California lunatic and his kind are a threat...

....and they should be "dealt with."

SAN FRANCISCO, California (Reuters) -- California sued six of the
world's largest automakers over global warming on Wednesday, charging
that greenhouse gases from their vehicles have caused billions of
dollars in damages.

The lawsuit is the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers
liable for the damages caused by their vehicles' emissions, state
Attorney General Bill Lockyer said.

It comes less than a month after California lawmakers adopted the
nation's first global warming law mandating a cut in greenhouse gas
emissions.

California has also targeted the auto industry with first-in-the-nation
rules adopted in 2004 requiring car makers to force cuts in tailpipe
emissions from cars and trucks.

Automakers, however, have so far blocked those rules with their own
legal action -- prompting one analyst to say California's lawsuit
represents a way for California to pressure car manufacturers to accept
the rules.

"That's the objective," said David Cole, chairman of the Center for
Automotive Research, a nonprofit organization that provides public
research and forecasts about the industry.

"They want to get the automakers basically to bow down and pay homage
to the (emissions) law."

The complaint, which an auto industry trade group called a "nuisance"
suit, names General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp.,
the U.S. arm of Germany's Daimler Chrysler AG and the North American
units of Japan's Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd..

Lockyer told Reuters he would seek "tens or hundreds of millions of
dollars" from the automakers in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District
Court in Northern California.

Environmental groups hailed the lawsuit, saying it represented another
weapon for the state as it seeks to curb greenhouse gas emissions and
spur the auto industry to build vehicles that pollute less.

"(California) just passed a new law to cut global warming emissions by
25 percent and that's a good start and this lawsuit is a good next
step," said Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming
Program.

Ford deferred comment to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers,
which said the lawsuit was similar to one a New York court dismissed
that is now on appeal.

"Automakers will need time to review this legal complaint, however, a
similar nuisance suit that was brought by attorneys- general against
utilities was dismissed by a federal court in New York," the industry
group said in a statement.

Toyota declined to comment as the company evaluates the lawsuit, while
Honda said in a statement it was committed to developing
environmentally responsible technology.

The other automakers had no immediate comment.

However, Sean Hecht, executive director of the Environmental Law Center
at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the lawsuit has a
"reasonable" chance of succeeding.

He also noted the judge in the New York lawsuit cited rarely-used legal
doctrine in ruling that the question at issue was political rather than
legal and should therefore be addressed by the legislature and not the
court.

"I was surprised that the court in that case did that," he said. "I
think it is a straight forward legal question. My impression is this is
a very legitimate case to bring."

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for past and ongoing contributions
to global warming and asks that the companies be held liable for future
monetary damages to California. It said California is spending millions
to deal with reduced snow pack, beach erosion, ozone pollution and the
impact on endangered animals and fish.

"The injuries have caused the people to suffer billions of dollars in
damages, including millions of dollars of funds expended to determine
the extent, location and nature of future harm and to prepare for and
mitigate those harms, and billions of dollars of current harm to the
value of flood control infrastructure and natural resources," it said.

The Center for Automotive Research's Cole said it would be tough for
the industry to immediately meet demands from some critics and
predicted other states would quickly follow suit should California
succeed with the legal action.

Adoption of diesel engine emissions technology or gasoline-electric
hybrids comes at great cost and improving gas mileage also likely means
smaller lighter vehicles, trade-offs that are not attractive to
consumers, he added.

"These are not free technologies, they are very expensive," Cole said.
"Most people are price sensitive."

In the complaint, Lockyer charges that vehicle emissions have
contributed significantly to global warming and have harmed the
resources, infrastructure and environmental health of the most populous
state in the United States.

Lockyer -- a Democratic candidate for state treasurer in the November
election -- said the lawsuit states that under federal and state common
law the automakers have created a public nuisance by producing
"millions of vehicles that collectively emit massive quantities of
carbon dioxide."

Carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases have been linked to
global warming.

Some years ago, I read an article that stated all human beings emit
approximately one quart of methane gas, as "part of the digestive
process", to put it kindly. How come you never the EPA gurus quote this
fact that we are all contributing to the "global warming"?
Just think, mutliply that by the total population of the world! And
aminals too!
Those folks in CA are nuts!
JR.

A human would be put to shame by what one cow will produce. The daily
methane produced from all the farm animals is a staggering amount.

wrote:
> Some years ago, I read an article that stated all human beings emit
> approximately one quart of methane gas, as "part of the digestive
> process", to put it kindly. How come you never the EPA gurus quote this
> fact that we are all contributing to the "global warming"?
> Just think, mutliply that by the total population of the world! And
> aminals too!
> Those folks in CA are nuts!
> JR.
>

"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote:

> A human would be put to shame by what one cow will produce. The daily
> methane produced from all the farm animals is a staggering amount.
>
> wrote:
>> Some years ago, I read an article that stated all human beings emit
>> approximately one quart of methane gas, as "part of the digestive
>> process", to put it kindly. How come you never the EPA gurus quote
>> this fact that we are all contributing to the "global warming"?
>> Just think, mutliply that by the total population of the world! And
>> aminals too!
>> Those folks in CA are nuts!
>> JR.

And it's SO bad the stink is felt all the way to Mars and melting ITS
ice caps, too!

Let's put it this way... consider all the 'conspiracy-blame ourselves'
crap going on.

Where does it get its impetus? From the 'CREATIVE areas' of the Blue
States!

Junk Science plus shallow thinking plus 'here-and-now ignorance and
denial of history' equals panic and paranoia.

I dont think anyone will deny the positive effect of the original CARB
efforts. But there's a problem in thinking 'if some is good, more is
better'.

And dont forget... the very same people who would like to tax and
legislate the masses into using public transport are the ones who 'make
using the bus an adventure sorta like 'Survivor'...by enabling those who
take pride in intimidating others.



--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote:
>
>> A human would be put to shame by what one cow will produce. The daily
>> methane produced from all the farm animals is a staggering amount.
>>
>> wrote:
>>> Some years ago, I read an article that stated all human beings emit
>>> approximately one quart of methane gas, as "part of the digestive
>>> process", to put it kindly. How come you never the EPA gurus quote
>>> this fact that we are all contributing to the "global warming"?
>>> Just think, mutliply that by the total population of the world! And
>>> aminals too!
>>> Those folks in CA are nuts!
>>> JR.
>
> And it's SO bad the stink is felt all the way to Mars and melting ITS
> ice caps, too!
>
> Let's put it this way... consider all the 'conspiracy-blame ourselves'
> crap going on.
>
> Where does it get its impetus? From the 'CREATIVE areas' of the Blue
> States!
>
> Junk Science plus shallow thinking plus 'here-and-now ignorance and
> denial of history' equals panic and paranoia.
>
> I dont think anyone will deny the positive effect of the original CARB
> efforts. But there's a problem in thinking 'if some is good, more is
> better'.
>
> And dont forget... the very same people who would like to tax and
> legislate the masses into using public transport are the ones who 'make
> using the bus an adventure sorta like 'Survivor'...by enabling those who
> take pride in intimidating others.

Don't get me started on global warming. I always hear "It hasn't been
this hot for 10,000 years" coming from the mouth of some know-it-all
scientist. I would like them to answer this question... What made it so
hot 10,000 years ago? It certainly wasn't humans burning fossil fuels
in their SUVs. Now just maybe what made it hot way back then is also
making temperatures rise today. Also, they are only looking at a 10-20
years time span for temperature and are somehow able to extrapolate
where the climate is headed 200-300 years from now. It is the
equivalent of watching the initial kickoff return of a football game and
claiming you know what the final score will be. The real truth is they
know hardly nothing about what drives weather on this planet and
predicting more than 10 days in advance is nothing more than a guess.
Remember the horrific hurricane season they predicted for this year as a
result of global warming? Well, I think we can all call that prediction
a bust.

IMO, all this global warming hoopla is a way for scientists to grab
grant money and politicians to scare us into enacting their
environmental agenda. Go back and listen to all the dire predictions
made by the environmentalists 30-40 years ago and see how many never
materialized. Aren't we all supposed to be dead or living in a
wasteland by now? Also, isn't there supposed to be no more oil left? I
read the other day that it is estimated that we have only used 18% of
the worlds known oil reserves. The trouble with today's scientific
community is they have whored themselves out to the politicians to get
money. I look at EVERYTHING from them with a skeptical eye and need to
know who funded the research before remotely believing anything they say.

And who will pay for all this crap, in the long run???? The consumer,
that's who.


"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
...
> Backyard Mechanic wrote:
> > "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote:
> >
> >> A human would be put to shame by what one cow will produce. The daily
> >> methane produced from all the farm animals is a staggering amount.
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Some years ago, I read an article that stated all human beings emit
> >>> approximately one quart of methane gas, as "part of the digestive
> >>> process", to put it kindly. How come you never the EPA gurus quote
> >>> this fact that we are all contributing to the "global warming"?
> >>> Just think, mutliply that by the total population of the world! And
> >>> aminals too!
> >>> Those folks in CA are nuts!
> >>> JR.
> >
> > And it's SO bad the stink is felt all the way to Mars and melting ITS
> > ice caps, too!
> >
> > Let's put it this way... consider all the 'conspiracy-blame ourselves'
> > crap going on.
> >
> > Where does it get its impetus? From the 'CREATIVE areas' of the Blue
> > States!
> >
> > Junk Science plus shallow thinking plus 'here-and-now ignorance and
> > denial of history' equals panic and paranoia.
> >
> > I dont think anyone will deny the positive effect of the original CARB
> > efforts. But there's a problem in thinking 'if some is good, more is
> > better'.
> >
> > And dont forget... the very same people who would like to tax and
> > legislate the masses into using public transport are the ones who 'make
> > using the bus an adventure sorta like 'Survivor'...by enabling those who
> > take pride in intimidating others.
>
> Don't get me started on global warming. I always hear "It hasn't been
> this hot for 10,000 years" coming from the mouth of some know-it-all
> scientist. I would like them to answer this question... What made it so
> hot 10,000 years ago? It certainly wasn't humans burning fossil fuels
> in their SUVs. Now just maybe what made it hot way back then is also
> making temperatures rise today. Also, they are only looking at a 10-20
> years time span for temperature and are somehow able to extrapolate
> where the climate is headed 200-300 years from now. It is the
> equivalent of watching the initial kickoff return of a football game and
> claiming you know what the final score will be. The real truth is they
> know hardly nothing about what drives weather on this planet and
> predicting more than 10 days in advance is nothing more than a guess.
> Remember the horrific hurricane season they predicted for this year as a
> result of global warming? Well, I think we can all call that prediction
> a bust.
>
> IMO, all this global warming hoopla is a way for scientists to grab
> grant money and politicians to scare us into enacting their
> environmental agenda. Go back and listen to all the dire predictions
> made by the environmentalists 30-40 years ago and see how many never
> materialized. Aren't we all supposed to be dead or living in a
> wasteland by now? Also, isn't there supposed to be no more oil left? I
> read the other day that it is estimated that we have only used 18% of
> the worlds known oil reserves. The trouble with today's scientific
> community is they have whored themselves out to the politicians to get
> money. I look at EVERYTHING from them with a skeptical eye and need to
> know who funded the research before remotely believing anything they say.

wrote:
> Some years ago, I read an article that stated all human beings emit
> approximately one quart of methane gas, as "part of the digestive
> process", to put it kindly. How come you never the EPA gurus quote this
> fact that we are all contributing to the "global warming"?
> Just think, mutliply that by the total population of the world! And
> aminals too!
> Those folks in CA are nuts!
> JR.

Well, radical enviro-vegans have tried to get sheep reduced in places
like New Zealand.
My suggestion would be for every enviro-minded human to kill
themselves, thereby eliminating their contribution to the methane issue.

Of course we will. Plus do you think China, India, Latin America etc.
give a $hit about global warming and will stop their economic growth
because we think they should? Heck no they won't. This whole CO2
emissions reduction idea is DOA before it even moves an inch. The
press, in conjunction with the liberals and extreme environmentalists,
have been trying to scare the hell out of everyone for the last several
years that we are all going to fry like an egg in a skillet if we don't
stop CO2 emissions. The level of the oceans have fluctuated over 400'
throughout history. Now all of a sudden they want to take on Mother
Nature and stop it? Having it raise and lower is part of the natural
cycle of the earth. Maybe they saw the movie "Water World" too many
times and see George Bush as the Dennis Hopper character and John (the
wind board surfer) Kerry as the Kevin Costner character, among other
delusions.

Robert A. Plourde Jr. wrote:
> And who will pay for all this crap, in the long run???? The consumer,
> that's who.
>
>
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Backyard Mechanic wrote:
>>> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> A human would be put to shame by what one cow will produce. The daily
>>>> methane produced from all the farm animals is a staggering amount.
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Some years ago, I read an article that stated all human beings emit
>>>>> approximately one quart of methane gas, as "part of the digestive
>>>>> process", to put it kindly. How come you never the EPA gurus quote
>>>>> this fact that we are all contributing to the "global warming"?
>>>>> Just think, mutliply that by the total population of the world! And
>>>>> aminals too!
>>>>> Those folks in CA are nuts!
>>>>> JR.
>>> And it's SO bad the stink is felt all the way to Mars and melting ITS
>>> ice caps, too!
>>>
>>> Let's put it this way... consider all the 'conspiracy-blame ourselves'
>>> crap going on.
>>>
>>> Where does it get its impetus? From the 'CREATIVE areas' of the Blue
>>> States!
>>>
>>> Junk Science plus shallow thinking plus 'here-and-now ignorance and
>>> denial of history' equals panic and paranoia.
>>>
>>> I dont think anyone will deny the positive effect of the original CARB
>>> efforts. But there's a problem in thinking 'if some is good, more is
>>> better'.
>>>
>>> And dont forget... the very same people who would like to tax and
>>> legislate the masses into using public transport are the ones who 'make
>>> using the bus an adventure sorta like 'Survivor'...by enabling those who
>>> take pride in intimidating others.
>> Don't get me started on global warming. I always hear "It hasn't been
>> this hot for 10,000 years" coming from the mouth of some know-it-all
>> scientist. I would like them to answer this question... What made it so
>> hot 10,000 years ago? It certainly wasn't humans burning fossil fuels
>> in their SUVs. Now just maybe what made it hot way back then is also
>> making temperatures rise today. Also, they are only looking at a 10-20
>> years time span for temperature and are somehow able to extrapolate
>> where the climate is headed 200-300 years from now. It is the
>> equivalent of watching the initial kickoff return of a football game and
>> claiming you know what the final score will be. The real truth is they
>> know hardly nothing about what drives weather on this planet and
>> predicting more than 10 days in advance is nothing more than a guess.
>> Remember the horrific hurricane season they predicted for this year as a
>> result of global warming? Well, I think we can all call that prediction
>> a bust.
>>
>> IMO, all this global warming hoopla is a way for scientists to grab
>> grant money and politicians to scare us into enacting their
>> environmental agenda. Go back and listen to all the dire predictions
>> made by the environmentalists 30-40 years ago and see how many never
>> materialized. Aren't we all supposed to be dead or living in a
>> wasteland by now? Also, isn't there supposed to be no more oil left? I
>> read the other day that it is estimated that we have only used 18% of
>> the worlds known oil reserves. The trouble with today's scientific
>> community is they have whored themselves out to the politicians to get
>> money. I look at EVERYTHING from them with a skeptical eye and need to
>> know who funded the research before remotely believing anything they say.
>
>

Will Lockyer still be in office when this suit eventually goes to court, if
it ever does?

end

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> ...and they should be "dealt with."
>
> SAN FRANCISCO, California (Reuters) -- California sued six of the
> world's largest automakers over global warming on Wednesday, charging
> that greenhouse gases from their vehicles have caused billions of
> dollars in damages.
>
> The lawsuit is the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers
> liable for the damages caused by their vehicles' emissions, state
> Attorney General Bill Lockyer said.
>
> It comes less than a month after California lawmakers adopted the
> nation's first global warming law mandating a cut in greenhouse gas
> emissions.
>
> California has also targeted the auto industry with first-in-the-nation
> rules adopted in 2004 requiring car makers to force cuts in tailpipe
> emissions from cars and trucks.
>
> Automakers, however, have so far blocked those rules with their own
> legal action -- prompting one analyst to say California's lawsuit
> represents a way for California to pressure car manufacturers to accept
> the rules.
>
> "That's the objective," said David Cole, chairman of the Center for
> Automotive Research, a nonprofit organization that provides public
> research and forecasts about the industry.
>
> "They want to get the automakers basically to bow down and pay homage
> to the (emissions) law."
>
> The complaint, which an auto industry trade group called a "nuisance"
> suit, names General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp.,
> the U.S. arm of Germany's Daimler Chrysler AG and the North American
> units of Japan's Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd..
>
> Lockyer told Reuters he would seek "tens or hundreds of millions of
> dollars" from the automakers in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District
> Court in Northern California.
>
> Environmental groups hailed the lawsuit, saying it represented another
> weapon for the state as it seeks to curb greenhouse gas emissions and
> spur the auto industry to build vehicles that pollute less.
>
> "(California) just passed a new law to cut global warming emissions by
> 25 percent and that's a good start and this lawsuit is a good next
> step," said Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming
> Program.
>
> Ford deferred comment to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers,
> which said the lawsuit was similar to one a New York court dismissed
> that is now on appeal.
>
> "Automakers will need time to review this legal complaint, however, a
> similar nuisance suit that was brought by attorneys- general against
> utilities was dismissed by a federal court in New York," the industry
> group said in a statement.
>
> Toyota declined to comment as the company evaluates the lawsuit, while
> Honda said in a statement it was committed to developing
> environmentally responsible technology.
>
> The other automakers had no immediate comment.
>
> However, Sean Hecht, executive director of the Environmental Law Center
> at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the lawsuit has a
> "reasonable" chance of succeeding.
>
> He also noted the judge in the New York lawsuit cited rarely-used legal
> doctrine in ruling that the question at issue was political rather than
> legal and should therefore be addressed by the legislature and not the
> court.
>
> "I was surprised that the court in that case did that," he said. "I
> think it is a straight forward legal question. My impression is this is
> a very legitimate case to bring."
>
> The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for past and ongoing contributions
> to global warming and asks that the companies be held liable for future
> monetary damages to California. It said California is spending millions
> to deal with reduced snow pack, beach erosion, ozone pollution and the
> impact on endangered animals and fish.
>
> "The injuries have caused the people to suffer billions of dollars in
> damages, including millions of dollars of funds expended to determine
> the extent, location and nature of future harm and to prepare for and
> mitigate those harms, and billions of dollars of current harm to the
> value of flood control infrastructure and natural resources," it said.
>
> The Center for Automotive Research's Cole said it would be tough for
> the industry to immediately meet demands from some critics and
> predicted other states would quickly follow suit should California
> succeed with the legal action.
>
> Adoption of diesel engine emissions technology or gasoline-electric
> hybrids comes at great cost and improving gas mileage also likely means
> smaller lighter vehicles, trade-offs that are not attractive to
> consumers, he added.
>
> "These are not free technologies, they are very expensive," Cole said.
> "Most people are price sensitive."
>
> In the complaint, Lockyer charges that vehicle emissions have
> contributed significantly to global warming and have harmed the
> resources, infrastructure and environmental health of the most populous
> state in the United States.
>
> Lockyer -- a Democratic candidate for state treasurer in the November
> election -- said the lawsuit states that under federal and state common
> law the automakers have created a public nuisance by producing
> "millions of vehicles that collectively emit massive quantities of
> carbon dioxide."
>
> Carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases have been linked to
> global warming.
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 168 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

On 21 Sep 2006 06:11:59 -0700, wrote:

>
>Some years ago, I read an article that stated all human beings emit
>approximately one quart of methane gas, as "part of the digestive
>process", to put it kindly. How come you never the EPA gurus quote this
>fact that we are all contributing to the "global warming"?
>Just think, mutliply that by the total population of the world! And
>aminals too!
>Those folks in CA are nuts!
>JR.

Thanks for the compliment? I just love being lumped in with "those
folks in CA". I have met so many people who think, never having been
here, that the state is comprised of nothing but wall to wall people
living in a single, unending city. And I have met people who think
Sacramento is a couple of hours drive north of LA, or that the state
ends at San Francisco; or that anything north of LA is "northern
California". People who firmly believe that every resident of the
state is a bleeding heart liberal.

Unfortunately, the voting blocks are largely liberal city folks who
have no concept of country life. People who pick up the phone when
they have a problem and the cops are there in a couple of minutes...
so nobody needs guns. They have never lived "out here" where it takes
the nearest county cop 45 minutes of hauling a** to reach a victim.

For those who have never been here; in the state with the 5th largest
economy in the WORLD; the majority of the population is centered in
several major metro areas which amount to a very small fraction of the
state's total area. The rest is comprised of farms, orchards, ranch
lands, mountains, forests, etc; what we call "rural". Most of us
"rural" people are conservative, pro-hunting, pro-fishing, anti-flag
burning, against rewarding law breakers, and we're still NOT even
ultra conservatives.

So, before you condemn all of us as "nuts"... how about getting to
know the state and it's peoples. You might just find that a good share
of us are not nuts.

Added: My ancestors didn't arrive on the Mayflower :0), but they did
settle in northern California under a Spanish Land Grant prior to
1840; well before there were any liberals. The liberals "nuts" came
long after; attracted by the wealth and climate.
--

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok;
Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich
gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound
audio-video...
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/d..._11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/E...ebuild_006.jpg