Climate Change – A Load of Lies and Unscientific Basis
Climate Change – A Load of Lies and Unscientific Basis
Uploaded by Matthias Chang
[Matthias Chang’s comments: I am so pissed off with those who support uncritically their stand on “Climate Change” when the Climate Changes everyday, every week, every month, every year, every decade and every century! Every forecast by the “Gurus” and advocates of “Global Warming” to the present voodoo science of “Climate Change” – Al Gore to AOC of the US Democratic Party, have been proven wrong, and all their data and statistics cannot stand up to a rigorous examination. The PDF article below puts all arguments by the Climate Change cultists to a grinding halt. Please find time to educate yourself and stop propagating B.S!]
The article begins below:
A Summary by two internationally renowned scientists
EPA Failed to Consider Important Aspects of Climate Change.
In our opinion, the EPA’s Proposed Rule entirely fails to follow the State Farm mandate (and that of the scientific method) to consider each important aspect and relevant data on the issue of climate change.
A cornerstone of modern administrative law, the Supreme Court’s State Farm decision defines as arbitrary and capricious an agency rulemaking where, inter alia, “the agency has … entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency.” 463 U.S. at 42.
Time and again, courts have applied State Farm’s principles to invalidate agency rules where the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or cherry-picked data to support a preordained conclusion. See, e.g., Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1913 (2020) (an agency official “‘entirely failed to consider … [an] important aspect of the problem.’” and that “omission alone renders … [the official’s] decision arbitrary and capricious”); Am. Clinical Lab’y Ass’n v. Becerra, 40 F.4th 616, 625 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (agency rule deemed arbitrary and capricious where “the agency, without adequate explanation, exempted a sizable portion of the laboratories covered by the statute from data reporting requirements”); Natl. Lifeline Ass’n v. FCC, 921 F.3d 1102, 1112 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (agency rule deemed arbitrary and capricious where agency departed from its “prior forbearance policy without reasoned explanation and failing to consider key aspects of the program”).
Continue reading from the full PDF Below:
