Protesting at Justice’s Homes Should be a Subject of Condemnation, not Prosecution

Below is my column in the Hill on the call for the use of a federal law to arrest protesters outside of the homes of justices. The crushing irony is that many of these critics have spent years calling for the denial or curtailment of the free speech of others. Yet, these justices being targeted in their homes would likely narrowly construe or bar the use of this law.

Here is the column:

The leaking of a Supreme Court justice’s draft opinion on abortion rights, followed by the “doxing” and targeting of individual justices at their homes, has led to calls for prosecution under a federal law prohibiting “pickets and parades” at the residences of judges or jurors. While I have condemned these protests, I believe the use of this law to arrest protesters would be a serious blow to free speech and would be difficult to defend in the courts.

Ironically, those who are harassing these justices likely would be protected by the very people they are targeting.

Under a federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1507, any individual who “pickets or parades” with the “intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer” near a U.S. court or “near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer” will be fined or “imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

On the key element of location, there is no question that protesters are picketing and parading near the residences of justices. (In one case, though, a protester in prior months thought she was targeting Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home but picketed the wrong house; neighbors never told her of her mistake.)

Even after some groups supplied maps and addresses for the justices’ homes, President Biden could not muster the courage to denounce such acts. Days after insisting that the White House took no position on either the leaking of the draft opinion or the doxing of justices, White House press secretary Jen Psaki issued a tepid statement criticizing harassment, vandalism or violence directed at the justices.

Attorney General Merrick Garland also has failed in his leadership of the Justice Department. While Garland was quick to form a national task force to address parents protesting at school board meetings, he has had little to say about the targeting of  justices.

Yet, demands that Garland arrest all of the protesters is a case of the pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction. Such prosecutions could create a massive chilling effect on free speech, even if any convictions are unlikely to be upheld. After all, protests are common at the court itself, which is covered under the same federal provision; if it is unlawful to seek to influence a pending decision through picketing “near a U.S. court,” such protests could be viewed as crimes under this interpretation.

Obviously, picketing a justice at home is more direct and threatening, even with security standing outside. Yet, the focus of our laws should not be on the act of protesting but on actual threats or violence committed against justices or their families.

The claim that such protests are acts of intimidation has been before the courts since the 19th century. In Vegelahn v. Guntner, 167 Mass. 92 (1896), for example, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that a labor union could be found guilty of an intentional tort by picketing a business. Oliver Wendell Holmes, then a state court justice who later famously joined the U.S. Supreme Court, dissented and rejected the notion that protests “necessarily and always thereby convey a threat of force.”

Even under the vague intent element under the statute, protests are criminal only if they are done with the “intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer.” Certainly, today’s protesters are upset about Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and they want to see Roe v. Wade preserved. However, few seriously believe that protesting at justices’ homes will make them more inclined to yield to mob demands. This is unadulterated rage by people who no longer recognize any limits of decency or civility in our political discourse.

If charged, the protesters likely would insist they were denouncing the justices’ views, not trying to coerce a change in those views. Many wanted to vent their rage directly at justices or use the home protests as a way to make the evening news.

Of course, the Constitution often supports those who would deny such protections to others. Many Democrats and liberal organizations have long advocated for sweeping investigations, criminalization or sanctioning of free speech as well as both state and corporate censorship. At the reported encouragement of Biden administration officials, the National School Boards Association sent a letter calling for a Justice Department task force on threats by parents at school board meetings, despite the small number of such incidents. This included the suggested use of national security offices, which also were referenced in the Justice Department’s press release.

Likewise, many Democrats have sought to bar Republican candidates from election ballots for questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election or calling for a challenge to the certification of that election. Many of them are still demanding criminal charges against figures like former President Donald Trump for “inciting an insurrection” with his speech on Jan. 6, 2020. And some are using the same kind of overheated language as Trump, such as Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s tweet: “To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community — the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms … We will not surrender our rights without a fight — a fight to victory!”

Many Democrats also supported sweeping bans on protests near abortion clinics, like a law in Massachusetts that was struck down unanimously in McCullen v. Coakley in 2014. In a concurrence joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, then-Justice Antonin Scalia declared that “Protecting people from speech they do not want to hear is not a function that the First Amendment allows the government to undertake in the public streets and sidewalks.”

The same is true for the public streets and sidewalks near the homes of justices.

These protests are worthy of condemnation, not criminalization. Just because something is legal does not make it right. Fortunately, for these protesters, the people inside the homes they are targeting will likely protect them from prosecution — because the court will likely follow the lead of Oscar Wilde who said, “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

329 thoughts on “Protesting at Justice’s Homes Should be a Subject of Condemnation, not Prosecution”

  1. If actions speak louder than words, then it could be argued that guy who fired the shot heard around the world was just expressing how he felt about the Redcoats.

  2. Why not amend the constitution so that your right to be left alone outweighs someone’s “right” to intimidate you, which can often be accompanied by that which looks like free expression, but really just augments and boosts the harrassment.

  3. OT: Jeff Bezos asks disinformation board to fact check Biden tweet

    Amazon boss Jeff Bezos said the nation’s newly formed Disinformation Governance Board should take a look at the White House after a tweet from President Biden which attempted to link skyrocketing inflation with the country’s corporate tax rate.

    “The newly created Disinformation Board should review this tweet, or maybe they need to form a new Non Sequitur Board instead,” Bezos scoffed in tweet late Friday night. “Raising corp taxes is fine to discuss. Taming inflation is critical to discuss. Mushing them together is just misdirection.”

  4. Svelaz, I am just ensuring you had access to this earlier reply. When I use that reply to show how you run away after acting dopey, I want to avoid your excuse that you never saw the response. Enjoy.

    “Why don’t you post the original claim”

    Svelaz, what do you think was said? Tell us, and I will send the first post.

    The author of an article you linked to thought Howard Zinn wrote an excellent textbook on American history. If he is an excellent textbook writer, he would be an accurate textbook writer, which he is not. That was my point throughout.

  5. It seems John Say was right.

    “Sheriff of Arizona county featured in ‘2000 Mules’ announces 2020 general election investigations

    Alleged Yuma County ballot harvesting “mule” interviewed in the documentary is cooperating with authorities, says the film’s director, Dinesh D’Souza…

    Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has already indicted a half dozen people on illegal ballot harvesting charges. In December 2020, Brnovich’s office announced the indictments of two ballot harvesters from Yuma County.”

