THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 22, 2019
An Open Letter to our Representatives on Climate Change
This letter was sent to our local elected officials by student Nick Gomer. Nick grew up in Cape Charles and is currently in his final year at the University of Virginia pursuing a degree in Global Environments and Sustainability.
Senator Lewis and Representative Bloxom,
I write to you to encourage the swift creation and support of stringent environmental legislation in the upcoming general assembly.
I am a graduate of Broadwater Academy and soon-to-be graduate of the University of Virginia with a degree in environmental sustainability.
In my time as a student I have extensively studied climate change and the severe impacts of this problem ranging from mass species extinction to dramatic sea-level rise to widespread food and water shortages.
I have also studied how many of these problems will disproportionately affect those who have done the least to create climate change, namely low-income people and people of color.
Meanwhile, in my time as a resident of Cape Charles I have directly seen the effects of our environmental degradation occur as our town floods more and more often and as the barrier islands are increasingly washed away by each passing storm.
Mitigating climate change, however, is not a matter of individual responsibility.
Rather, ensuring an environmentally-inhabitable future will be the result of sweeping reforms that must happen at a systematic level.
Virginia’s impending entry to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative will be taken as good news, yet still it will be a day late and a dollar short.
The Virginia legislature must act boldly to be a voice of regional environmental leadership to fill the total void of federal environmental leadership.
Our commonwealth must listen to the outcry of its citizens and reject Dominion Energy’s proposal for an unnecessary pipeline to transport methane, a greenhouse gas far more potent than CO2.
We must instead invest in the enormous potential of offshore wind in our state which would create both clean renewable energy and a workforce to build and manage that new infrastructure.
We must invest in local and statewide public transit which would not only initiate dramatic reductions of fossil fuel emissions but also ensure a more equitable economy and society.
I ask for your service in creating and supporting progressive and necessary legislation such as this as a citizen and a constituent.
But, I also ask for your service for this issue specifically because it is an existential threat to humanity, and I, as a young person who has done nothing to create this problem will be dealing with climate change’s growing effects for the rest of my life.
-Nick Gomer
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-212459
ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT
Re: ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT
I have to say that when I was made aware of this above open letter to Senator Lewis and Representative Bloxom of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the Cape Charles Mirror by a friend, after reading it, my response would have started by saying to this college student Nick Gomer that speaking as an engineer with a Master's degree in environmental engineering who was involved in the study of our atmosphere as part of the New York state Department of Health Div. of Air Pollution Control back in 1966, and who has been involved in that study ever since, especially as an associate level public health engineer, it is my impression from reading his appeal to his senator and representative that he has had his head filled with **** by those who he thinks have "educated" him, when it very much sounds like he has been indoctrinated, instead, especially with that infantile horsecrap about how he has studied how many of these problems will disproportionately affect those who have done the least to create climate change, namely low-income people and people of color.
I would say to him that since he is entering the world of ADULTS, not scared children, I would request that he PROVE that statement that these problems will disproportionately affect those who have done the least to create climate change, namely low-income people and people of color with FACTS, not hysterical HYPE, and I would follow that up by saying that I'm sitting here betting that he can't prove that statement, because there is not a shred of objective proof that it is so.
And then I would focus him in on this absolute gem, to wit:
"I, as a young person who has done nothing to create this problem will be dealing with climate change’s growing effects for the rest of my life."
end quotes
My response to that would have to be, "So Nick, you are innocent?"
"Is that what you would truly have us believe?"
"So, you don't exhale, then?"
"Because if you do exhale, Nick, you are a carbon dioxide emitter, which makes you a part of the problem."
"And do you have a cell phone, Nick?"
"Have you tracked the carbon footprint of a cell phone in your time as a student extensively studying climate change and the severe impacts of this problem ranging from mass species extinction to dramatic sea-level rise to widespread food and water shortages?"
And then I would have to inquire of him as to whether while he was engaged in this extensive study of his of climate change, did he perhaps come across this from CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD, Second Edition, by H.H. Lamb, in the section in the section "THE MORE OR LESS WORLD-WIDE WARMTH OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, EXCEEDING THAT OF MOST RECENT CENTURIES," where Dr. Lamb informs all of us adults, and children for that matter, as follows:
The warming generally seems to have begun around 1700 and has gone through a number of rapid phases as well as some sharp setbacks, one of which between about 1780 and 1850 brought things back to more or less as they were before it.
It seems that a number of different factors have contributed to the sequence, among them variations in the amount of volcanic activity which loads the atmosphere with dust, gases and vapours that may still be carried and veil the suns radiation for some years after the greatest eruptions, as well as the larger sizes of debris that soon fall out.
The strength and constitution of the solar beam itself are also subject to some variations.
And changes in the amount of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere, as well as variations of the water vapour content, and of cloudiness, must also be expected to affect the climate.
It now seems necessary to admit — though this is seldom mentioned in recent literature — that none of these variations explains the timing of the general warming and cooling phases altogether satisfactorily, certainly not as well as widely claimed.
end quotes
After bringing that to his attention, I would ask him as to whether those who indoctrinated him at the University of Virginia where he is pursuing a degree in Global Environments and Sustainability happened to bring any of that to his attention during his so-called studies?
Or did they skip over that in their efforts to make him believe, and in turn, to have him make us believe, as if we were all in awe of the superior knowledge and wisdom a young person at the University of Virginia pursuing a degree in Global Environments and Sustainability, that these "problems" he cannot quantify will disproportionately affect those who have done the least to create climate change, namely low-income people and people of color?
Getting back to Dr. Lamb:
In particular, the onset of the sharp warming phase around 1700, and the mid-twentieth-century cooling from about the 1940s to the early 1980s, are not well accounted for.
end quotes
Based on that statement, I would ask Nick to tell us how he accounts for them, given that he would have us believe that his education is right up to date?
Could he perhaps educate us in turn about his theories as to why the onset of the sharp warming phase around 1700, and the mid-twentieth-century cooling from about the 1940s to the early 1980s, are not well accounted for?
Or would it be a case of where he is unaware of those happenings, because they occurred before he was born?
Getting back to Dr. Lamb:
Nor is the magnitude, nor the distribution, of warming and cooling over the Earth in good agreement with most global warming model predictions.
Even the great warmth of the years 1989–91, hailed in some quarters as proof of the reality of the predicted global warming due to the enhancement of the greenhouse effect by increasing carbon dioxide and other effluents, requires the usual adjustments.
But it may also have a surprising analogy in the past to the remarkable warmth — well attested in Europe — of the year 1540, shortly before the sharpest onset of the so-called Little Ice Age.
Pfister records that for several decades before 1564 the climate in Switzerland — and this seems to be in line with the implications of other European chronicles — was on average about 0.4°C warmer, and slightly drier, than today.
The summers in the 1530s were at least as warm as in the warmest ten years of the present century, between 1943 and 1952.
And the year 1540 outdid the warm dry year 1947 appreciably.
end quotes
That, I would have to say to Nick, is REALITY.
As is this:
From February till mid-December 1540 rain fell in Basle on only ten days.
And young people were still bathing in the Rhine on the Swiss-German border at Schaffhausen in the first week of January 1541 after a ten-months-long bathing season.
The warm anomaly of 1540 is the more remarkable because the weather then became severely wintry, and spring came late in 1541.
Moreover, only twenty-four years later the 1564–5 winter was one of the longest and severest in the whole millennium in most parts of Europe and marked the arrival of the most notable cold climate period of the Little Ice Age, with ten to twenty historic winters, very late springs, cool summers and advancing glaciers.
end quotes
And I would conclude by asking, "Any thoughts to share with us on REALITY, Nick?"
Followed by saying "As for me, dude, personally, I would be down to the Office of the Bursar tomarrow morning demanding my money back on the grounds that the University of Virginia degree program in Global Environments and Sustainability has filled your head with garbage while giving you a flawed, second-rate education which has you spewing mindless crap like little Greta Thunberg."
But given that I am old now, and young Nick is nowhere near, then I will say all of that in here, and with luck, perhaps these words will make their way back to young Nick in Cape Charles, Virginia, as his words above here made their way back to me.
I would say to him that since he is entering the world of ADULTS, not scared children, I would request that he PROVE that statement that these problems will disproportionately affect those who have done the least to create climate change, namely low-income people and people of color with FACTS, not hysterical HYPE, and I would follow that up by saying that I'm sitting here betting that he can't prove that statement, because there is not a shred of objective proof that it is so.
And then I would focus him in on this absolute gem, to wit:
"I, as a young person who has done nothing to create this problem will be dealing with climate change’s growing effects for the rest of my life."
end quotes
My response to that would have to be, "So Nick, you are innocent?"
"Is that what you would truly have us believe?"
"So, you don't exhale, then?"
"Because if you do exhale, Nick, you are a carbon dioxide emitter, which makes you a part of the problem."
"And do you have a cell phone, Nick?"
"Have you tracked the carbon footprint of a cell phone in your time as a student extensively studying climate change and the severe impacts of this problem ranging from mass species extinction to dramatic sea-level rise to widespread food and water shortages?"
