There is no sound science that points to 2050 as the decade to seek for climate safety.
The REAL science states 2030 and quite frankly the foot dragging of those focused on two decades later is obvious.
Wednesday, October 04, 2023
"Net Zero" is not good enough. That is endorsed by Pope Francis.
DO NOT HOLD ANOTHER CLIMATE SUMMIT IN AN OPEC OR ANY OTHER OIL PRODUCING NATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The world needs hope and direction. Every climate summit must be an example of the world progressing to ZERO EMISSIONS. We don't have until 2050. The date provided by the IPCC was 2030. That is less than seven years away.
In addition to the deaths in Libya, it is joined by the increasing deaths in India from dengue fever. There is also an astounding report in "The New York Times" about the virus (click here).
ABU DHABI - COP28 president Sultan al-Jaber (click here) said on Monday that more than 20 oil and gas companies were rallying around his calls to curb carbon emissions ahead of a United Nations summit on climate change.
Jaber, who is also head of United Arab Emirates oil giant ADNOC, has this year urged the energy industry to join the fight against climate change. He was a controversial pick to lead COP28, which begins next month, because his country is an OPEC member and a major oil exporter.
"We need a system-wide holistic transformation of entire economies - economies that currently run on the equivalent of 250 million barrels of oil, gas, and coal every single day," Jaber said at an oil and gas conference in Abu Dhabi.
"For too long, this industry has been viewed as part of the problem, that it's not doing enough and in some cases even blocking progress. This is your opportunity to show the world that, in fact, you are central to the solution," he said, addressing major energy companies....
Some may remember the encyclical letter by Pope Francis entitled "On Care of Our Common Home (click here)." It is fascinating how American political Republicans pick and choose their moral judgements. While the US Republicans carry on so about the abortion issue, there is NEVER even a peep about the decisions and judgements by Pope Francis regarding climate. I do believe that is called hypocrisy.
October 4, 2023
Pope Francis (click here) Condemns Climate Change Indifference, Urges Prompt ActionPope Francis (click here) has made his strongest statement yet on the accelerating climate crisis, pinning blame on big industries and world leaders as well as “irresponsible” Western lifestyles, in a blistering statement on Wednesday.
“Our responses have not been adequate, while the world in which we live is collapsing and may be nearing the breaking point,” the pontiff wrote in a 7,000 word encyclical called Laudate Deum (“Praise God”).
“Some effects of the climate crisis are already irreversible, at least for several hundred years, such as the increase in the global temperature of the oceans, their acidification and the decrease of oxygen,” he wrote.
The pope leveled heavy criticism at climate change deniers and delayers...
“Our responses have not been adequate, while the world in which we live is collapsing and may be nearing the breaking point,” the pontiff wrote in a 7,000 word encyclical called Laudate Deum (“Praise God”).
“Some effects of the climate crisis are already irreversible, at least for several hundred years, such as the increase in the global temperature of the oceans, their acidification and the decrease of oxygen,” he wrote.
The pope leveled heavy criticism at climate change deniers and delayers...
Thomas is pure corruption. There is simply no doubt. The corruption does not stop with Harlan Crow.
October 3, 2023
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (click here for video) refuses to recuse himself in a blatantly corrupt move, called out a watchdog group, for a New York case that notorious right-wing benefactor, Harlan Crow, could directly benefit from. Rayyvana and Sen. Nina Turner break it down on The Damage Report.
By Erin Snodgrass
After months of media scrutiny, (click here) Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recused himself for the first time from a matter regarding the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack.
But the conservative justice's decision to withdraw his voice from the court's decision may have been an easy one due to the appeal's lacking legal merits, an expert on the Supreme Court told Insider....
...Thomas has previously faced calls to recuse himself from matters before the court concerning the January 6 attack and 2020 presidential election after his wife, Virginia "Ginny" Thomas, supported Trump's efforts to overturn the election.
Earlier this year, when the Supreme Court rejected Trump's bid to keep White House documents out of the hands of the January 6 committee, Thomas chose not to recuse himself and offered the court's lone vote in support of Trump.
The court's Monday decision comes months after a series of ProPublica reports alleged a pattern of ethical misconduct by Thomas, including accusations he accepted and failed to disclose several luxury vacations from top GOP donor Harlan Crow.
A Bloomberg law analysis from February found Thomas was the justice who recused himself the least....
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (click here for video) refuses to recuse himself in a blatantly corrupt move, called out a watchdog group, for a New York case that notorious right-wing benefactor, Harlan Crow, could directly benefit from. Rayyvana and Sen. Nina Turner break it down on The Damage Report.
October 3, 2023
By Sharon Zhang
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (click here) is being urged to recuse himself from a key case after new reporting has revealed deep ties between the justice and corporate plaintiffs seeking to destroy a crucial consumer protection agency.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in a case brought by payday lenders who are challenging the funding mechanism for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The case could result in the death of the agency, which was created after the Great Recession to protect consumers from fraud and predatory practices, and also threatens to disrupt the funding mechanism for a wide range of other government programs that are crucial to the financial health of the U.S.
According to new research by the Revolving Door Project, Thomas has a number of deep connections with groups who have been trying to kill the agency since before it was even established....
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in a case brought by payday lenders who are challenging the funding mechanism for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The case could result in the death of the agency, which was created after the Great Recession to protect consumers from fraud and predatory practices, and also threatens to disrupt the funding mechanism for a wide range of other government programs that are crucial to the financial health of the U.S.
According to new research by the Revolving Door Project, Thomas has a number of deep connections with groups who have been trying to kill the agency since before it was even established....
How is it that one single family owned multinational company have so many legal cases before the Supreme Court every year?
October 4, 2023
By Grace Pappas
...The relationship between Thomas and the Koch Network (click here) is as straightforward as it comes. Thomas serves as encouragement for donors to funnel more money into the lean, anti-green machine in exchange for lavish gifts such as trips and private jet rides.
This affair started in 2010, where attendees of the summit received an invitation that boasted about Thomas’s presence at a previous summit.
So, Thomas has a little political sugar momma. So what?
What makes this issue so important to the American judicial system is the political influence and potential corruption that it raises.
The Koch Network has brought many cases before the Supreme Court, including Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Rodriquez in 2021, a case that debated the rights of organizations to keep the names of their donors a secret.
In this case, Thomas sided with the majority conservative vote, and the case was thrown out in favor of the Koch network on a 6-3 majority.
The plot thickens.
The Koch Network stands as one of the most significant and influential political entities of the past fifty years, actively supporting an extensive campaign to shape the direction of American legislation.
For this term, the Supreme Court’s docket features several cases where the justices have the potential to grant the network a monumental win, curbing the authority of federal agencies to enact regulations across various domains, including environmental regulations, labor rights and consumer protection....
The fact that Thomas, a justice with so much influential power within the court, has been exposed for having personal ties to the Koch Network is extremely troubling....
Recusals aren't supposed to be a selective process to satisfy a political agenda. An insurgent is an insurgent no matter what form it takes.
October 2, 2023By Erin Snodgrass
After months of media scrutiny, (click here) Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recused himself for the first time from a matter regarding the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack.
But the conservative justice's decision to withdraw his voice from the court's decision may have been an easy one due to the appeal's lacking legal merits, an expert on the Supreme Court told Insider....
...Thomas has previously faced calls to recuse himself from matters before the court concerning the January 6 attack and 2020 presidential election after his wife, Virginia "Ginny" Thomas, supported Trump's efforts to overturn the election.
Earlier this year, when the Supreme Court rejected Trump's bid to keep White House documents out of the hands of the January 6 committee, Thomas chose not to recuse himself and offered the court's lone vote in support of Trump.
The court's Monday decision comes months after a series of ProPublica reports alleged a pattern of ethical misconduct by Thomas, including accusations he accepted and failed to disclose several luxury vacations from top GOP donor Harlan Crow.
A Bloomberg law analysis from February found Thomas was the justice who recused himself the least....
The Republicans have an unholy agenda for the USA Constitution.
These are the cornerstones of justice. These are the reasons there was an exodus from the Kingdom in England that ultimately led to the Revolutionary War of which we had allies such as France. What is so astounding to me is that the Justices actually do live in Cloud City where everyday is perfect and nothing touches them. If the Justices remove the protections of democracy, they are just as subject to the exploitation as anyone else.
If these six are not enemies of the USA Constitution, which I believe they are, then they are most certainly enemies of the people.
By Ladoris Hazzard Cordell
Top row: (click here) Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito; bottom row: Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett
...Employing an unholy triad of disrespect for judicial precedent, originalism, and magical thinking, Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice Roberts are signaling in their dissents, majority opinions, and concurrences a willingness to overrule landmark Supreme Court decisions that established basic constitutional protections in our criminal legal system. Justice Thomas has led the way in this area. By inviting supplicants to bring these cases back to the court, the supermajority is positioned to overturn them. We should be very alarmed. Here is a short list of the constitutional protections that will soon be under threat.
1. The Miranda Warning
Nearly 60 years ago, the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona established what is commonly known as the Miranda warning—a requirement that anyone in a custodial interrogation by law enforcement must be advised of their right to remain silent and of the right to have an attorney present during questioning....
...2. The Prohibition on Warrantless Searches and the Exclusionary Rule
In four separate opinions in the 1960s, the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourth Amendment to prohibit warrantless searches and seizures and established the “exclusionary rule” that prohibits the prosecution from using evidence obtained during an unlawful search....
...3. The Right to State-Appointed Counsel and the Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel
In the 1832 landmark case of Powell v. Alabama, the Supreme Court held that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to counsel at a criminal trial. Subsequently, the court has affirmed this right five times....
...4. The Right of the Public to Observe Jury Selection in Criminal Trials
In 1982, the Supreme Court held that the press and public have a qualified First Amendment right to attend criminal trials. Two years later, in 1984, the court ruled that under the First Amendment, open public proceedings in criminal trials included questioning potential jurors (voir dire). And in 2010, the court held that the right to a public criminal trial, including jury selection, was also mandated by the Sixth Amendment....
...5. The Right to a Jury Pool That Reflects the Community
In Taylor v. Louisiana (1975) and in Duren v. Missouri (1979), the Supreme Court upheld the requirement that under the Sixth Amendment, jurors be selected from a representative cross section of the community. In both cases, at issue were state laws that exempted women from jury service....
...Employing an unholy triad of disrespect for judicial precedent, originalism, and magical thinking, Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice Roberts are signaling in their dissents, majority opinions, and concurrences a willingness to overrule landmark Supreme Court decisions that established basic constitutional protections in our criminal legal system. Justice Thomas has led the way in this area. By inviting supplicants to bring these cases back to the court, the supermajority is positioned to overturn them. We should be very alarmed. Here is a short list of the constitutional protections that will soon be under threat.
1. The Miranda Warning
Nearly 60 years ago, the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona established what is commonly known as the Miranda warning—a requirement that anyone in a custodial interrogation by law enforcement must be advised of their right to remain silent and of the right to have an attorney present during questioning....
...2. The Prohibition on Warrantless Searches and the Exclusionary Rule
In four separate opinions in the 1960s, the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourth Amendment to prohibit warrantless searches and seizures and established the “exclusionary rule” that prohibits the prosecution from using evidence obtained during an unlawful search....
...3. The Right to State-Appointed Counsel and the Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel
In the 1832 landmark case of Powell v. Alabama, the Supreme Court held that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to counsel at a criminal trial. Subsequently, the court has affirmed this right five times....
...4. The Right of the Public to Observe Jury Selection in Criminal Trials
In 1982, the Supreme Court held that the press and public have a qualified First Amendment right to attend criminal trials. Two years later, in 1984, the court ruled that under the First Amendment, open public proceedings in criminal trials included questioning potential jurors (voir dire). And in 2010, the court held that the right to a public criminal trial, including jury selection, was also mandated by the Sixth Amendment....
...5. The Right to a Jury Pool That Reflects the Community
In Taylor v. Louisiana (1975) and in Duren v. Missouri (1979), the Supreme Court upheld the requirement that under the Sixth Amendment, jurors be selected from a representative cross section of the community. In both cases, at issue were state laws that exempted women from jury service....
Government overthrow
Ukraine is experiencing low amounts of ammunition. It will be overrun by Russia and the genocide will be complete. Then next is NATO and the US will no longer have the luxury of not producing and sending munitions.
The Republicans are conducting a slow motion destruction of democracy to benefit Russia. It sounds like Trump is in charge and the secret agenda of Helsinki is still alive.
If any American believes elections are about economics, they are bartering away their democracy and those of our allies.
Trump is a traitor and always has been. He needs to be treated like one.
Ukraine needs ammunition and that should be a stand alone bill and a priority.
Last time Trump tried to stop Ukraine from receiving shoulder mounted rockets. It would seem as though that obstruction is still alive and well. What would Vindman say?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)