    1. Anonymous,

      “ Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has already indicted a half dozen people on illegal ballot harvesting charges. In December 2020, Brnovich’s office announced the indictments of two ballot harvesters from Yuma County.”

      Two is not half a dozen.

      There have only been two indictments and both allegedly put four ballots. That’s hardly a major fraud issue.

      Where is the link stating the Arizona AG indicting half a dozen people?

      John B Say was also skeptical of the “mule” interviewed because the story was not credible.

      1. Please do not put words into my mouth.

        There is a difference between beleiving the remark of person interviewed were self serving and likely lies with respect to their own personal culpability, and thag they are completely lies.
        The Whistle blower is a criminal, and their testimony is self serving. But the self serving testimony of criminals is the evidence in nearly every trial.

        The person interviewed claimed that they lost a lifelong freind over being asked to deliver another person’s ballot, and then claimed she worked giving bundles of ballots to others to deliver.
        Anything is possible – that is not morally consistent, and not credible.

        That said the “witness” merely confirms the geotracking and video evidence. Her remarks do not in anyway undermine other evidence.

        The TTV investigation PROVES beyond any doubt that 2020 was NOT a secure election. That means every single person who claimed that 2020 was secure is untrustworthy.
        That also means the COURTS failed, when they FAILED to conduct meaningful inquiry.

        There are many many things that TTV PROVES – to a high degree of certainty but NOT beyond doubt.

        TTV PROVES it is highly likely Trump won. They do NOT prove it is CERTAIN that Trump won.

        TTV PROVES it is CERTAIN there was fraud, and NEAR CERTAIN there was massive coordinated fraud.

        All the “fact checks” on TTV have small merit. It is near certain in the hundreds of thousands of instances of likely ballot harvesting Fraud that TTV identified that some SMALL percentage of those are not fraud.
        But the odds that more that a SMALL percent are not fraud is very near zero.

        The evidence supporting many “laws” of physics is weaker than TTV’s evidence of election fraud.

        1. “ There is a difference between beleiving the remark of person interviewed were self serving and likely lies with respect to their own personal culpability, and thag they are completely lies.
          The Whistle blower is a criminal, and their testimony is self serving. But the self serving testimony of criminals is the evidence in nearly every trial.”

          John, that’s just a long winded way of saying you’re skeptical. It’s that obvious.

          “ That said the “witness” merely confirms the geotracking and video evidence. Her remarks do not in anyway undermine other evidence.”

          Her remarks do undermine the other evidence. It points to the ignorance of the argument by not noting the specific reasons why geotracking and video don’t really provide any proof of the claims. It’s pure speculation hence the poor credibility which you confirm by your skeptical statements.

          “ TTV PROVES it is CERTAIN there was fraud, and NEAR CERTAIN there was massive coordinated fraud.”

          You are still basing your claims of “massive coordinated fraud” that a lack of evidence is evidence.

          Nobody, nobody except republicans or Trump supporters are claiming others are saying there has been zero fraud.

          Every election has its inconsistencies or rare cases of fraud. The majority of fraud cases turn out to be simple mistakes with no intention of willfully committing fraud.

          “ All the “fact checks” on TTV have small merit. It is near certain in the hundreds of thousands of instances of likely ballot harvesting Fraud that TTV identified that some SMALL percentage of those are not fraud.”

          Again, here you are just grasping for anything to substantiate your speculations that are dependent on the notion that the absence of evidence is evidence of more. You WANT it to be that way because it justifies your need for it to be despite the lack of evidence. This is how conspiracy theories rot your brain. You end up finding one little clue after another feeding the need for proof that your rabbit hole of reason is valid. It’s not.

          When the evidence keeps showing you are wrong. You keep looking for excuses to validate, even using the absence of proof or evidence as proof. It’s a nasty form of circular logic that won’t let you accept reality.

      2. The data TTV purchased was anonymized.

        I doubt TTV was provided with the actual IMEI’s of the phones they tracked.

        This is one of the reasons that the rest of this investigation must conducted by law enforcement.

        I would greatly prefer that law enforcement only us TTV gather data as the justification to investigate.

        Law enforcement should subpeona the same data from Google, and Cell companies, it should get the actual IMEI’s it should do its own data collection and analysis, and it should interview the Harvestors that this ideintifies and then slowly roll up the entire criminal conspiracy.

        This will take a great deal of time. It is likely that charges filed now, are based on those instances where it was possible to clearly identify people in the surveilance video.

        TTV has proven that there were far more than 2000 illegal ballot harvestors in 2020.

        They have NOT proven that John Doe was a ballot harvestor.

        Just as video of the inuagural tells us that thousands attended, but does not tell us the names of those who attended. That takes more work.

        Cui Bono tells us that it is almost certain that Biden benefited from proven fraud.

        But getting from almost certain to a criminal conviction sometimes requires more.

        Regardless, TTV has provided far more than enough evidence that there is no doubt that everyone – including the courts claiming that claims of election fraud were wron and successfully proven false is WRONG and likely lying.

        It is likely Trump is right the election was stolen. it is CERTAIN that it was fraud ridden. It is CERTIAN that the courts FAILED. It is CERTAIN that J6 protestors had legitimate greivance.

        1. John, do you not see the absurdity of your argument?

          “ TTV has proven that there were far more than 2000 illegal ballot harvestors in 2020.

          They have NOT proven that John Doe was a ballot harvestor.”

          How can TTV claim they are illegal ballot harvesters when the data they got doesn’t say anything about the actions or who were these “pings”?

          None of the data reveals how many ballots they had or even if they were ballots harvesters, no party affiliation either or if they even dropped off a bunch of ballots. But you’re saying that the data proves there were hundreds of thousands of illegal ballot harvesters.

          “ Regardless, TTV has provided far more than enough evidence that there is no doubt that everyone – including the courts claiming that claims of election fraud were wron and successfully proven false is WRONG and likely lying.”

          No it hasn’t. Even YOU doubt some aspects of TTV’s claims. As it is the flawed theme in your arguments, absence of evidence is evidence. No Court of law will accept that. Not even a conservative one because that’s not how the law works.

          “ Cui Bono tells us that it is almost certain that Biden benefited from proven fraud.

          But getting from almost certain to a criminal conviction sometimes requires more.”

          An assumption based on lack of evidence is not a certainty. It’s just biased speculation or more simply BS.

          You’re certain about a lot of things without any substantive proof. Your only “proof” is a lack of proof. Your arguments are pretty weak in the evidence department.

          By the way. Your suggestion that law enforcement subpoena the data providers to investigate won’t fly. A crime must have been committed or proof that one occurred before they can invade the privacy of those who were near the ballot boxes because you have no idea if they were really “ballot harvesters”. You’re suggesting a witch-hunt type of investigation not a forensic one.

          1. Svelaz,

            You are the one who is clueless.

            TTV provides 3 independent proofs of ballot harvesting.

            The goetracking data is one.
            Despite your cluelessness ordinary people grasp that 16t data points tracking several thousand different cell phones, that show patterns of movement ONLY immediately before the election – they excluded all cell phones that were near the ballot box locations or the 501C3 in the weeks prior to the start of the election – so anyone who in the course of their ordinary lives went to any of these locations in the weeks prior to the start of the election were excluded.

            Next, they culled the data for phones that went to 5 501C3s AND 20 Ballot boxes – but ONLY during the election.
            Then they pulled all the tracking data for only those cellphones so that they would could plot the travel of the people with those cell phones.
            What they find was those cellphones went back and forth between 501C3’s and Ballot boxes each night during the election.

            The odds of a false negative – i.e. that the missed a ballot harvestor are very high – if they reduce the number of 501C3’s each had to visit to be including in the fraud data set, or the number of ballot box visits. the number of harvestors jumped from 2000 to 8000 and the likely number of fraudulent ballots from 380K to well over 800K

            The odds of a false possitive – i.e. that they selected a cell phone that accidentally traveled in a patter matching that of a ballot harvestor is almost zero for the 2000 harvestors data set and slightly higher for the 8000 harvestors data set.

            Right now Ukraine is using similar processes to KILL russian generals and armor. They track signals, look for movement patters and KILL those that fit patterns of Tanks, APV’s, or ranking military leaders.

            During WWII Bletley park used similar data to identify German military units and their movements – either to kill them or to predict their actions.

            Much is made of the enigma code cracking at Bletchley park – but for most of the war Bletchley was unable to read enigma messages and had to rely on locating signals and looking for patterns. The Sub war in the atlantic was not won mostly because the allies could read Uboat messages – but because they could triangulate signals look for patterns of movement and anticipate where they were going, and have convoys avoid them while destroyers lay in wait.

            This is called signals analysis or traffic analysis and it is done all the time.

            It is done during war to KILL the enemy. It is done by the police all the time today.

            I would note that during WWII the positioning error was enormous – often miles.

            The TTV cell phone data is within 3 ft.

            If you traveling to within 3ft of several 501C3’s then traveling to within 3ft of 20+ ballot boxes spread accross a region – you are beyond a reasonable doubt engaged in ballot harvesting.

            A finger print match is only 10 points (sometimes as low as 6), This is a similar pattern match with a 25 pt match.

            But lets say there is a 1 in 20 error rate – i.e. 1 false positive for each 20 real positives. That is still 1900 mules.

            If you do not think this evidence ALONE constitutes proof – you have no understanding of probability and statistics.

            But the Geotracking data is only PART of the data.

            TTV collects 4million minutes of official ballot box surveilance data using FOIA requests and in many instances was able to use time date and location data to find the video of a specific “Mule” from the geo tracking data – when they have been able to do this that PROVES that a specific geotracked mule was visiting ballot boxes and depositing 5 or more ballots in each one.

            Yor are seeing some arrests prosecutions guilty pleas.

            These are people they caught on video AND were able to identify from the video – my guess is by reading the license number of their car.

            TTV is not law enforcement and the Goetracking data they are provided uniquely identifies a specific cell phone but they are not given the IMEI and therefor they can bit match that cell phone to a person – except by video.

            Law enforcement can request the data with IMEI’s and that means they can find the actual individual mules and prosecute them.

            So long as law enforcement wants to do so – these people can be identified and prosecuted.

          2. Let me try this a different way you might understand.

            The data that puprotedly proves CAGW is many orders of magnitude less reliable than this

            1. john Say, Global warming is a consequence of physical laws which were understood in the 19th century. There is more than enough data as a proper understanding of statistics would make clear to you. But no, your mind is made up and you don’t want to be confused by the facts.

              What a fool…

              1. “Global warming is a consequence of physical laws which were understood in the 19th century.”
                Is it correct that there is a scientific basis to the claim that additional GHG’s will increase global temperatures – all other variables controlled for – absolutely. There are several different laws of science – Arhenius, Plank, SB …. that confirm this.

                But there is no LAWS OF science that tells us the amount of warming that will result from some specific increase in C02.

                That constant for earth has been determined by scientists through computer models, and those models have been statistically falsified for well over a decade.

                “There is more than enough data as a proper understanding of statistics would make clear to you.”
                It is in fact the STATISTICS that prove you are wrong and anti-science.

                We have had myriads of warmist predications – since Hanson turned off the AC and shut the windows while testifying in congress about CAGW. NONE have come true. Ignoring those of wingnuts like Gore or Gretchen – those of SCIENTISTS have not come true.
                The CMP5 model average is now 2.5 std dev above actual tremperatures. Even the coldest model is warmer than the actual planet.
                Warmists have been constantly trying to hide this by shifting the starting point forward in time – a failed model will always look better the shorter the forward projection is.

                In REAL science – that would be called Falsification and scientists would go back and recalculate TCR and ECS – but they have not.

                ” But no, your mind is made up and you don’t want to be confused by the facts.”

                The current satelite Temp anomally – the difference between the current global temperature and the average since 1979 is +0.26C
                There has been no average warming since 1998

                All of these are FACTS – and they falsify CAGW.

                Personally I find global warming to be an IYI test – Intellectual Yet Idiot.

                I have found the global warming priesthood so idiotic that I have not even bothered to read AR6.
                But the predictions in AR4 and AR4 were FAR from Catastrophic. And we have undershot every one of them.

                Even the claim that the earth will warm slightly between now and 2100 – which seems likely based on the past 50-250 year trends – still presumes an unbelievable number of things we just do not know.