And then I would have to inquire of him as to whether while he was engaged in this extensive study of his of climate change, did he perhaps come across this from CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD, Second Edition, by H.H. Lamb, in the section in the section "THE MORE OR LESS WORLD-WIDE WARMTH OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, EXCEEDING THAT OF MOST RECENT CENTURIES," where Dr. Lamb informs all of us adults, and children for that matter, as follows:
The warming generally seems to have begun around 1700 and has gone through a number of rapid phases as well as some sharp setbacks, one of which between about 1780 and 1850 brought things back to more or less as they were before it.
It seems that a number of different factors have contributed to the sequence, among them variations in the amount of volcanic activity which loads the atmosphere with dust, gases and vapours that may still be carried and veil the suns radiation for some years after the greatest eruptions, as well as the larger sizes of debris that soon fall out.
The strength and constitution of the solar beam itself are also subject to some variations.
And changes in the amount of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere, as well as variations of the water vapour content, and of cloudiness, must also be expected to affect the climate.
It now seems necessary to admit — though this is seldom mentioned in recent literature — that none of these variations explains the timing of the general warming and cooling phases altogether satisfactorily, certainly not as well as widely claimed.
end quotes
After bringing that to his attention, I would ask him as to whether those who indoctrinated him at the University of Virginia where he is pursuing a degree in Global Environments and Sustainability happened to bring any of that to his attention during his so-called studies?
Or did they skip over that in their efforts to make him believe, and in turn, to have him make us believe, as if we were all in awe of the superior knowledge and wisdom a young person at the University of Virginia pursuing a degree in Global Environments and Sustainability, that these "problems" he cannot quantify will disproportionately affect those who have done the least to create climate change, namely low-income people and people of color?
Getting back to Dr. Lamb:
In particular, the onset of the sharp warming phase around 1700, and the mid-twentieth-century cooling from about the 1940s to the early 1980s, are not well accounted for.
end quotes
Based on that statement, I would ask Nick to tell us how he accounts for them, given that he would have us believe that his education is right up to date?
Could he perhaps educate us in turn about his theories as to why the onset of the sharp warming phase around 1700, and the mid-twentieth-century cooling from about the 1940s to the early 1980s, are not well accounted for?
Or would it be a case of where he is unaware of those happenings, because they occurred before he was born?
Getting back to Dr. Lamb:
Nor is the magnitude, nor the distribution, of warming and cooling over the Earth in good agreement with most global warming model predictions.
Even the great warmth of the years 1989–91, hailed in some quarters as proof of the reality of the predicted global warming due to the enhancement of the greenhouse effect by increasing carbon dioxide and other effluents, requires the usual adjustments.
But it may also have a surprising analogy in the past to the remarkable warmth — well attested in Europe — of the year 1540, shortly before the sharpest onset of the so-called Little Ice Age.
Pfister records that for several decades before 1564 the climate in Switzerland — and this seems to be in line with the implications of other European chronicles — was on average about 0.4°C warmer, and slightly drier, than today.
The summers in the 1530s were at least as warm as in the warmest ten years of the present century, between 1943 and 1952.
And the year 1540 outdid the warm dry year 1947 appreciably.
end quotes
That, I would have to say to Nick, is REALITY.
As is this:
From February till mid-December 1540 rain fell in Basle on only ten days.
And young people were still bathing in the Rhine on the Swiss-German border at Schaffhausen in the first week of January 1541 after a ten-months-long bathing season.
The warm anomaly of 1540 is the more remarkable because the weather then became severely wintry, and spring came late in 1541.
Moreover, only twenty-four years later the 1564–5 winter was one of the longest and severest in the whole millennium in most parts of Europe and marked the arrival of the most notable cold climate period of the Little Ice Age, with ten to twenty historic winters, very late springs, cool summers and advancing glaciers.
end quotes
And I would conclude by asking, "Any thoughts to share with us on REALITY, Nick?"
Followed by saying "As for me, dude, personally, I would be down to the Office of the Bursar tomarrow morning demanding my money back on the grounds that the University of Virginia degree program in Global Environments and Sustainability has filled your head with garbage while giving you a flawed, second-rate education which has you spewing mindless crap like little Greta Thunberg."
But given that I am old now, and young Nick is nowhere near, then I will say all of that in here, and with luck, perhaps these words will make their way back to young Nick in Cape Charles, Virginia, as his words above here made their way back to me.
Re: ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT
And by way of documented background for some context here with respect to Nick Gomer's above statement that "Meanwhile, in my time as a resident of Cape Charles I have directly seen the effects of our environmental degradation occur as our town floods more and more often and as the barrier islands are increasingly washed away by each passing storm," to wit:
THE HURRICANE HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN VIRGINIA
Continuous weather records for the Hampton Roads Area of Virginia began on January 1, 1871 when the National Weather Service was established in downtown Norfolk.
The recorded history of significant tropical storms that affected the area goes back much further.
Prior to 1871, very early storms have been located in ship logs, newspaper accounts, history books, and countless other writings.
The residents of coastal Virginia during Colonial times were very much aware of the weather.
They were a people that lived near the water and largely derived their livelihood from the sea.
To them, a tropical storm was indeed a noteworthy event.
The excellent records left by some of Virginia’s early settlers and from official records of the National Weather Service are summarized below.
Learning from the past will help us prepare for the future.
SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES
1635 August 24: First historical reference to a major hurricane that could have affected the VA coast.
1667 September 6: It appears likely this hurricane caused the widening of the Lynnhaven River. The Bay rose 12 feet above normal and many people had to flee.
1693 October 29: From the Royal Society of London, There happened a most violent storm in VA which stopped the course of ancient channels and made some where there never were any.
1749 October 19: Tremendous hurricane. A sand spit of 800 acres was washed up and with the help of a hurricane in 1806 it became Willoughby Spit. The Bay rose 15 feet above normal.
Historical records list the following tropical storms as causing significant damage in Virginia: September 1761; October 1761; September 1769; September 1775; October 1783; September 1785; July 1788.
NINETEENTH CENTURY
1806 August 23: Called the Great Coastal Hurricane of 1806.
1821 September 3: The Norfolk-Long Island Hurricane. One of the most violent hurricanes on record. Ships in Norfolk were washed ashore by winds, waves, and storm surge. Storm surge estimated to be around 10 feet in some areas.
1846 September 8: Hatteras and Oregon Inlets were formed.
1876 September 17: Average 5 minute wind speed at Cape Henry was 78 mph; 8.32" of rain
1878 October 23: Cobb and Smith Islands, on the Eastern Shore, were completely submerged. Average 5 minute wind at Cape Henry was 84 mph. Eighteen died when the A.S. Davis went ashore near Virginia Beach.
1879 August 18: Tide in Norfolk 7.77 feet above Mean Lower Low Water. Average 5 minute wind speed at Cape Henry 76 mph with 100 mph estimated gusts.
1887 October 31: Average 5 minute wind speed at Cape Henry 78 mph. The storm caused a record number of marine disasters.
1893 August 23: Average 5 minute wind speed at Cape Henry 88 mph.
1894 September 29: Five minute wind speed at Cape Henry 80 mph; gusts to 90 mph.
1897 October 25: Lasted 60 hours. Norfolk tides 8.1 feet above Mean Lower Low Water.
1899 October 31: Average 5 minute wind at Cape Henry 72 mph. Tide in Norfolk reached 8.9 feet above MLLW.
Noteworthy storms also occurred in June 1825, August 1837, August 1850 and September 1856.
TWENTIETH CENTURY
1903 October 10: Average 5 minute wind speed at Cape Henry 74 mph, the tide in Norfolk reached 9 feet above MLLW.
1924 August 26: Average 1 minute wind speed 72 mph at Cape Henry.
1924 September 30: Fastest 1 minute wind speed in Norfolk 76 mph.
1926 August 22: Fastest 1 minute wind speed in Cape Henry 74 mph.
1928 September 19: Fastest 1 minute wind speed at Cape Henry 72 mph. The tide reached 7.16 feet above MLLW in Norfolk.
1933 August 23: This hurricane established record high tide of 9.8 feet above Mean Lower Low Water. 18 people died. Highest 1 minute wind speed in Norfolk was 70 mph, 82 mph at Cape Henry, and 88 mph at NAS, Norfolk.
1933 September 16: Fastest 1 minute wind speed was 88 mph at NAS, Norfolk, 75 mph at the NWS City Office, and 87 mph at Cape Henry. The tide reached 8.3 feet above MLLW.
1936 September 18: The fastest 1 minute wind speed was 84 mph at Cape Henry and 68 mph at the NWS City Office. The tide reached 9.3 feet above MLLW and is the second highest tide of record.
1944 September 14: Fastest 1 minute wind speed was 134 mph at Cape Henry which is the highest speed of record in this area. Gusts were estimated to 150 mph. The NWS City Office recorded 72 mph with gusts to 90 mph.
1953 August 14: BARBARA. The fastest 1 minute wind speed was 72 mph at Cape Henry, 63 mph with gusts to 76 mph at Norfolk Airport.
1954 October 15: HAZEL. Fastest 1 minute wind speed was 78 mph at Norfolk Airport with gusts to 100 mph which is the highest wind speed of record for the Norfolk Airport location. A reliable instrument in Hampton recorded 130 mph.
1959 September 30: GRACIE. Passed through western Virginia, 6.79 inches of rain at Norfolk Airport in 24 hours. Storm spawned a tornado eight miles west of Charlottesville, killing 11 people.
1960 September 12: DONNA. Fastest 1 minute wind speed was 73 mph at Norfolk Airport, 80 mph at Cape Henry and estimated 138 mph at Chesapeake Light Ship. Lowest pressure of 28.65 inches holds the area record for a tropical storm. 3 deaths.
1964 September 1: CLEO. A storm noted for its rain. 11.40 inches in 24 hours is the heaviest in the coastal area since records began in 1871.
1969 August 19: CAMILLE. Made landfall in Mississippi on August 17. The storm tracked northward and dumped a record 27 inches of rain in the Virginia mountains, primarily in Nelson County. Flash flooding took the lives of 153 people.
1971 August 27: DORIA. The fastest 1 minute wind speed 52 mph at Norfolk Airport and 71 mph at NAS, Norfolk.
1972 June 21: AGNES. Made landfall on the Gulf Coast of Florida. As the storm crossed Virginia, it dumped 13.6 inches of rain on the east slopes of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The James River crested at a record high in Richmond. Virginia sustained $222 million in damage, and 17 people died, mostly from flash flooding.
1979 September 5: DAVID. Passed through central Virginia. Spawned 2 severe tornadoes - one in Newport News with over $2 million in damage and one in Hampton with a half million dollars in damage.
1985 September 27: GLORIA. Passed 45 miles east of Cape Henry. Fastest 1 minute wind speed WNW 46 mph, peak gust 67 mph at the Airport, NE 94 mph gust to 104 mph at the South Island CBBT. Highest tide 5.3 feet above Mean Lower Low Water, storm rainfall 5.65 inches and total Virginia damage $5.5 million. Considerable storm surge flooding in Chincoteague, with many sections of town flooded. Winds up to 100 mph reported.
1986 August 17: CHARLEY. The weak center passed over southeast Virginia Beach. Fastest 1 minute wind speed NNE 40 mph gust E 63 mph at Norfolk International Airport; NE 94 mph gust to 104 mph at South Island CBBT; and NE 54 mph gust to 82 mph at Cape Henry. Highest tide 5.5 feet above MLLW. Less than $1 million in damage in Virginia.
1996 July 12-13: BERTHA. Passed over portions of Suffolk and Newport News. Fastest 1 minute wind speed SE 35 mph gust to 48 mph at Norfolk International Airport. Bertha spawned 4 tornadoes across east central Virginia. The strongest, an F1 tornado moved over Northumberland county injuring 9 persons and causing damages of several million dollars. Other tornadoes moved over Smithfield, Gloucester and Hampton.
1996 September 5: FRAN. Passed well west of the area over Danville. Fastest 1 minute wind speed SE 41 mph gust to 47 mph at Norfolk International Airport. Rainfall amounted to only 0.20 of an inch In Norfolk.
1998 August 27: BONNIE. Tracked over the northern Outer Banks. Fastest 1 minute wind speed NE 46 mph with gust to 64 mph at Norfolk Airport. NE 90 mph with gust to 104 mph at CBBT. 4-7 inches of rain combined with near hurricane force winds knocked out power to 320,000 customers. Highest tide 6.0 FT above MLLW. Most significant storm since 1960.
1999 August 30-September 4: DENNIS. Produced one of the most prolonged period of tropical storm conditions in eastern Virginia. Fastest 1 minute wind speed NE 43 mph with gust to 53 mph at Norfolk Int’l Airport. Storm total rainfall 3.30 inches. Significant beach erosion reported.
1999 September 6: FLOYD. Passed directly over Virginia Beach on a track similar to Hurricane Donna in1960. Lowest pressure of 28.85" (977 MB) at Norfolk Int’l Airport 4th lowest for a hurricane this century. Fastest 1 minute wind NE 31 mph with gust to 46 mph. Rainfall 6.80" with amounts of 12-18" in interior portions eastern Virginia. Franklin, VA reported 500 year flood of record. Largest peacetime evacuation in U.S. History.
THE HURRICANE HISTORY OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN VIRGINIA
Continuous weather records for the Hampton Roads Area of Virginia began on January 1, 1871 when the National Weather Service was established in downtown Norfolk.
The recorded history of significant tropical storms that affected the area goes back much further.
Prior to 1871, very early storms have been located in ship logs, newspaper accounts, history books, and countless other writings.
The residents of coastal Virginia during Colonial times were very much aware of the weather.
They were a people that lived near the water and largely derived their livelihood from the sea.
To them, a tropical storm was indeed a noteworthy event.
The excellent records left by some of Virginia’s early settlers and from official records of the National Weather Service are summarized below.
Learning from the past will help us prepare for the future.
SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES
1635 August 24: First historical reference to a major hurricane that could have affected the VA coast.
1667 September 6: It appears likely this hurricane caused the widening of the Lynnhaven River. The Bay rose 12 feet above normal and many people had to flee.
1693 October 29: From the Royal Society of London, There happened a most violent storm in VA which stopped the course of ancient channels and made some where there never were any.
1749 October 19: Tremendous hurricane. A sand spit of 800 acres was washed up and with the help of a hurricane in 1806 it became Willoughby Spit. The Bay rose 15 feet above normal.
Historical records list the following tropical storms as causing significant damage in Virginia: September 1761; October 1761; September 1769; September 1775; October 1783; September 1785; July 1788.
NINETEENTH CENTURY
1806 August 23: Called the Great Coastal Hurricane of 1806.
1821 September 3: The Norfolk-Long Island Hurricane. One of the most violent hurricanes on record. Ships in Norfolk were washed ashore by winds, waves, and storm surge. Storm surge estimated to be around 10 feet in some areas.
1846 September 8: Hatteras and Oregon Inlets were formed.
1876 September 17: Average 5 minute wind speed at Cape Henry was 78 mph; 8.32" of rain
1878 October 23: Cobb and Smith Islands, on the Eastern Shore, were completely submerged. Average 5 minute wind at Cape Henry was 84 mph. Eighteen died when the A.S. Davis went ashore near Virginia Beach.
1879 August 18: Tide in Norfolk 7.77 feet above Mean Lower Low Water. Average 5 minute wind speed at Cape Henry 76 mph with 100 mph estimated gusts.
1887 October 31: Average 5 minute wind speed at Cape Henry 78 mph. The storm caused a record number of marine disasters.
1893 August 23: Average 5 minute wind speed at Cape Henry 88 mph.
1894 September 29: Five minute wind speed at Cape Henry 80 mph; gusts to 90 mph.
1897 October 25: Lasted 60 hours. Norfolk tides 8.1 feet above Mean Lower Low Water.
1899 October 31: Average 5 minute wind at Cape Henry 72 mph. Tide in Norfolk reached 8.9 feet above MLLW.
Noteworthy storms also occurred in June 1825, August 1837, August 1850 and September 1856.
TWENTIETH CENTURY
1903 October 10: Average 5 minute wind speed at Cape Henry 74 mph, the tide in Norfolk reached 9 feet above MLLW.
1924 August 26: Average 1 minute wind speed 72 mph at Cape Henry.
1924 September 30: Fastest 1 minute wind speed in Norfolk 76 mph.
1926 August 22: Fastest 1 minute wind speed in Cape Henry 74 mph.
1928 September 19: Fastest 1 minute wind speed at Cape Henry 72 mph. The tide reached 7.16 feet above MLLW in Norfolk.
1933 August 23: This hurricane established record high tide of 9.8 feet above Mean Lower Low Water. 18 people died. Highest 1 minute wind speed in Norfolk was 70 mph, 82 mph at Cape Henry, and 88 mph at NAS, Norfolk.
1933 September 16: Fastest 1 minute wind speed was 88 mph at NAS, Norfolk, 75 mph at the NWS City Office, and 87 mph at Cape Henry. The tide reached 8.3 feet above MLLW.
1936 September 18: The fastest 1 minute wind speed was 84 mph at Cape Henry and 68 mph at the NWS City Office. The tide reached 9.3 feet above MLLW and is the second highest tide of record.
1944 September 14: Fastest 1 minute wind speed was 134 mph at Cape Henry which is the highest speed of record in this area. Gusts were estimated to 150 mph. The NWS City Office recorded 72 mph with gusts to 90 mph.
1953 August 14: BARBARA. The fastest 1 minute wind speed was 72 mph at Cape Henry, 63 mph with gusts to 76 mph at Norfolk Airport.
1954 October 15: HAZEL. Fastest 1 minute wind speed was 78 mph at Norfolk Airport with gusts to 100 mph which is the highest wind speed of record for the Norfolk Airport location. A reliable instrument in Hampton recorded 130 mph.
1959 September 30: GRACIE. Passed through western Virginia, 6.79 inches of rain at Norfolk Airport in 24 hours. Storm spawned a tornado eight miles west of Charlottesville, killing 11 people.
1960 September 12: DONNA. Fastest 1 minute wind speed was 73 mph at Norfolk Airport, 80 mph at Cape Henry and estimated 138 mph at Chesapeake Light Ship. Lowest pressure of 28.65 inches holds the area record for a tropical storm. 3 deaths.
1964 September 1: CLEO. A storm noted for its rain. 11.40 inches in 24 hours is the heaviest in the coastal area since records began in 1871.
1969 August 19: CAMILLE. Made landfall in Mississippi on August 17. The storm tracked northward and dumped a record 27 inches of rain in the Virginia mountains, primarily in Nelson County. Flash flooding took the lives of 153 people.
1971 August 27: DORIA. The fastest 1 minute wind speed 52 mph at Norfolk Airport and 71 mph at NAS, Norfolk.
1972 June 21: AGNES. Made landfall on the Gulf Coast of Florida. As the storm crossed Virginia, it dumped 13.6 inches of rain on the east slopes of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The James River crested at a record high in Richmond. Virginia sustained $222 million in damage, and 17 people died, mostly from flash flooding.
1979 September 5: DAVID. Passed through central Virginia. Spawned 2 severe tornadoes - one in Newport News with over $2 million in damage and one in Hampton with a half million dollars in damage.
1985 September 27: GLORIA. Passed 45 miles east of Cape Henry. Fastest 1 minute wind speed WNW 46 mph, peak gust 67 mph at the Airport, NE 94 mph gust to 104 mph at the South Island CBBT. Highest tide 5.3 feet above Mean Lower Low Water, storm rainfall 5.65 inches and total Virginia damage $5.5 million. Considerable storm surge flooding in Chincoteague, with many sections of town flooded. Winds up to 100 mph reported.
1986 August 17: CHARLEY. The weak center passed over southeast Virginia Beach. Fastest 1 minute wind speed NNE 40 mph gust E 63 mph at Norfolk International Airport; NE 94 mph gust to 104 mph at South Island CBBT; and NE 54 mph gust to 82 mph at Cape Henry. Highest tide 5.5 feet above MLLW. Less than $1 million in damage in Virginia.
1996 July 12-13: BERTHA. Passed over portions of Suffolk and Newport News. Fastest 1 minute wind speed SE 35 mph gust to 48 mph at Norfolk International Airport. Bertha spawned 4 tornadoes across east central Virginia. The strongest, an F1 tornado moved over Northumberland county injuring 9 persons and causing damages of several million dollars. Other tornadoes moved over Smithfield, Gloucester and Hampton.
1996 September 5: FRAN. Passed well west of the area over Danville. Fastest 1 minute wind speed SE 41 mph gust to 47 mph at Norfolk International Airport. Rainfall amounted to only 0.20 of an inch In Norfolk.
1998 August 27: BONNIE. Tracked over the northern Outer Banks. Fastest 1 minute wind speed NE 46 mph with gust to 64 mph at Norfolk Airport. NE 90 mph with gust to 104 mph at CBBT. 4-7 inches of rain combined with near hurricane force winds knocked out power to 320,000 customers. Highest tide 6.0 FT above MLLW. Most significant storm since 1960.
1999 August 30-September 4: DENNIS. Produced one of the most prolonged period of tropical storm conditions in eastern Virginia. Fastest 1 minute wind speed NE 43 mph with gust to 53 mph at Norfolk Int’l Airport. Storm total rainfall 3.30 inches. Significant beach erosion reported.
1999 September 6: FLOYD. Passed directly over Virginia Beach on a track similar to Hurricane Donna in1960. Lowest pressure of 28.85" (977 MB) at Norfolk Int’l Airport 4th lowest for a hurricane this century. Fastest 1 minute wind NE 31 mph with gust to 46 mph. Rainfall 6.80" with amounts of 12-18" in interior portions eastern Virginia. Franklin, VA reported 500 year flood of record. Largest peacetime evacuation in U.S. History.
Re: ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT
So, before we go further here, because there is much further yet to go on this subject, we need to address this important question, to wit:
What exactly is the "Greenhouse Gas Theory" that is causing all this media hysteria today, and where did the theory come from?
And the proper answer to that important question is that the Greenhouse Gas Theory itself was derived as a response to the conundrum that according to "science," the earth should be too cold to support life as we know it based on its distance from the sun, which raised the question several hundred years ago now as to why the earth does support life, when science says it should be otherwise.
In the Preface to his seminal work WORLDS IN THE MAKING - THE EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE by Svante Arrhenius, Director of the Physico-Chemical Nobel Institute in Stockholm, Sweden translated by Dr. H. Borns and published March, 1908, Arrhenius started the discussion on that serious subject as follows with this necessary background to understanding the science, to wit:
WHEN, more than six years ago, I was writing my Treatise of Cosmic Physics, I found myself confronted with great difficulties.
The views then held would not explain many phenomena, and they failed in particular in cosmogonic problems.
end quotes
One of those phenomena, of course, was the question of why the earth should support life as we think we know it, which as we will see, takes us to the Greenhouse Gas Theory, which is only a theory, where "theory" is defined as a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something.
Getting back to Arrhenius:
The explanations which I tentatively offered could, of course, not claim to stand in all their detail; yet the scientific world received them with unusual interest and benevolence.
Thus encouraged, I tried to solve more of the numerous important problems, and in the present volume I have added some further sections to the complex of explanatory arguments concerning the evolution of the Universe.
The foundation to these explanations was laid in a memoir which I presented to the Academy of Sciences at Stockholm in 1900.
The memoir was soon afterwards printed in the Physikalische Zeitschrift, and the subject was further developed in my Treatise of Cosmic Physics.
end quotes
Now, reading that, we need to remember that science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, the aim of which is to build true and accurate knowledge about how the world works.
Science therefore is not absolutist dogma, where dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
With respect to the real effects of carbon dioxide in our earth's atmosphere, for example, the science can be seen in the NASA publication "A Year in the Life of Carbon Dioxide - September 6, 2014 to September 6, 2015," to wit:
Carbon naturally cycles through earthly environments.
Ocean water naturally absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and floating, microscopic phytoplankton soak it up as well.
Trees, crops, and other plants on land take up carbon dioxide and turn it into the building blocks of roots, stems, branches, and leaves.
Some of that carbon stays in the soil as vegetation dies and gets buried, and some is released back into the atmosphere through plant respiration.
Today, about half of the carbon dioxide released by human activities stays in the atmosphere, warming and altering Earth’s climate.
The other half is removed from the air by the plants, plankton, and oceans.
“The huge question is: in the future, as the carbon dioxide builds up, will the land and the ocean continue to take up that 50 percent?” said Eldering.
“Do they get saturated or full, and they quit at some point, or do they always just take up more and more and more?”
end quotes
In other words, if we adults are to be really truthful with America's children, when asked about the impacts of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, the scientific answer is we just do not truly know.
We can surmise, of course, which is what is causing all of this "climate change due to carbon dioxide" hysteria being spread by little Greta Thunberg of Sweden, but surmisals are not science, which takes us back to Arrhenius, to wit:
The theory of the "degradation" of energy appeared to introduce a still greater difficulty.
That theory seems to lead to the inevitable conclusion that the Universe is tending towards the state which Clausius has designated as "Wdrme Tod" (heat death), when all the energy of the Universe will uniformly be distributed through space in the shape of movements of the smallest particles.
That would imply an absolutely inconceivable end of the development of the Universe.
The way out of this difficulty which I propose comes to this: the energy is "degraded" in bodies which are in the solar state, and the energy is "elevated," raised to a higher level, in bodies which are in the nebular state.
end quotes
Clausius is Rudolf Julius Emanuel Clausius (2 January 1822 – 24 August 1888) who was a German physicist and mathematician and is considered one of the central founders of the science of thermodynamics.
His most important paper, "On the Moving Force of Heat", published in 1850, first stated the basic ideas of the second law of thermodynamics.
In 1865 he introduced the concept of entropy.
end quotes
So that gives us today a look at how long people of science have been looking at these issues, especially the question of is the earth cooling because the energy of the sun is diminishing, which takes us to the section "THE CELESTIAL BODIES, IN PARTICULAR THE EARTH, AS ABODES OF ORGANISMS," where Arrhenius provides the following thoughts about this earth of ours, which the absolutist dogmatic "Carbon Dioxide Climate Crisis" crowd claims is going to come to an end around 2030, as follows:
THERE is no more elevating spectacle than to contemplate the sky with its thousands of stars on a clear night.
When we send our thoughts to those lights glittering in infinite distance, the question forces itself upon us, whether there are not out there planets like our own that will sustain organic life.
How little interest do we take in a barren island of the Arctic Circle, on which not a single plant will grow, compared to an island in the tropics which is teeming with life in its most wonderful variety!
The unknown worlds occupy our minds much more when we may fancy them inhabited than when we have to regard them as dead masses floating about in space.
We have to ask ourselves similar questions with regard to our own little planet, the earth.
Was it always covered with verdure, or was it once sterile and barren?
And if that be so, what are the conditions under which the earth can fulfil its actual part of harboring organic life?
end quotes
And here I will pause, because it is that question "what are the conditions under which the earth can fulfil its actual part of harboring organic life," which will in turn lead us to the Greenhouse Gas Theory that is the cause of so much hype and hysteria today about the world coming to an end because of the heat alleged to be generated by carbon dioxide.
What exactly is the "Greenhouse Gas Theory" that is causing all this media hysteria today, and where did the theory come from?
And the proper answer to that important question is that the Greenhouse Gas Theory itself was derived as a response to the conundrum that according to "science," the earth should be too cold to support life as we know it based on its distance from the sun, which raised the question several hundred years ago now as to why the earth does support life, when science says it should be otherwise.
In the Preface to his seminal work WORLDS IN THE MAKING - THE EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE by Svante Arrhenius, Director of the Physico-Chemical Nobel Institute in Stockholm, Sweden translated by Dr. H. Borns and published March, 1908, Arrhenius started the discussion on that serious subject as follows with this necessary background to understanding the science, to wit:
WHEN, more than six years ago, I was writing my Treatise of Cosmic Physics, I found myself confronted with great difficulties.
The views then held would not explain many phenomena, and they failed in particular in cosmogonic problems.
end quotes
One of those phenomena, of course, was the question of why the earth should support life as we think we know it, which as we will see, takes us to the Greenhouse Gas Theory, which is only a theory, where "theory" is defined as a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something.
Getting back to Arrhenius:
The explanations which I tentatively offered could, of course, not claim to stand in all their detail; yet the scientific world received them with unusual interest and benevolence.
Thus encouraged, I tried to solve more of the numerous important problems, and in the present volume I have added some further sections to the complex of explanatory arguments concerning the evolution of the Universe.
The foundation to these explanations was laid in a memoir which I presented to the Academy of Sciences at Stockholm in 1900.
The memoir was soon afterwards printed in the Physikalische Zeitschrift, and the subject was further developed in my Treatise of Cosmic Physics.
end quotes
Now, reading that, we need to remember that science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, the aim of which is to build true and accurate knowledge about how the world works.
Science therefore is not absolutist dogma, where dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
With respect to the real effects of carbon dioxide in our earth's atmosphere, for example, the science can be seen in the NASA publication "A Year in the Life of Carbon Dioxide - September 6, 2014 to September 6, 2015," to wit:
Carbon naturally cycles through earthly environments.
Ocean water naturally absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and floating, microscopic phytoplankton soak it up as well.
Trees, crops, and other plants on land take up carbon dioxide and turn it into the building blocks of roots, stems, branches, and leaves.
Some of that carbon stays in the soil as vegetation dies and gets buried, and some is released back into the atmosphere through plant respiration.
Today, about half of the carbon dioxide released by human activities stays in the atmosphere, warming and altering Earth’s climate.
The other half is removed from the air by the plants, plankton, and oceans.
“The huge question is: in the future, as the carbon dioxide builds up, will the land and the ocean continue to take up that 50 percent?” said Eldering.
“Do they get saturated or full, and they quit at some point, or do they always just take up more and more and more?”
end quotes
In other words, if we adults are to be really truthful with America's children, when asked about the impacts of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, the scientific answer is we just do not truly know.
We can surmise, of course, which is what is causing all of this "climate change due to carbon dioxide" hysteria being spread by little Greta Thunberg of Sweden, but surmisals are not science, which takes us back to Arrhenius, to wit:
The theory of the "degradation" of energy appeared to introduce a still greater difficulty.
That theory seems to lead to the inevitable conclusion that the Universe is tending towards the state which Clausius has designated as "Wdrme Tod" (heat death), when all the energy of the Universe will uniformly be distributed through space in the shape of movements of the smallest particles.
That would imply an absolutely inconceivable end of the development of the Universe.
The way out of this difficulty which I propose comes to this: the energy is "degraded" in bodies which are in the solar state, and the energy is "elevated," raised to a higher level, in bodies which are in the nebular state.
end quotes
Clausius is Rudolf Julius Emanuel Clausius (2 January 1822 – 24 August 1888) who was a German physicist and mathematician and is considered one of the central founders of the science of thermodynamics.
His most important paper, "On the Moving Force of Heat", published in 1850, first stated the basic ideas of the second law of thermodynamics.
In 1865 he introduced the concept of entropy.
end quotes
So that gives us today a look at how long people of science have been looking at these issues, especially the question of is the earth cooling because the energy of the sun is diminishing, which takes us to the section "THE CELESTIAL BODIES, IN PARTICULAR THE EARTH, AS ABODES OF ORGANISMS," where Arrhenius provides the following thoughts about this earth of ours, which the absolutist dogmatic "Carbon Dioxide Climate Crisis" crowd claims is going to come to an end around 2030, as follows:
THERE is no more elevating spectacle than to contemplate the sky with its thousands of stars on a clear night.
When we send our thoughts to those lights glittering in infinite distance, the question forces itself upon us, whether there are not out there planets like our own that will sustain organic life.
How little interest do we take in a barren island of the Arctic Circle, on which not a single plant will grow, compared to an island in the tropics which is teeming with life in its most wonderful variety!
The unknown worlds occupy our minds much more when we may fancy them inhabited than when we have to regard them as dead masses floating about in space.
We have to ask ourselves similar questions with regard to our own little planet, the earth.
Was it always covered with verdure, or was it once sterile and barren?
And if that be so, what are the conditions under which the earth can fulfil its actual part of harboring organic life?
end quotes
And here I will pause, because it is that question "what are the conditions under which the earth can fulfil its actual part of harboring organic life," which will in turn lead us to the Greenhouse Gas Theory that is the cause of so much hype and hysteria today about the world coming to an end because of the heat alleged to be generated by carbon dioxide.
Re: ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 28, 2019 at 7:24 pm
Paul Plante says :
And I am not sure about anyone else in here, but where I am sitting up here in the cheap seats, with this open letter to Senator Lewis and Representative Bloxom, and by extension the Commonwealth of Virginia, its citizens, the County of Northampton in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Town of Cape Charles in the County of Northampton in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I am seeing what very well could be the carefully-crafted and well-thought-out opening shot in what would be a real doozy of a federal civil rights lawsuit against the United States government, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the County of Northampton and the Town of Cape Charles for failing to take prudent and prompt and proper action to keep older people from burning though not only their rightful carbon allowance, but the carbon allowance of as-of-yet unborn children and Greta Thunberg and by extension those children citizens of the United States who reside in Cape Charles in Northampton County in the Commonwealth of Virginia, this based on this finding of federal district court judge Ann Aiken in Juliana v. U.S., as follows:
“Exercising my ‘reasoned judgment,’ I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.”
end quotes
Based on that recent multiple car crash here in the Commonwealth caused by icy roads, for example, which alone is grounds for a federal civil rights lawsuit in the light of the above ruling of Judge Aiken in Juliana that the right of children to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society, given that as the crashes actually happened, which is how I and the rest of the candid world know they happened, making the national news as they did, and as the cause was ice which in a civilized climate should not have been allowed to be there in the first place, clearly a case can be made there alone that the Commonwealth of Virginia is failing in its clear duty to the children of the Commonwealth to provide them with a climate system capable of sustaining human life, said climate system being fundamental to a free and ordered society, which it clearly is not when you have a huge tangle of wrecked cars on a highway in the Commonwealth of Virginia that is the subject of national news coverage, the lousy climate the Commonwealth of Virginia was sticking its citizens with, because a lot of hoggish older folks, the Holocene generation, were chewing through the carbon budget of the Anthropocene generation without any thought to the fact that they were stealing the childhood of Greta Thunberg, and the children of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the County of Northampton and the Town of Cape Charles, by extension, and hey, maybe that is really what it takes to get this carbon pollution problem under some type of government control, before every last gigaton of carbon credits that were to be for the unborn children of the Commonwealth of Virginia get used up today by old people in Cape Charles who want to live large with no thoughts about the future of young people like Greta Thunberg, is a massive civil rights lawsuit against the Commonwealth and the County of Northampton and the Town of Cape Charles, especially, for allowing that to happen without putting curbs on older people to keep them within their carbon allotment, so there is some left for the children of the future.
If so, from my perspective as one who has sued unresponsive and uncaring government many times on what in reality are civil rights matters related to protection of public health, I would say that this certainly is a very good start to a protracted federal civil rights suit along the lines of Juliana v. U.S. now that Judge Aiken has made that ruling that she has no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society – putting elected officials on public notice that something is now seriously wrong with the climate of the Commonwealth of Virginia that these elected officials are responsible for, and then giving them an opportunity to fix the problem, before any civil rights litigation commences.
In that sense, I have to say this is very well-done, very well-worded and quite professionally crafted, which must stand as a tribute to the University of Virginia degree program in Global Environments and Sustainability. which makes it quite to the point, so there can be no mistaking the fact that action by these elected officials is expected to be forthcoming!
