THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 18, 2020 at 9:22 pm
Paul Plante says :
Third, the panel held that plaintiffs’ claimed injuries were not redressable by an Article III court.
Specifically, the panel held that it was beyond the power of an Article III court to order, design, supervise, or implement the plaintiffs’ requested remedial plan where any effective plan would necessarily require a host of complex policy decisions entrusted to the wisdom and discretion of the executive and legislative branches.
The panel reluctantly concluded that the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large.
end quotes
Those words are from the majority Decision of the United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit in the matter of Juliana at al. v. United States et al., filed January 17, 2020, effectively, for the moment, anyway, shutting down that insane idea that has been drilled into the heads of these gullible children being exploited by these lawyers that a federal judge actually has the power to not only control the earth’s many micro-climates, itself an absurd idea, but further, to grant them as individuals the climate they want, when and where they want it, which is even more absurd.
But as we can see from the VOX article entitled “21 kids sued the government over climate change. A federal court dismissed the case. Plaintiffs in the Juliana v. US lawsuit alleged the government violated the rights of young people to a safe climate” by Umair Irfan on Jan. 17, 2020, the insanity is far from over, to wit:
Andrea Rodgers, a senior attorney at Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit backing the youth who filed the lawsuit, described the decision in an email as “unprecedented and contrary to American principles of justice.”
Her organization has vowed to appeal the ruling in the coming weeks.
end quotes
Which itself is an incredibly stupid or naïve statement, given that the “American principles of justice” do not guarantee to children the climate they want, when they want it, nor do American principles of justice have any control whatsoever over the microclimates of the earth, which aren’t stable and never really have been.
As the climate expert H.H. Lamb stated in the seminal Climate, History and the Modern World, 2d. edition:
Most generations of mankind in most parts of the world have regarded climate as an unreliable, shifting, fluctuating thing, sometimes offering briefly unforeseen opportunities but at other times bringing disaster by famine, flood, drought or disease — not to mention frost, snow and icy winds.
end quotes
But today, we have these lawyers convincing children that now, it really doesn’t have to be that way, and the reason it was that way was because of all the carbon dioxide emitted by the United States of America since 1751.
Today, according to the crap these lawyers are jamming into the heads of these gullible children, the federal judges in America have the power to not only make the earth and its climate come to heel on command, but further, to make it lie down and do tricks, as well.
What horse****, but then, we are dealing with lawyers here, and that is their product they have for sale to the unsuspecting and gullible in the world.
As to what “climate” actually is, Lamb defines it thusly:
By climate we mean the total experience of the weather at any place over some specific period of time.
end quotes
That is what climate is and that is all that climate is, so when we hear of federal judges controlling the climate for these children, they are actually going to take control of the total experience of weather at any place over some specific period of time, that being at least the lifetime of these children, and who, besides The Guardian and these lawyers believes that?
And then in that same VOX article, we have this:
However, District Court Judge Josephine Staton thought otherwise and did not mince words in her dissent.
“It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses,” she wrote.
“Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation.”
end quotes
And speaking of irony, that statement about the government not only bluntly insisting, but actually having the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation brings us back in time to the Cape Charles Mirror thread “Op-Ed: Should Sonia Sotomayor resign in disgrace?” http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... -disgrace/ where we find clearly stated the source of the absolute and unreviewable power of the government to destroy the Nation – it comes from federal judges like Sonia Sotomayor who are put in office by politicians like Hussein Obama to protect that corrupt power by crushing citizens like myself who would dare to challenge it with facts, not hysteria as was the case here.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-220077
Just musings, is all
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 19, 2020 at 2:07 pm
Paul Plante says :
Point I is that this “climate change” hysteria, which started out as “global warming” until that slogan lost traction when the world started cooling instead, necessitating another slogan, has been a huge boon for the lawyer’s trade, which always has a lot of mouths to feed, as law school mills like Harvard continue to turn out swarms of new lawyers and lawyerettes to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
Point II is that this “climate change” hysteria, for hysteria it most certainly is, by design, since we need a real “crisis” to make us so scared we can’t think straight, which makes us far easier to manipulate and fleece, has been a real financial boon to money-hungry universities seeking to boost their profits by creating whole new departments to deal with “climate justice,” a meaningless term that can mean whatever you need it to mean at the moment.
Point III is that this “climate change” hysteria has opened up a whole new job market for all the new Ph.D.’s in “climate science,” another meaningless term, since climate is merely the weather, which non-Ph.D.’s have been studying since at least the 1600’s, who would otherwise be flipping burgers at McDonald’s while feverishly trying to pay off the exorbitant bill for their worthless degrees in “climate science” and “climate justice” which only have value if there is a “crisis” for them to “solve.”
So the “climate crisis” has been good for the U.S. economy by creating a lot of work for people who would otherwise be on the dole somewhere, and that in turn is great for the U.S. GDP!
So, if you are one of those lawyers, or lawyerettes or Ph.D.’s reaping a financial windfall from this “climate crisis,” it’s a win-win-win for you all the way around!
As for the rest of us, the beat goes on.
As for me, it was 8 degrees above the Fahrenheit zero the last couple of days, which sounded awful cold, so I made it quite a bit warmer by averaging the temperature here with the temperature in Death Valley and the temperature in Key West, Florida, and by God, I almost had it warm enough here to go swimming, if only I had an axe to cut through the ice with to actually get at the water, which still thought it was below freezing.
Oh, well.
Next time, I’ll have to find even more hot places to average our temperature with, and I can probably get it up to where it is actually quite balmy, in my mind, anyway.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/e ... ent-220440
Paul Plante says :
Point I is that this “climate change” hysteria, which started out as “global warming” until that slogan lost traction when the world started cooling instead, necessitating another slogan, has been a huge boon for the lawyer’s trade, which always has a lot of mouths to feed, as law school mills like Harvard continue to turn out swarms of new lawyers and lawyerettes to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
Point II is that this “climate change” hysteria, for hysteria it most certainly is, by design, since we need a real “crisis” to make us so scared we can’t think straight, which makes us far easier to manipulate and fleece, has been a real financial boon to money-hungry universities seeking to boost their profits by creating whole new departments to deal with “climate justice,” a meaningless term that can mean whatever you need it to mean at the moment.
Point III is that this “climate change” hysteria has opened up a whole new job market for all the new Ph.D.’s in “climate science,” another meaningless term, since climate is merely the weather, which non-Ph.D.’s have been studying since at least the 1600’s, who would otherwise be flipping burgers at McDonald’s while feverishly trying to pay off the exorbitant bill for their worthless degrees in “climate science” and “climate justice” which only have value if there is a “crisis” for them to “solve.”
So the “climate crisis” has been good for the U.S. economy by creating a lot of work for people who would otherwise be on the dole somewhere, and that in turn is great for the U.S. GDP!
So, if you are one of those lawyers, or lawyerettes or Ph.D.’s reaping a financial windfall from this “climate crisis,” it’s a win-win-win for you all the way around!
As for the rest of us, the beat goes on.
As for me, it was 8 degrees above the Fahrenheit zero the last couple of days, which sounded awful cold, so I made it quite a bit warmer by averaging the temperature here with the temperature in Death Valley and the temperature in Key West, Florida, and by God, I almost had it warm enough here to go swimming, if only I had an axe to cut through the ice with to actually get at the water, which still thought it was below freezing.
Oh, well.
Next time, I’ll have to find even more hot places to average our temperature with, and I can probably get it up to where it is actually quite balmy, in my mind, anyway.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/e ... ent-220440
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 19, 2020 at 6:47 pm
Paul Plante says :
Speaking of the “climate crisis,” which crisis was invented by lawyers as a new wide-open field of litigation, being a windfall for the lawyer’s trade, which can only make money by sowing turmoil and discord and then milking the turmoil for profit as is the case here, despite these law firms calling themselves “not-for-profits,” we need go no further than the list of lawyers involved in Juliana v. Hussein Obama and the USA case just decided by the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on 17 January 2020 where Judge Hurwitz, Circuit Judge, wrote as follows:
The plaintiffs claim that the government has violated their constitutional rights, including a claimed right under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life.”