                This is just a very small subset of the problems with CAGW.

                But one of the biggest problems with it – one of the reasons it is NOT SCIENCE, is as Einstein once said – all it would take to destroy his entire lifes work would be for a single prediction of his to be falsified.

                CAGW has MULTIPLE serious flaws – only one of which is that nothing it predicts has been correct.

                CAGW ultimately is not science – it is politics. Any scientist that makes a value judgement based on science – is engaged in politics.

                Climate Scientists are both Wrong in their predictions about global temperatures, they are also outside their domain the moment they pretend to tell us what to do.

                There is no correct number of species on earth. There is no correct sea level, there is no correct number of polar bears, there is no correct temperature. Science does not tell us what is right or wrong. it does not tell us how things SHOULD be, Good science can sometimes tell us what will happen based on some changes – but it can not tell us whether that is good.

                Whether the earth warms or cools there will be alot of effects that we can judge for ourselves as positive or negative – but Science can not.

                We know as an example that humans tolerate heat better than cold – lower global temperatures one degree and you will get 3 times as many deaths from cold as you will if you raise the temperature 1 degree.

                Finally – there have been “scientific” predictions of imminet disaster since …. Malthus. Not a single one EVER has been true.
                There has been no peak oil. not peak food production, no mass starvation, the earth’s population will peak at 3 times what it was when Prof. Ehrilich wrote the population bomb. 3 times the level at which he predicted hundreds of billions of deaths by starvation. We have a population of nearly 8B people, the food intake of the average human is DOUBLE what is was in 1965, The amount of farmed land is less than half what it was in 1965. We are feeding twice as many people on half as much land twice as well – starvation today is entirely political.
                But for politics every country on earth is capable of feeding its own people from its own production.

                The crisis that is nearly on is is too few people – not to many – something Ehrlich never would have predicted. Throughout the world – most populations are in decline 0r very near it. And in many the impact is disasterous.

                Real Science is amazing. But politicized science – which has grown throughout my lifetime is disasterous.

                I would suggest something to you that I beleive it was Lloyd Bentson said when Clinton was trying to pass national healthcare.

                One of the things about things that can not go on forever ? They don’t.

                If Global warming is an actual problem – we will handle it – with ease if we do absolutely nothing now, when it is actually a problem.
                But if it is not (or even if it is) we actually screw ourselves by doing something now.

                Warmists and idiots – I repeat myself. Believe we are at a tipping point. If life was so fragile that such tipping points existed – life would not exist. Tipping points – or what warmists call postive feedbacks – have a different name in chemistry and physics – explosions. If the planet had numerous positive feedbacks – life would not exist. When science posits something that has never existed – we should be extremely dubious.

                The constant of the universe is change, the constant of the planet is change, the constant of the climate is change.
                It is near certain the earth will be warmer int he future than today. It is near certain it will be colder than it is today. Anyone who claims they can predict 50 years in advance which of those will be true is a charlatan and a liar. What can be predicted with ease is that 50 years from now people will be more prosperous, healthier, better off than now – regardless of climate.

                1. John B Say —. You are full of it.

                  Take a dump and then learn climatology. Although I suppose that “Principles of Planetary Climate” by Ray Pierrehumbert is much too difficult for you. That is an upper division or graduate school beginning text.

                    1. Dr. Judith A. Curry, American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She has published over a hundred scientific papers and co-edited several major works.

                      “Let me start with a quick summary of what is referred to as the ‘climate crisis:’

                      “It’s warming. The warming is caused by us. Warming is dangerous. We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming. Once we do that, sea level rise will stop, and the weather won’t be so extreme.

                      “So, what’s wrong with this narrative? In a nutshell, we’ve vastly oversimplified both the problem and its solutions. The complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity of the existing knowledge about climate change is being kept away from the policy and public debate. The solutions that have been proposed are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale.

                      “Specifically with regard to climate science. The sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide has a factor of three uncertainty. Climate model predictions of alarming impacts for the 21st century are driven by an emissions scenario, RCP8.5, that is highly implausible. Climate model predictions neglect scenarios of natural climate variability, which dominate regional climate variability on inter-annual to multi-decadal time scales. And finally, emissions reductions will do little to improve the climate of the 21st century; if you believe the climate models, most of the impacts of emissions reductions will be felt in the 22nd century and beyond.

                      “Whether or not warming is “dangerous” is an issue of values, about which science has nothing to say. According to the IPCC, there is no evidence yet of changes in the global frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or wildfires.

                      “Climate change is a grand narrative in which manmade climate change has become the dominant cause of societal problems. Everything that goes wrong reinforces the conviction that there is only one thing we can do to prevent societal problems – stop burning fossil fuels. This grand narrative misleads us to think that if we solve the problem of manmade climate change, then these other problems would also be solved. This belief leads us away from a deeper investigation of the true causes of these problems. The end result is a narrowing of the viewpoints and policy options that we are willing to consider in dealing with complex issues such as public health, water resources, weather disasters and national security.

                      “Does all this mean we should do nothing about climate change? No. We should work to minimize our impact on the planet, which isn’t simple for a planet with seven billion inhabitants. We should work to minimize air and water pollution. From time immemorial, humans have adapted to climate change. Whether or not we manage to drastically curtail our carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, we need to reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.

                      “With regard to energy. All other things being equal, everyone would prefer clean over dirty energy. However, all other things are not equal. We need to secure, reliable, and economic energy systems for all countries in the world. This includes Africa, which is currently lacking grid electricity in many countries. We need 21st century infrastructure for our electricity and transportation systems, to support continued and growing prosperity. The urgency of rushing to implement 20th century renewable technologies risks wasting resources on an inadequate energy infrastructure and increasing our vulnerability to weather and climate extremes.

                      “How the climate of the 21st century will play out is a topic of deep uncertainty. Once natural climate variability is accounted for, it may turn out to be relatively benign. Or we may be faced with unanticipated surprises. We need to increase our resiliency to whatever the future climate presents us with. We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we sacrifice economic prosperity and overall societal resilience on the altar of urgently transitioning to 20th century renewable energy technologies.

                      “We need to remind ourselves that addressing climate change isn’t an end in itself, and that climate change is not the only problem that the world is facing. The objective should be to improve human well-being in the 21st century, while protecting the environment as much as we can.”

