Litigious Lunacy

This is quite something. Darn those Canucks. As we saw with his defense of eco-vandals in England, I wonder if Dr. James Hansen will rush to The Hague to testify for this one? And if by some furthest stretch of the imagination, this lawsuit is successful, what then? Will Pachauri use the spoils to whittle down the number of lifetimes if will take to erase his own carbon footprint? I wonder if Danny Bloom is related to omnipresent blog commenter, and Sierra Club representative, Steve Bloom? BTW Steve, we are still waiting, over a year now for your answer.

NOTE: The article below is reposted in entirety from the blog Northward Ho(t) The opinions are those of the author of that blog, Mitchel Anderson, not of myself nor of any WUWT contributor. – Anthony



Ballsy.

That is perhaps best word to describe a class action lawsuit filed this week in the International Criminal Court in The Hague in Holland against national governments refusing to act on reducing carbon emissions.

The suit was filed by climate activist Danny Bloom who is asking for “US$1 billion dollars in damages on behalf of future generations of human beings on Earth – if there are any”

No Joke

The lawsuit is specifically seeking damages from “all world leaders for intent to commit manslaughter against future generations of human beings by allowing murderous amounts of fossil fuels to be harvested, burned and sent into the atmosphere as CO2, causing possible apocalyptic harm to the Earth’s ecosystem and the very future of the human species.

The point of the suit of course is not to wring money out of carbon emitters, but to embarrass the legions of laggard governments in advance of upcoming international climate negotiations next month in Poland. According to Bloom, the legal action “is about trying to protect future generations of mankind, humankind, and a positive judgment in this case will help prod more people to take the issues of climate change and global warming more seriously. We fully intend to make all world leaders of today responsible for their actions in the present day and age.”

This case is a legal long shot no doubt, but Bloom’s team said “”it’s up to the court to decide whether this case has any merit. We fully expect the court to agree to at least hear the case and make a responsible and measured decision later.”

It would also be the first case of its kind to seek to act on behalf of future generations for the irresponsibility of their ancestors. The need to put world leaders on the hot seat is very real. International climate talks like the one happening next month in Poland have happening for over a decade yet global emissions just keep climbing. A recent report showed that in spite of international commitments, carbon emissions of 40 industrialized countries rose by 2.3 percent between 2000 and 2006.

That said, those countries that signed Kyoto saw their overall emissions fall by 17% below 1990. The disgraceful outlier among those nations is Canada, whose emissions ballooned by over 20% in spite of having ratifying Kyoto. Canada’s Prime Minister Harper has called Kyoto a “mistake” and he seems openly contemptuous of such international efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. Mr. Harper is of course not alone in the responsibility for Canada’ terrible climate change record. The Canadian public recently handed him another mandate in a general election.

Back to Mr. Bloom. His lawsuit seems directly targeted towards such irresponsible nations like Canada that have refused to take this issue seriously. If he wins, Bloom is planning to donate the $1 billion in damages to the Nobel winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Godspeed Mr. Bloom.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate_change, Politics, Ridiculae. Bookmark the permalink.

296 Responses to Litigious Lunacy

  1. kim says:

    Oh, goodie, can I depose Bloom?
    =====================

  2. evanjones says:

    O! Canada!

  3. sillybooks says:

    Godspeed Mr. Bloom.
    I willingly second that based on the assumption that no human body will remain whole at such a velocity…

  4. Bishop Hill says:

    Perhaps someone should file an amicus curiae brief and tell them what’s really happening.

  5. wes george says:

    This could be the opportunity of the decade. At long last, the Hollywood AGW hype-pothesis can come under the detailed scrutiny of litigation. Perhaps, Nobel Laureate Al Gore should be called upon as an expert witness…by the defense!

    One would hope that the defendants would have the courage to vigorously and aggressively take full advantage of this foolhardy challenge as the modern day equivalent of the Scopes Trial.

    Handled properly this is a no-win situation for the AGW hypothesis, which relies on the opacity of the “science” to conceal the vacuity of its claims.

    The defendants only need prove that the AGW hypothesis is speculative at best, fraudulent in part and utterly genocidal as a limiting parameter policy in regards to global gross production.

    Once the AGW hypothesis has been shown to be more faith and politically motivated intrigue than rational scientific inquiry, the stage will be set for a counter-suit worth the trillions of dollars in damages that the AGW lobby seeks to perpetuate upon economies of the free world and the following quite literal holocaust of lives carbon dioxide suppression would have on the developing world, ie Africa, the sub-continent and Sur de America.

  6. Mike says:

    I take it that Bloom has few scientific credentials, little understanding of cause and effect, and a desire to make a little bread on the side.
    Mike

  7. Rick Sharp says:

    I’m a Canadian and I resemble that.

  8. P Folkens says:

    “intent to commit manslaughter against future generations . . . murderous amounts . . . causing possible apocalyptic harm . . .”

    Is there any legal precedent for an uninjured party to bring suit against multiple governments for “intent” with no basis to commit “possible” harm to unspecified unborn from a by-product of a common commodity used by regular citizens in a legal manner?

    The level of stupid exercised by some of these fanatics continues to amaze and impress. It remains that the worst case scenario postulated by the IPCC will almost reach the average condition (as measured by sea level) during the past 6,000 years.

  9. MG says:

    Unlucky for him, CO2 is plant food and does humans no harm. We exhale over 40,000 ppm CO2, so just how exactly is this going to exterminate us? By making plants grow faster, with more efficient water and nitrogen use? By extending the growing season in the large, northern continental areas of the northern hemisphere? If we want to do something good for the world, we can start with the real problems – land degradation and population growth. Furthermore, most of the warming seems to have been due to solar activity one way or the other, and temperatures seem to have peaked a few years ago. It’s a publicity stunt.