The central issue before us is whether, even assuming such a broad constitutional right exists, an Article III court can provide the plaintiffs the redress they seek — an order requiring the government to develop a plan to “phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2.”
Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power.
Rather, the plaintiffs’ impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government.
end quotes
COUNSEL
Jeffrey Bossert Clark (argued), Assistant Attorney General; Andrew C. Mergen, Sommer H. Engels, and Robert J. Lundman, Attorneys; Eric Grant, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellants.
Julia A. Olson (argued), Wild Earth Advocates, Eugene, Oregon; Philip L. Gregory, Gregory Law Group, Redwood City, California; Andrew K. Rodgers, Law Offices of Andrea K. Rodgers, Seattle, Washington; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Theodore Hadzi-Antich and Ryan D. Walters, Texas Public Policy Foundation, Austin, Texas, for Amici Curiae Nuckels Oil Co., Inc. DBA Merit Oil Company; Libety Packing Company, LLC; Western States Trucking Association; and National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center.
Richard K. Eichstaedt, University Legal Assistance, Spokane, Washington, for Amici Curiae Eco-Justice Ministries; Interfaith Moral Action on Climate; General Synod of the United Church of Christ; Temple Beth Israel of Eugene, Oregon; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; Leadership Counsel of the Sisters Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary of Monroe, Michigan; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas’ Institute Leadership Team; GreenFaith; Leadership Team of the Sisters of Providence of Saint-Mary-of-the-Woods Indiana; Leadership Conference of Women Religious; Climate Change Task Force of the Sisters of Providence of Saint Mary-of-the-Woods; Quaker Earthcare Witness; Colorado Interfaith Power and Light; and the Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces.
Dr. Curtis FJ Doebbler, Law Office of Dr. Curtis FJ Doebbler, San Antonio, Texas; D. Inder Comar, Comar LLP, San Francisco, California; for Amici Curiae International Lawyers for International Law.
Wendy B. Jacobs, Director; Shaun A. Goho, Deputy Director; Emmett Environmental Law & Policy Clinic, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts; for Amici Curiae Public Health Experts, Public Health Organizations, and Doctors.
David Bookbinder, Niskanen Center, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Niskanen Center.
Courtney B. Johnson, Crag Law Center, Portland, Oregon, for Amici Curiae League of Women Voters of the United States and League of Women Voters of Oregon.
Oday Salim, Environmental Law & Sustainability Clinic; Julian D. Mortensen and David M. Uhlmann, Professors; Alexander Chafetz, law student; University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, Michigan; for Amicus Curiae Sunrise Movement Education Fund.
Zachary B. Corrigan, Food & Water Watch, Inc., Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Food & Water Watch, Inc.; Friends of the Earth – US; and Greenpeace, Inc.
Patti Goldman, Earthjustice, Seattle, Washington; Sarah H. Burt, Earthjustice, San Francisco, California; for Amici Curiae EarthRights International, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, and Union of Concerned Scientists.
David Hunter and William John Snape III, American University, Washington College of Law, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae International Environmental Law and Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide—US.
Timothy M. Bechtold, Bechtold Law Firm PLLC, Missoula, Montana, for Amici Curiae Members of the United States Congress.
Rachael Paschal Osborn, Vashon, Washington, for Amici Curiae Environmental History Professors.
Thomas J. Beers, Beers Law Offices, Seeley Lake, Montana; Irma S. Russell, Professor, and Edward A. Smith, Missouri Chair in Law, the Constitution, and Society, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, Kansas City, Missouri; W. Warren H. Binford Professor or Law & Director, Clinical Law Program, Willamette University, Salem, Oregon; for Amicus Curiae Zero Hour on Behalf of Approximately 32,340 Children and Young People.
Helen H. Kang, Environmental Law and Justice Clinic, Golden Gate University School of Law, San Francisco, California; James R. May and Erin Daly, Dignity Rights Project, Delaware Law School, Wilmington, Delaware; for Amici Curiae Law Professors.
Toby J. Marshall, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Seattle, Washington, for Amici Curiae Guayaki Sustainable Rainforest Products, Inc.; Royal Blue Organics; Organically Grown Company; Bliss Unlimited, LLC, dba Coconut Bliss; Hummingbird Wholesale; Aspen Skiing Company, LLC; Protect Our Winters; National Ski Areas Association; Snowsports Industries America; and American Sustainable Business Council.
Alejandra Núñez and Andres Restrepo, Sierra Club, Washington, D.C.; Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club, Oakland, California; for Amicus Curiae Sierra Club.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/e ... ent-220440
Paul Plante says :
Speaking of the “climate crisis,” which crisis was invented by lawyers as a new wide-open field of litigation, being a windfall for the lawyer’s trade, which can only make money by sowing turmoil and discord and then milking the turmoil for profit as is the case here, despite these law firms calling themselves “not-for-profits,” we need go no further than the list of lawyers involved in Juliana v. Hussein Obama and the USA case just decided by the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on 17 January 2020 where Judge Hurwitz, Circuit Judge, wrote as follows:
The plaintiffs claim that the government has violated their constitutional rights, including a claimed right under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life.”
The central issue before us is whether, even assuming such a broad constitutional right exists, an Article III court can provide the plaintiffs the redress they seek — an order requiring the government to develop a plan to “phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2.”
Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power.
Rather, the plaintiffs’ impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government.
end quotes
COUNSEL
Jeffrey Bossert Clark (argued), Assistant Attorney General; Andrew C. Mergen, Sommer H. Engels, and Robert J. Lundman, Attorneys; Eric Grant, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellants.
Julia A. Olson (argued), Wild Earth Advocates, Eugene, Oregon; Philip L. Gregory, Gregory Law Group, Redwood City, California; Andrew K. Rodgers, Law Offices of Andrea K. Rodgers, Seattle, Washington; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Theodore Hadzi-Antich and Ryan D. Walters, Texas Public Policy Foundation, Austin, Texas, for Amici Curiae Nuckels Oil Co., Inc. DBA Merit Oil Company; Libety Packing Company, LLC; Western States Trucking Association; and National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center.
Richard K. Eichstaedt, University Legal Assistance, Spokane, Washington, for Amici Curiae Eco-Justice Ministries; Interfaith Moral Action on Climate; General Synod of the United Church of Christ; Temple Beth Israel of Eugene, Oregon; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; Leadership Counsel of the Sisters Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary of Monroe, Michigan; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas’ Institute Leadership Team; GreenFaith; Leadership Team of the Sisters of Providence of Saint-Mary-of-the-Woods Indiana; Leadership Conference of Women Religious; Climate Change Task Force of the Sisters of Providence of Saint Mary-of-the-Woods; Quaker Earthcare Witness; Colorado Interfaith Power and Light; and the Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces.
Dr. Curtis FJ Doebbler, Law Office of Dr. Curtis FJ Doebbler, San Antonio, Texas; D. Inder Comar, Comar LLP, San Francisco, California; for Amici Curiae International Lawyers for International Law.
Wendy B. Jacobs, Director; Shaun A. Goho, Deputy Director; Emmett Environmental Law & Policy Clinic, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts; for Amici Curiae Public Health Experts, Public Health Organizations, and Doctors.
David Bookbinder, Niskanen Center, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Niskanen Center.
Courtney B. Johnson, Crag Law Center, Portland, Oregon, for Amici Curiae League of Women Voters of the United States and League of Women Voters of Oregon.
Oday Salim, Environmental Law & Sustainability Clinic; Julian D. Mortensen and David M. Uhlmann, Professors; Alexander Chafetz, law student; University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, Michigan; for Amicus Curiae Sunrise Movement Education Fund.
Zachary B. Corrigan, Food & Water Watch, Inc., Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Food & Water Watch, Inc.; Friends of the Earth – US; and Greenpeace, Inc.
Patti Goldman, Earthjustice, Seattle, Washington; Sarah H. Burt, Earthjustice, San Francisco, California; for Amici Curiae EarthRights International, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, and Union of Concerned Scientists.
David Hunter and William John Snape III, American University, Washington College of Law, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae International Environmental Law and Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide—US.