                  1. I strongly suspect I have read more by “Climate Scientists” than you have.

                    The condescending garbage just makes you look stupid.

                    I have provided you with several specific Failures of the CAGW claim that neither you nor anyone else have addressed.

                    I have not addressed at all “Climate Science” – that is completely tangential.

                    There are so many errors in the arguments made by the left.

                    One you are making here is pretending that “Applied Science” and “scientific theory” are the same.

                    Applied science is engineering.

                    If you want to design a bridge you do not hire a materials physicist, you hire a structural engineer.

                    Pretty much every purported climate scientist is NOT an engineer. They are completely clueless about applied science.

                    The two most consequential failures of Warmists are piss poor understanding of statistics, and failure to accept when real world results are at odds with predictions.

                    There may be nothing at all wrong with Climate theory. But as applied it has been falsified and nothing has been done to address that, that makes it religion.

                  2. Have you designed and built a bridge that people use ? I have.

                    Have you taken your cherished science out of upper division graduate school and made it actually work with real things and real people in the real world ? I have.

                    I have participated in lead, or independently developed innumerable things actually used by people in the real world that MUST work, that if they are not done correctly – will kill people. No ivory towers, but the real world.

                    When your religion actually works in the real world – then you can talk.

                  3. Economist Paul Romer Published an economics paper about 15 years ago – it was really about the mathematics of complex models, not economics, and it applies beautifully to climate.

                    Regardless, he mathematically demonstrated that any mathematical model with enough coefficients could be altered to hind cast perfectly even though it made no sense at all. He went further and noted that the biases of those working with a model could subtly nudge a model to hindcast perfectly while being significantly off at future predictions.

                    One of the most complext models in science today – far more complex than economics models is the climate model.

                    It is so complex that the largest super computers in the world – one of the projects I have been a part of was the development of HPC’s supercomputers, can not even come close to running climate models real time – much less several times faster than real time necescary to forecast. As a result Climate models are deliberately simplified – assumptions are made to limit the complexity so that supercomputers can run them.

                    Mr. Benson – do not make presumptions about my knowledge and experience, it will only make a foll of you.

                  4. David Benson;

                    Every single Warmist should already be so embarrased you crawled under a rock and hoped No One recalls the stupid claims you have made.

                    Can you name a SINGLE Climate prediction that can be measured that has proven true ?

                    One ? Just One ?

                    Here is a claim in the NYT in 1978 – claiming that a 30 year cooling trend had no end in sight.


                    1. “Scientists use the celcius temperature scale;”
                      Hanson is a SCIENTIST.
                      In fact he is close to the FIRST scientist to start ranting about CAGW.

                      “American reports use degrees Farenheit.”
                      No ordinary americans and US weather is reported in Farenheit.

                      UAH is American.

                      YOur citing a denver post article by a journalist as evidence ?

                      “Thirty years later, it’s clear that Hansen and other doomsayers were right.”
                      Nope – global Temps have not increased by 5-9F, 5-9K, 5-9C,

                      Far more wildfires rage.


                    2. “Some of the models suggest to Dr. (Wieslav) Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”
                      2009 Al Gore

                      Professor Wieslaw Maslowski from the Department of Oceanography of the US Navy predicted an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the summer of 2013.

                      Also back in 2007, we had NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally’s prediction: “The Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”

                      Artic Sea Ice 2022 –

                    3. The Peak Summer temp in Antarctica is -9C, The Low is -78

                      Ice does not melt as a result of temperature at -9C

                      Most though not all of Greenland remains below 0C all year long.

                      Meltin Antartic and Greenland ice is either caused by friction as the Ice is pushed out to the see by the weight of new Ice
                      Or by volcanic activity below the Ice.
                      Greenland is entirely the former. Antartcica appears to be mostly the former.
                      Many scientific papers have noted that Antartic ICE is flowing faster than in the past.
                      But warmists are brain dead. It is flowing faster because the weight of Ice added by precipitation is pushing it.
                      There is very little precipitation in Antartica – but the continent is enormous and a small average precipitation over a massive continent is a massive amount of ice.

                      Average Antartic precipitation is 166mm.
                      The area of Antartica is 14,200,000 km²
                      Average Ice gain in Antartica is 2357.2km3 – 1km3=1Gt
                      Total Antarctic Ice – 26.5M Gt.

                      Some antartic Ice is likely lost through sublimation – but the rate of sublimation at antartic temperatures is incredibly low.

                      Various studies place the Antartic Ice loss at between 150-200Gt – if that was a NET loss – it is not,
                      It would take antartica 135,000 years to be ice free.


                      The same process applies to Greenlan too – which will also take over 100,000 years to lose all of its ice.

                      It is near certain another ice age will occur before either antartica or greenland lose much ice.

                    4. The period from 1979 is 44 years not 30, The Current global Temp anamoally is +0.22C that is that is the deviation from the Average for the past 44 years which means the total change is 0.44C – or 0.1C/decade.

                      If absolutely everything remains as it is the Earth will have warmed 1.0C by 2079 That is almost 3C less than warmists predict.

                      Of course that presumes everything remains the same. Warmists promise a tipping point, but it is as likely temps will go down as up.
                      Nearly all the warming since 1979 occured before 1999 – in the first 20 years. There has been very little warming since.

                      The rate of warming in the 21st century is probably the lowest it has been in 250 years.

                      Global CO2 is estimated by readings at Mona Loa
                      Global CO2 increases since 1950 have been nearly linear. At about 1.6ppm/year

                      Arehinuis, SB, Plank, … all the basic physics relate energy to the 4th power of temperature.

                      In otherwords each increase in temperature requires far more energy than the last.

                      Energy capture by Co2 is linear with respect to Co2 concentration. Linear increases in CO2 as we have will produce ever decreasing increases in temperature – all other things being equal.

                      This is actual Physics and well known. The amount of energy needed to get water from 79C to 99C is far greater than needed to get it from 59C to 79C. Anyone with a hotplate can test that.

                      Climate Science be Dammed, you are on the wrong side of basic physics.
                      This is why all warmist scientists presume some “tipping point” – this has variously been from water vapor or Ch4


                    5. I have debunked the first several of your Denver post claims.

                      Though honestly the debunking is not relevant.