And again, thanks to the good offices of the Cape Charles Mirror for making us all in America aware of this development, which may well end up in the United States Supreme Court some day as a test case, and hopefully, as this story progresses, the Mirror will continue to keep We, the American People who depend on the Mirror to keep us up to date on reality on further developments, specifically how Senator Lewis and Representative Bloxom respond.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... te-change/
Paul Plante says :
And I am not sure about anyone else in here, but where I am sitting up here in the cheap seats, with this open letter to Senator Lewis and Representative Bloxom, and by extension the Commonwealth of Virginia, its citizens, the County of Northampton in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Town of Cape Charles in the County of Northampton in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I am seeing what very well could be the carefully-crafted and well-thought-out opening shot in what would be a real doozy of a federal civil rights lawsuit against the United States government, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the County of Northampton and the Town of Cape Charles for failing to take prudent and prompt and proper action to keep older people from burning though not only their rightful carbon allowance, but the carbon allowance of as-of-yet unborn children and Greta Thunberg and by extension those children citizens of the United States who reside in Cape Charles in Northampton County in the Commonwealth of Virginia, this based on this finding of federal district court judge Ann Aiken in Juliana v. U.S., as follows:
“Exercising my ‘reasoned judgment,’ I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.”
end quotes
Based on that recent multiple car crash here in the Commonwealth caused by icy roads, for example, which alone is grounds for a federal civil rights lawsuit in the light of the above ruling of Judge Aiken in Juliana that the right of children to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society, given that as the crashes actually happened, which is how I and the rest of the candid world know they happened, making the national news as they did, and as the cause was ice which in a civilized climate should not have been allowed to be there in the first place, clearly a case can be made there alone that the Commonwealth of Virginia is failing in its clear duty to the children of the Commonwealth to provide them with a climate system capable of sustaining human life, said climate system being fundamental to a free and ordered society, which it clearly is not when you have a huge tangle of wrecked cars on a highway in the Commonwealth of Virginia that is the subject of national news coverage, the lousy climate the Commonwealth of Virginia was sticking its citizens with, because a lot of hoggish older folks, the Holocene generation, were chewing through the carbon budget of the Anthropocene generation without any thought to the fact that they were stealing the childhood of Greta Thunberg, and the children of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the County of Northampton and the Town of Cape Charles, by extension, and hey, maybe that is really what it takes to get this carbon pollution problem under some type of government control, before every last gigaton of carbon credits that were to be for the unborn children of the Commonwealth of Virginia get used up today by old people in Cape Charles who want to live large with no thoughts about the future of young people like Greta Thunberg, is a massive civil rights lawsuit against the Commonwealth and the County of Northampton and the Town of Cape Charles, especially, for allowing that to happen without putting curbs on older people to keep them within their carbon allotment, so there is some left for the children of the future.
If so, from my perspective as one who has sued unresponsive and uncaring government many times on what in reality are civil rights matters related to protection of public health, I would say that this certainly is a very good start to a protracted federal civil rights suit along the lines of Juliana v. U.S. now that Judge Aiken has made that ruling that she has no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society – putting elected officials on public notice that something is now seriously wrong with the climate of the Commonwealth of Virginia that these elected officials are responsible for, and then giving them an opportunity to fix the problem, before any civil rights litigation commences.
In that sense, I have to say this is very well-done, very well-worded and quite professionally crafted, which must stand as a tribute to the University of Virginia degree program in Global Environments and Sustainability. which makes it quite to the point, so there can be no mistaking the fact that action by these elected officials is expected to be forthcoming!
And again, thanks to the good offices of the Cape Charles Mirror for making us all in America aware of this development, which may well end up in the United States Supreme Court some day as a test case, and hopefully, as this story progresses, the Mirror will continue to keep We, the American People who depend on the Mirror to keep us up to date on reality on further developments, specifically how Senator Lewis and Representative Bloxom respond.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... te-change/
Re: ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 31, 2019 at 10:38 am
Paul Plante says :
The “GREAT STUPID” that is sweeping this land of ours and turning the minds of the American people into a formless mush is no longer confined to the pages of the pulp fiction rag, The Guardian; it has now been elevated up to and enshrined as LAW OF THE LAND here in the United States of America by judicial decree, and here I am talking about the United States Supreme Court which put its stamp of approval on this following horse**** decided November 2016 that is still pending somewhere in OUR federal court system:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al,
Defendants.
AIKEN, Judge:
Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs in this civil rights action are a group of young people between the ages of eight and nineteen (“youth plaintiffs”); Earth Guardians, an association of young environmental activists; and Dr. James Hansen, acting as guardian for future generations.
Plaintiffs filed this action against defendants the United States, President Barack Obama, and numerous executive agencies.
Plaintiffs allege defendants have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide (“CO;’) produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia.” First. Am. Comp!
Despite that knowledge, plaintiffs assert defendants, “(b)ytheir exercise of sovereign authority over our country’s atmosphere and fossil fuel resources, … permitted, encouraged, and otherwise enabled continued exploitation, production,and combustion of fossil fuels, … deliberately allow[ing] atmospheric C02 concentrations to escalate to levels unprecedented in human history[.]” Id
Although many different entities contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, plaintiffs aver defendants bear “a higher degree of responsibility than any other individual, entity, or country” for exposing plaintiffs to the dangers of climate change. Id.
Plaintiffs argue defendants’ actions violate their substantive due process rights to life, liberty, and property, and that defendants have violated their obligation to hold certain natural resources in trust for the people and for future generations.
Plaintiffs assert there is a very short window in which defendants could act to phase out fossil fuel exploitation and avert environmental catastrophe.
They seek ( 1) a declaration their constitutional and public trust rights have been violated and (2) an order enjoining defendants from violating those rights and directing defendants to develop a plan to reduce C02 emissions.
Defendants moved to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Doc. 27.
Intervenors the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, and the American Petroleum Institute moved to dismiss on the same grounds. Doc. 19.
After oral argument, Magistrate Judge Coffin issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) and recommended denying the motions to dismiss. Doc. 68.
Judge Coffin then referred the matter to me for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. Doc. 69.
Defendants and intervenors filed objections (docs. 73 & 74), and on September 13, 2016, this Court heard oral argument.
For the reasons set forth below, I adopt Judge Coffin’s F&R as elaborated in this opinion and deny the motions to dismiss.
BACKGROUND
This is no ordinary lawsuit.
Plaintiffs challenge the policies, acts, and omissions of the President of the United States, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Transportation (“DOT”), the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).
This lawsuit challenges decisions defendants have made across a vast set of topics – decisions like whether and to what extent to regulate C02 emissions from power plants and vehicles, whether to permit fossil fuel extraction and development to take place on federal lands, how much to charge for use of those lands, whether to give tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry, whether to subsidize or directly fund that industry, whether to fund the construction of fossil fuel infrastructure such as natural gas pipelines at home and abroad, whether to permit the export and import of fossil fuels from and to the United States, and whether to authorize new marine coal terminal projects.
Plaintiffs assert defendants’ decisions on these topics have substantially caused the planet to warm and the oceans to rise.
They draw a direct causal line between defendants’ policy choices and floods, food shortages, destruction of property, species extinction, and a host of other harms.
This lawsuit is not about proving that climate change is happening or that human activity is driving it.
For the purposes of this motion, those facts are undisputed.
The questions before the Court are whether defendants are responsible for some of the harm caused by climate change, whether plaintiffs may challenge defendants’ climate change policy in court, and whether this Court can direct defendants to change their policy without running afoul of the separation of powers doctrine.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-213667
Paul Plante says :
The “GREAT STUPID” that is sweeping this land of ours and turning the minds of the American people into a formless mush is no longer confined to the pages of the pulp fiction rag, The Guardian; it has now been elevated up to and enshrined as LAW OF THE LAND here in the United States of America by judicial decree, and here I am talking about the United States Supreme Court which put its stamp of approval on this following horse**** decided November 2016 that is still pending somewhere in OUR federal court system:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al,
Defendants.
AIKEN, Judge:
Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs in this civil rights action are a group of young people between the ages of eight and nineteen (“youth plaintiffs”); Earth Guardians, an association of young environmental activists; and Dr. James Hansen, acting as guardian for future generations.
Plaintiffs filed this action against defendants the United States, President Barack Obama, and numerous executive agencies.
Plaintiffs allege defendants have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide (“CO;’) produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia.” First. Am. Comp!
Despite that knowledge, plaintiffs assert defendants, “(b)ytheir exercise of sovereign authority over our country’s atmosphere and fossil fuel resources, … permitted, encouraged, and otherwise enabled continued exploitation, production,and combustion of fossil fuels, … deliberately allow[ing] atmospheric C02 concentrations to escalate to levels unprecedented in human history[.]” Id
Although many different entities contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, plaintiffs aver defendants bear “a higher degree of responsibility than any other individual, entity, or country” for exposing plaintiffs to the dangers of climate change. Id.
Plaintiffs argue defendants’ actions violate their substantive due process rights to life, liberty, and property, and that defendants have violated their obligation to hold certain natural resources in trust for the people and for future generations.
Plaintiffs assert there is a very short window in which defendants could act to phase out fossil fuel exploitation and avert environmental catastrophe.
They seek ( 1) a declaration their constitutional and public trust rights have been violated and (2) an order enjoining defendants from violating those rights and directing defendants to develop a plan to reduce C02 emissions.
Defendants moved to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Doc. 27.
Intervenors the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, and the American Petroleum Institute moved to dismiss on the same grounds. Doc. 19.
After oral argument, Magistrate Judge Coffin issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) and recommended denying the motions to dismiss. Doc. 68.
Judge Coffin then referred the matter to me for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. Doc. 69.
Defendants and intervenors filed objections (docs. 73 & 74), and on September 13, 2016, this Court heard oral argument.
For the reasons set forth below, I adopt Judge Coffin’s F&R as elaborated in this opinion and deny the motions to dismiss.
BACKGROUND
This is no ordinary lawsuit.
Plaintiffs challenge the policies, acts, and omissions of the President of the United States, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Transportation (“DOT”), the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).
This lawsuit challenges decisions defendants have made across a vast set of topics – decisions like whether and to what extent to regulate C02 emissions from power plants and vehicles, whether to permit fossil fuel extraction and development to take place on federal lands, how much to charge for use of those lands, whether to give tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry, whether to subsidize or directly fund that industry, whether to fund the construction of fossil fuel infrastructure such as natural gas pipelines at home and abroad, whether to permit the export and import of fossil fuels from and to the United States, and whether to authorize new marine coal terminal projects.
Plaintiffs assert defendants’ decisions on these topics have substantially caused the planet to warm and the oceans to rise.
They draw a direct causal line between defendants’ policy choices and floods, food shortages, destruction of property, species extinction, and a host of other harms.
This lawsuit is not about proving that climate change is happening or that human activity is driving it.
For the purposes of this motion, those facts are undisputed.
The questions before the Court are whether defendants are responsible for some of the harm caused by climate change, whether plaintiffs may challenge defendants’ climate change policy in court, and whether this Court can direct defendants to change their policy without running afoul of the separation of powers doctrine.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-213667
Re: ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 31, 2019 at 7:19 pm
Paul Plante says:
Now, let’s be absolutely clear here, people, as to the GAME being played on We, the American People with this above federal court decision which names each and every one of us over the age of 18 as the DEFENDANTS, given that there is no other United States of America to sue than We, the People, this as if we were all a bunch of absolutely witless fools, by the federal court and the Obama administration before Hussein left the White House, to rig a federal lawsuit in such a manner that a federal judge would be forcing us back into the Paris Agreement, because Plaintiffs’ allegation that defendant Obama or the federal government for that matter, had known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millennia,” is demonstrably FALSE, which is something any high school student with access to GOOGLE could readily prove!
And yet, the Obama administration let that falsehood stand as truth and fact, which means that Obama TOOK A DIVE, and stood by a patent lie which has now been enshrined as LAW OF THE LAND here in the United States of America, so that today, even though we all know it to be PATENTLY FALSE that Obama and the federal government had known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millennia,” nonetheless, we are now forced by this federal court decision to have to believe a GREAT BIG LIE, which takes us to this from that decision, to wit:
Plaintiffs assert defendants’ decisions on these topics have substantially caused the planet to warm and the oceans to rise.
end quotes
That was a softball pitch that the Obama administration could easily have smacked right out of the stadium with the greatest of ease, because while the allegation can be asserted, there is no way the plaintiff’s could ever prove it with factual evidence, and yet the Obama administration kept the bat on its shoulder and let itself be struck out, but who Hussein SOLD OUT with that failure to stand up to this patent nonsense was US, We, the American People who as a result of Obama TAKING A DIVE have been held responsible for climatic harm done to these children plaintiffs, which takes us next to this:
They draw a direct causal line between defendants’ policy choices and floods, food shortages, destruction of property, species extinction, and a host of other harms.
end quotes
And no, people, the truth is, they really didn’t, because that alleged “direct causal line” does not exist, except in their dreams, so that is pure fantasy thinking and horse****, EXCEPT, the Obama administration laid down and merely whimpered like a whipped cur, and let the lie stand as fact and truth, which takes us to this:
This lawsuit is not about proving that climate change is happening or that human activity is driving it.
For the purposes of this motion, those facts are undisputed.
end quotes
And for the record, those facts in reality are very much in dispute, but because of this federal lawsuit and the duplicity of the Hussein Obama administration, we in the United States of America are now constrained by the federal courts to have to believe a LIE and further, to teach our children and grandchildren that these lies, especially the whopper about the United States Constitution guaranteeing children in America a “healthy climate” as their constitutional right, are really truths, which is patently ridiculous as a friend of mine with five daughters under the age of 18 who were made aware of this lawsuit by their teachers has found out, and now there is a battle royal going on in his house because he only has a quarter-acre lot to begin with, and each of the daughters, not surprisingly, wants a completely different climate from all the others, and to top it off, the kid next door wants another climate indeed, which is driving this poor guy crazy, trying to figure out how the hell you satisfy your battling daughters who want five different climates on a quarter-acre lot.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-213753
Paul Plante says:
Now, let’s be absolutely clear here, people, as to the GAME being played on We, the American People with this above federal court decision which names each and every one of us over the age of 18 as the DEFENDANTS, given that there is no other United States of America to sue than We, the People, this as if we were all a bunch of absolutely witless fools, by the federal court and the Obama administration before Hussein left the White House, to rig a federal lawsuit in such a manner that a federal judge would be forcing us back into the Paris Agreement, because Plaintiffs’ allegation that defendant Obama or the federal government for that matter, had known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millennia,” is demonstrably FALSE, which is something any high school student with access to GOOGLE could readily prove!
And yet, the Obama administration let that falsehood stand as truth and fact, which means that Obama TOOK A DIVE, and stood by a patent lie which has now been enshrined as LAW OF THE LAND here in the United States of America, so that today, even though we all know it to be PATENTLY FALSE that Obama and the federal government had known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millennia,” nonetheless, we are now forced by this federal court decision to have to believe a GREAT BIG LIE, which takes us to this from that decision, to wit:
Plaintiffs assert defendants’ decisions on these topics have substantially caused the planet to warm and the oceans to rise.
end quotes
That was a softball pitch that the Obama administration could easily have smacked right out of the stadium with the greatest of ease, because while the allegation can be asserted, there is no way the plaintiff’s could ever prove it with factual evidence, and yet the Obama administration kept the bat on its shoulder and let itself be struck out, but who Hussein SOLD OUT with that failure to stand up to this patent nonsense was US, We, the American People who as a result of Obama TAKING A DIVE have been held responsible for climatic harm done to these children plaintiffs, which takes us next to this:
They draw a direct causal line between defendants’ policy choices and floods, food shortages, destruction of property, species extinction, and a host of other harms.
end quotes
And no, people, the truth is, they really didn’t, because that alleged “direct causal line” does not exist, except in their dreams, so that is pure fantasy thinking and horse****, EXCEPT, the Obama administration laid down and merely whimpered like a whipped cur, and let the lie stand as fact and truth, which takes us to this:
This lawsuit is not about proving that climate change is happening or that human activity is driving it.
For the purposes of this motion, those facts are undisputed.
end quotes
And for the record, those facts in reality are very much in dispute, but because of this federal lawsuit and the duplicity of the Hussein Obama administration, we in the United States of America are now constrained by the federal courts to have to believe a LIE and further, to teach our children and grandchildren that these lies, especially the whopper about the United States Constitution guaranteeing children in America a “healthy climate” as their constitutional right, are really truths, which is patently ridiculous as a friend of mine with five daughters under the age of 18 who were made aware of this lawsuit by their teachers has found out, and now there is a battle royal going on in his house because he only has a quarter-acre lot to begin with, and each of the daughters, not surprisingly, wants a completely different climate from all the others, and to top it off, the kid next door wants another climate indeed, which is driving this poor guy crazy, trying to figure out how the hell you satisfy your battling daughters who want five different climates on a quarter-acre lot.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-213753
Re: ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 3, 2020 at 11:15 am
Paul Plante says :
To make the demonstration that the allegation of these children plaintiffs in their first amended complaint that “defendants have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would ‘significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia,’” which is a healthy heap of pure horse**** from straight out of the pages of the hysteria-mongering pulp fiction rag The Guardian, sponsors of the long-running “GRETA SHOW,” which pulp-fiction rag proclaimed to the world on February 22, 2004 that “Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters,” is patently false, one need do no more than go to the website of the World Meteorological Organization (“WMO”) where one, and this would certainly include not only The Guardian, if it was interested in facts, not hype and hysteria, but high school students, as well, since this is all basic history, readily finds as follows:
Global climate, one scientist recalled, “was considered a very subordinate field compared with synoptic forecasting, atmospheric research, and so forth.”
Some even questioned whether the WMO should continue work in climatology at all.
But in the late 1960s an environmental movement was everywhere on the rise, and officials could no longer ignore global changes.
As a first step, in 1969 the WMO’s Commission for Climatology established a working group on climate forecasts.
Meanwhile the WMO itself passed a resolution calling for global monitoring of climate and atmospheric pollutants, including CO2.
end quotes
Now, given that that federal court decision was written in 2016, more than fifty years earlier that the federal government was alleged to have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia,” would be prior to 1966, before anyone knew about CO2, which takes us back to that history, as follows:
Climate was also among the many topics addressed by a Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), established by ICSU officials in 1969 as an international framework for collecting environmental data and for related research.
The SCOPE committee, aware of the CO2 greenhouse problem, promoted the first extensive studies of how carbon passes through bio-geochemical systems.
The first significant conferences where scientists discussed climate change included the topic as just one of several “Global Effects of Environmental Pollution,” to quote the title of a two-day symposium held in Dallas, Texas in 1968.
This path-breaking symposium was followed by a month-long “Study of Critical Environmental Problems” (SCEP) organized at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1970.
This led directly to a second, more comprehensive gathering of experts from 14 nations in Stockholm in 1971, funded by an assortment of private and government sources.
The Stockholm meeting focused specifically on climate change — a “Study of Man’s Impact on Climate” (SMIC).