Timothy M. Bechtold, Bechtold Law Firm PLLC, Missoula, Montana, for Amici Curiae Members of the United States Congress.
Rachael Paschal Osborn, Vashon, Washington, for Amici Curiae Environmental History Professors.
Thomas J. Beers, Beers Law Offices, Seeley Lake, Montana; Irma S. Russell, Professor, and Edward A. Smith, Missouri Chair in Law, the Constitution, and Society, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, Kansas City, Missouri; W. Warren H. Binford Professor or Law & Director, Clinical Law Program, Willamette University, Salem, Oregon; for Amicus Curiae Zero Hour on Behalf of Approximately 32,340 Children and Young People.
Helen H. Kang, Environmental Law and Justice Clinic, Golden Gate University School of Law, San Francisco, California; James R. May and Erin Daly, Dignity Rights Project, Delaware Law School, Wilmington, Delaware; for Amici Curiae Law Professors.
Toby J. Marshall, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Seattle, Washington, for Amici Curiae Guayaki Sustainable Rainforest Products, Inc.; Royal Blue Organics; Organically Grown Company; Bliss Unlimited, LLC, dba Coconut Bliss; Hummingbird Wholesale; Aspen Skiing Company, LLC; Protect Our Winters; National Ski Areas Association; Snowsports Industries America; and American Sustainable Business Council.
Alejandra Núñez and Andres Restrepo, Sierra Club, Washington, D.C.; Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club, Oakland, California; for Amicus Curiae Sierra Club.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/e ... ent-220440
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 19, 2020 at 11:06 pm
Paul Plante says :
And the bull**** from the Democrats continues to flow forth fast and furiously here with the POLITICO article “Battle over impeachment witnesses escalates” by John Bresnahan on 19 January 2020, where we have the latest update in the farce cooked up by Adam Schiff and the best screenwriters Hollywood has to offer, to wit:
With President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial just two days away, the battle over whether to call witnesses during the proceedings, including former national security adviser John Bolton, continues to heat up.
Several of the House managers for the impeachment trial, including Reps. Adam Schiff of California, Jerry Nadler and Hakeem Jeffries of New York, and Jason Crow of Colorado, appeared on Sunday news shows to urge the Senate to allow new witnesses and evidence during the process as they seek to oust Trump from office.
These Democrats repeatedly pushed the line that the only way to get a “fair trial” is through additional testimony and documents.
end quotes
Which is hog****, because they have brought criminal charges against Trump on the evidence they said at the time supported those criminal charges, and the only way now to get a truly “fair trial” is for the Democrats to prove the evidence they had at that time supports the criminal charges they brought against Trump based on that evidence.
If the evidence they had when the charges were brought does not support the charges, then that is a clear case of MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, which I can personally testify is a Democrat specialty – bringing false criminal charges against people for purely partisan political reasons, and here, it very much looks like they are getting caught at it and getting their pants pulled down in public, which has them panicking, which takes us back to the story, to wit:
“If the Senate decides, if Senator McConnell prevails and there are no witnesses, it will be the first impeachment trial in history that goes to conclusion without witnesses,” Schiff, the lead House manager for the trial, said during an appearance on ABC’s “This Week.”
“The threshold issue here is, will there be a fair trial?”
“Will the senators allow the House to call witnesses to introduce documents?”
“That is the foundational issue on which everything else rests.”
“And one thing that the public is overwhelmingly in support of, and that is a fair trial.”
end quotes
As a member of the public, yes, I would say that I am very much for a truly fair trial, which means that having brought criminal charges against a sitting American president, the smarmy and unctuous Democrat Congressman from Disneyland Adam Schiff now has to stand up there before the American people and show us how exactly it is the charges he brought against Trump are supported by the evidence he had in hand when he wrote his 300-page report supporting impeachment, which is akin to a citizen grand jury issuing a criminal indictment.
If this is the first impeachment trial without witnesses, the smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff has no one but himself to blame for that, and if he can’t make his case to the American people without making a further POLITICAL DRAMA out of it, then it is he who deserves to be thoroughly embarrassed and censured for MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, which brings us back to the flow of bull**** from out of the Democrats this morning, to wit:
Jeffries added on “Fox News Sunday”: “The most important thing is that the American people deserve a fair trial.”
end quotes
Except it is not the American people who are on trial here – it is Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff and the Democrats who are really on trial, and finally so in a venue where they can’t play their silly, childish, disgusting political games, which takes us back to Hakeem, the Democrat, as follows:
“The Constitution deserves a fair trial.”
end quotes
HUH?
The Constitution deserves as fair trial?
But what did the Constitution do to cause it to be on trial, besides nothing?
Getting back to Hakeem and his totally inane comments in the Politico article, we have:
“Our democracy deserves a fair trial.”
end quotes
Our democracy deserves a fair trial?
My goodness, but the dude is really on a roll there, with everything under the sun going to be on trial in this IMPEACHMENT FARCE, which takes us back to Hakeem once more, to wit:
“And we believe that a fair trial involves witnesses.”
“It involves evidence.”
“It involves documents.”
end quotes
And you know what, Hakeem, We, the American People believe that, as well, and what we further believe is that when criminal charges HAVE BEEN brought, as is the case here, as members of the jury, it is our responsibility to weigh the evidence that is said to support the charges brought, and if the evidence gathered at the time the charges were brought does not support the charges, the charges get thrown out.
It is what is known as DISCOVERY, Hakeem, which is a legal term here in the United States of America to protect the due process rights of the accused.
Discovery, Hakeem, is the formal process of exchanging information between the parties about the witnesses and evidence to be presented at trial and the purpose of discovery is to make the parties aware of the evidence that may be presented at trial.
That is to prevent what is known in the lawyer’s trade as TRIAL BY AMBUSH, another Democrat specialty, where in what is known in Democrat parlance as the Ambush Trial, usually, it is a piece of evidence or a witness that has been concealed from the opposing side in a court case, so as to ensure that there is little to no chance of coming up with an adequate defense.
One would think that a high-powered, hard-charging lawyer like Hakeem Jeffries with his JD from New York University School of Law would be well aware of that, but as a Democrat who is also lawyer, obviously, he is not, which is not surprising at all, given the disdain Democrats have for RULE OF LAW and DUE PROCESS, which takes us back to Politico as follows:
But Senate Republicans, led by Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and David Perdue of Georgia, countered that the House managers should proceed with the evidence they used to impeach Trump in the House.
“I find it curious that Chairman Nadler of the Judiciary Committee called this a ‘rock-solid’ case,” Cornyn said on CBS’ “Face The Nation.
“But if the House isn’t prepared to go forward with the evidence that they produced in the impeachment inquiry, maybe they ought to withdraw the articles of impeachment and start over again.”
“This isn’t the Senate’s responsibility to make the case.”
“This, to me, seems to undermine or indicate that they’re getting cold feet or have a lack of confidence in what they’ve done so far,” Cornyn added.
end quotes
Which is hard logic to argue with, which brings this spew of ignorance from “Jumping Jerry” Nadler in response, to wit:
“And this whole controversy about whether there should be witnesses is just really a question of, does the Senate want to have a fair trial … or are they part of the cover-up of the president?” Nadler said on “Face The Nation.“
“Any Republican senator who says there should be no witnesses or even that witnesses should be negotiated is part of the cover-up.”
end quotes
Except there is no cover-up by the Republicans, Jerry – the only cover-up we can discern right now is the cover-up the Democrats are conducting of Joe Biden’s activities in Ukraine when he was Hussein Obama’s vice president.
And there is where matters now rest, with the Democrats running scared as this IMPEACHMENT FARCE gets real and the rubber meets the road in a Senate trial, but please, stay tuned, because if the Democrats have their way, this ridiculous farcical drama is far from over!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-220512
Paul Plante says :
And the bull**** from the Democrats continues to flow forth fast and furiously here with the POLITICO article “Battle over impeachment witnesses escalates” by John Bresnahan on 19 January 2020, where we have the latest update in the farce cooked up by Adam Schiff and the best screenwriters Hollywood has to offer, to wit:
With President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial just two days away, the battle over whether to call witnesses during the proceedings, including former national security adviser John Bolton, continues to heat up.