  10. Brian Johnson says:

    Taking the yearly worldwide output of greenhouse gases, including water vapour, methane, CO2 etc., how does the 0.27% of the man made contribution to the total have any measurable effect whatsoever?

    What happen to logic and reason and Occam’s Razor???

    Carbon footprint? Bloom-ing madness!

  11. Danny Bloom says:

    Mike said: “I take it that Mr. Bloom has few scientific credentials, little understanding of cause and effect, and a desire to make a little bread on the side.”

    Mike,
    Hi. Danny Bloom here. I am almost a Canadian, I don’t resemble that, re Rick Sharpe, above. Re your comment: Yes, Mike, I have zero scientific cred, very little understand of C & E,. but hey, man, Mike, why does everything have to be about money? There is zero desire to make a little bread on the side. Come on! This is a guerilla theater PR mock lawsuit to try prod people and wake up people who are still sleeping walking toward the Apoca. You don’t have to agree with everything I say, or anything, but please, pay attention to the Earth’s atmosphere. If you don’t believe we as a species are in big trouble, then that’s okay, I respect your POV, and you might be right, yes, but let’s see how things play out in the next few years. We are in this together, all of us, pro and con, so let’s try to understand each other. There’s a method to me madness. Read the language of the lawsuit again. NOT about money. Jeez. It’s about the FUTURE. Maybe there’s nothing to worry about? If so, then I drop my case.

    Cheers

    Danny

  12. Danny Bloom says:

    P Folkens (23:52:41) : , you are right, there is no legal precedent for this. Now there is. — Danny

    RE:

    “intent to commit manslaughter against future generations . . . murderous amounts . . . causing possible apocalyptic harm . . .”

    Is there any legal precedent for an uninjured party to bring suit against multiple governments for “intent” with no basis to commit “possible” harm to unspecified unborn from a by-product of a common commodity used by regular citizens in a legal manner?

  13. Danny Bloom says:

    Dear WUWT blogger above, sir.

    Thanks for giving your readers a good chuckle and something to smile about. For the record, Steve Bloom is not related to me, although I know of him and we have corresponded by email over the past year. A good man.

    And yes, I do hope Dr Hansen will testify for this lawsuit, and also Dr Lovelock and Fred Pearce and Tim Flannery and George Monbiot and Mark Lynas.

    Calling this “Litigous Lunacy” is a good headline and a good start. I like it. But all this is really more like “litigous guerilla theatre” — it’s all a symbolic action to make a point. I doubt Dr Pauchuri will get anything from it other than another headache.

    Cheers,

    — Danny

    And THANKS for picking the story up. Reuters contaced me today and they are planning a wire story on their international wire soon. Get ready.

  14. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Brian Johnson,
    0.27% sounds small, but it accumulates over the years. Indeed CO2 concentrations have gone up from 280 ppm to about 387 ppm over the last 100 years or so. A good part is probably due to human emissions, but also due to CO2 released by oceans from natural warming. Almost all scientists agree that manmade CO2 causes warming. The dispute is how much of the warming over the last 100 years is manmade, and what part is natural?
    Looking at the La Ninas (El Nino effects, PDO oscillations, etc., many scientists are now saying the bulk of the warming is due to natural causes.
    The challenge will be to argue this in Court before possibly unscientific and activist judges and jurors.
    IMHO opinion, I think it’s just a question of time before these zealots go to far and really tee off the public. Then there will be a major backlash, and in such case, I’m not for reconciliation, moreover in favour of running these quacks out of town (to a foreign country like Canada, Venezuela or Russia).

  15. Pierre Gosselin says:

    A nation cutting CO2 emissions is a STUPID STANDARD.
    Canada has and ill have a strongly growing population due to open immigration. Of course it is very difficult to cut CO2 emissions when people are piling into your contry.
    Europe on the other hand has a dying population. Europe’s population is expected to go from approx. 500 million today to about 450 million by 2050. So how tough is it to cut CO2 emissions with such bleak population growth? Clearly Kyoto is designed to punish growth.

  16. Michael says:

    Could we lodge a suit against so called environmentalists who have deliberately removed the focus from genuine environmental issues such as habitat destruction and plastic in the ocean to the insignificant issue of anthropogenic global warming? Millions of animals dying and destined to die because these frauds are ideological people haters and use the environmental movement to promote their GAIA cult?

  17. Pierre Gosselin says:

    Lubos Motl
    characterises it precisely:
    “(Desmogblog) propagandistic blog about the climate funded by JOHN LEFEBVRE, A CRMINAL ARRESTED FOR MONEY LAUNDERING, informs us about a lawsuit filed by Danny Bloom, a radical environmentalist activist.”

    Send that to The Hague.

  18. Aileni Noyle says:

    This makes me feel physically sick. I never thought I would live to witness a new Inquisition (they would,you know) and the development of a new religion of intolerance based yet again on a lie.
    It truly has me feeling I should apologise for ever being Green.

  19. Tallbloke says:

    “If you don’t believe we as a species are in big trouble, then that’s okay, I respect your POV, and you might be right, yes…… Maybe there’s nothing to worry about? If so, then I drop my case.”

    And pick up the tab for the legal expenses?

  20. Brooklyn Red Leg says:

    If I believed in Divine Retribution, I would think Dr. Hansen’s plane would go down in a remote, frosty part of the world and his supporters on the trip would be forced to eat him to stay alive. Same with the other Blood Sucking Vampires and assorted Vultures that prey on us.

