The Constitution vs the AMS
Meteorologists, and in particular those on television worship calamitous weather. They finally have something to get animated and energized about and they may just be able to exceed their usual miniscule exposure on the local news. So it’s not particularly astonishing or peculiar that their comrades at the American Meteorological Society (AMS) wholly endorse anthropogenic climate change.
Relative thereto I link a “Special Statement of the American Meteorological Society” entitled, “ The Supreme Court Decision in West Virginia v. EPA: A Setback in a Time of Tremendous Opportunity”. Thus, the AMS believes that unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch of government can create legislation and laws and then enforce them. This is not only unconstitutional, since only Congress can make laws, but it is also perilous and precarious, by shackling and restraining businesses, farms and citizens based on partisan political whim and impulse. Such was the case often under Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Paradoxically though, in an AMS survey when Barack Obama was serving as President only 52% of respondents considered global warming or climate change to be mostly man-made. So perhaps their Society has gone beyond the realm of their intended scope.
The legacy media constantly hypes the fallacy of increases in storms of ever type, with greater intensities, as well as increases in floods, droughts, wild fires and other natural events of weather. Interestingly, the AMS did not go directly to those allegations, which is somewhat ironic for people that report and hype the weather.
They further seek credibility by naming a few well-funded classmates to their point of view, but note, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were not mentioned.
In the AMS section 4 entitled, “Solutions are available and highly promising – a serious reason for optimism”, the five (5) points are a ladled mixture of word salad with no evidence, justification or reason behind the questionable content. Tony Heller of Real Climate Science has a few more words to say about the AMS hyperbole. I link that content here.
Irrespective of anyone’s faith in climate change, the constitution is not as Barack Obama claims, a “fluid document” or as Joe Biden alleges, “not an absolute”, or as the AMS appears to internalize here, but the loftiest law of the land and can only be amended, rescinded or annotated if two-thirds of Congress and a minimum of 34 states approve.