Study May Fuel Global Warming Lawsuits

Tell it to the judge. Careful now! If you tell one of your fossil fool lies, you could face a perjury conviction. If you vomit one of your irrelevant Steve Schulin trivia collections you will face a contempt of court citation. If you try to ignore a question or don't show up for your court date, that will be an automatic loss of your case and contempt of court, too. And finally remember, you'll be in a foreign court, where the penalties for perjury and contempt are much stiffer, even including DECADES in jail. That's JAI,L, not Martha Stewart's club Fed. Say hello to that 400 pound man who wants you to call him 'Mom,' he's your cellmate!

LOL - did this attribution study consider soot?

LOL - if you true believers call Mann as a witness, does that mean he'd finally have to answer direct questions about his data and method?

Very truly,

Steve Schulin

This may be poetic justice. People will sue in foreign courts, win judgments against America for the damage caused by its greenhouse gas emissions, and confiscate U.S. goods.

Who first claimed the right of an individual to exercise a judgment against a foreign government? The US did. During the 1960's Cuban expatriates were granted judgments against their former homeland, and confiscated Cuban owned property.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Heatwave Study May Fuel Global Warming Lawsuits Thu 2 December, 2004 14:38

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO (Reuters) - A study of a 2003 heatwave in Europe may give Pacific islanders and environmentalists new ammunition for legal cases blaming the United States for global warming, advocates said on Thursday.

Claims linked to climate change could dwarf billion-dollar awards against tobacco companies if U.N. forecasts to 2100 of rising temperatures, higher sea levels, catastrophic storms and droughts turn

'This is the kind of evidence that will help those seeking compensation,' Peter Roderick, director of the Climate Justice Program which advises plaintiffs, said of a study of Europe's 2003 heatwave published on Wednesday in the journal Nature.

The British-based authors said human activity, especially emissions of heat-trapping gases from fossil fuels, had at least doubled the risks of heatwaves like last year's in which more than 20,000 people died.

The conclusion is a shift from studies saying that everything from more frequent hurricanes to floods could simply be statistical freaks even though they are consistent with U.N. projections of warming caused by a build-up of greenhouse gases.

'One study is not going to create an entire new area of jurisprudence, but this is an important step,' Steve Sawyer, climate policy director at Greenpeace, said of the Nature study.

'Like tobacco lawsuits, it may take decades to be successful,' he

curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions and aggressively funding research into renewable energy.

Greenpeace is involved in lawsuits accusing the U.S. Export-Import Bank of wrongly funding fossil fuel projects in poor nations and another accusing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of failing to rein in greenhouse gases.

SUE OR BE SWAMPED?

Low-lying Pacific island states including Tuvalu, at risk of disappearing if sea levels rise, are considering suing the United States, the world's top source of greenhouse gases, to force it to do more to curb global warming.

Washington has taken the brunt of legal actions since President Bush pulled out of the U.N.'s 128-nation Kyoto protocol in 2001, . . .

For the rest of this article please see:

[Distribution corrected, 'sci.environment' removed. 'Global warming' always has been about politics, not science.]

Poetic justice to the perverse, maybe. Normal people will laugh at this: will the lawsuits be through the political-and-worse International Court of Justice (the 'World Court'? Will the stupid activists on the environmental front join the anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-USA-and-West leftist scum who demanded Bush and Cheney be impeached or tried for 'war crimes,' 'crimes against humanity,' calling the USA 'a rogue nation' or 'a terrorist state,' and so on? Will a 'trial' and 'verdict' be reached by a group run by Ramsey Clark, Helen Caldicott, or someone more intimately associated with the environmental movement who is equally ridiculous? This is funny, indeed.

Try to confiscate US goods and you're playing with fire and deserve burning and worse.

Dave Simpson

Defendant Schulin, be advised that your attempts to change the topic to 'soot' or 'Mann' will not be looked on with favor by this court, even as they would in a court in your own country. Should you persist in changing the topic and not answering questions put to you by the prosecutor, you will be found in contempt of court, this court will rule against you, your goods will be confiscated, and you will serve a term in our country's jails.

One major trouble with suing these companies is the denialist position. If the heads of fossil fuel based Greenhouse gas producing industries believe AGW doesn't exist (or if it does it won't cause harm) and they avoid any kind of education on the matter, then they haven't done anything they can be sued for. It takes knowledge that your actions cause harm to be successfully sued ( or be shown to have such knowledge). Ignorance can be worth (or save) a lot of money and I'm sure they're making greater efforts to remain ignorant than to engage in self education. Certainly they'll be opposed to that kind of reseach within their own corporations and will lobby govt's to abandon that kind of research - it could risk putting themselves into a position where they could be sued. Thus you won't find the fossil fuel industry or it's shills ever admitting their products or their actions are causing any harm. Thus the paid and unpaid promotion of the denialist position gets their full support. Good to know the most influential people have another reason to promote ignorance?

Forced into the choice of being a crook or a dope, most executives will pick dope. Consider, for example, Mr Lay of Enron.

RPD / Cambridge Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.

And, the US recognizes the UN too ... at least, when the UN agrees to adopt our position. Otherwise, 'We will never ask for a permission slip to defend our country.' (Some President guy said this, I think.)

RPD / Cambridge Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.

...

How facetious of you.

So you invaded Iraq to 'defend the country' despite the lack of any credible threat? Are you taking drugs?

P.S. the 'international test' that Kerry mentioned is the 'standards of the community' on how far you can go without a direct threat, not some sort of limitation on real defense. One should recognise the majority opinion on the limits of sovereign rights. Otherwise you will be isolated as a 'rogue state'. Hmm. Just like now.

You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the ass.

You are simply weird, Ian, when not also stupid.