  21. Harold Ambler says:

    Hi Danny. If I were a mother of young children in a remote part of an African nation whose government sold pollution credits to the United States as part of a cap-and-trade scheme espoused by Al Gore, and my children were thereby sentenced to a lifetime of heating their home and food with charcoal and having no light in our home after dark because of this sale, I might not consider your “guerrilla theater” to be lighthearted in the least.

    I have another, slightly different cap-and-trade plan for you: How about if you go live the life of one of the poor villagers whose governments sell their pollution credits, forbidding the nation to develop a modern electric grid and generally modernize?

    Something tells me that, even if we run the experiment for only a year or two, that you won’t be doing your hilarious “guerrilla theater” when you get back.

  22. JimB says:

    On the surface, this appears to be one of the venues many of us has been waiting for, that being an open, unfettered scientific debate on C02/ACC.

    But I think we need some understanding of the workings of this particular court before we start opening the bubbly in anticipation of a fair, honest, open debate.

    JimB

  23. kim says:

    If the CO2=AGW paradigm can’t be successfully defended in open public debate, how does Bloom expect it to stand up in court?
    ===============================================

  24. Robert says:

    So this would be something like an pedestrian claiming money from me for damages i might cause in the future because i recently recived a ticket for a slight speed violation? But if kept to the speedlimit there would no cause to claim those possible future damages?

    That would be the day.

  25. Canada seems to be becoming a centre of silly lawsuits–last week, it was a ‘wal-mart brain scanning’ case, and before that cases attempting to censor journalists via the human rights tribunal whilst putting the CIA on trial were advancing. What is happening? Fairly soon, the destiny of Alaska will be revealed–to make Canada look less mad.

    I blame tar sands and shale oil. They must be leaking something into the water….

  26. PeteS says:

    wes george, thanks, you are absolutely right.

  27. kim says:

    You know, Danny, in an normal court, upfront admission of the frivolous nature of your suit would get you a lecture from the judge and assignment of costs. Are you testing how normal this court and this judge is?
    ======================================

  28. Paul Shanahan says:

    It sounds like a scene from the film Minority Report…

    Maybe we will see some real science being put forwards now by the defence.

  29. Don Keiller says:

    Bring it on Danny. I’m just gagging to see this whole AGW fraud tested in Court.
    Last time that happened, with “An Inconvenient Truth”, AGW was found wanting.
    Unlike you, Danny Boy, I do have a scientific training and it doesn’t take much reading of the peer-reviewed literature to demonstrate a lack of “consensus”, or indeed, any definitive proof of AGW.
    Just remember, politicised science is not science.

  30. Ric Werme says:

    “intent to commit manslaughter” – is there such a thing? Manslaughter is a spur-of-the moment sort of crime, this sounds more like murder. Perhaps premeditation requires identifying a target. I’m no expert on international law.

  31. Tom in slightly warmer Florida says:

    Danny,
    I am sorry, I must have missed the part where you were appointed guardian of future generations. If you really believe that humans are destroying the planet perhaps you should show real leadership and remove yourself from the planet as an example to all.

  32. cedarhill says:

    Michael wrote:
    Could we lodge a suit against so called environmentalists …

    If Bloom’s lawsuit is allowed to proceed, then we could and should file suit against the environmentalists and others. However, I would pick something that is provable and that has real facts. The tort would be wrongful death and the suit would start with one person that died of malaria due (arguably) to the ban on DDT. Then expand it to a class action. Since most deaths are African, establishing the base compensation amount would be difficult but if one used about 1,000 dollars as the life time valuation you would get enormous numbers. Say 20 million have died due to Rachael Carson, et al, then you have at least 20 billion dollars. Apply punitive damages of, say 1 trillion dollars.

    I’d name as defendants all that promoted the DDT ban: the UN, each government on Earth, the Sierra Club, all newspapers and media outlets along with Al Gore (just for fun).

    I think the suit will be tossed anyway, but there is hope. A trial attorneys cut would be what, 500 billion or so? As Obama says, there is Hope in the world.

  33. Good thread again.

    (1) When the issue of showing An Inconvenient Truth in schools was taken to court, the judge upheld all the challenges to the science. Likewise when Swindle went before Ofcom. Kingsnorth failed. Two up, one down in the UK.

    (2) when deSmogBlog Littleton took on Monckton in public debate, guess who won, and what grounds? and when Crichton et al debated Schmidt et al, again, before debate the majority believed AGW, after debate the majority had changed sides. So roll on public debate. Let’s get our best speakers if this materializes!

    (3) it’s possible that Danny will now be so busy he will not see our replies here any more – some might like to post on his thread perhaps? and I do respect him saying “we are all in this together” – only I want the truth about the parlous state into which all environmental science has fallen – flagrant, serial denial of basic facts… oh, read my primer if you want details of the science and the real denial… and the need for courtesy and integrity.

  34. Bruce Cobb says:

    Mr. Bloom. Your “lawsuit” is a fraud based on nothing but fraudulent pseudo-scientific quackery. Do not even try to pretend that this is about protecting the environment, or the earths’ atmosphere which all of us here care about. If you cared in the slightest about the science, you would know that C02 is an entirely beneficial gas which has pretty much reached the limits to its’ “greenhouse effect”. Ice ages have occurred at C02 levels far greater than todays’.
    Perhaps a counter-suit is in order.

  35. Reid says:

    The International Criminal Court is already a laughingstock. It is not recognized by the US, Russia, China, India and Israel to name a few. If they agree to hear the case it will only further marginalize the court. To date their big success is preventing Israeli military leaders from traveling to Europe to avoid arrest and kangaroo court prosecution.