Several of the House managers for the impeachment trial, including Reps. Adam Schiff of California, Jerry Nadler and Hakeem Jeffries of New York, and Jason Crow of Colorado, appeared on Sunday news shows to urge the Senate to allow new witnesses and evidence during the process as they seek to oust Trump from office.
These Democrats repeatedly pushed the line that the only way to get a “fair trial” is through additional testimony and documents.
end quotes
Which is hog****, because they have brought criminal charges against Trump on the evidence they said at the time supported those criminal charges, and the only way now to get a truly “fair trial” is for the Democrats to prove the evidence they had at that time supports the criminal charges they brought against Trump based on that evidence.
If the evidence they had when the charges were brought does not support the charges, then that is a clear case of MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, which I can personally testify is a Democrat specialty – bringing false criminal charges against people for purely partisan political reasons, and here, it very much looks like they are getting caught at it and getting their pants pulled down in public, which has them panicking, which takes us back to the story, to wit:
“If the Senate decides, if Senator McConnell prevails and there are no witnesses, it will be the first impeachment trial in history that goes to conclusion without witnesses,” Schiff, the lead House manager for the trial, said during an appearance on ABC’s “This Week.”
“The threshold issue here is, will there be a fair trial?”
“Will the senators allow the House to call witnesses to introduce documents?”
“That is the foundational issue on which everything else rests.”
“And one thing that the public is overwhelmingly in support of, and that is a fair trial.”
end quotes
As a member of the public, yes, I would say that I am very much for a truly fair trial, which means that having brought criminal charges against a sitting American president, the smarmy and unctuous Democrat Congressman from Disneyland Adam Schiff now has to stand up there before the American people and show us how exactly it is the charges he brought against Trump are supported by the evidence he had in hand when he wrote his 300-page report supporting impeachment, which is akin to a citizen grand jury issuing a criminal indictment.
If this is the first impeachment trial without witnesses, the smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff has no one but himself to blame for that, and if he can’t make his case to the American people without making a further POLITICAL DRAMA out of it, then it is he who deserves to be thoroughly embarrassed and censured for MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, which brings us back to the flow of bull**** from out of the Democrats this morning, to wit:
Jeffries added on “Fox News Sunday”: “The most important thing is that the American people deserve a fair trial.”
end quotes
Except it is not the American people who are on trial here – it is Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff and the Democrats who are really on trial, and finally so in a venue where they can’t play their silly, childish, disgusting political games, which takes us back to Hakeem, the Democrat, as follows:
“The Constitution deserves a fair trial.”
end quotes
HUH?
The Constitution deserves as fair trial?
But what did the Constitution do to cause it to be on trial, besides nothing?
Getting back to Hakeem and his totally inane comments in the Politico article, we have:
“Our democracy deserves a fair trial.”
end quotes
Our democracy deserves a fair trial?
My goodness, but the dude is really on a roll there, with everything under the sun going to be on trial in this IMPEACHMENT FARCE, which takes us back to Hakeem once more, to wit:
“And we believe that a fair trial involves witnesses.”
“It involves evidence.”
“It involves documents.”
end quotes
And you know what, Hakeem, We, the American People believe that, as well, and what we further believe is that when criminal charges HAVE BEEN brought, as is the case here, as members of the jury, it is our responsibility to weigh the evidence that is said to support the charges brought, and if the evidence gathered at the time the charges were brought does not support the charges, the charges get thrown out.
It is what is known as DISCOVERY, Hakeem, which is a legal term here in the United States of America to protect the due process rights of the accused.
Discovery, Hakeem, is the formal process of exchanging information between the parties about the witnesses and evidence to be presented at trial and the purpose of discovery is to make the parties aware of the evidence that may be presented at trial.
That is to prevent what is known in the lawyer’s trade as TRIAL BY AMBUSH, another Democrat specialty, where in what is known in Democrat parlance as the Ambush Trial, usually, it is a piece of evidence or a witness that has been concealed from the opposing side in a court case, so as to ensure that there is little to no chance of coming up with an adequate defense.
One would think that a high-powered, hard-charging lawyer like Hakeem Jeffries with his JD from New York University School of Law would be well aware of that, but as a Democrat who is also lawyer, obviously, he is not, which is not surprising at all, given the disdain Democrats have for RULE OF LAW and DUE PROCESS, which takes us back to Politico as follows:
But Senate Republicans, led by Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and David Perdue of Georgia, countered that the House managers should proceed with the evidence they used to impeach Trump in the House.
“I find it curious that Chairman Nadler of the Judiciary Committee called this a ‘rock-solid’ case,” Cornyn said on CBS’ “Face The Nation.
“But if the House isn’t prepared to go forward with the evidence that they produced in the impeachment inquiry, maybe they ought to withdraw the articles of impeachment and start over again.”
“This isn’t the Senate’s responsibility to make the case.”
“This, to me, seems to undermine or indicate that they’re getting cold feet or have a lack of confidence in what they’ve done so far,” Cornyn added.
end quotes
Which is hard logic to argue with, which brings this spew of ignorance from “Jumping Jerry” Nadler in response, to wit:
“And this whole controversy about whether there should be witnesses is just really a question of, does the Senate want to have a fair trial … or are they part of the cover-up of the president?” Nadler said on “Face The Nation.“
“Any Republican senator who says there should be no witnesses or even that witnesses should be negotiated is part of the cover-up.”
end quotes
Except there is no cover-up by the Republicans, Jerry – the only cover-up we can discern right now is the cover-up the Democrats are conducting of Joe Biden’s activities in Ukraine when he was Hussein Obama’s vice president.
And there is where matters now rest, with the Democrats running scared as this IMPEACHMENT FARCE gets real and the rubber meets the road in a Senate trial, but please, stay tuned, because if the Democrats have their way, this ridiculous farcical drama is far from over!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-220512
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 20, 2020 at 12:01 am
Paul Plante says :
As to NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, being compromised as a serious scientific enterprise, as opposed to what it is, a political tool of the IPCC, as we saw in the December 1, 2019 Cape Charles Mirror thread titled “Opinion: On NOAA, Contrived Science and the IPCC” http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... -the-ipcc/ NOAA is compromised precisely because its Deputy Assistant Administrator for Research Ko Barrett, where she supervises daily operations and administration of NOAA’s research enterprise, is at the same time a vice chair of the IPCC, where for over 15 years, she has represented the United States on delegations charged with negotiating and adopting scientific assessments undertaken by the IPCC, and she has also served for over a decade as a lead negotiator for the United States on the United Nations treaty on climate change.
So, where does her loyalty really lie then, given that the IPCC is in essence an independent, autonomous government structure separate from the government of the United States of America?
So talk about a serious conflict of interest, there it is in plain sight.
As to getting buried in bull**** in here, which we certainly are by the climate crisis crowd, and the “hockey stick” graph, a website calling itself “Skeptical Science” has an article entitled “How reliable are CO2 measurements?” where the following statement is made, to wit:
Mauna Loa is often used as an example of rising carbon dioxide levels because its the longest, continuous series of directly measured atmospheric CO2.
The reason why it’s acceptable to use Mauna Loa as a proxy for global CO2 levels is because CO2 mixes well throughout the atmosphere.
Consequently, the trend in Mauna Loa CO2 (1.64 ppm per year) is statistically indistinguishable from the trend in global CO2 levels (1.66 ppm per year).
If global CO2 was used in Figure 1 above, the result “hockey stick” shape would be identical.
end quotes
Except as we can clearly see from the EarthSky article “6 things to know about carbon dioxide” posted July 2, 2019, CO2 is not evenly distributed, to wit:
CO2 is not evenly distributed.
Satellite observations show carbon dioxide in the air can be somewhat patchy, with high concentrations in some places and lower concentrations in others.
For instance, the map below shows carbon dioxide levels for May 2013 in the mid-troposphere, the part of the atmosphere where most weather occurs.
