Sorry, you just make no sense @mikeyohe
No problem, I’ll try again.
I’m assuming that the basic facts of what went on over the last 20 years in the media and the IPCC should be common knowledge. There was a system in place. My understanding is that the OSTP’s job was to keep the executive and legislative branches of the USA informed. The journalists and scientific writers were to keep the public informed. That is a good proven system with nothing wrong with how it’s supposed to work.
The problem came in 1984 when the departments were able to take the position of the legislative, executive, and jurisdictional branches of government. The departments wrote more laws than our government ever did. The number of laws written has so far been uncountable. The departments could write the laws, enforce the laws and judge the laws in a lot of cases. They were fifty steps ahead of where the public thought were the laws of the land.
Part of the catastrophe of losing our constitutional government to a technocracy government was the main problem with trying to get a handle on climate change.
I bet you’ll hear a lot more about this in the coming years as this is kind of early for the public yet.
AI- The Chevron deference, a legal doctrine stemming from the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, grants courts deference to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes, potentially impacting technocracy and the role of experts in policymaking.
If the statute is silent or ambiguous, the court must defer to the agency’s interpretation, provided it is a permissible construction of the statute, meaning it is rational or reasonable.
Technocracy and Chevron Deference
Technocratic Policymaking:
Technocracy, in this context, refers to the idea that technical expertise and scientific knowledge should play a central role in policymaking.
Agency Power:
Chevron deference can be seen as a mechanism that empowers agencies to shape policy through their interpretations of statutes, potentially giving them a significant degree of influence over areas where Congress has not explicitly spoken.
Expert Influence:
The doctrine allows agencies to fill in gaps in legislation and make decisions based on their technical expertise, which can be seen as a form of technocratic policymaking.
Potential Criticisms:
Critics of Chevron deference argue that it can lead to unelected bureaucrats making policy decisions, potentially undermining democratic accountability and allowing agencies to overreach their authority.
Recent Scrutiny:
The Supreme Court has recently shown increased scrutiny of Chevron deference, with some suggesting it may be weakened or overturned, which could lead to a shift in the balance of power between agencies and courts.
Impact on Regulation:
The end of Chevron deference could lead to increased litigation and uncertainty regarding agency regulations, potentially slowing down the regulatory process and making it more difficult for agencies to implement policies.
Examples
Environmental Regulations:
Agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rely on Chevron deference to interpret and enforce environmental laws, potentially impacting industries and technologies related to climate change and pollution.
Telecommunications:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has used Chevron deference to interpret telecommunications laws, including those related to broadband regulation and the internet.
Healthcare:
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) relies on Chevron deference to interpret and implement healthcare regulations, which can affect patient access to services and the cost of healthcare.
Financial Regulation:
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and other financial regulators rely on Chevron deference to interpret and enforce financial regulations, which can affect consumers and financial institutions.
Nyet.. Climate change was first coined in 1956 and has been used ever since to describe the effects of global warming. Nothing to do with accomodating “dumb” people
There are three levels:
-interpretation of the rule : it is reasonable that the author of the rule interprets it. It should know what it wanted. Now that does not make the rule legal. The judge keeps it power of control.
And the rule must be conform to the higher and more general rules.
-
Implementation of the rule : In France also, government services can implement the rule and fine people who do not conform. but, the fine cannot be decided without a due process, with guarantees, and can be contested in front of a court.
-
you are right there are too many rules, and these rules are decided by the civil service, not by the parliament. But the parliament has not the time to decide about every thing.
In France, since 1958, the limits between the parliament and the civil service powers has been set.
And the civil service is under control of the government.
1 Like
Damn! That’s a good find. I hope @mikeyohe sees it so he can stop blaming Obama. Thanks.
Liar. And the lies are in all you hide and pretend didn’t happen.
Climate Science is politicizes because of deliberate efforts of the super rich:
DEC 5, 2023
These Fossil Fuel Industry Tactics Are Fueling Democratic Backsliding
As citizens around the world increasingly favor serious policy action to fight climate change, the fossil fuel industry is undermining democratic principles to stem the tide of climate action—spreading misinformation and obstructing elected governments’ climate efforts, promoting anti-democratic movements and candidates, and even undermining democratic rights.
and on and on and on . . .
Remember its plot by the Chinese . . . . .