The exhaustive SMIC discussions failed to work out a consensus among scientists who felt greenhouse gases were warming the Earth and those who felt pollution from particles was cooling it.
end quotes
So, if the scientists themselves in 1971, less than 50 years ago, were still arguing about whether greenhouse gases were warming the Earth or whether pollution from particles was cooling it, how is it that the federal court then accepted in 2016 the unsupported and patently false allegation of these children that the United States government and Hussein Obama KNEW that carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia?”
For the answer to that, we need go no further than footnote #3 of that 2016 federal court decision where we find Obama taking his dive, as follows:
Defendants open their Objections to Judge Coffin’s F&R by stating that
“(c)limate change poses a monumental threat to Americans’ health and welfare by driving long-lasting changes in our climate, leading to an array of severe negative effects, which will worsen over time.” Fed. Defs.’ Obj. to F&R 1 (doc. 78).
In the 2015 State of the Union address, defendant President Barack Obama declared “(n)o challenge … poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” President Barack Obama, Remarks in State of the Union Address (Jan. 20, 2015).
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-214456
Paul Plante says :
To make the demonstration that the allegation of these children plaintiffs in their first amended complaint that “defendants have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would ‘significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia,’” which is a healthy heap of pure horse**** from straight out of the pages of the hysteria-mongering pulp fiction rag The Guardian, sponsors of the long-running “GRETA SHOW,” which pulp-fiction rag proclaimed to the world on February 22, 2004 that “Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters,” is patently false, one need do no more than go to the website of the World Meteorological Organization (“WMO”) where one, and this would certainly include not only The Guardian, if it was interested in facts, not hype and hysteria, but high school students, as well, since this is all basic history, readily finds as follows:
Global climate, one scientist recalled, “was considered a very subordinate field compared with synoptic forecasting, atmospheric research, and so forth.”
Some even questioned whether the WMO should continue work in climatology at all.
But in the late 1960s an environmental movement was everywhere on the rise, and officials could no longer ignore global changes.
As a first step, in 1969 the WMO’s Commission for Climatology established a working group on climate forecasts.
Meanwhile the WMO itself passed a resolution calling for global monitoring of climate and atmospheric pollutants, including CO2.
end quotes
Now, given that that federal court decision was written in 2016, more than fifty years earlier that the federal government was alleged to have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia,” would be prior to 1966, before anyone knew about CO2, which takes us back to that history, as follows:
Climate was also among the many topics addressed by a Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), established by ICSU officials in 1969 as an international framework for collecting environmental data and for related research.
The SCOPE committee, aware of the CO2 greenhouse problem, promoted the first extensive studies of how carbon passes through bio-geochemical systems.
The first significant conferences where scientists discussed climate change included the topic as just one of several “Global Effects of Environmental Pollution,” to quote the title of a two-day symposium held in Dallas, Texas in 1968.
This path-breaking symposium was followed by a month-long “Study of Critical Environmental Problems” (SCEP) organized at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1970.
This led directly to a second, more comprehensive gathering of experts from 14 nations in Stockholm in 1971, funded by an assortment of private and government sources.
The Stockholm meeting focused specifically on climate change — a “Study of Man’s Impact on Climate” (SMIC).
The exhaustive SMIC discussions failed to work out a consensus among scientists who felt greenhouse gases were warming the Earth and those who felt pollution from particles was cooling it.
end quotes
So, if the scientists themselves in 1971, less than 50 years ago, were still arguing about whether greenhouse gases were warming the Earth or whether pollution from particles was cooling it, how is it that the federal court then accepted in 2016 the unsupported and patently false allegation of these children that the United States government and Hussein Obama KNEW that carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia?”
For the answer to that, we need go no further than footnote #3 of that 2016 federal court decision where we find Obama taking his dive, as follows:
Defendants open their Objections to Judge Coffin’s F&R by stating that
“(c)limate change poses a monumental threat to Americans’ health and welfare by driving long-lasting changes in our climate, leading to an array of severe negative effects, which will worsen over time.” Fed. Defs.’ Obj. to F&R 1 (doc. 78).
In the 2015 State of the Union address, defendant President Barack Obama declared “(n)o challenge … poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” President Barack Obama, Remarks in State of the Union Address (Jan. 20, 2015).
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-214456
Re: ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT
And since the Cape Charles Mirror has gotten us down the road to where I was heading as I was deriving the carbon dioxide science, by way of review, from my perspective as a licensed engineer, by taking a dive as he clearly did here in this custom-tailored "civil rights" lawsuit, Obama effectively has spawned a brand-new United States Constitution for this so-called "Anthropocene" generation, those born after the millennium, which Anthropocene Constitution of Obama guarantees to those born after the year 2000 the constitutional right to a climate system capable of sustaining their human life, which climate system capable of sustaining their lives is fundamental to a free and ordered society for them, that at the expense of the Holocene generation, those born before 2000, who because of this court case are now, in the eyes of their children and grandchildren, held to be guilty for causing climate harm to these aggrieved children, which is every single child in the United States of America under the age of 18.
By doing so, Obama, himself a Marxist committed to the creation of a Social Democratic State here in the United States of America to replace our Republic, has very effectively aided that process by driving a wedge between the children of America, those born after the millennium, who this lawsuit says have had their substantive due process rights to life, liberty, and property violated, they being the Anthropocene Generation; and their parents and grandparents, the Holocene Generation, who have caused their children and grandchildren serious climate harm; thus, effectively placing these aggrieved children under the control of the court, not their parents, which takes us to this sentence from that decision, to wit:
Plaintiffs in this civil rights action are a group of young people between the ages of eight and nineteen ("youth plaintiffs"); Earth Guardians, an association of young environmental activists; and Dr. James Hansen, acting as guardian for future generations.
end quotes
Now, all you parents and grandparents out there who think, foolishly so, in the light of this decision, that you have some type of guardianship over your children, guess again, and focus in on the words "Dr. James Hansen, acting as guardian for future generations," and then ask yourself this question: Who is this Dr. James Hansen, and how did he get court custody over future generations of children in the United States of America?
On what grounds has the federal court made Dr. James Hansen the "guardian for future generations" of children here in the United States of America?
By doing so, Obama, himself a Marxist committed to the creation of a Social Democratic State here in the United States of America to replace our Republic, has very effectively aided that process by driving a wedge between the children of America, those born after the millennium, who this lawsuit says have had their substantive due process rights to life, liberty, and property violated, they being the Anthropocene Generation; and their parents and grandparents, the Holocene Generation, who have caused their children and grandchildren serious climate harm; thus, effectively placing these aggrieved children under the control of the court, not their parents, which takes us to this sentence from that decision, to wit:
Plaintiffs in this civil rights action are a group of young people between the ages of eight and nineteen ("youth plaintiffs"); Earth Guardians, an association of young environmental activists; and Dr. James Hansen, acting as guardian for future generations.
end quotes
Now, all you parents and grandparents out there who think, foolishly so, in the light of this decision, that you have some type of guardianship over your children, guess again, and focus in on the words "Dr. James Hansen, acting as guardian for future generations," and then ask yourself this question: Who is this Dr. James Hansen, and how did he get court custody over future generations of children in the United States of America?
On what grounds has the federal court made Dr. James Hansen the "guardian for future generations" of children here in the United States of America?
Re: ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT
As to this district court judge Ann Aiken saying in Juliana v. U.S., “Exercising my ‘reasoned judgment,’ I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society,” all well and good, but that is NOT what the law in the United States actually says, given the federal government has no control over the climate of the United States.
As to what the law in the United States of America actually does say, we simply refer to a handbook on the subject of the National Environmental Policy Act which chapter establishes policy and provides uniform guidance to Fish and Wildlife Service personnel on responsibilities for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and related authorities (550 FW 1.4) in planning and implementing their actions, to wit:
1.3 What are the purposes of NEPA?
The purposes of NEPA are stated in section 2 of the preamble of NEPA: “to declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment, to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man, to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation, and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.”
Two of the purposes have special meaning to us.
NEPA’s purpose, “to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation,” is only one of a few such purposes in law that recognizes the importance of ecological systems to Federal planning and decision making.
Further, NEPA’s purpose, “to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment,” complements our mission (550 FW 1.4).
1.4 What are our policies regarding NEPA?
(A) We will strive to implement the policy in section 101(a) of NEPA, that is: “. . . it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.”
As to what the law in the United States of America actually does say, we simply refer to a handbook on the subject of the National Environmental Policy Act which chapter establishes policy and provides uniform guidance to Fish and Wildlife Service personnel on responsibilities for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and related authorities (550 FW 1.4) in planning and implementing their actions, to wit:
1.3 What are the purposes of NEPA?
The purposes of NEPA are stated in section 2 of the preamble of NEPA: “to declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment, to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man, to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation, and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.”
Two of the purposes have special meaning to us.
NEPA’s purpose, “to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation,” is only one of a few such purposes in law that recognizes the importance of ecological systems to Federal planning and decision making.
Further, NEPA’s purpose, “to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment,” complements our mission (550 FW 1.4).
1.4 What are our policies regarding NEPA?
(A) We will strive to implement the policy in section 101(a) of NEPA, that is: “. . . it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.”