At first glance, it appeared that the poor and downtrodden had obtained justice against the rich and powerful:
New York attorney Steven Donziger, in Ecuador, obtained a $19 billion judgment against Chevron in favor of 47 indigenous people from Ecuador's backwoods to compensate them for oil exploration pollution.
But that supposed "justice" was discovered to be injustice, the result of lying, bribery and fraud. While an unbelievable story for a movie, it is the truth as found by a respected New York federal judge. Here is how it was uncovered.
The fate of President Obama's climate change plan now rests with three judges who heard oral arguments Thursday in a case that will decide whether the Environmental Protection Agency can move ahead with historic limits on power plant emissions.
The monumental case came before a federal appeals court on the same day new data was released showing the EPA regulations could lead directly to the loss of nearly 300,000 jobs — more fuel for critics who say Mr. Obama is pursuing a radical environmental agenda at the expense of jobs and affordable electricity rates.
Good Housekeeping is getting attention for its coverage of climate change. One critic thinks the article, while "short and sweet," dumbs down a complex issue to the point where it's misleading.
The magazine article says it's tempting to dismiss all the talk as hype, but experts say not to fall for misconceptions like "this is all a natural cycle" and "if global warming were an issue, blizzards would be on the wane."
Paul C. "Chip" Knappenberger," assistant director at the Cato Institute's Center for the Study of Science, spoke with OneNewsNow about the article.
In his State-of-the-Union address, president Obama again confirmed that “saving the climate” remains one of his top priorities. Yet an official December 2014 confab in Lima, Peru didn't really conclude anything -- certainly no binding Protocol to limit emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) -- but it "kicked the can down the road" to the next international gabfest in Paris, scheduled for 2015.
The world is looking forward to the 21st annual COP (conference of the parties to the global climate treaty), which will be held in Paris in December of 2015. It is hoped by many that Paris will end up with a climate protocol that will continue and even surpass the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which expired in 2012 and achieved practically nothing except to waste hundreds of billions that might have been better spent addressing genuine world problems -- without accomplishing its main goal of reducing global emissions of the much-maligned greenhouse gas CO2.
The other day a friend who works for a tiny arts charity employing two people in an office the size of a shoebox applied for a grant from the Arts Council, the taxpayer funded quango whose job it is to fund Britain’s theatres, galleries, museums etc.
After filling out reams of questionnaire, my friend discovered that the Arts Council was far less interested in his charity’s artistic merits than it was in its environmental policy.
“Well we don’t really have one, there’s only two of us and what we’re mainly about is, er, promoting literature,” explained my friend.
How long will this country remain free? Probably only as long as the American people value their freedom enough to defend it. But how many people today can stop looking at their electronic devices long enough to even think about such things?
Meanwhile, attempts to shut down people whose free speech interferes with other people’s political agendas go on, with remarkably little notice, much less outrage. The Internal Revenue Service’s targeting the tax-exempt status of conservative groups is just one of these attempts to fight political battles by shutting up the opposition rather than answering them.
The House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology Hearing on the President’s UN Climate Pledge has now concluded.
Here is the [link] for the hearing, which includes link to all of the testimonies and also the webcast.
My testimony can also be downloaded here [House science testimony apr 15 final]. Here is the content of my verbal testimony:
The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions versus natural climate variability that are caused by variations from the sun, volcanic eruptions, and large-scale ocean circulations.
Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry (pictured) completely dismantled criticisms from a Democratic congressman that her testimony was full of errors when it came to the seriousness of global warming.
Curry, a noted global warming skeptic, was recently targeted by Democrats in an investigation trying to tie scientists who disagree with the White House on global warming to funding from fossil fuels interests.
“I found myself deeply troubled by Dr. Curry’s written and oral testimony,” Rep. Don Beyer, a Virginia Democrat, said during a hearing Thursday. “I found the testimony just full of internally conflicting facts and opinions.”