At the time there was more carbon dioxide in the northern hemisphere because crops, grasses, and trees hadn’t greened up yet and absorbed some of the gas.
The transport and distribution of CO2 throughout the atmosphere is controlled by the jet stream, large weather systems, and other large-scale atmospheric circulations.
This patchiness has raised interesting questions about how carbon dioxide is transported from one part of the atmosphere to another – both horizontally and vertically.
end quotes
In fact, as we can see from the article “NASA Releases New CO2 Data, Refutes Conventional Wisdom” by Ucilia Wang on December 15, 2009, that information has been known for some time, but since it goes against the grain of the propaganda being put out by the climate crisis crowd, it is ignored, to wit:
SAN FRANCISCO — NASA has released the first-ever set of carbon dioxide data based only on daily observations by a satellite instrument, a new tool that will help researchers study climate change and improve weather predictions.
The data came from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) that NASA launched aboard its Aqua spacecraft in 2002.
Since then, AIRS has amassed information about carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, water vapor, methane and temperatures in the mid-troposphere.
The mid-troposphere is about three to seven miles above the Earth’s surface.
For carbon dioxide, AIRS measures and tracks its concentration and movement as it moves across the globe.
Observation data is critical for scientists to validate their models or adjust them to better predict the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the weather and climate.
The data have already refuted a long-held belief that carbon dioxide is evenly distributed and do so fairly quickly in the atmosphere once it rises from the ground, said Moustafa Chahine, the science team leader of the AIRS project at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco Tuesday.
“Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, carbon dioxide is not well mixed in the mid-troposphere,” Chahine said.
“You can see the jet stream splitting the carbon dioxide clump.”
AIRS data shows instead that carbon dioxide, which has seen its rate of increase accelerating from 1 part per million in 1955 to 2 parts per million today, would require about two to three years before it blends in, he said.
The atmosphere currently has about 400 parts per million.
How well and how quickly carbon dioxide blends in is important for understanding how much and how long carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere and affects the climate before some of it is scooped up by Earth’s natural scrubbers, such as the ocean.
And by extension, that knowledge would be crucial in determining what humans must do to minimize their emissions or use technologies to capture and sequester their carbon dioxide pollution before it escapes into the atmosphere.
Chahine said several climate models have assumed an even distribution because researchers didn’t have adequate data to show how the carbon dioxide is vertically transported through the atmosphere.
“The data we have now will help researchers improve their models’ vertical transport,” Chahine said.
Although scientists knew that carbon dioxide doesn’t stay in one location – winds blow pollution from Asia across the Pacific to reach the United States – their models largely showed a smaller amount of the emission move from the north to the south than what data from AIRS have demonstrated.
end quotes
And if CO2 is not evenly distributed, then the greenhouse gas models being used to make us feel panic because Greta Thunberg is scared are not accurate, plain and simple.
Will NOAA come clean and tell us that?
Frankly, based on my conversations with that agency, I frankly doubt it, because it needs this climate crisis to secure future funding for itself and the IPCC.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/e ... ent-220526
Paul Plante says :
As to NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, being compromised as a serious scientific enterprise, as opposed to what it is, a political tool of the IPCC, as we saw in the December 1, 2019 Cape Charles Mirror thread titled “Opinion: On NOAA, Contrived Science and the IPCC” http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... -the-ipcc/ NOAA is compromised precisely because its Deputy Assistant Administrator for Research Ko Barrett, where she supervises daily operations and administration of NOAA’s research enterprise, is at the same time a vice chair of the IPCC, where for over 15 years, she has represented the United States on delegations charged with negotiating and adopting scientific assessments undertaken by the IPCC, and she has also served for over a decade as a lead negotiator for the United States on the United Nations treaty on climate change.
So, where does her loyalty really lie then, given that the IPCC is in essence an independent, autonomous government structure separate from the government of the United States of America?
So talk about a serious conflict of interest, there it is in plain sight.
As to getting buried in bull**** in here, which we certainly are by the climate crisis crowd, and the “hockey stick” graph, a website calling itself “Skeptical Science” has an article entitled “How reliable are CO2 measurements?” where the following statement is made, to wit:
Mauna Loa is often used as an example of rising carbon dioxide levels because its the longest, continuous series of directly measured atmospheric CO2.
The reason why it’s acceptable to use Mauna Loa as a proxy for global CO2 levels is because CO2 mixes well throughout the atmosphere.
Consequently, the trend in Mauna Loa CO2 (1.64 ppm per year) is statistically indistinguishable from the trend in global CO2 levels (1.66 ppm per year).
If global CO2 was used in Figure 1 above, the result “hockey stick” shape would be identical.
end quotes
Except as we can clearly see from the EarthSky article “6 things to know about carbon dioxide” posted July 2, 2019, CO2 is not evenly distributed, to wit:
CO2 is not evenly distributed.
Satellite observations show carbon dioxide in the air can be somewhat patchy, with high concentrations in some places and lower concentrations in others.
For instance, the map below shows carbon dioxide levels for May 2013 in the mid-troposphere, the part of the atmosphere where most weather occurs.
At the time there was more carbon dioxide in the northern hemisphere because crops, grasses, and trees hadn’t greened up yet and absorbed some of the gas.
The transport and distribution of CO2 throughout the atmosphere is controlled by the jet stream, large weather systems, and other large-scale atmospheric circulations.
This patchiness has raised interesting questions about how carbon dioxide is transported from one part of the atmosphere to another – both horizontally and vertically.
end quotes
In fact, as we can see from the article “NASA Releases New CO2 Data, Refutes Conventional Wisdom” by Ucilia Wang on December 15, 2009, that information has been known for some time, but since it goes against the grain of the propaganda being put out by the climate crisis crowd, it is ignored, to wit:
SAN FRANCISCO — NASA has released the first-ever set of carbon dioxide data based only on daily observations by a satellite instrument, a new tool that will help researchers study climate change and improve weather predictions.
The data came from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) that NASA launched aboard its Aqua spacecraft in 2002.
Since then, AIRS has amassed information about carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, water vapor, methane and temperatures in the mid-troposphere.
The mid-troposphere is about three to seven miles above the Earth’s surface.
For carbon dioxide, AIRS measures and tracks its concentration and movement as it moves across the globe.
Observation data is critical for scientists to validate their models or adjust them to better predict the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the weather and climate.
The data have already refuted a long-held belief that carbon dioxide is evenly distributed and do so fairly quickly in the atmosphere once it rises from the ground, said Moustafa Chahine, the science team leader of the AIRS project at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco Tuesday.
“Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, carbon dioxide is not well mixed in the mid-troposphere,” Chahine said.
“You can see the jet stream splitting the carbon dioxide clump.”
AIRS data shows instead that carbon dioxide, which has seen its rate of increase accelerating from 1 part per million in 1955 to 2 parts per million today, would require about two to three years before it blends in, he said.
The atmosphere currently has about 400 parts per million.
How well and how quickly carbon dioxide blends in is important for understanding how much and how long carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere and affects the climate before some of it is scooped up by Earth’s natural scrubbers, such as the ocean.
And by extension, that knowledge would be crucial in determining what humans must do to minimize their emissions or use technologies to capture and sequester their carbon dioxide pollution before it escapes into the atmosphere.
Chahine said several climate models have assumed an even distribution because researchers didn’t have adequate data to show how the carbon dioxide is vertically transported through the atmosphere.
“The data we have now will help researchers improve their models’ vertical transport,” Chahine said.
Although scientists knew that carbon dioxide doesn’t stay in one location – winds blow pollution from Asia across the Pacific to reach the United States – their models largely showed a smaller amount of the emission move from the north to the south than what data from AIRS have demonstrated.
end quotes
And if CO2 is not evenly distributed, then the greenhouse gas models being used to make us feel panic because Greta Thunberg is scared are not accurate, plain and simple.
Will NOAA come clean and tell us that?
