THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 24, 2020 at 8:09 pm
Paul Plante says :
Indeed, the majority has already acknowledged as much in finding plaintiffs’ injuries traceable to the government’s misconduct because the traceability and redressability inquiries are largely coextensive. See Maj. Op. at 19–21; see also Wash. Envtl. Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131, 1146 (2013) (“The Supreme Court has clarified that the ‘fairly traceable’ and ‘redressability’ components for standing overlap and are ‘two facets of a single causation requirement.’ The two are distinct insofar as causality examines the connection between the alleged misconduct and injury, whereas redressability analyzes the connection between the alleged injury and requested judicial relief.”) (internal citation omitted).
Here, where the requested relief is simply to stop the ongoing misconduct, the inquiries are nearly identical. Cf. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 753 n.19 (1984) (“(I)t is important to keep the inquiries separate” where “the relief requested goes well beyond the violation of law alleged.”), abrogated on other grounds by Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014); see also infra Part II.B.3.
end quotes
That, my dear friend and fellow American patriot Chas Cornweller, is stern judicial language from Hon. 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, which stern language condemning Barack Hussein Obama is found in Footnote 8 at p.48 of the 17 January 2020 Decision of the United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit in the matter of Juliana at al. v. United States et al., and it is condemnatory towards Obama because the misconduct which harmed those children, perhaps irreparably, along with Nick, is Obama’s misconduct, Chas, and no one else’s.
Given the language above that, “(S)eeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation,” which translates as Barack Hussein Obama bluntly insisting that it is he who has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation, clearly his misconduct which has caused this harm to these children is criminal in nature, and now that Obama no longer has the immunity the office of president provided him with, for justice to be done here, what young Nick really needs to do, and thankfully, here he is blessed with all the multitude of resources available to him though the University of Virginia Global Environments + Sustainability program, is to get Obama indicted on criminal charges for this misconduct in office, because that is the message that now needs to be sent to those in power in the federal government who stayed silent while Obama was committing that misconduct that crime against children and humanity here in the United States of America will not be tolerated by We, the American People, and especially Nick’s generation, which generation can and should make a very powerful statement to the world by holding Barack Hussein Obama criminally liable for crimes against humanity, along with Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has probably done more to harm the world that is crumbling down around Nick and his generation with all of the prodigious amount of carbon dioxide poured in copious amounts into the earth’s upper atmosphere by Hillary Clinton, whose first 100 days as Hussein Obama’s secretary of state found her travelling over 70,000 miles (110,000 km), as an international celebrity with a much higher profile than most Secretaries of State, totaling 956,733 air miles during her time as Hussein Obama’s polluting secretary of state.
Get out your calculator, Chas Cornweller, and using a conservative figure that on average, a plane produces a little over 53 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per mile, do some math and see the harm Hillary Clinton caused to children like Nick with that friviolous flitting around by Hillary, which works out to 50,706,849 pounds of carbon dioxide Hillary Clinton is personally responsible for polluting Nick’s world with before he has had a chance to live in it, or 25,353.4245 tons, which is a goodly chunk stolen from the carbon budget that should have been there for Nick’s generation.
Accordingly, now that she no longer enjoys immunity, Hillary Clinton should be tried on criminal charges for crimes against humanity, if there is a message to be sent here of any value, as well as for justice to be done, because if Hillary Clinton, who is deemed to be above the law, can be held criminally liable by these children, the message will be that nobody is above the law, and only then, Chas, will change for Nick’s generation come.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-222526
ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT
Re: ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 25, 2020 at 11:55 pm
Paul Plante says :
Plaintiffs submit ample evidence that there is a discernable “tipping point” at which the government’s conduct turns from facilitating mere pollution to inducing an unstoppable cataclysm in violation of plaintiffs’ rights.
Indeed, the majority itself cites plaintiffs’ evidence that “atmospheric carbon levels of 350 parts per million are necessary to stabilize the climate.”
end quotes
Those are statements 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 which are found at p. 56 of the 17 January 2020 Decision of the United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit in the matter of Juliana at al. v. United States et al., and the second statement about “atmospheric carbon levels of 350 parts per million are necessary to stabilize the climate” is an opinion that does not have a scientific basis of support.
My basis for making that observation is a communication between myself as a professional engineer, and Dr. Howard Diamond, the Climate Science Program Manager at NOAA’s Air Resources Laboratory last September, to wit:
On 9/23/2019 3:25 PM, Paul Plante wrote:
Another point is that when an engineer doing HVAC design looks in standard references for NORMAL background air, the figure given ranges from 250 – 350 ppm, with no whiff of hysteria, whatsoever, that the world is going to come to a cataclysmic end in 10 or 12 years, as we are being told today, and in answer to the question “What is the safe top limit of the amount of co2 for Earth?”, it is in short that no one knows the safe upper limit for atmospheric CO2 while the generally accepted maximum safe figure is 350 PPM.
Does that agree with your science?
On 9/23/ 2019 at 3:47 PM, Howard Diamond wrote:
As for what a generally maximum number, yes, the generally accepted maximum safe figure has been pegged to 350 ppm.
That level was chosen for practicality as well as the fact that that level is generally pegged to result in about a 1°C increase which was considered much better than projections right now that take us well above that limit.
Yes, we are only at 0.8°C at this point, but again, from my previous information, the oceans have not quite kicked in yet.
