With Avir, you pick the option to ignore and keep running. With AVG 7 or AVG 8, you pick the option to ignore and YOU are ignored.
AVG also kicks up quite a few erroneous hits for less-than-common compilers. Example: It will prohibit running MPEG2Repair http://users.adelphia.net/~mwilczyn/mpeg2repair/. If you have UltraISO and AVG 7 or AVG 8, try making an ISO which includes mpeg2repair.exe and see what happens. AVG will complain and will refuse to accept your desire to override.
Heh...I just realized the word "hog" for AVG 8 is pretty funny given they used to have a pig character to illustrate the bad stuff they would filter.
I recently gave up on AVG. It was a nice free option until this version 8. Surely, Grisoft knew this was a big problem for a long time. They're not the only people who thought this approach of extra verification would be a good idea. MCAfee did it, Opera (I think) just linked up with one of the Microsoft spawns that tests everything and drags web use to a crawl. It's as poor an idea as "background" disk defragging which does nothing other than work the drives because it's not possible to sort a drive which is in flux.
Avast! is frequently recommended as a free anti-virus. BUT...do some research and you'll see it's not that great at catching known junk. ESET does test very well but you only get 30 days of free use. Avir's free version does seem to offer full integration (in-line scanning, auto updates, etc.) which I don't remember being there a few years ago when freeware scanners only worked on-demand. http://www.free-av.com/ It tests very well, actually, better than AVG and Avast!
In their defense, if I remember correctly, AVG DID offer free fully integrated inline scanning first with a decent catch rate. Why did it take them so long to comprehend version 8 was a hog and would generate so much anger and resentment? Who knows. Maybe their time has past just line PKZip...
Wrongo.
Aluminum and copper have different coefficients of expansion.
The "infinite wisdom" of the government, which you mock out of ignorance and stupidity, is the reason many houses are still standing. Aluminum wire and copper connections work themselves apart, similar to chip creap. That leads to sparks which leads to fires.
Wow. You're really enamored with yourself, aren't you? How old is the Sun? How old is the Earth? How complex is the atmosphere? To those you wish to claim omniscience based on a pittance of data?
I'm not a Psychiatrist and I can't help you. I'm sure you can find the help you need locally. Please stay away from sharp edges in the interim.
"Somehow" was a polite way to mock the insane idea that human beings can control the climate. If that were true, make it rain here and not Iowa. If it were true, weather would not be a prediction, it would be a prescription.
Scientific proof requires duplication and verification. People can't control the weather. Therefore, no scientific proof. "Science" cannot prove or disprove everything. It has only a limited realm to which it can be applied. NOAA studies weather and tries to create modeling methods to predict weather. Like all models, they are imperfect. I'm not sure the relevance of the link you gave to your post as it supports my comments and shows yours to be contradictory.
You are correct. Implementation of the concept of separation of powers is not so perfect. There is no good mechanism for the SCOTUS to be challenged or held accountable. Historically, sometimes they were ignored, a Chief Justice was excluded from meetings with the other Justices and so on.
What happened with the captives at Gitmo is a good example. The land is not U.S. territory, it is leased from Cuba as a military base. That means, according to prior SCOTUS rulings, the civilian laws of the U.S. cannot be applied to actions there. The Geneva Conventions are a treaty which, like all other treaties, is only binding to the signatories. The captives in Gitmo are not uniformed combatants of a legitimate soverign power, let alone a signatory of the conventions. Nonetheless, SCOTUS determined they should be given equal status with uniformed combatants. Most recently, SCOTUS determined detainees have the right to seek a review of their conditions for containment with a U.S. Federal Judge. Such a right does not belong to U.S. citizens when they are detained. UCMJ and Executive orders govern military behavior. UCMJ was created by the Congress. Now, SCOTUS has stated it holds the powers of the Executive and Representative branches. It also contradicts both prior rulings I mention. That doesn't even touch on the aspect of Congress creating the law which specifically dealt with the non-uniformed combatants issue.
Nope, you typed, "That is because they refuse to formally acknowledge both the causes and damage caused by the greenhouse effect. Which is precisely what this article is about."
Q: What is the "cause" of the greenhouse effect to which you refer?
A: The "cause" of the greenhouse effect is an atmosphere and the Sun.
You don't display comprehension of what the greenhouse effect really is, now or ever. The "greenhouse effect" refers to temperature regulation across the planet caused by an atmosphere to, more or less, create a stable temperature. This is why all living organisms do not burn up when they are exposed to the Sun and do not freeze when the the Sun is obscured by the rotation of the planet.
Words have meanings, so do phrases.
What "damage" is "caused by the greenhouse effect."? What is the basis from which this alleged "damage" is measured?
The concept of "damage" is totally subjective, just as the concept "weed" is subjective. A weed is nothing more than a plant growing in a location for which a person wishes it was not growing.
Again, your post was mental gibberish.
"Sounds like a lot of compelling to act is going on there too."
Compelling act to definitively state reasoning is all I see.
Look at the parenthetical phrase in the same sentence of the Act in which you highlighted the word, "shall."
"(from time to time)" is vague and leaves the decision of when it is "time" to the Executive branch. The reality is the Administrator of the EPA is subservient to the President and serves at the President's discretion.
Look at your second quote, from the ruling. "the Act's clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if ..."
it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do.
I see the word "if" used twice in that sentence. First, the EPA would have to prove greenhouse gases contribute to climate change in a significant manner. They don't. It's as simple as that. Remember, the molecules in question are carbon dioxide. People exhale it, plants remove that carbon from the air and grow. The aggregate temperature of Earth has been stable or dropping for the past 10 years. Fluid modeling is not sophisticated enough to model the entire ecosystem of the Earth.
The second clause has even more leeway. The combination of "if", "cannot" and "discretion" combine to match what I just stated. There is no undeniable proof of a causal relationship. We can even add the phrase "will not execute its discretion" because, in its discretion, proof of such a causal relationship cannot be obtained so the discretionary decision is not to waste time and resources chasing that which cannot be caught.
Again, empowerment is not the same as command to execute an action.
You seem to be "reading" what you want the words to state, not what they actually state.
What does, "they refuse to formally acknowledge both the causes and damage caused by the greenhouse effect." mean?
The Bush Administration does not acknowledge the greenhouse effect?
Where has the Bush Administration denied the greenhouse effect warms the side of the Earth which isn't facing the Sun?
Oh, you meant they refuse to formally acknowledge U.S. human activity somehow controls the greenhouse effect. That's very different.
AI Could "power" Nex-gen CCTV Cameras?
POWER?!?!
Control? Yes. Power? No.
Where, exactly, did the SCOTUS or the Clean Air Act COMPEL the EPA to act?
You are confusing "empowerment" with "execution of power."
They are not the same thing.
Otherwise, there would be no need for the Executive Branch OR the Representative Branch.
Again, there is no "there" there.
The President is the Chief Executive Officer of the Executive Branch.
All power of the Executive Branch comes as proxy for the Chief Executive.
The Executive Branch does not have the authority to create obligations which the Chief Executive officer does not want.
The EPA is part of the Executive Branch.
The SCOTUS ruling endorsed the authority of the EPA to create such regulations, it did not empower the EPA to create them exclusive of the Executive Officer. The SCOTUS did not somehow turn the EPA into a fourth branch of the Federal Government.
There's no "there" there.
It really is that simple.
You have the best life expectancy, health care, nutrition, educational opportunitys and boundless economic opportunity that have ever existed in the world. You live like royalty compared to people 100 years ago. More than half the world's population still lives in structures made of dirt and clay.
Hurricanes happen. If that's an unacceptable risk for you, move.
Oh, boo hoo, you didn't have an American grocery store for a week. Road systems are designed for peak traffic during normal loads. Morons stuck around too long. Mississippi and Florida acted like adults. Louisiana threw a tantrum in collusion with the press.
You're a spoiled narcissistic brat.
Grow up.
You are wrong.
The vast majority of the world's people chose to live near the coasts. There is plenty of room in the Southwestern U.S. I live on the East Coast and lots of the food we eat comes from California. The only date farms in the U.S. are in California and they are the largest producers of nuts, supplying the entire country including the largest chocolatier in the U.S., Hershey, located in Pennsylvania.
A lot of the infrastructure problems in California were created by the people. They chose not to expand electrical generation. A federal judge prohibits pumping water for months each year because of a so-called endangered fish which was getting caught int he pumps. (How many people actually die because of the lack of water created by that bozo?) The land is what it is. People adapt the land to their desires by adding infrastructure.
There is nothing which prohibits anyone from moving away from that area if they wish.
Pessimists complain and die earlier. Pessimists never accomplish anything. They are repellant. Pessimism is the way of cowards and the narcisistic.
Oppotunity had never been greater than now.