    Good luck Danny Bloom. I hope they hear your case so we can have another good laugh.

  36. Patrick Henry says:

    Danny Bloom wrote this over on dotearth
    “The ICC will never accept the suit, it’s Don Quixote tilting at windmills”

    Danny frequently makes comments that we are all going to have to move to Portland or Alaska in the next 12 years to escape the heat, but it is unlikely that Reuters will do any research into the huge footprint of nonsense which Danny leaves all over the Internet.

    Danny, have you ever considered the consequences of what would happen if governments didn’t have enough energy to take care of the 7 billion people on earth? Don Quixote you are not – your thought process is more along the lines of the misguided leaders of China who starved tens of millions of people to death in the 1960s. Governments have to take care of their own, and live in the here and now.

  37. Mike M. says:

    I’m surprised, Danny. Where is the relentless pitching of your polar cities? In fact, considering your previous behavior, can we just assume that the purpose of your lawsuit is to bring more attention to your bizarre survivalist fantasies?

    Show of hands, please. Is Mr. Bloom a scammer, a nutbar, or “envisionary futurist” ? I vote “scammer.”

  38. TerryBixler says:

    Money usually wins in court. Who can bring the biggest bank account to the table. It would be nice to think that Bloom is not well funded, but that would probably be very wrong. Remember big Al has hundreds of millions for advertising and what better place to advertise.

  39. Mike Bryant says:

    Mr. Bloom,
    Since you represent future generations, perhaps you can share your credentials. I know, or at least hope, that those issues will be revealed in a court of law, however, perhaps you can give us some idea of your studies or professional accomplishments. Maybe you could also give us a list of books that will help us understand how you will help future generations. I am looking forward to your response.
    Mike the Plumber

  40. Danny Bloom says:

    YEs, my good friend Lubos in the Czeck Republic did a good reax to all this on his blog:

    Not that I agree with everthing he said. — Danny

    PS: [to Harold Ambler, above, I never said my lawsuit is lighthearted, sir. Or frivilous. I am very serious about what I am doing. What I don't understand is why you people here get so angry and riled up about all this. We all live on this planet together. Can't we just agree to disagree and then learn to get along with each other? -- Danny]]

    “A propagandistic blog about the climate funded by John Lefebvre, a criminal arrested for money laundering, informs us about a lawsuit filed by Danny Bloom, a radical environmentalist activist.

    In this lawsuit, Bloom claims to represent the “future generations of human beings on Earth – if there are any” and he wants to be personally paid USD 1 billion from those world leaders who are skeptical about the catastrophic climate change. This list is supposed to include politicians as undecided as Stephen Harper of Canada.

    Bloom claims that he will donate the money to the IPCC. Of course, unless the capital will be needed to repay some money to John Lefevbre and others.

    Now, I think that the probability that Bloom could win this absurd case is infinitesimally tiny. Still, it may be a useful exercise to imagine that he will. Just imagine that these internationally organized criminals – John Lefevbre, Danny Bloom, RealClimate.ORG, and many others – will also be able to take over the International Criminal Court and steal billions of dollars from any innocent individuals they dislike, according to their own choice. After the next lawsuit, climate skeptics could perhaps be executed, too.

    Climate skeptics would become as threatened by these organized fanatics as the German Jews were around 1938: it became legitimate to steal their ski or furcoats and to break their windows but not to steal billions of dollars from them.

    Sane and human countries should leave the International Criminal Court, outlaw the climate activists, and freeze all of their assets. Yes, I am afraid that if things like Bloom’s victory in the lawsuit would occur, a world war against the climate alarmists, analogous to the war on terror, would be my preferred next step.”

  41. Roger says:

    Far be it for me to pour cold water over the enthusiasm for this case on the part of those who believe that truth will prevail over the smoke and mirrors of the AGW brigade, but we must remember that we are dealing here with m’learned friends of the legal profession, where truth and right are almost always subservient to financial, and often to political considerations, and justice as understood by the silent majority rarely results. The Law confirms that it is an ass on a daily basis.

  42. Old Coach says:

    Jim B is correct, we should take a look at the record of this court. Why go to this court? Must be a reason (see: 9th circuit court of appeals in California…).

  43. Danny Bloom says:

    Robert K in the UK just wrote this on his blog. — DANNY

    “Carbon emissions – a crime against humanity”

    Posted on November 23, 3008 by robert kyriakides in the UK

    “I have never met Dan Bloom, but I feel I know him. His concern over climate change led him to devise a concept of polar cities, which phrase makes the global warming point in two words. Mr Bloom has now decided that national governments, who are not doing anything near enough to prevent climate change, should be made to pay in the traditional way – a lawsuit for damages.

    Mr Bloom has filed a claim in the International Court at The Hague for one billion dollars (United States currency will do) on behalf of the future generations of this planet (if any). His cause of action is that he regards the world leaders as committing criminal manslaughter – a crime against humanity – in view of their refusal to act to reduce carbon emissions by “allowing murderous amounts of fossil fuel to be …burned and sent into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide”.

    Of course Dan Bloom is making a point rather than hoping to win a billion dollars. The legal team he has employed will no doubt try very hard but the likelihood is that the lawsuit will be thrown out very promptly, almost as soon as the pages of the legal claim fall into the laser printer’s tray. Mr Bloom will have created some useful publicity for the climate change cause and made many people smile. That is a good thing.

    However, with some adjustments, he may get a longer running more successful lawsuit.

    First, instead of firing a shot gun he could target a particular leader. The largest target right now is Mr Stephen Harper, Canada’s Prime Minister, who has been Prime Minister of Canada since January 2006.

    Now Canada, you may recall signed a solemn and legally binding pledge to reduce its emissions by 6%. In fact its emissions have risen by over 24%. The Canadian government have permitted much industrial pollution, instead of a viable a climate change policy they have a policy that permits emissions to rise and is devastating the taiga and tundra by exploiting the oil tars and very heavy environmental cost to many of its own people as well as everyone else in the world.

    If Mr Bloom’s writ at The Hague fails, he may want to consider one against Mr Harper and the Canadian Government. The other leaders can wait and it might be a useful legal precedent because it would be much simpler and require less evidence to prove his case.

    But what should the case be about?

    Well, Canada has signed a legally binding treaty, which it now ignores. A writ claiming a breach of its own laws might be a useful starting point –under English law the process is known as a Judicial Review.

    Mr Bloom can choose to either claim damages or allege crime. If he decides to claim damages then most jurisdictions will require him to prove his loss and hold that he has no loqus standii to sue on behalf of future generations. He might not be able to prove much of a personal loss, so he should group with like-minded people to up the ante. A class action lawsuit becomes much more promising.

    He then has to find a legal jurisdiction in which to sue. If his target is Mr Harper the Canadian Courts might be suitable but Mr Harper has immunity except for war crimes, in all courts under international law, and this would include immunity against a civil claim for damages. Unfortunately, the claim for damages looks unpromising but a judicial review process might work.

    Under a Judicial Review process in England you can complain to the court that the government has not obeyed its own laws or has acted irrationally or perversely. I imagine that there is a similar process available in Canada. You do not get damages if yu succeed but you do get the Government to change its laws or its policy.

    Finally I have mentioned war crimes and I am sure that Mr Harper has not been guilty of any war crime, but actually the immunity from legal action afforded to leaders of nations also does not extend to crimes against humanity, and it is worth considering whether Mr Bloom could bring some claim on this ground.

    Under Public International Law crimes against humanity constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government.

    This seems closer to the mark. Of course I do not believe that world leaders are embarking on a deliberate policy to destroy our planet, but they do seem very careless about greenhouse gas emissions, criminally so.”

  44. What’s all the fuss about? Dan’s case will be tested in the courts and they will decide. He makes a point with which virtually everyone with high level scintific training (like 90% of Nobel Prize wnners for science, 99% of metereologists would agree.
    This is an issue of complex science and a series of one liners doesn’t take the debate very far.
    Robert Kyriakides

  45. Danny Bloom says:

    Robert Kriakides in the UK re your blog post,

    A very well reasoned and cogent post, your post, thanks a lot. I like all the points you made, and I hope many people get a chance to read your ideas here. That make a lot of sense. Some denialists blogs have already heard about the ICC lawsuit and are falling over themselves in denialist lingo. It’s funny! It’s also sad. Will the world ever come together on this? I fear not…

    Danny

  46. Danny Bloom says:

    CASE IN POINT

    ”Mr Bloom has filed a claim in the International Court at The Hague for one billion dollars on behalf of the future generations of this planet (if any). His cause of action is that he regards the world leaders as committing criminal manslaughter – a crime against humanity – in view of their refusal to act to reduce carbon emissions by “allowing murderous amounts of fossil fuel to be …burned and sent into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide”.

    Of course Dan Bloom is making a point rather than hoping to win a billion dollars. The legal team he has employed will no doubt try very hard but the likelihood is that the lawsuit will be thrown out very promptly, almost as soon as the pages of the legal claim fall into the laser printer’s tray. Mr Bloom will have created some useful publicity for the climate change cause and made many people smile. That is a good thing.”

  47. JimB says:

    Don keiller:

    “Last time that happened, with “An Inconvenient Truth”, AGW was found wanting.”

    Don,
    In Massachusetts?…not so much. In fact, it’s very widely accepted around me that Al went off to devote himself to this cause at great personal sacrifice because he’s absolutely driven to contribute to our society and the world at large.
    In fact, what he’s working on is SOOOO important, he couldn’t even begin to consider a cabinet position…it would have taken away from his ability to work on much more far reaching issues.

    Remember…we get 30 seconds. 30 seconds to explain to John/Joanne Q Public that the “science” is flawed.

    This court case will be very interesting, because those 30 second sound bites will be authored by hopefully a wide variety of reporters/agencies that are looking for something sensational to report, and maybe, just maybe, this time, they’ll find enough sensation in reporting what the truth is.

    Don’t get me wrong. You science folks are great at what you do. Really.
    But you have no credibility in certain circles because you’ve been out marketed.

    JimB

  48. Christian Bultmann says:

    Proud to be Canadian, perhaps the lawsuit opens some peoples eyes as the outcome should be based on factual evidence in the court of law what Mr Bloom can’t provide as AGW is only based on computer models and as of yet has to provide physical evidence that increased CO2 levels do indeed threatening man kind.

  49. EJ says:

    This will be interesting. To defend the suit on the merits, the governments will have to say global warming is not a threat. This will not happen.

    They will have to take another route like standing or some other legal point.

  50. JimB says:

    Now if you could package up some Ginzu knives… ;*)…that would be a different story…

    Can’t you see Steve, on TV, saying “…but WAIT…there’s MORE…”

    JimB

  51. redneck says:

    OT but has anyone seen this:
    http://news.smh.com.au/world/over-200-whales-trapped-in-canadian-ice-20081122-6eas.html
    Bring on AGW and save the narwhal.

  52. Jeff Id says:

    The only way any of this makes sense is if AGW is a mechanism for imposing increased control. It has nothing to do with science or reality, even if the AGW guys were 100% right and we are going to drown in saltwater in 20 years they don’t have the scientific goods to demonstrate it. This makes it a bunch of over hyped nonsense.

    If the future climate is unknown from a science standpoint then we need to look elsewhere for the explanation of the reaction. The world governments all deep down have the same motives – control. They have systematically funded weak science and marketing to create an impression of doom. If you think about it, it doesn’t take a big planned out conspiracy for that statement to be true.

    Who’s using whom. Are the scientists using the government or is the government using the scientists? — Some of both I think.

  53. Pete says:

    Scenario #1: Judge kicks it out of court on a technicality, but because the science is not addressed, the advocates spin the story and the headlines to their advantage, perhaps along the lines of; “There is no doubt that the science is settled but this action by the Court was a simple technicality. We’re preparing to resubmit after the Polish Climate conference. If the countries of the world take the needed extraordinary actions then, we were certainly reconsdier our lawsuit.”

    Scenario #2: Court decides to hear the case. This is where the projections get interesting.

    Does each of the defendant ‘world leaders” mount a defense individually or somehow, collectively? What if Russia and China don’t show up? Do the U.S, U.K, and Australia show up together? Does Canada say ‘”take a hike”? What about the EU countries that are facing huge Kyoto fines and are trying to back off curbs due to economics?

    The fact (??) that the world leaders are defendants introduces a huge uncertainty, since they would probably bring in their hand picked experts and they may defend themselves by explaining their massive new programs. Would Obama bring in Hansen and Trenberth and Gore and say; “Yes we’re trying. The U.S. will lead the way. Look to the messiah for redemption?”.

    A good outcome in the long run is if the science is presented and the catastrophic AGW crock is finally lowered to the level of being a highly speculative theory that feeds off the nugget of scientific evidence that CO2 causes some warming (is that even that solid?)

  54. Ed Scott says:

    Startling news from NASA.
    Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change
    November 17, 2008
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=35952

  55. tarpon says:

    Is it necessary to prove the case, or is arm waving hysterics OK.

  56. Rhys Jaggar says:

    1. Do these guys have sufficient insurance to pay for ‘the costs of the trial’, if it is thrown out as ‘wilful misuse of the legal process for political ends’?
    2. If not, should they be required to deposit a bond to ensure that they are not simply wasting time and EU taxpayers’ money in erroneous litigation?
    3. What evidence will they be presenting?
    4. Who will be opposing them?
    5. Have they already bought the judge?
    6. Can you BE an ICC judge if you are not buyable?

  57. Leon Brozyna says:

    Another silly publicity stunt masking as a call for justice.

    Putting aside such silly pettiness, what I found most interesting in this post was the link to Grilling the Data along with its own link to Raising Walhalla. This got me to thinking of that volunteer data entry project aka Anthony’s Army. Haven’t heard anything since early August. Is it still a go and you’ve just been overwhelmed with other things and it has been set aside for now or has it been canceled?

  58. manbearpig says:

    “Though the Court is affiliated with the United Nations, George Soros largely directed the lobbying campaign that led to the Court’s creation in 2002-2003.”
    http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2008/080715soros_owns_icc.html

    “George Soros: Economic Hit-man for the British Oligarchy”:
    http://www.larouchepac.com/files/pdfs/080618_soros_dossier.pdf

    The “Best” Of Al Gore 1992-2007:
    http://www.larouchepub.com/eirtoc/site_packages/2007/al_gore.html

  59. Brian Johnson says:

    Pierre Gosselin said….

    “Brian Johnson,
    0.27% sounds small, but it accumulates over the years. Indeed CO2 concentrations have gone up from 280 ppm to about 387 ppm over the last 100 years or so.”

    BJ wonders
    If the manmade 0.27% accumulates over the years what does the other 99.73% do? How do you separate [Not using the anthro word] man made CO2 from the natural version?
    When 5000 ppm CO2 was the norm how did the earth, climate and the creatures thereon survive? And why was in some of that period, the Earth frozen stiff?
    My greenhouse has CO2 at 1300 ppm approx and the plants love it!

    Sorry PG but computer guesses do not do it for me. Predictions are not facts. And so far, predictions are laughably, hysterically, very wide of the mark. Hansen, GISS, Gore et al.

  60. GP says:

    From the content pof the article posted above.

    “That said, those countries that signed Kyoto saw their overall emissions fall by 17% below 1990.”

    From the Article linked to by the wird ‘fall’ iin the above sentence.

    “For the smaller group of industrialized countries that ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol setting reduction targets, emissions in 2006 were about 17 percent below the Protocol’s 1990 base line, but they still grew after 2000.

    The pre-2000 decrease stemmed from the economic decline of transition countries in Eastern and Central Europe in the 1990s. ”

    Which countires, iirc, made some useful cash by selling their unused carbon credits (unused because the western parts of Europe and elsewhere bought in, shut down and then funded the re-development of the infrastruture and industrial complexes) to countries like Denmark (yep, that Denmark, the one with all the windmills) who were worried about being ‘fined’ for missing their emissions targets.

    So the quoted article is really about lying with statistics as much as publicising ‘theatre’. I wonder how many other lies might be presented in court should it get that far? But then will this court care? One sometimes wonders with these ‘International’ courts, given the decisions they arrive at.

    Still, at least Danny has the decency to admit that his ‘action’, and presumably everything and everyone who supports it, is merely ‘theatre’ and so should be of little or no consequence in the scheme of things.

