Carbon Control News reports that two “environmental justice” groups (Communities for a Better Environment and California Communities Against Toxics) sued the state of California on June 10 alleging the state’s climate change program violates its 2006 global warming law. [Click here for the summary].
Carbon Control News rightly pointed out that the lawsuit
… could foreshadow similar legal challenges facing a federal GHG cap-and-trade program, because the California groups, who question the effectiveness of emissions trading, are also opposed to the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation.
The lesson here — especially for USCAP’s business members — is that while businesses may feel like they can deal with seemingly “mainstream” green groups (like USCAP’s Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council) in crafting a survivable climate bill, in the end the more extreme green groups will come along and try to scuttle the deal in favor of more extreme regulation.
@ itsallbus….thank you. It has been so long since I read the story I couldn’t remember the details. I remembered the most important thing about it, though…Gore is a crook, lol.
The company was called Molten Metals Technology. It was supposed to change nuclear waste into harmless metals. It got twenty million in grants from the Government. Never worked. Gore is still partners with one of the founders (strong_ and started the carbon offset business. Google it for more details. True corruption.
Dang it. I need to start proof reading my posts. Too many typos.
You know that, and all of here know that. The politicians don’t need evidence. All they need is to convince the sheep that vote for them. Much easier than debating the REAL evidence in the scientific community. That’s why they threatened to revoke the liscense of any meteorologist who spoke out against global warming. That’s why they say they aren’t going to debate it because it’s already a proven fact (when they have NEVER debated it or let the scientific community come up with it’s own findings, as they have but are being ignored.
There are an awful lot of stupid sheep you have to convince with the previous evidence, and most of them just aren’t smart enough or don’t want to take the time to understand. They would rather take Obama for his word. Obama knows this, which is why they ignore the true science.
You mentioned catching Al Gore like a rat in a trap, which reminds me of something else.
I don’t think a lot of people know that “global warming” isn’t the first scam he has been involved in. Previously he (and another guy) claimed they had a machine that would….darn it, I forget exactly what it did. Something about converting dangerous metals into something else. Sorry for that. Anyway, they got a lot of investors and also government funding. After Gore pocketed a lot of dough, the government dropped it’s funding because the machine didn’t work. Gore knew his company was done for, so they attracted a lot more investors then stepped out of the company….leaving the investors with the bills. He’s a crook.
There are a lot more details, but I’m going off memory. Just thought it would be interesting.
They found eleven major innacuracies and I list the four of most import in debunking the green rhetoric, the ones upon which the foundations of the Global Warming Con-trick.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
(This means that today’s CO2 levels are the result of climatic conditions during the, Medeival Warm Period. How old is your car?)
The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
(‘Polar Bears are doing fine.’ World Wildlife Fund)
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
(That’s right, 16.3/4″ and not AL Gore’s 22 foot.)
With CO2, the greens have turned the law of ‘Cause and effect’ on its head, and introduced the startling concept of ‘effect is the cause.’
The next time you receive a black eye, remember that. It is you black eye that caused the blow, it is ALL YOUR FAULT! Well, that’s if you apply the green’s newly discovered, unscientific principle.
Demolish the myth of CO2 and you demolish the entire man made global warming industry. It is a lie with no scientific foundation or evidence..
This decision in the UK can be used against TheAlGore in the USA, if we frame our legal attacks against him correctly. In fact, such attacks can be so framed so he is caught like a rat in a trap.
And I agree. Courts are not so equipped, but they can be, so long as the “experts” on both sides, are telling some truth. I am afraid that today, however, the “expert” says in court what s/he is paid to say. “Their whore and your whore.” One of the many reasons I left the practice of law in 1988, never to return.
They took Al Gore’s movie to court in the UK, and Al Gore and his fiction movie lost.
Courts are not equipped to arbitrate real science. You would hope they would say so.