                      The FACT is that Actual warming is 2.5 std dev below what models have predicted.

                      That ALONE thoroughly falsifies CAGW.

                      Put simply there is a serious error in modern climate science – my Guess is that ECS is about 1/4 what warmist scientists are using.

                      Regardless, the faux science has been falsified,

                      REAL scientists would correct the error.

                      This is an error that has been well known and increasingly apparent for the past 20 years.

                    6. Finally CAGW has a massive psychological problem.

                      Either Warmists are horribly wrong on the actual warming in the past 40 years,
                      or they are right and people have not noticed.

                      Overall the world has gotten better not worse.
                      we have not seen the coasts go under water,
                      Far more people still die each year from cold than warm.

                      There is actually far more wildlife where I live than when I was a child.
                      I can look out my window most days and see deer, occasional a fox, owl’s even hawks.
                      None of which were present in the 60’s when I was a child.
                      Things are greener and more lush.

                      We are producing far more food rather than less.
                      People are eating more rather than less.

                      BTW I fully expect all the problems of renewables to be solved over time – so long as government stays out of it.

                      Though all of this is complex – US CO2 consumption is declining – as we shift from Coal to natural gas for reasons that have little to do with climate. NG scales to load far better than coal. Slowly we are shifting to Electric cars. In a couple of decades – without govenrment interferance all or most new cars will be electric. While they have problems that Gas cars do not have, they also have many advantages.
                      Small gains in batteries that are likely will move us closer to a tipping point.

                      But all these things will happen slowly because we want them to. Not because they have too.

                      We really should be moving to more decentralized energy – more smaller NG gas turbines to generate electricity – even down to the home level. NG distribution is far more efficient than electricy, and NG turbines are efficient at small scales.
                      Also Gas Turbines can switch to hydrogen easily or even Coal gas.

                    7. So far Mr. Benson you are proving how little you know about Climate,
                      and how much of a sychophant you are to climate scientists.


                    8. As the graphs by Tamino posted below show, the global surface temperature has increased by more than 1.2 K since 1880. So John B Say is simply wrong, as he s also about the prediction by James Hansen.

                      Then John B Say posts two more graphs by ignoramuses; one about wild fires and another about Atlantic land-falling hurricanes. In the case of Atlantic hurricanes, reading Ray’s book enables one to understand why fewer are landfalling in the Atlantic with rising sea surface temperatures. Not so in the western Pacific.

                  5. In 2000 we were told Killimanjaro would be snow free year round in a decade.
                    It is still snow covered year round.

                    Alfred Nobel wants his prize back.

                    1. I know why.

                      There are excellent and reasonably well known reasons why ALL malthusian predictions are wrong.

                      Not Just Kilamanjaro.

                      There is always someone predicting the end of the world. They are always wrong.
                      In the next billion years – Maybe they will be right – once.

                      Fundimentally Climate Science is a religion – no different from Harold Camping or the others who predict the end of the world
                      Frankly the paralells are uncanny.

                      Religion BTW is a fundimental trait of Humans. Humanity has never been without religion.
                      As the modern left abandons christianity or judiasm, they have created something else – Climate religion.

                    2. Mr. Benson,

                      In 1978 I was in Architectural School at GA Tech. The Core of the Architectural curriculm was Sustainable living.

                      Long before Hanson turned up the heat on the Senate, I was designing passive solar homes. Trombe Walls. Dry toilets, … Hyrdoponic gardens in homes.

                      I would note there are many many good design principles – ones that are centuries old that where appropriate improve human comfort and efficiency.

                      Anyway along with this sustainable design indoctrination was the core claim that the world would run out of Oil in 1984.
                      We had to design buildings that would not need fossil fuels.

                      And the entire Architecture department at GA Tech was busy doing just that.

                      We had contests to convert the entire city of Atlanta to Passive solar buildings by 1984.

                      It did not take me long to grasp that as much importance as I placed in efficient buildings this goal was impossible.

                      I realized that even if I managed to build my own fully sustainable home by 1984 that it would require something else not in the curiculum – machine gun nests. Because in a mad max world where only a tiny few had seen impending doom and prepared – the rest would just steal it. This is also what is wrong with right wing preppers. Even if they are right they are irrelevant. Right wing preppers are fundimentally no different from warmists. They have just bought a different end of the world scenario.

                      If by some miracle you were right – and the end of the world was nigh – there is absolutely nothing that can or will be done about it.

                      But you are wrong – and just as 1984 did not bring anything close to the end of oil, so is CAGW a Hoax.

                      Whatever the future actually brings – man will deal with it – from the bottom up, with no need for government.

                      Even the mess that is the pandemic shows us quite well that Top down is a disaster.

                    1. “John B Say, such ignorance! Satellites measure temperatures in the troposphere, not surface temperatures.”

                      David, satellites do not orbit within the troposphere.

                    2. Yup – actually lower troposphere
                      From NASA
                      “The troposphere is the innermost layer of Earth’s atmosphere.”

                      and physics tells us what the temperature gradient will be at every altitude.

                      I would note that thermometer readings which only cover 25% of the earth – mostly badly, are also not taken at the same altitude.

                2. John B Say — Well, I suppose I understand better now why you are full of it: the arrogance of the engineer. I’ve met lots of those.

                  It is clear that you fail to comprehend climatology. Given you claimed background perhaps you. could manage to read Ray’s textbook with some comprehension. So after finishing Chapter 6, do you understand why the average precipitation, global of course, is increasing with a limit of double that of during glacial stadia?

                  There are many more questions. Correct answers to many can be found by going to the Real Climate website and clicking on the ‘Start Here’ button at the top of the page. There are also the books by the Real Climate consortium; one is David Archer’s “The Long Thaw”, not difficult, and also his introductory textbook.

                  Since I doubt you are actually interested in learning some climatology, just wanting to spout off, I’ll wait until you report you have accomplished the above before suggesting more. The the meantime, just how long before it becomes deadly hot and humid on the Ganges River plain?

                    1. Arrhenius is actual science.

                      If you actuall calculate the Arrhenius constants correctly – you MUST get reality.

                      Given that you do not – you do not have the constants accurate.

                      This is the FUNDIMENTAL error of Warmism.