    Trivialising life – that would make a good subject for Reuters to follow-up on.

  61. David Ball says:

    Another waste of precious time and money to draw attention to something that is not based in reality. That being said, bring on the debate in open court. Hopefully , the judge will see to it that both sides are given equal time, and both sides allowed the best representation possible. BTW, have you heard Gordon Lightfoot’s new song, ” The Wreck of the Stephane Dion” ?

  62. Ed Scott says:

    Narwhal whales trapped in Arctic ice after being led astray by Algore’s global warming hoax.
    At least 200 narwhal whales in Canada’s Arctic, trapped by winter ice and facing starvation or suffocation.
    http://news.smh.com.au/world/over-200-whales-trapped-in-canadian-ice-20081122-6eas.html

  63. Alex Llewelyn says:

    Hi, I’ve been trying to get this wikipedia (Effects of Global Warming) to be a little less biased: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
    These are the edits I made: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Effects_of_global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=251291938
    As you can see, none of my edits were controversial, but were reverted because they removed some of the alarmism from the article. If we work together, we can get this article to more accurately represent the truth. Remember, there is strength in numbers.
    The article is horribly biased in places and in others downright wrong.

  64. hunter says:

    Michael Crichton is smiling at this.

  65. John McDonald says:

    Traveling to Mauna Loa next week. I want to take some CO2 measurements with the family, while on vacation.

  66. tetris says:

    Before we all go off the deep end and good ol’ Danny Boy counts his chicks before they’ve hatched, does anyone know whether this court has actually pronounced itself competent and to have jurisdiction to rule in the matter? It is quite possible the court will simply dismiss the case as frivolous.

    Should the case proceed, it seems likely to me that the court would have to consider all relevant information brought before it, which no doubt would include last year’s ruling by the High Court in the United Kingdom to the effect that Al Gore’s propaganda movie, The Inconvenient Truth, contained 9 outright falsehoods and 3 gross misrepresentations. The “defendants” will no doubt also remind the court of tabulations compiled by respected scientists such as Roger Pielke Sr which demonstrate beyond any discussion how the IPCC systematically refused to consider any peer reviewed study that did not fit it’s AGW “working hypothesis. And the list goes on.

    Frivolous and sensation seeking it certainly is.

  67. J.Hansford. says:

    I don’t trust international bodies to do the right thing in these situations. The Hague will find a finding that benefits the Hague by giving it more international clout…. It will be interesting…. But it wont be a debate on the science of climate… It will be an exercise in socialism.

  68. Niels A Nielsen says:

    “Danny Bloom is related to omnipresent blog commenter, and Sierra Club representative, Steve Bloom? BTW Steve, we are still waiting, over a year now for your answer.”

    While we are talking about the Blooms. I didn’t get an answer from mr Bloom to my questions here either ;-)
    http://forums.accuweather.com/index.php?s=10b220b697c4fed82f126a3a4bb0e6cf&showtopic=6854&view=findpost&p=176979

  69. Mike C says:

    If Danny doesn’t get his billion dollars I can give him a job shoveling snow.

  70. CodeTech says:

    This is backwards.

    It should be OUR SIDE bringing the “lawsuit”, for the incredible harm these AGW fanatics are attempting to bring to future generations, dooming them to a world without proper heat or transportation, a world where you can only have power when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. A world where the financial well-being of first-world countries has been undermined and damaged by rumors and ridiculous assumptions. The recent insane oil-price spike was influenced by these people, and cheered by them.

    Hansen and Gore should be on the DEFENSE, explaining why they think it’s okay to fudge numbers, fabricate trends, alter scientifically recorded records, panic young children and keep them awake with nightmares, defend vandals, and all the other horrific things they have been encouraging.

    At least when I was a kid and having nightmares about nuclear war, there was a REASON for it: thousands of manmade nuclear ICBMs pointed back and forth across the NH is a much more tangible threat than the output from faulty and incomplete computer models.

    In Canada, the ridiculous goof that signed into kyoto (chretien) thought it was about cleaning up polluted water and preventing acid rain. Current Prime Minister Stephen Harper has done what all governments should be doing: shoved it far into the background, and done his best to tame the previous government’s panic-mongering misinformation campaign.

  71. P Folkens says:

    Danny, Danny, Danny . . . murderous amounts . . . CO2.
    Last week there was a symposium in Monterey on gray whales. Over the past couple of years, the gray whale count has plummeted with a distinct reduction in calf counts in San Ignacio Lagoon. The symposium was convened to explore the possibility of a climate change influence on those numbers. The conveners were both NMFS scientists with PhDs, one from the National Marine Mammal Lab and the other from the NOAA home office in Silver Spring, who invited all sorts of other scientists from paleontologists to climatologists among the cetologists. The essence of the matter became apparent from the Alaskan and Canadian biologists — the reduced ice from 2005 – 2007 increased the prime foraging grounds in the High Arctic such that the whales spent more time feeding. The results was a distinctly higher calf count for those years. The birth timing remained the same, but because so much extra time was spent feeding in the north, the calves were born north of the traditional calving/breeding grounds and counted up there.

    We who presented on the historical climate pointed out the hundred year and thousand year spans when the Arctic was ice free for at lease part of the year, giving the grays a vector for crossing populations in the North Atlantic and North Pacific. A genetic study indicated that the peak population of gray whales occurred at a time when the Arctic was ice free (during the Eemian Interglacial).

    Danny Boy, have you noticed the human population explosion that occurred during the late 20th Century warming? Do ya think warmer might mean facilitating life rather than murdering?

  72. Timo van Druten says:

    I am wondering whether is not just a joke.

