Nissan Titan Forum - Off-Topic Discussion

Quote:

Hackers broke into the servers at a prominent British climate research center and leaked years worth of e-mail messages onto the Web, including one with a mysterious reference to a plan to "hide the decline" in data about temperatures.

The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU), which has acknowledged the leak of 61MB of confidential data.

Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a "smoking gun," evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind. The files were reportedly released on a Russian file-serve by an anonymous poster calling himself "FOIA."

In an exclusive interview in Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition, Phil Jones, the head of the Hadley CRU, confirmed that the leaked data is real.

"It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago," he told the magazine, noting that the center has yet to contact the police about the data breach.

TGIF Edition asked Jones about the controversial "hide the decline" comment from an e-mail he wrote in 1999. He told the magazine that there was no intention to mislead, but he had "no idea" what he meant by those words.

"That was an e-mail from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?" he said.

The Telegraph has posted some of the more scathing excerpts from these emails, which the newspaper suggests points to manipulation of evidence and private doubts about the reality of global warming, though the much of the scientific language in the e-mails is esoteric and hard to interpret.

Others suggest the comments are simply "scientists talking about science." In an interview with Wired, Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, points out that "if you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists."

Still, one notable e-mail from the hacked files clearly describes how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process:

"I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?"

Quote:

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

Quote:

Well isn’t that nice. Certainly Louisiana voters won’t be disappointed at getting a bigger slice of the ‘pie’. And correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Rep. Cao receive a similar concession from Democrats in the House?

The worst thing about all of this is that we’re supposed to be a nation of laws. Those in congress made a vow to uphold the Constitution of these United States. They don’t even bother crossing their fingers anymore when taking that oath. They openly scoff at anyone who asks how anything they’re doing is constitutional. I know – it’s so old fashioned to talk about the Constitution. But at what point will the lawlessness of our legislators lead us into complete chaos?

Quote:

The U.S. government hands out millions of dollars each year to various environmental organizations to help protect fish, wildlife and other aspects of the environment. And every year, those same groups spend millions suing the government over everything from forest policy and carbon emissions to water quality and wolf habitats.

When the CIA failed to replace 30 percent of its fleet with hybrid cars, the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity sued because "its members and staff are impacted by the health effects of oil production," according to the filing. And when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to review the status of slick-stop pepper grass, the group ran up $200,000 in legal bills.

Who paid the attorneys fees? The American taxpayers did.

In the lucrative world of environmental law, the biggest defendant is the federal government, and taxpayers foot the bill. The nation's ten largest environmental groups have sued the government more than 3,000 times in a nine-year period, according to legal fund the Western Legacy Alliance, an Idaho-based legal fund that defends ranchers and farmers.

"The federal government is paying environmental groups to sue the federal government," Karen Budd-Falen, a former government official and an attorney in Cheyenne, Wyo., affiliated with the Western Legacy Alliance, told Fox News. "Taxpayers are paying for litigation, but not over substantive but procedural issues."

Procedural issues pertain simply to instances in which the federal government missed a deadline or lost the suit on a technicality, as opposed to substantive issues that are argued before a judge and require a ruling on a dispute or question.

In most legal cases, each side pays their own legal bills. That is not the case, however, when nonprofit, public interest groups sue the federal government.

Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), Congress allows needy individuals and nonprofit organizations to recover attorneys fees whether they win, lose or settle. And while the original intent was to guarantee access to the courts for the poor, a dozen of the nation's wealthiest environmental groups are using the law.

The Environmental Defense Fund has shelled out $69 million in 67 lawsuits over the past nine years. The National Wildlife Federation has spent $97 million on 233 cases. The Wilderness Society has spent $36 million on 150 cases. And the Sierra Club has spent $46 million on 983 cases. That's just a partial list of lawsuits against the federal government over the past nine years, according to the Western Legacy Alliance.

"I absolutely believe that these cases are more about gathering attorneys fees than 'damages,'" Budd-Falen told Fox News. "There is no evidence that one dollar of these fees awarded to any group has gone into on-the-ground habitat or species protection actions.

"A majority of environmental groups use in-house attorneys, but they are requesting private attorney rates, in some cases up to $600 per hour," she said. "These fees make money for the organizations to be used to fund more litigation."