You sure can toss a lot of words at it, and you mention facts - but don’t produce any, innuendo is all you have.
Oh and if you want to learn about why the IPCC didn’t work out as well as originally planned, don’t expect Mike Yohe to ever offer an objective overview - do a little good faith investigating for yourself.
Sad thing is, at this point, understand the physical reality isn’t going to help much anymore - too much has been broken and human intelligence is backsliding and time has run out for constructive adjustments to our attitude and behaviors - from here on in, the times they will only be getting more challenging - and when push comes to shove, all we seem capable of is getting uglier and reverting back to brutes.
Google: how did political interests marginalize the IPCC
They were until Musk dismantled the entire organization. No more warnings.
YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN!
If climate change is even one 100th as bad as claimed. Don’t you think we should have a department in charge of climate change? Wouldn’t it be nice to have true facts and numbers.
You understand that climate change was taking us into a new Ice Age. Then when the goal became trading carbon credits. There was more money in warming than cooling.
The technocratic government has been around for some time.
Past presidents have formed brain trusts to help them run our government. Biden brain trust was put together before his first term at the University of Pennsylvania. Funding came from China.
There is nothing wrong with having smart people running the government. The problem comes from allowing the departments located in DC to be over 90% in favor of one political party.
I agree Ralph Nader had good intentions and was trying to help the people in convincing Congress to allow technocratic departments. Power corrupts and in 40 years we are where we are today.
The IPPC has worked out exactly as planned. Have you ever read the mission statement of the IPCC?
climate change isn’t a thing that takes us anywhere. It’s a field of study more accurately named climate science. But yes, I remember the '70s when scientists were predicting a mini ice age.
There is a really good article that explains how this relatively new field has evolved since the '70s. Enjoy.
Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the objective of the IPCC is to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies. IPCC reports are also a key input into international climate change negotiations. The IPCC is an organization of governments that are members of the United Nations or WMO. The IPCC currently has 195 members.
This sounds like the department to you say we should have.
1 Like
Agreed.
Yes, that sounds sweet and sugary with a lot of flowers. I got several irons in the fire right now so it may take a couple days for me to get back to you on this. But I should be able to find the data that I’m talking about. A few years back the IPCC’s mission was being talked about as a reason for running hot. I might still have older mission statements or can find it on the IPCC’s site.
The IPCC is under The United Nations which is a nonprofit organization. Its goal is to report the worst-case scenario for climate change so that the world can be ready in case of a worst-case scenario. If there was only a minor affect with climate change. The IPCC would have no reason to be in business. In the 37 years that the IPCC has been active. The models have run hot every year. That is due to the worst-case scenario.
That brings us to the point of why all the models are running hot for decades. Back to the University of Pennsylvania. Known for CIA and NSA recruitment. Tell me why after 37 years of models running hot you would not hire some private sector company to run some models? Some of the claims are that Michael Mann requires certain perimeters to be run that are said to make them run hot. If true he would only get blowback from private companies as the universities seemed to go along with the system.
United Nations is for advancing globalization. The IPCC has been a great tool for advancing it’s agenda.
What a mixed up crazy world we live in.
At the time the news was saying climate change was moving us into a new Ice Age. I was at the Canadian border drilling oil wells for Laughlin Brothers out of Oklahoma. They told me to get ready to go to Alaska because they discovered the north slope fields. With with the Ice Age coming. I instead went to California. So yes, climate change can move people.
Climate deniers are those that believe the paris agreement would keep us below 1.5 degrees C temp rise
Climate change today is a word without a legal meaning. You’re correct with it being a field study but it has expanded beyond that to enhance many political meanings. You could say It is a dream word for trial lawyers and politicians. Yet it headlines news and magazine articles with the assumption that the readers clearly understand what climate change is. And us taxpayer have spent over $146B on Climate Change. Annual spending of over $11B now. We all know what weather is like. But “change” cannot operate without a baseline or datum point which we do not have. Not that they haven’t tried establishing a data point but none of them seem to hold any water.
If they weren’t “in business”, then you wouldn’t know if they were running or not, would you? And they aren’t “running hot”, so…
parameters. I think.
No words have legal meaning
I asked once what a “baseline” is. You didn’t give a straight answer then. Does it have a “legal” meaning?
Ask Trump! He ordered Musk to dismantle all government services.