Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on April 8, 2018 at 9:44am

Previous page.

Permalink Reply by Bullfrex on April 8, 2018 at 12:05pm

Fascinating stuff! Thanks for sharing, MO!

Seems to me, with the weight of this news and the fact that it exposes one of the "biggest lies" (e.g. anthropogenic climate change), it would be good if it could somehow be shared with ALL the good folks here at GMS.

I had no idea this was going on. I must have missed any mention of it in the mainstream news....gosh, there is a shocker! The left dominated media has not made this a front page story!

Disclaimer: this post has no political agenda.

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on April 8, 2018 at 2:07pm

Don't tap the keg yet! It was a pre-trial "tutorial" hearing, not the judge's decision.

"Climate change goes to court "
Christian Science Monitor - 4/5/2018

"San Francisco and Oakland, Calif., had filed lawsuits against five of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies seeking damages to cover the costs of mitigating the effects of climate change. And US District Judge William Alsup, the judge presiding over the consolidated cases, had requested a “tutorial” on climate science – from both sides. The Bay Area cities enlisted three top climate scientists. Just one person from among the five defendants (BP, the Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell) chose to present: the lawyer from Chevron.

The lawyer took the stand on March 21. And it quickly became apparent that no dramatic courtroom showdown would happen that day. ..."
https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Inhabit/2018/0405/Climate-cha...

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on April 8, 2018 at 11:31pm

It would be possible to find any number of opinion pieces on climate change and its causes. But we are years away from definitive court decisions. What took place in California was a pre-trial hearing, not a trial decision.

The CSM is independent of the religion. They were the one national newspaper which cautioned that there was no proof that WMDs remained in Iraq and that the US was about to rush in unprepared. The New York Times was wrong.

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on April 9, 2018 at 12:25am

By that reasoning, you opposed the Keystone XL pipeline because it would carry "the earth's dirtiest fossil fuel", from its origin in another country?

Permalink Reply by Ralph cramdon on April 9, 2018 at 12:42am

Ann  by your typing on your computer is causing additional 'carbon '' , I think you ought become HONEST ...... Rid yourself off everything made of oil / gas , shut off your electricity , then tell us how to live ...........

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on April 9, 2018 at 1:40am

Of course I use fossil fuels ... never claimed not to.  But I don't think that the people of Boston etc should be forced to accept and pay for pipelines they don't want because it would financilly benefit some PA land owners. 

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on April 9, 2018 at 6:01am

If the Russian gas is rejected on the basis of the environmental cost of its extraction, why not reject oil extracted from tar sand?

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on April 9, 2018 at 9:25am

I don't think this was something to get overwrought about. That's exactly what Putin would like to see happen. If the delvery was unlawful, the US government will decide what the penalty should be.

Permalink Reply by Ralph cramdon on April 9, 2018 at 3:19am

So Anne seems to support Boston IMPORTING by ship , Nat Gas from Russia ..... How 'green ' is that deal ????????? 

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on April 9, 2018 at 5:48am

Depends on whether/not it was legal.

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on April 9, 2018 at 6:27am

That's just plain crazy.  You can do better than baseless personal insults.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 86
• 87
• 88
• 89
• 90
• …
• 157
• Next ›
• Page