Frankly, based on my conversations with that agency, I frankly doubt it, because it needs this climate crisis to secure future funding for itself and the IPCC.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/e ... ent-220526
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 20, 2020 at 7:49 pm
Paul Plante says:
And being not one to avoid an opportunity to make himself look buffoonish, loopy and not all there, and not at all content to have appeared the fool and clown in the POLITICO article “Battle over impeachment witnesses escalates” by John Bresnahan on 19 January 2020, our own Adam Schiff, the hero of this long-running saga, also managed to insert his mouth into a Washington Post article entitled “Dershowitz distances himself from White House response to Democrats’ impeachment charges” by Felicia Sonmez and Mike DeBonis on 19 January 2020, as follows:
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead impeachment manager, said Sunday that Democrats will be “fighting for a fair trial” and pushed back against critics who have argued that the House should have done more to enforce its subpoenas before voting to impeach Trump.
end quotes
From that statement, all we can really conclude is that Adam Schiff is living in a world inside his head where the normal rules of gravity on this earth of ours clearly do not apply, because there is no “fight” the Democrats can now fight to put teeth into their slogan “fighting for a fair trial” would be to defend the evidence which is alleged to support the criminal charges Adam Schiff drafted against Trump.
All Adam has left to him now that he is about to be shown to all the candid world as a malicious, empty windbag, is to try and confuse us by making him look like the victim here, when he is anything but, which takes us back to the horse**** the Washington Post lets Adam Schiff spew in their newspaper, to wit:
“The reality is, because what the president is threatening to do is cheat in the next election, you cannot wait months and years to be able to remove that threat from office,” Schiff said on “This Week.”
end quotes
And get the **** out of here with that crap, Adam, because it is horse****!
Who is really cheating at the next election is yourself with these kinds of incriminating comments unsupported by any evidence, which nonetheless, doesn’t stop you from saying them, along with Nancy Pelosi, “Jumping Jerry” Nadler and the Democrat party, and it is disgustingly and patently obvious what you and the Democrats are about here, which takes us back to the Washington Post, where the saga gets even wilder, to wit:
Asked about a Politico report on the topic, Schiff also claimed that the CIA and the National Security Agency are withholding documents related to Ukraine under pressure from the White House and that intelligence officials are reluctant to testify publicly on global security threats because of fear of angering Trump.
“The NSA, in particular, is withholding what are potentially relevant documents to our oversight responsibilities on Ukraine, but also withholding documents potentially relevant that the senators might want to see during the trial,” he said.
“That is deeply concerning.”
“And there are signs that the CIA may be on the same tragic course.”
end quotes
Tragic course?
Hmmmmm.
Who is on the tragic course here from my perspective is Adam Schiff.
Can Adam now be nimble and snatch his fat back out of the fire without getting his fingers burned?
Stay tuned and now a word from our sponsors while we pause for station identification.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-220752
Paul Plante says:
And being not one to avoid an opportunity to make himself look buffoonish, loopy and not all there, and not at all content to have appeared the fool and clown in the POLITICO article “Battle over impeachment witnesses escalates” by John Bresnahan on 19 January 2020, our own Adam Schiff, the hero of this long-running saga, also managed to insert his mouth into a Washington Post article entitled “Dershowitz distances himself from White House response to Democrats’ impeachment charges” by Felicia Sonmez and Mike DeBonis on 19 January 2020, as follows:
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead impeachment manager, said Sunday that Democrats will be “fighting for a fair trial” and pushed back against critics who have argued that the House should have done more to enforce its subpoenas before voting to impeach Trump.
end quotes
From that statement, all we can really conclude is that Adam Schiff is living in a world inside his head where the normal rules of gravity on this earth of ours clearly do not apply, because there is no “fight” the Democrats can now fight to put teeth into their slogan “fighting for a fair trial” would be to defend the evidence which is alleged to support the criminal charges Adam Schiff drafted against Trump.
All Adam has left to him now that he is about to be shown to all the candid world as a malicious, empty windbag, is to try and confuse us by making him look like the victim here, when he is anything but, which takes us back to the horse**** the Washington Post lets Adam Schiff spew in their newspaper, to wit:
“The reality is, because what the president is threatening to do is cheat in the next election, you cannot wait months and years to be able to remove that threat from office,” Schiff said on “This Week.”
end quotes
And get the **** out of here with that crap, Adam, because it is horse****!
Who is really cheating at the next election is yourself with these kinds of incriminating comments unsupported by any evidence, which nonetheless, doesn’t stop you from saying them, along with Nancy Pelosi, “Jumping Jerry” Nadler and the Democrat party, and it is disgustingly and patently obvious what you and the Democrats are about here, which takes us back to the Washington Post, where the saga gets even wilder, to wit:
Asked about a Politico report on the topic, Schiff also claimed that the CIA and the National Security Agency are withholding documents related to Ukraine under pressure from the White House and that intelligence officials are reluctant to testify publicly on global security threats because of fear of angering Trump.
“The NSA, in particular, is withholding what are potentially relevant documents to our oversight responsibilities on Ukraine, but also withholding documents potentially relevant that the senators might want to see during the trial,” he said.
“That is deeply concerning.”
“And there are signs that the CIA may be on the same tragic course.”
end quotes
Tragic course?
Hmmmmm.
Who is on the tragic course here from my perspective is Adam Schiff.
Can Adam now be nimble and snatch his fat back out of the fire without getting his fingers burned?
Stay tuned and now a word from our sponsors while we pause for station identification.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-220752
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 18, 2020 at 7:42 pm
Paul Plante says:
And as an example of just how absolutely looney, zany and stupidly insane this “climate change” dialogue has become, we need go no further than this following from the VOX article entitled “21 kids sued the government over climate change. A federal court dismissed the case. Plaintiffs in the Juliana v. US lawsuit alleged the government violated the rights of young people to a safe climate” by Umair Irfan on Jan. 17, 2020, to wit:
Climate litigation has also emerged as an issue in the 2020 campaign for president.
Many of the Democratic contenders have called for fossil fuel companies to be held liable for climate damages and for sowing disinformation.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has gone as far as to call for criminal prosecution of greenhouse gas emitters.
end quotes
Yo! Yo! You Go, Bernie!
And since you are a prodigious greenhouse gas emitter yourself, what with both copious amounts of carbon dioxide from yourself and your staff and your political campaign, coupled with all that methane you personally are a big emitter of, make a good example for the rest of us and bring yourself on criminal charges first, and get yourself prosecuted to the fullest degree of the law to show us just how serious you really are.
Everybody who strikes a match is a greenhouse gas emitter.
All those people with their lit Bic lighters at Bernie Sanders Revival Rallies swaying back and forth in ecstasy as Bernie croons to them in dulcet tones are greenhouse gas emitters, because ALL combustion emits greenhouse gasses, including your gas grill or charcoal grill to cook you Mahi-Mahi steaks on.
Dare to combust anything, and you’ll end up doing hard time in Bernie’s world where emitting greenhouse gases, including farts, is a criminal offense.
And what a truly stupid statement that is, people, from somebody who wants to get into the White House to get his socialistic/communistic hands on $16.3 TRILLION in taxpayer funds that he can then squander in the name of climate justice, a contrived term with whatever meaning of the moment grasping hack politicians like Bernie Sanders can give to it.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-212459
Paul Plante says:
And as an example of just how absolutely looney, zany and stupidly insane this “climate change” dialogue has become, we need go no further than this following from the VOX article entitled “21 kids sued the government over climate change. A federal court dismissed the case. Plaintiffs in the Juliana v. US lawsuit alleged the government violated the rights of young people to a safe climate” by Umair Irfan on Jan. 17, 2020, to wit:
Climate litigation has also emerged as an issue in the 2020 campaign for president.
Many of the Democratic contenders have called for fossil fuel companies to be held liable for climate damages and for sowing disinformation.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has gone as far as to call for criminal prosecution of greenhouse gas emitters.
end quotes
Yo! Yo! You Go, Bernie!
And since you are a prodigious greenhouse gas emitter yourself, what with both copious amounts of carbon dioxide from yourself and your staff and your political campaign, coupled with all that methane you personally are a big emitter of, make a good example for the rest of us and bring yourself on criminal charges first, and get yourself prosecuted to the fullest degree of the law to show us just how serious you really are.
Everybody who strikes a match is a greenhouse gas emitter.