In one case, the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund and the Western Environmental Law Center challenged a forest service regulation. There was no trial, and the agency did not contest the claim, which was resolved administratively. Yet seven environmental attorneys claimed 930 hours of work and $479,000 in attorneys fees, with one lawyer seeking $650 an hour.

In just one month, The WildEarth Guardians filed petitions to list 700 species as endangered. Each petition requires U.S. Fish and Wildlife to produce and publish a scientific response in 90 days. If it misses the deadline by one day, the agency can be sued -- and it usually loses.

But according to members of WildEarth Guardians, these suits help, rather than harm, the American people.

"We step in when the government doesn't do its job. Our work is vital to protecting clean air, clean water and native wildlife," John Horning, executive director of WildEarth Guardians, told Fox News. "The claims that our work is frivolous is totally unfounded. We only do work when the government doesn't do its job.

"Every day that we can delay development or ensure that the government complies with both the letter and the spirit of the law is a day where we feel like the public interest is victorious," he said.

WildEarth Guardians has filed at least 180 lawsuits in the federal district courts and at least 61 appeals in the appellate courts.

Now, the growing number of cases is beginning to attract the attention of some lawmakers in Congress.

Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., has written to the Department of Justice asking for an investigation, pointing out that much of the money being paid comes out of the Equal Access to Justice Act fund, which Congress set up for the indigent and public interest groups to recover legal fees.

Right now, the government does not account for how much is paid out to whom or for what reason.

"These are taxpayer dollars that are being used by the federal government to compensate people who have sued the federal government. I believe that taxpayers have the right to know who those people are and how much they've been paid," Lummis told Fox News.

"I think we are creating an incentive for environmental organizations to develop shops of specialists that are extremely well compensated, just to sue the federal government and recover attorneys fees."

The Sierra Club, the Center for Biodiversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, The National Wildlife Federation and Earthjustice all refused to comment on the findings of the Western Legacy Alliance. But Horning maintains that despite their multimillion-dollar budgets, these environmental groups still qualify as the little guy.

"The government sometimes forgets to serve the little guy, and the little guy is sometimes the voiceless, whether it's public interest in clean air, water or wildlife."

But rancher John Kirkbride sees it differently. When groups sue the federal government over grazing rights, he is forced to hire an attorney to protect his rights but can't collect his legal costs because he files as "a friend of the court" and is not a named plaintiff.

"Taxpayers are footing the bill for a lot of this. I can't help but be angry this is happening," Kirkbride told Fox News.

"These interests have become very proficient at stalling, delaying and impeding progress. That is their stock and trade. It is a cash cow for them to be able to take advantage of this (EAJA) act."

Leave a Comment Sort: Newest Sort: Oldest Subscribe to CommentsSort: Newest Sort: Oldest Email
* not displayed
Comment Required
Comment
FOX News encourages you to participate in this discussion; however, please be sure to review our Terms of Use and Privacy Statement
Leave a CommentYou must be logged in to comment. Please login or register below.
Already a member of FOXNews.com?

Log in now

Username or Email Address
Password
Remember me on this computer Forgot your password? or login using a third-party account

Reset Password
To reset your password, please fill in your email below. A password reset link will be emailed to you.

Email Address

Not a member yet?

Register Now
On FOXNews.com
It's FREE and only takes a minute!

Get access to:

Breaking news and access to video and infographics Exclusive FOXNews blogs and community features Channel info and more!

Quote:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Wednesday night injected race into the national debate on health care, saying any black lawmaker who votes against President Obama's sweeping overhaul isn't really black, the Hill newspaper reported.

"We even have blacks voting against the health care bill," Jackson reportedly said at a Congressional Black Caucus reception Wednesday night honoring the 25th anniversary of the civil rights leader's run for president.

"You can't vote against health care and call yourself a black man," the Hill reported him saying.

The remark was a clear shot at Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., the only member of the CBC to vote against the House version of the health care legislation.

Davis refused to return fire against Jackson.

"One of the reasons that I like and admire Rev. Jesse Jackson is that 21 years ago he inspired the idea that a black politician would not be judged simply as a black leader," Davis said in a written statement to the newspaper. "The best way to honor Rev. Jackson's legacy is to decline to engage in an argument with him that begins and ends with race."

Jackson later reportedly said that he "didn't call anybody by name and I won't."