                      Arrhenius tells you nothing more than that GHG’s will all other factors unchanging increase temperature – and that the increase will be proportionate to the 4th root of the energy gained

                      There is no physically determined property for C02 that tells us the energy capture. Close tot he entire warmist debate is over the correct value for ECS.

                      I would note that of course models “correlate”, that is very close to meaningless. They can be off by a factor of 100 and they will still “correlate”

                      Real science requires that they accurately hindcast and forecast.

                      They do not. Forcasting is off by 2.5 std dev.

                      You keep thinking that you can fudge reality.

                      I would also note that you keep introducing conflicting data of YOURS.
                      Some of your claims have been 0.54C over 30 years, others have been 1.1-.8C over similar periods.

                      RSS and UAH are in very close agreement, they are also in agreement with balloon measurements.
                      The various thermometer measures are not even in agreement with each other and in fact are not even in agreement with themselves.

                      They keep flattening the past to make the present curves steeper. And Unlike UAH and RSS they do so without explanation and showing their data.

                      I would note that while UAH and RSS are in close agreement – UAH is Christy and Spensor – Skeptics, while RSS is Mears a warmist.
                      Yet amazingly with open data and open algorithms and open analysis they get very nearly the same results.

                    2. God no – you are citing the Fraudster Tamino ?
                      He has been caught repeatably fudging data.
                      Further he is arguably not a climate scientist – just a propgandist.
                      That is like Citing Rachel Maddow or Alex Jones.

                      UAH and RSS are the only data sources that consistently measure the same thing across the planet uniformly over the past 44 years.

                      Other sources show the same patterns as UAH and RSS but are subject to far more manipulation and error.

                      UAH and RSS both work with the same satelite data collected over the past 44 years and publicly available.

                      They have been subject to intense scrutiny and the periodic adjustments that are made to improve them are completely public and subject to scrutiny.

                      Nothing else holds up.

                  1. David, from what you write, it is evident that you think science is consensus thinking. It isn’t consensus thinking is political.

                    Based on all the errors made by scientists pushing your ideas and based on the failed models, one can only conclude that things are Unsettled. Below is the full name of the book, Unsettled. It would help if you looked at its graphs, many identical to the ones promoted by those pretending to be experts on climate change. This book will take some of the exact same graphs except provide a more extended timeline so one can see the BS being thrown. Koonin is not concluding. He is only trying to give a complete graph so one can decide for themselves.

                    John said it right. Too many advocating climate change do not understand statistics. They use selection to promote their ideas.

                    Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters __Steven Koonin

                  2. I have no interest in reading the Chronicals of Zion, or scientific exegis on the earth centered model of the universe.

                    I have little interest in reading people with a reputation for fraud and lies, who are making arguments that are obviously false.

                    It is possible that 98% of the science in the sources you cite is perfectly correct.
                    You do not seem to grasp that 98% is not good enough.

                    You do not seem to grasp that climate theory could be perfectly correct – and climate Science as applied still a useless disaster – which it obviously is.

                    Much if not all of what makes up actual climate science – is likely fairly good.
                    You keep refering back to Arrhenius as if anyone thinks his equations are wrong – the physics is solid – no one argues that.
                    In fact much of the basic physics demonstrates that without exponentially growing positive feedbacks even steady linear increases in temperature with linear increases in CO2 are not possible.

                    I have addressed multiple problems with climate science – the first is that the physics, the fluid dynamics, as applied to the entire earth have never been calculable by a human much less the most advanced computers we have. We are not even close to being able to run the full mathemtatical models on existing computers at several times realtime.

                    So your first problem is that all that physics and chemistry and science tells us an enormous amount that we can not use to make predictions. It is like trying to identify a black hole with a dime store telescope – it is not happening.

                    Next – after mangling the models – over simplifying to get them to run on existing computers, the results do not accurately hind cast and forecast. The forecasts were off by 2.5 std dev. That does not mean the science is wrong. But it does mean that we can not get from the science to actually predicting. It is like trying to catch a higgs boson with a cloud chamber made from a gallon jug – not happening.

                    Last apparently being a climate scientist means failing statistics.

                  3. Mr. Benson,

                    I have been to every propganda site that you think is a resource decades ago.

                    I have lost track of the number of times they have been caught lying.

                    But as I have written repeatedly – the fundimental problem is that the predictions have FAILED – both the hysterical predictions sold often by climate scientists to the news, and more seriously the preduictions of the computer models.

                    The failure of those predictions is not a catastrophe.
                    Real Scientists fail all the time.
                    But the failure to go back and find the problems and correct is evidence of the fundimental fraud and corruption of climate science.

                    I do not think the computer climate models are fixable. We just do not have the computations capacity to do the actual math for climate yet, and we are not even close. But that does not mean it is not worth some effort to try.

                    But instead “climate scientists” just deny reality. That makes climate science religion.

                    I would note that climate models are several orders of magnitude more complex than economic models.
                    And we are pretty sucky at those too.

                  4. I would suguest that you read someone else – Nasseem Talib. Hr id not a climate scientist, nor an engineer, nor really an economist.
                    He is the author of “The black swan”. He is one of the people who grasped that something was terribly wrong with the markets in 2006 and bet the farm against them and made his entire family incredibly rich.

                    Most importantly he is someone capable of critical thinking, and if you are not a complete dolt, capable of teaching you critical thinking.

                    He will not teach you about climate or politics. I do not recall him addressing either. But he will teach you how to grasp when stories you are being sold are off, wrong.

                    And he is just the start. Given the people you appear to be influenced – you should go to a great deal of trouble to seek out the best of the experts that disagree with your experts.

                    I HAVE read most of the people you trust. I doubt you have read any of those who disagree.

                    “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

                    ― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

                    Mill would be another place to start.

                    I am pretty sure he never writes about Climate, but you could learn alot about how to critically think from him.

                  5. I will start reading the people you recomend when the earth starts behaving as warmists predict.

                    1. But it now does so behave:
                      (1) The unprecedented heat blob in the Pacific Northwest last year, a “black swan” once in. million years event, barring global warming.
                      (2) The pre-monsoon temperatures in India.
                      (3) The heat death of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia.
                      (4) Ice shelf collapse in Greenland and Antarctica.

                    2. You demonstrate a terrible understanding of probability and statistics. This is similar to data mining.

                  6. I can not seem to link back to your post claiming 1.2K increase since 1880.

                    The rate of increase since about 1750 has been 0.11C/decade or 1.1C/century.
                    Which is about the same as 1.2C since 1880. Obviously the error bars going back intime grown enormous.
                    The earliest thermomenter temp records are 1645, and a few readings in Europe is NOT a global temperature.
                    Even today the accuracy of temperature records in different parts of the world is greatly varied.

                    Human CO2 output was incapable of having any noticable impact on Climate before 1960 at the earliest.

                    Depending on whatever actually credible source you use the rate of warming since 1979 has been between 0.10 and 0.13C/decade – very close to the rate from 1880 to the present according to YOUR source.

                    With a huge error bar I will agree that 2100 is likely to be about 1C warmer than 2000.
                    That is not enough to be concerned about.

                    I would also suggest that you serious look at the physics – absent positive feedback which there exists today no proof of, and infact the NORM for all natural processes is negative feedback so that the self regulate, warming MUST slow or CO2 MUST increase exponentially. CO2 is increasing very close to linearly.

                    Even you should be able to figure out with some water a thermometer and a hotplate that linear increases in energy will result is far less than linear increases in temperature.

                    This is REALLY BASIC science. You should have learned it in middle school.

                    1. John B Say, for temperatures, K stands for kelvin, the SI unit of temperature. A difference of one degree Celsius is the same as a difference of one kelvin.

                      And to show just how little you understand, temperature is the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the substance.

                      So I was wrong about you. How did you ever pass Physics 101?

                      Maybe you were just the draftsman on that bridge you mentioned “designing”?

                  7. Mr. Benson,

                    I am not an engineer or scientist, or …. I am a crtitical thinker.

                    I am not going to dump my CV into a pseudonymous post on, but my real world successes and experiences are more than sufficient to identify some idiot in an ivory tower that does not know what they are talking about and take them down a peg or two.

                    You do not have to be expert at most anything o spot fraud or error – though I am expert at quite alot.

                    I would note that a Plumber from the UK took a course in Psychology and was taught priming, and said this was BS, It took several years and more education and collaboartion, but eventually he was able to publich a paper that completely discredited priming.
                    But worse, this was the straw that broke the camels back and subsequently the field of psychology went back over decades of core theories and found many of them would not replicate. Psychology is in the process of rebuilding from ash – because of a plumber in England.

                    What have you actually accomplished lately ?

          3. NO almost certain is the actual standard for a criminal conviction.

            Though I would note the standard for a claim that the election was stolen – not a criminal conviction is “more likely than not” and that is met a thousand times over.

            “An assumption based on lack of evidence is not a certainty. It’s just biased speculation or more simply BS.”
            True but irrelevant.

            There is plenty of evidence. There is more evidence than exists in most criminal convictions.

            Please take a course in probability and statistics.

            The probability of each data point being fraud or an innocent activity is calculable.
            The probability of the pattern of activity being fraud or innocent is also calculable.
            The probability of video of someone placing 5 ballots in a ballot box being fraud is calculable.

            The probability of each of all of these together being fraud is calculable.

            The odds that more than 1% of the TTV identified Fraud being error is astronomically low.

            This is about as good as it gets.

            The geotracking data is probably more accurate than the video.

          4. Svelaz

            Go watch a trial of a drug dealer.

            You are clueless.

            You are so far away from the actual legal standards it is laughable.

            If they had a single geotraking ping placing OJ near nichole on the night she was murdered – he would have been convicted.

            1. John– “If they had a single geotraking ping placing OJ near nichole on the night she was murdered – he would have been convicted.”


              Probably not. That jury would have hung or acquitted even if they had video of OJ killing her.

              Jury nullification.

      1. As a committed leftist, are you saying that America should provide the entire world with infant formula at the expense of its own?

        Do you believe infant formula grows on trees for free, or do you recognize that American citizens work their butts off to pay for things like infant formula?

        1. What do you want, anyway? Abbott Labs, that makes, coincidentally, 43% of American infant formula (the exact proportion for which there is a shortage) had to shut down its main plant because of bacterial contamination that killed 2 babies and sickened numerous others. The FDA required closure, cleaning and inspection before allowing reopening. Would you have them continue to put out adulterated formula? The plant still hasn’t re-opened, which tells me that they don’t have the problem under control. Therefore, the Biden Administration is importing infant formula from other countries that meets our standards.

          Americans need to be more resilient. There were commercial formulas around even when my older brother was born (my mom nearly died in childbirth, so it had to be formula), but parents made their own “formula” by mixing condensed milk, sterile water and corn syrup in various proportions and putting it in bottles and then sterilizing the bottles, contents and all. In fact, MeTv recently showed an episode of “Perry Mason” called “The Case of the Borrowed Baby”, in which an abandoned infant left at Mason’s office had his formula recipe attached to his blanket. Formula prepared from condensed milk was supplemented with liquid vitamins, like Tri Vi Sol and there was Tri Vi Flor for breast fed babies, to provide the fluoride that isn’t in breast milk for strong tooth development. I realize that babies who are allergic to cow’s milk can’t use this formula, but there’s always goat milk, which was an alternative for allergic babies even before I was born. If all else fails, there are breast milk banks or volunteer lactating mothers who will share. What isn’t necessary is panicking over a situation that is unfortunate but can’t be helped at this point.

          What really needs to be done with infant formulas, as well as meat production, is to decentralize production so that if one facility goes down due to contamination there aren’t shortages.

          1. It is not true that the Abbott formula was contaminated at the plant, according to the CDC. That is a Biden administration lie.

    1. Biden to American parents:

      Need baby formula? Tough. We’re sacrificing you, and your babies, to the needs of immigrants.

      1. BS. The federal government has a legal responsibility to provide food for infants in federal detention. Only an idiot thinks that implies “Americans are less deserving than illegal aliens.” Americans in need of formula have non-federal assistance to obtain it. Amazing that the conservatives who tout federalism when it serves them willfully choose not to understand this.

        1. The job of the head of a household is to feed his kids first. You haven’t learned that concept, except we all know that you would feed your kids while pretending otherwise. You are virtue signaling hoping everyone will follow so that you can benefit from everyone else’s generosity.

Leave a Reply