All those people with their lit Bic lighters at Bernie Sanders Revival Rallies swaying back and forth in ecstasy as Bernie croons to them in dulcet tones are greenhouse gas emitters, because ALL combustion emits greenhouse gasses, including your gas grill or charcoal grill to cook you Mahi-Mahi steaks on.
Dare to combust anything, and you’ll end up doing hard time in Bernie’s world where emitting greenhouse gases, including farts, is a criminal offense.
And what a truly stupid statement that is, people, from somebody who wants to get into the White House to get his socialistic/communistic hands on $16.3 TRILLION in taxpayer funds that he can then squander in the name of climate justice, a contrived term with whatever meaning of the moment grasping hack politicians like Bernie Sanders can give to it.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-212459
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 20, 2020 at 11:56 pm
Paul Plante says :
With respect to “global average temperature” supposedly sky-rocketing upward because of carbon dioxide, if one were to bother to consult “WORLDS IN THE MAKING – THE EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE” by Svante Arrhenius, Director of the Physico-Chemical Nobel Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, published March, 1908, one would find this following data point, to wit:
The actual mean temperature of the surface of the earth is 16 Cent. (61 F.).
end quotes
Now, fast-forward to our times today, some one hundred twelve years later, where we have as follows with respect to global average temperature:
GISS data show global average temperatures in 2017 rose 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) above the 1951-1980 mean.
According to GISS, the global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 57 F (14 C).
That would put the planet’s average surface temperature in 2017 at 58.62 F (14.9 C).
end quotes
So, hmmmm, the global average temperature in 1908 as reported by Arrhenius, an acknowledged expert in the field of science, was 16 degrees C, and the global average temperature in 2017 was 14.9 degrees C, which is a degree C BELOW the global average temperature one hundred nine years earlier.
So, is the global average temperature really warming?
But what am I saying, it must be because the IPCC and NOAA say it is so, and who are we to challenge anything NOAA says, even if it is not true?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/e ... ent-220526
Paul Plante says :
With respect to “global average temperature” supposedly sky-rocketing upward because of carbon dioxide, if one were to bother to consult “WORLDS IN THE MAKING – THE EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE” by Svante Arrhenius, Director of the Physico-Chemical Nobel Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, published March, 1908, one would find this following data point, to wit:
The actual mean temperature of the surface of the earth is 16 Cent. (61 F.).
end quotes
Now, fast-forward to our times today, some one hundred twelve years later, where we have as follows with respect to global average temperature:
GISS data show global average temperatures in 2017 rose 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) above the 1951-1980 mean.
According to GISS, the global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 57 F (14 C).
That would put the planet’s average surface temperature in 2017 at 58.62 F (14.9 C).
end quotes
So, hmmmm, the global average temperature in 1908 as reported by Arrhenius, an acknowledged expert in the field of science, was 16 degrees C, and the global average temperature in 2017 was 14.9 degrees C, which is a degree C BELOW the global average temperature one hundred nine years earlier.
So, is the global average temperature really warming?
But what am I saying, it must be because the IPCC and NOAA say it is so, and who are we to challenge anything NOAA says, even if it is not true?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/e ... ent-220526
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 21, 2020 at 7:10 pm
Paul Plante says:
As an observer, it was good to see Northam’s bluff called here, his cry last week that these were violent people.
I think he is stealing a page from the political playbook of Democratic Socialist tyrant and dictator Young Andy Cuomo, the military governor of the corrupt third-world ****hole of New York, who now rules, like Northam with his martial law/state of emergency, by decree, much like Augustus Caesar did when he assumed the mantle of emperor of Rome.
Like Cuomo, Northam now seems to have himself a lock on the legislative branch with a lickspittle rubber-stamp Democrat legislature that will approve his every action, and allow him to rule as he pleases.
So it will be interesting to see how this drama down here in the Old Dominion continues to play out.
Will Northam, like Cuomo, come out and openly say “conservatives are not welcome in Virginia,” the way Cuomo says they are not welcome in New York?
The candid world watches and waits with bated breath to see which twist and turn in this passion play of Northam’s comes up next!
And we are surprised here to the north of you that the Democrats didn’t have their violent paramilitaries dressed up in MAGA hats and wearing those T-shirts we see Democrats wearing up this way that say “I’m with Trump – **** your feelings,” which is stupid in a small town where everybody knows who the Democrats are, down there to incite violence that would then be blamed on the 2d amendment crowd.
I came across one of the sniveling little skulkers wearing one just the other day at the market, in fact, which prompted me to tell the little skulker that he was a real A-HOLE, at which he sneered at me and then scuttled away.
And that is the kind of dirty tricks that the Democrats are up to up this way, anyway.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/n ... nt-rights/
Paul Plante says:
As an observer, it was good to see Northam’s bluff called here, his cry last week that these were violent people.
I think he is stealing a page from the political playbook of Democratic Socialist tyrant and dictator Young Andy Cuomo, the military governor of the corrupt third-world ****hole of New York, who now rules, like Northam with his martial law/state of emergency, by decree, much like Augustus Caesar did when he assumed the mantle of emperor of Rome.
Like Cuomo, Northam now seems to have himself a lock on the legislative branch with a lickspittle rubber-stamp Democrat legislature that will approve his every action, and allow him to rule as he pleases.
So it will be interesting to see how this drama down here in the Old Dominion continues to play out.
Will Northam, like Cuomo, come out and openly say “conservatives are not welcome in Virginia,” the way Cuomo says they are not welcome in New York?
The candid world watches and waits with bated breath to see which twist and turn in this passion play of Northam’s comes up next!
And we are surprised here to the north of you that the Democrats didn’t have their violent paramilitaries dressed up in MAGA hats and wearing those T-shirts we see Democrats wearing up this way that say “I’m with Trump – **** your feelings,” which is stupid in a small town where everybody knows who the Democrats are, down there to incite violence that would then be blamed on the 2d amendment crowd.
I came across one of the sniveling little skulkers wearing one just the other day at the market, in fact, which prompted me to tell the little skulker that he was a real A-HOLE, at which he sneered at me and then scuttled away.
And that is the kind of dirty tricks that the Democrats are up to up this way, anyway.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/n ... nt-rights/
Re: Just musings, is all
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 21, 2020 at 10:46 pm
Paul Plante says :
And speaking of the insanity not only not being over, but instead being accelerated at what might be blinding speed which is going to further warp and twist the minds of America’s youth who are already suffering psychological problems because of all the hype and hysteria about “climate change,” and the end of the world coming, we have this addition to the hysteria from the January 17, 2020 dissent in Juliana v USA of Josephine Laura Staton, a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California who obtained a Juris Doctor in 1986 from Harvard Law School and who on February 4, 2010, was nominated to the federal bench by Hussein Obama, a chief defendant in Juliana, to wit:
In these proceedings, the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response — yet presses ahead toward calamity.
It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses.
Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation.
end quotes
When she refers to the “government” there, she is referring to Hussein Obama.
Continuing on with the hysteria that is destroying the minds of America’s children, she states:
My colleagues throw up their hands, concluding that this case presents nothing fit for the Judiciary.
On a fundamental point, we agree: No case can singlehandedly prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change predicted by the government and scientists.
But a federal court need not manage all of the delicate foreign relations and regulatory minutiae implicated by climate change to offer real relief, and the mere fact that this suit cannot alone halt climate change does not mean that it presents no claim suitable for judicial resolution.
Plaintiffs bring suit to enforce the most basic structural principle embedded in our system of ordered liberty: that the Constitution does not condone the Nation’s willful destruction.
So viewed, plaintiffs’ claims adhere to a judicially administrable standard.
end quotes
There is where we are, people – it is now a matter of the willful destruction of the United States itself, and nothing less, as we can see by returning to that dissent as follows:
And considering plaintiffs seek no less than to forestall the Nation’s demise, even a partial and temporary reprieve would constitute meaningful redress.
Such relief, much like the desegregation orders and statewide prison injunctions the Supreme Court has sanctioned, would vindicate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights without exceeding the Judiciary’s province.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
I. As the majority recognizes, and the government does not contest, carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and other greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions created by burning fossil fuels are devastating the planet. Maj. Op. at 14–15.
end quotes
Now, right there, we in here in the Cape Charles Mirror who are daring to disbelieve any of this, and to question it, have just been made into heretics there, with that statement by this federal judge that carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and other greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions created by burning fossil fuels are devastating the planet.
Whether that is true or not, by judicial decree, it is now true, and woe to us who think or can prove otherwise.
Getting back to that dissent:
According to one of plaintiffs’ experts, the inevitable result, absent immediate action, is “an inhospitable future . . . marked by rising seas, coastal city functionality loss, mass migrations, resource wars, food shortages, heat waves, mega-storms, soil depletion and desiccation, freshwater shortage, public health system collapse, and the extinction of increasing numbers of species.”
Even government scientists project that, given current warming trends, sea levels will rise two feet by 2050, nearly four feet by 2070, over eight feet by 2100, 18 feet by 2150, and over 31 feet by 2200.
To put that in perspective, a three-foot sea level rise will make two million American homes uninhabitable; a rise of approximately 20 feet will result in the total loss of Miami, New Orleans, and other coastal cities.
So, as described by plaintiffs’ experts, the injuries experienced by plaintiffs are the first small wave in an oncoming tsunami — now visible on the horizon of the not-so-distant future — that will destroy the United States as we currently know it.
end quotes
So, are we who dare to question then next going to be accused of being for the destruction of the United States as we currently know it?
Will that require us to be punished for thinking heretical thoughts along the lines of that is unscientific bull****?
Will we need re-education at hard labor to correct our flawed thinking?
Getting back to the dissent:
What sets this harm apart from all others is not just its magnitude, but its irreversibility.
The devastation might look and feel somewhat different if future generations could simply pick up the pieces and restore the Nation.
But plaintiffs’ experts speak of a certain level of global warming as “locking in” this catastrophic damage.
Put more starkly by plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Harold R. Wanless, “(a)tmospheric warming will continue for some 30 years after we stop putting more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.”
“But that warmed atmosphere will continue warming the ocean for centuries, and the accumulating heat in the oceans will persist for millennia” (emphasis added).
Indeed, another of plaintiffs’ experts echoes, “(t)he fact that GHGs dissipate very slowly from the atmosphere . . . and that the costs of taking CO2 out of the atmosphere through non-biological carbon capture and storage are very high means that the consequences of GHG emissions should be viewed as effectively irreversible” (emphasis added).
In other words, “(g)iven the self-reinforcing nature of climate change,” the tipping point may well have arrived, and we may be rapidly approaching the point of no return.
Despite countless studies over the last half century warning of the catastrophic consequences of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, many of which the government conducted, the government not only failed to act but also “affirmatively promote(d) fossil fuel use in a host of ways.” Maj. Op. at 15.
According to plaintiffs’ evidence, our nation is crumbling — at our government’s own hand — into a wasteland.
In short, the government has directly facilitated an existential crisis to the country’s perpetuity.
end quotes
So, I guess afterall the Guardian was really right – the world is ending.
And the hype and hysteria beat goes on!
Incredible is all I can say.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-221236
Paul Plante says :
And speaking of the insanity not only not being over, but instead being accelerated at what might be blinding speed which is going to further warp and twist the minds of America’s youth who are already suffering psychological problems because of all the hype and hysteria about “climate change,” and the end of the world coming, we have this addition to the hysteria from the January 17, 2020 dissent in Juliana v USA of Josephine Laura Staton, a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California who obtained a Juris Doctor in 1986 from Harvard Law School and who on February 4, 2010, was nominated to the federal bench by Hussein Obama, a chief defendant in Juliana, to wit:
In these proceedings, the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response — yet presses ahead toward calamity.
It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses.
Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation.
end quotes
When she refers to the “government” there, she is referring to Hussein Obama.
Continuing on with the hysteria that is destroying the minds of America’s children, she states:
My colleagues throw up their hands, concluding that this case presents nothing fit for the Judiciary.
On a fundamental point, we agree: No case can singlehandedly prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change predicted by the government and scientists.
But a federal court need not manage all of the delicate foreign relations and regulatory minutiae implicated by climate change to offer real relief, and the mere fact that this suit cannot alone halt climate change does not mean that it presents no claim suitable for judicial resolution.
Plaintiffs bring suit to enforce the most basic structural principle embedded in our system of ordered liberty: that the Constitution does not condone the Nation’s willful destruction.
So viewed, plaintiffs’ claims adhere to a judicially administrable standard.
end quotes
There is where we are, people – it is now a matter of the willful destruction of the United States itself, and nothing less, as we can see by returning to that dissent as follows:
And considering plaintiffs seek no less than to forestall the Nation’s demise, even a partial and temporary reprieve would constitute meaningful redress.
Such relief, much like the desegregation orders and statewide prison injunctions the Supreme Court has sanctioned, would vindicate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights without exceeding the Judiciary’s province.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
I. As the majority recognizes, and the government does not contest, carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and other greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions created by burning fossil fuels are devastating the planet. Maj. Op. at 14–15.
end quotes
Now, right there, we in here in the Cape Charles Mirror who are daring to disbelieve any of this, and to question it, have just been made into heretics there, with that statement by this federal judge that carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and other greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions created by burning fossil fuels are devastating the planet.
Whether that is true or not, by judicial decree, it is now true, and woe to us who think or can prove otherwise.
Getting back to that dissent:
According to one of plaintiffs’ experts, the inevitable result, absent immediate action, is “an inhospitable future . . . marked by rising seas, coastal city functionality loss, mass migrations, resource wars, food shortages, heat waves, mega-storms, soil depletion and desiccation, freshwater shortage, public health system collapse, and the extinction of increasing numbers of species.”
Even government scientists project that, given current warming trends, sea levels will rise two feet by 2050, nearly four feet by 2070, over eight feet by 2100, 18 feet by 2150, and over 31 feet by 2200.
To put that in perspective, a three-foot sea level rise will make two million American homes uninhabitable; a rise of approximately 20 feet will result in the total loss of Miami, New Orleans, and other coastal cities.
So, as described by plaintiffs’ experts, the injuries experienced by plaintiffs are the first small wave in an oncoming tsunami — now visible on the horizon of the not-so-distant future — that will destroy the United States as we currently know it.
end quotes
So, are we who dare to question then next going to be accused of being for the destruction of the United States as we currently know it?
Will that require us to be punished for thinking heretical thoughts along the lines of that is unscientific bull****?
Will we need re-education at hard labor to correct our flawed thinking?
Getting back to the dissent:
What sets this harm apart from all others is not just its magnitude, but its irreversibility.
The devastation might look and feel somewhat different if future generations could simply pick up the pieces and restore the Nation.
But plaintiffs’ experts speak of a certain level of global warming as “locking in” this catastrophic damage.
Put more starkly by plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Harold R. Wanless, “(a)tmospheric warming will continue for some 30 years after we stop putting more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.”
“But that warmed atmosphere will continue warming the ocean for centuries, and the accumulating heat in the oceans will persist for millennia” (emphasis added).
Indeed, another of plaintiffs’ experts echoes, “(t)he fact that GHGs dissipate very slowly from the atmosphere . . . and that the costs of taking CO2 out of the atmosphere through non-biological carbon capture and storage are very high means that the consequences of GHG emissions should be viewed as effectively irreversible” (emphasis added).
In other words, “(g)iven the self-reinforcing nature of climate change,” the tipping point may well have arrived, and we may be rapidly approaching the point of no return.
Despite countless studies over the last half century warning of the catastrophic consequences of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, many of which the government conducted, the government not only failed to act but also “affirmatively promote(d) fossil fuel use in a host of ways.” Maj. Op. at 15.
According to plaintiffs’ evidence, our nation is crumbling — at our government’s own hand — into a wasteland.
In short, the government has directly facilitated an existential crisis to the country’s perpetuity.
end quotes
So, I guess afterall the Guardian was really right – the world is ending.
And the hype and hysteria beat goes on!
Incredible is all I can say.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-221236