/dev/null Posted May 12, 2018 Share Posted May 12, 2018 8 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: ceramic dalmatian and fat guy in a circle, sounds like you had good luck on Grindr 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 CA New Plan To Prepare for Global Cooling Warming Climate Change: Starting in 2022, water is limited to 55 gallons per person, per day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 1 minute ago, LABillzFan said: CA New Plan To Prepare for Global Cooling Warming Climate Change: Starting in 2022, water is limited to 55 gallons per person, per day. Not too long ago - within the past two years - I read a dystopian science fiction book where "CA rations water per person per day" was a significant plot point. What part of "dystopian science fiction" does the State of California not understand????? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 1 hour ago, LABillzFan said: CA New Plan To Prepare for Global Cooling Warming Climate Change: Starting in 2022, water is limited to 55 gallons per person, per day. I'm not sure they're going to need to worry about rationing water, not if Californians continue moving to Texas at the rate they have been for the last decade. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: Not too long ago - within the past two years - I read a dystopian science fiction book where "CA rations water per person per day" was a significant plot point. What part of "dystopian science fiction" does the State of California not understand????? Judging by the article in question, I'd say it's the "fiction" part. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 I'm sure my Malibu pool won't count..................... ................. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Azalin said: I'm not sure they're going to need to worry about rationing water, not if Californians continue moving to Texas at the rate they have been for the last decade. I’m sorry for your loss. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 That’s just for the little people the rich will keep hoses running all the time for their swimming pools Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 5 hours ago, row_33 said: That’s just for the little people the rich will keep hoses running all the time for their swimming pools Actually, if they are true to form, they will monitor your water usage and charge you a penalty if you exceed your daily assigned usage. The rich have no problem paying the fee, so they use all the water they want. It's less about conserving and more about getting in more money by sleight of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 2 hours ago, LABillzFan said: Actually, if they are true to form, they will monitor your water usage and charge you a penalty if you exceed your daily assigned usage. The rich have no problem paying the fee, so they use all the water they want. It's less about conserving and more about getting in more money by sleight of hand. Killing the middle and lower classes who will now have to budget for water use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 Smart move by the President getting out of this deal. Best part is that he pissed off the braindead Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 18 hours ago, B-Man said: I'm sure my Malibu pool won't count..................... ................. Foundation has a crack so run a firehouse all summer into the pool 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 ON GLOBAL WARMING, IT’S POLICY-BASED EVIDENCE By John Hindraker Liberals often claim to be proponents of evidence-based policy, but when it comes to climate change, that formula has been reversed. This is from the Science and Environmental Policy Project’s The Week That Was: Australian Don Aitkin, former Chairman of Australia’s National Capital Authority and former Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of Canberra, comments on “The unfolding saga of Peter Ridd.” Professor Ridd is a “well-published academic whose fields of research include coastal oceanography, reef systems and peer review, has been for ten years the Head of the School of Physics at James Cook University (JCU).” He was disciplined for drawing attention to what he considered “exaggerations in the way fellow academics at his university were describing the condition of the Great Barrier Reef.” … Aitkin writes: But it is a problem, and a rapidly growing one, in areas of research where what is actually the case is contested vigorously by others. An eye has to be kept on the source of the money going to higher education research, which in our country is overwhelmingly the Australian Government. In 2014, not quite four billion dollars was available within the higher education system for research, all of it from the Commonwealth. In addition universities made another billion or thereabouts from consultancy and research for other funders. That is a lot of money. As the last Chairman of the Australian Research Grants Committee in 1987 I had a little over $30 million to parcel out. The engine has been most effective. In the last forty years governments have become interested in universities’ finding academic support for what they are proposing or have in place. We are in an era of “policy-based evidence”. We are also in an era of a particular political correctness, where it is very difficult indeed to get funds for research if the purpose of the research seems antithetical to current government policy. “Curiosity-directed research” now comes with some serious barriers. Nowhere is this situation clearer than in the case of research on the Great Barrier Reef, in which Professor Ridd has been involved. A bucket-load of money has been devoted to “the Reef”, and another half-billion was forecast in the recent Budget, some of which will doubtless go the James Cook University, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The Reef, as is frequently said, is an Australian “icon”. An icon is a religious object. Professor Ridd is a scientist, not a priest. But climate science is a religion. Worse, it is a religion that is also big business. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/06/on-global-warming-its-policy-based-evidence.php . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 Judge Dismisses Suit Against Oil Companies Over Climate Change CostsA federal judge on Monday threw out a closely watched lawsuit brought by two California cities against fossil fuel companies over the costs of dealing with climate change. The decision is a stinging defeat for the plaintiffs, San Francisco and Oakland, and raises warning flags for other local governments around the United States that have filed similar suits, including New York City. What I don't understand is if this is about "climate change" why did they pursue on nuisance doctrines? Could it be that climate change isn't "settled science" after all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 23 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: What I don't understand is if this is about "climate change" why did they pursue on nuisance doctrines? Could it be that climate change isn't "settled science" after all? The tort of nuisance, especially after the case was removed from California State Court to Federal Court, was the closest legally-cognizable cause of action that the Plaintiffs could come up with. In order to sue someone/something for damages, you have to base your claims upon an accepted legal theory, such as: conversion (theft), trespass (usually to property - as in using/damaging something without permission), negligence, assault/battery, breach of contract, libel/slander, nuisance, etc. The various causes of action are very well defined. You also usually (but not always) have to show that you were somehow damaged by the defendant's conduct, and are thus entitled to damages to make you whole or to remedy the harm and/or deter the defendant (or others) from similar conduct. There really weren't any other legal theories they could base a suit on, especially where the claimed damages were very speculative, and the act causing the speculative damages was pretty darn attenuated from the actual business the defendants were engaged in. They were trying to attach liability to the oil companies for selling a product that was used by third parties to create carbon dioxide, which leads to air temperatures increasing, which leads to ice melting, which leads to the sea level rising, which leads to the prospective damages to coastlines. The nuisance claim was incredibly weak. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 33 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: What I don't understand is if this is about "climate change" why did they pursue on nuisance doctrines? Could it be that climate change isn't "settled science" after all? It's because nuisance law, and CA nuisance law, is very broad and vague. It defines "public nuisance" as anything "injurious to health, indecent, offensive to the senses or an obstruction to the free use of property; and [interfering] with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by an entire community or neighborhood, or by any considerable number of persons." And environmental cases used to regularly be filed under nuisance law, until the Supreme Court decided about eight years ago that the Clean Air Act superseded federal nuisance law. So people said "Fine, we'll file under state nuisance law!" So this decision tells everyone - wisely, in my opinion - that state courts are an inappropriate venue, since "clean air" is an obviously interstate issue, thus federal. Leaving the EPA the only game in town. Which, since Congress consolidated that power in the executive branch, will doubtlessly leave all the California liberals screaming about Trump and ignoring that their legislators once again screwed up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 11 hours ago, DC Tom said: It's because nuisance law, and CA nuisance law, is very broad and vague. It defines "public nuisance" as anything "injurious to health, indecent, offensive to the senses or an obstruction to the free use of property; and [interfering] with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by an entire community or neighborhood, or by any considerable number of persons." "Very broad and vague" seems rather charitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 28, 2018 Share Posted June 28, 2018 On 6/2/2018 at 2:07 PM, njbuff said: Best part is that he pissed off the braindead Democrats. Isn't this basically the entire Republican governing strategy? Well, aside from ensuring the wealthy get more more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 Air pollution linked to 3.2 million new diabetes cases in one year In the United States, air pollution was linked to 150,000 new cases of diabetes per year. "There's an undeniable relationship between diabetes and and particle air pollution levels well below the current safe standards," said senior study author Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University. "Many industry lobbying groups argue that current levels are too stringent and should be relaxed. Evidence shows that current levels are still not sufficiently safe and need to be tightened." Over 30 million Americans have diabetes, and the numbers worldwide are staggering: According to WHO, 422 million adults had been diagnosed by 2014, compared with 108 million in 1980. https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/29/health/air-pollution-diabetes-study/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 3 hours ago, ALF said: Air pollution linked to 3.2 million new diabetes cases in one year In the United States, air pollution was linked to 150,000 new cases of diabetes per year. "There's an undeniable relationship between diabetes and and particle air pollution levels well below the current safe standards," said senior study author Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University. "Many industry lobbying groups argue that current levels are too stringent and should be relaxed. Evidence shows that current levels are still not sufficiently safe and need to be tightened." Over 30 million Americans have diabetes, and the numbers worldwide are staggering: According to WHO, 422 million adults had been diagnosed by 2014, compared with 108 million in 1980. https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/29/health/air-pollution-diabetes-study/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts