|
Climate Gate News
|
|
Friday, 27 January 2012 16:49 |
|
To all Readers:
At the last CCTA board meeting in November, someone questioned: “If there isn’t global warming than how do you explain the ice loss in Greenland?” A number of people said that the photos were likely a fraud – but at that time it was still being investigated. We all saw the satellite-type photos of reduced polar ice on the white island which showed that about (116,000 sq. mi.) of ice cap was gone, assumingly melted due to global warming. Most creditable scientist scratched their heads knowing that such massive ice loss here would have raised sea levels (about 1 meter ~3 feet). Ironically, sea levels have actually dropped about .75-centimeters since 2010, as more moisture in falling on land masses as snow and rain - was the blame.
So, yes another fraud, an area incidentally about the same size of the entire state of Arizona has not disappeared as the published TC atlas photo indicated. Shockingly or not (depending on what you believe today), the creators or “photchoppers” of the satellite photos are now admitting to the fraudulent, touched up work and the world atlas publisher said they “have learned a lesson”. One would think a fraud like this would include jail-time, at least job loss. Again, it’s good to be skeptical because we are all being lied to daily about PM, CO2, fracking, wood formaldehyde and even DDT - this is the real incontrovertible fact.
Let’s see how many news agencies pick this story up and run the “opps… rebuttal” as quickly as they printed the fraudulent photos and scary earth-ending effects. This type of fraud is just another example of why we are suing CARB, make no mistake about it! Can you say Hein Tran the father of CARB diesel regulations justification, academic credential fraud, and most recently UC Berkeley’s Michael Jerrett, $750,000 California specific epi-study health effects fraud, Al Gore & Mikey Mann’s hockey stick fraud, the IPCC claimed doom of Himalayan glaciers by 2035, the leaked “Climategate” emails detailing massive international cover-up and on and on!
You all need to subscribe to Steve Miloy’s Junkscience.com website where I picked this up.
If this doesn’t what to make you donate $20 or $50 to our lawsuit what does? - Lee Brown, Executive Director
More on this story
|
|
Read more...
|
|
CARB Updates & News
|
|
Thursday, 26 January 2012 11:05 |
|
By Paul Roger - Mecury News
In a move that could reshape the American automobile industry, California regulators Thursday are expected to approve sweeping new rules requiring that 15 percent of new cars sold in California by 2025 run on electricity, hydrogen or other systems producing little or no smog.
The regulations by the California Air Resources Board, dubbed the "advanced clean car rules," would start in 2018, ramping up each year and ultimately resulting in 1.4 million "zero emission" vehicles on California roads by 2025. Today there are only about 10,000 such vehicles in the state.
"This is a really large step. It's transformational," said Tom Cackette, an engineer and chief deputy director of the air board. "Ten years from now the market is going to look quite a bit different."
|
|
Read more...
|
|
EPA News
|
|
Tuesday, 24 January 2012 11:53 |
|
Posted: 23 Jan 2012 11:10 AM PST
Over at the PJ Tattler today, my colleague Chris Horner receives warmly the news that the President might make the administration’s record on renewable energy a focus of his State of the Union Address:
It is time to remember that President Obama used his first two State of the Union speeches (the first actually not called that, but…) and, to show his seriousness, his first address to the UN General Assembly, to upbraid Congress with the same, very deliberately worded demand for “legislation that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America”.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
EPA News
|
|
Tuesday, 24 January 2012 11:52 |
|
Power grabbing is hard work. Usually the power grabbee resists the infringement of its rights, so the Environmental Protection Agency has had to employ a number of machinations to get the job done. Without further ado, I present to you nos. 10 through 6, of EPA’s top 10 tricks to steal more power:
|
|
Read more...
|
|
In The News
|
|
Tuesday, 24 January 2012 11:46 |
|
Long Beach Post:
The Long Beach City Prosecutor’s Office announced today that it filed a 58 count criminal complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Pacific Coast Container, Inc., for illegally transporting overweight shipments in violation of the California Vehicle Code.
In addition to Pacific Coast Container, Inc., the complaint charges Umex Freight System, Inc., and 19 employees of the corporations responsible for overweight shipping. If convicted of all charges, the defendants could be ordered to pay $153,193.00 (plus penalties and assessments).
|
|
Read more...
|
|
In The News
|
|
Thursday, 19 January 2012 08:53 |
|
Vehicle Identification Number and Vehicle History Reports
As cars were first being introduced into California, there was no orderly way to track the vehicles or the owners until 1905. To keep track of all vehicles, the state required cars, bicycles, carriages, carts and similar vehicles to be licensed. However, the automotive industry used a different method to track their vehicles- Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs). A VIN is a unique serial code that is assigned to every vehicle and was first used in 1954. They were typically placed on the driver-side door or at the bottom of the front windshield. Different manufacturers used different formats of VINs until 1981, when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration required VINs to be 17 characters and must exclude the letters I, O and Q. By excluding these letters, any confusion with the numbers one and zero was avoided.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
EPA News
|
|
Friday, 06 January 2012 13:29 |
|
By Claudia Cowan
Published January 06, 2012 | FoxNews.com
For the first time, the federal government is regulating big-rigs, RV's, and tractor-trailers in much the same way it's held car makers to rigorous fuel efficiency standards for decades. But a group of California truckers contends the regulations will drive them right out of business -- and has filed suit to block them.
The Environmental Protection Agency is ordering large trucks and buses to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 20 percent and overhaul engine design starting with models built in 2014. Most operators will need to spend thousands upgrading their rigs or buying new vehicles, with prices starting at $50,000 and going up from there, depending on the model.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
CARB Updates & News
|
|
Thursday, 05 January 2012 16:37 |
|
Air Resources Board California Environmental Protection Agency January 24, 2008 PPT Presentation to the Board "This study found that the employees had a lower overall death rate than the general population, as would be expected in a working population."
Read entire report here
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/healthup/jan08.pdf |
|
CARB Updates & News
|
|
Thursday, 05 January 2012 16:34 |
Background
Occupational and population-based studies have related exposure to fine particulate air pollution, and specifically particulate matter from vehicle exhausts, to cardiovascular diseases and lung cancer.
Objectives
We have established a large retrospective cohort to assess mortality in the unionized U.S. trucking industry. To provide insight into mortality patterns associated with job-specific exposures, we examined rates of cause-specific mortality compared with the general U.S. population.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Labor & Wages - Information Section
|
|
Thursday, 05 January 2012 16:20 |
|
By Paul V. Simpson Esq. and Jamie Rudman, Esq.
Simpson, Garrity, Innes & Jacuzzi
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
/jrudman@sgijlaw.com
California’s Wage Prevention Theft Act (the “Act”), Labor Code Section 2810.5 took effect on January 1, 2012. On December 30, 2011, the last business day before the Act became effective, the California Labor Commissioner posted on its web site 15 “frequently asked questions” (“FAQs”) about the Act and the Labor Commissioner’s responses to the FAQs appear to significantly expand employers’ obligations. See, http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/dlse.html.
Penalties for non-compliance include: a civil penalty pursuant to Labor Code Section 2699(f)(2) of one hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation and two hundred dollars ($200) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|