Justice Danièle Tremblay-Lamer has ordered an environmental review panel to justify its decision to allow a $7 billion oilsands project in Alberta's north to go ahead.
[...] "Given the amount of greenhouse gases that will be emitted and given the evidence that the targets will not address the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, it was incumbent upon the Panel to provide a justification for its recommendation on this particular issue," Tremblay-Lamer wrote. [...]
What "evidence" does Justice Danièle Tremblay-Lamer have that the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, specifically CO2, is in fact a problem? What LAWS are currently in place in regards to greenhouse gas emissions that would justify Justice Danièle Tremblay-Lamer decision? I can give you the answer to both of those questions... NONE! This is clearly a case of a judge with an agenda. An ill informed agenda at that. It is no different than a judge convicting a person for something they may commit, perhaps, well maybe, at some point in time, in the future, be considered a crime. How ridiculous is that? May I remind Justice Danièle Tremblay-Lamer that the debate over AGW is not over. It has just finally begun in the mainstream of things. The so-called "deniers", like myself are starting to be heard and more often than not, the science is swaying to prove us right. Seems as though, strange as it may sound, that the earths climate is controlled by that big ball of fire in the sky and not us humans. Go figure...
Perhaps Justice Danièle Tremblay-Lamer should sit in on some of the seminars at The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change. She may learn a thing or two.
4 comments:
When a judge makes a ruling outside the boundaries of law, like this one, that panel of judges should be FIRED.... grrrrrrrrrr
Here I thought they were there to "interpret" the laws, not make them. Just one more reason why there should be more accountability from our judicial system and judges.
Hopefully, Alberta will give her the old pierre trudeau salute.
Stunned c**t! Excuse me, but there isn't any other term for her.
I am sure this will be appealed. She went way out of bounds in this ruling if you ask me. Not that what I have to say matters.
Post a Comment