So, is 350 ppm the best safe top limit?
Well, it’s probably as close as is practical short of going back to the pre-industrial average of 280 ppm.
end quotes
So, the truth is that we really do not know what a safe limit is, given all the uncertainty factors involved, and anyway, and this according to NOAA, the global AVERAGE atmospheric carbon dioxide in 2018 was 407.4 parts per million (ppm for short), with a range of uncertainty of plus or minus 0.1 ppm, so we are way past the 350 ppm the children and the federal judge desire, and here it must be noted that it is an AVERAGE value of CO2, not an absolute value, which means that to get an average of 400, you would have say, 600 ppm in one place, and 200 ppm in another, which adds up to 800, and divide by 2 and there you have an average of 400.
And that averaging of CO2 takes us to this from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, to wit:
350 – 1,000 ppm: typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.
1,000 – 2,000 ppm: level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air.
2,000 – 5,000 ppm: level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air.
end quotes
So we can see that in any normal indoor environment, CO2 levels are considerably higher than 350.
And there are other places on earth where very little CO2 is emitted, since for CO2 to be emitted, there has to be some sort of combustion process to create it.
So all those low CO2 values end up being averaged with high readings from certain locations with high values, and now we have an average of a little over 400 ppm.
That CO2 generation is not at all uniform, all we need do is go to Wikipedia under Climate of New York, where we have as follows:
Greenhouse gas emission is low on a per capita basis when compared to most other states due to the extensive use of mass transit, particularly across New York City.
end quotes
But, hey, what am I talking about here – facts and reality are so passe, and the hot new thing is hysteria, so I am definitely far behind the times here, believing in Holocene era science and rational thinking in the Anthropocene era, where rationality has departed the planet to be replaced by mindless hysteria and insanity.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-222911
Paul Plante says :
Plaintiffs submit ample evidence that there is a discernable “tipping point” at which the government’s conduct turns from facilitating mere pollution to inducing an unstoppable cataclysm in violation of plaintiffs’ rights.
Indeed, the majority itself cites plaintiffs’ evidence that “atmospheric carbon levels of 350 parts per million are necessary to stabilize the climate.”
end quotes
Those are statements 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 which are found at p. 56 of the 17 January 2020 Decision of the United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit in the matter of Juliana at al. v. United States et al., and the second statement about “atmospheric carbon levels of 350 parts per million are necessary to stabilize the climate” is an opinion that does not have a scientific basis of support.
My basis for making that observation is a communication between myself as a professional engineer, and Dr. Howard Diamond, the Climate Science Program Manager at NOAA’s Air Resources Laboratory last September, to wit:
On 9/23/2019 3:25 PM, Paul Plante wrote:
Another point is that when an engineer doing HVAC design looks in standard references for NORMAL background air, the figure given ranges from 250 – 350 ppm, with no whiff of hysteria, whatsoever, that the world is going to come to a cataclysmic end in 10 or 12 years, as we are being told today, and in answer to the question “What is the safe top limit of the amount of co2 for Earth?”, it is in short that no one knows the safe upper limit for atmospheric CO2 while the generally accepted maximum safe figure is 350 PPM.
Does that agree with your science?
On 9/23/ 2019 at 3:47 PM, Howard Diamond wrote:
As for what a generally maximum number, yes, the generally accepted maximum safe figure has been pegged to 350 ppm.
That level was chosen for practicality as well as the fact that that level is generally pegged to result in about a 1°C increase which was considered much better than projections right now that take us well above that limit.
Yes, we are only at 0.8°C at this point, but again, from my previous information, the oceans have not quite kicked in yet.
So, is 350 ppm the best safe top limit?
Well, it’s probably as close as is practical short of going back to the pre-industrial average of 280 ppm.
end quotes
So, the truth is that we really do not know what a safe limit is, given all the uncertainty factors involved, and anyway, and this according to NOAA, the global AVERAGE atmospheric carbon dioxide in 2018 was 407.4 parts per million (ppm for short), with a range of uncertainty of plus or minus 0.1 ppm, so we are way past the 350 ppm the children and the federal judge desire, and here it must be noted that it is an AVERAGE value of CO2, not an absolute value, which means that to get an average of 400, you would have say, 600 ppm in one place, and 200 ppm in another, which adds up to 800, and divide by 2 and there you have an average of 400.
And that averaging of CO2 takes us to this from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, to wit:
350 – 1,000 ppm: typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.
1,000 – 2,000 ppm: level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air.
2,000 – 5,000 ppm: level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air.
end quotes
So we can see that in any normal indoor environment, CO2 levels are considerably higher than 350.
And there are other places on earth where very little CO2 is emitted, since for CO2 to be emitted, there has to be some sort of combustion process to create it.
So all those low CO2 values end up being averaged with high readings from certain locations with high values, and now we have an average of a little over 400 ppm.
That CO2 generation is not at all uniform, all we need do is go to Wikipedia under Climate of New York, where we have as follows:
Greenhouse gas emission is low on a per capita basis when compared to most other states due to the extensive use of mass transit, particularly across New York City.
end quotes
But, hey, what am I talking about here – facts and reality are so passe, and the hot new thing is hysteria, so I am definitely far behind the times here, believing in Holocene era science and rational thinking in the Anthropocene era, where rationality has departed the planet to be replaced by mindless hysteria and insanity.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-222911