    I have quickly reviewed the Rome Statute. In my opinion the ICC only has jurisdiction on persons and not governments. The ICC might try to prosecute government officials, but ….

    Who are the victims? Unborn are not individuals and in principle do not have any rights.

    The Court’s jurisdiction is further limited to events taking place since 1 July 2002. Furthermore, IMHO the Court can only rule on events which already have happened and not which may happen in the future.

    In principle, the Court is only complementary. A case may be admissible if the investigating or prosecuting State is unwilling or unable to genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution. I am not aware that any of the 106 States have even started considering to prosecute individuals.

    I believe it is just a publicy stunt, like we will see more of these kind coming months.

  73. J. Peden says:

    That said, those countries that signed Kyoto saw their overall emissions fall by 17% below 1990.

    Is it really a lot of fun to lie?

  74. Retired Engineer says:

    What’s with “those countries that signed Kyoto saw their overall emissions fall by 17% below 1990″ ? (I assume he means ‘ratified’)

    I thought Europe was over the 1990 level along with everyone else.

    Filing a lawsuit for what ‘might’ happen? I ‘might’ run over Al Gore’s foot. Probably not, but it could happen. Can he sue me? In advance? The Python crew couldn’t have thought of anything this far out.

  75. Sean says:

    I think a counter suit is in order, one that is actually serious. Climate alarmism has prompted governments to foster a bio-fuels policy that has lead to starvation of 30 million people and pushed hundreds of millions more into poverty. Real people, real suffering, real time. Suits ought to be filed on behalf of the real victims as opposed to possible victims if a computer models is correct. How about suits about loss in habitat for the orangatang in Indonesia as the forest where they live are converted to orchards for palm oil production. What about the loss of fishing grounds in the Gulf of Mexico due to increased dead zones from fertilizer run off from making bio-fuels. There is a long list of real consequences from climate change “solutions” and its about time the alarmists are held accountable.

  76. Smokey says:

    Retired Engineer is correct. Since Kyoto was ratified:

    Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%
    Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%
    Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%
    Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%

    [source]

  77. Mike says:

    Danny:
    Cause and effect relationships are crucial.
    The working hypothesis is: “man-made CO2 is causing global warming”. Strictly speaking I only need to find one data point (or temp. station) where the temp is cooling to falsify this hypothesis. There are many such stations which have been cooling for decades (from Spokane WA to the Amundsen base in Antarctica). The hypothesis must be modified or abandoned since it is proved false. The hypothesis doesn’t hold everywhere.

    From about 1940 to 1975 the Earth went through a cooling period during which time the use of fossil fuels increased more than 6 fold, again falsifying the hypothesis. The lack of warming over the past 10 years while CO2 increases also tells us again, that this cause and effect is very weak, if it exists at all. There is little correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures.

    It gets more interesting. Only 1% of the atmospheric gases are greenhouse gases. 95% or so of this 1% is water vapor a powerful greenhouse gas. Up to this time it has been ignored or assumed to be inconsequential. It is very consequential. 3% of the remaining 1% is CO2, and of this less than 3% is man-made. So how is 3% of the CO2 causing the warming, if 97% of the CO2 is not involved. BTW we don’t know very well all of the natural CO2 sources either, but there are a lot of them. Mitigating man-made CO2 would clearly be foolish, costly, and a monumental waste of resources. Crippling our economy by crippling our energy sources (fossil, nuclear, hydro, even some NG) as is wished by some, would be suicidal.

    This would be especially true since China, India, and Brazil are more interested in improving their energy base, their economies, and prosperity. China now is the No. 1 producer of man-made CO2 and consumes more coal than the US and the EU combined. They plan to double all of this by 2025. There is a helluva lot more info which threatens the hypothesis as well, but this should give you a whiff.

  78. Harold Ambler says:

    Hi Danny. Let’s line up a few of your comments and see how well they cohere:

    Danny Bloom: PS: [to Harold Ambler, above, I never said my lawsuit is lighthearted, sir. Or frivilous. I am very serious about what I am doing. What I don’t understand is why you people here get so angry and riled up about all this….

    Thanks for giving your readers a good chuckle and something to smile about….

    this is really more like “litigous guerilla theatre”

    I believe the word you’re looking for is litigious. Another word that could be of use to you: frivolous. To revisit my first point, that’s quite an argument you’ve got going with yourself!

    Another point: Why are you “sorry,” I wonder? If you believe in what you are doing, then you are more likely “proud,” “hopeful,” or maybe even “stoked.”

    You have not addressed the specific concern in my earlier remarks, i.e. that anthropogenic global warming hysteria getting whipped up to justify a cap-and-trade global economic system leads to shortened life spans and lower quality of life in the Third World and the poisoning of the patient in the First World.

    Could this be what makes you “sad”?

    A few other questions:

    1. Is Ocean Heat Content increasing?
    2. Are sea surface temperatures increasing?
    3. Is sea level rising?
    4. Has the Pacific Decadal Oscillation done anything new and different in the past 18 months?
    5. Has the Earth’s climate changed dozens and dozens of times in the past as rapidly as it has since the end of the Little Ice Age?
    6. Is there any case in the geologic record when a spike in C02 has come before a spike in temperature?
    7. Are we in the midst of a solar minimum that many of our best scientists anticipate being similar to the Dalton Minimum or even the Maunder Minimum?
    8. Can solar minima be seen to have affected climate in the past?
    9. Have temperatures risen or declined in the last 10 years?

    Once you learn the answers to all of those questions, you will be in a better position to understand why some people would find it mildly frustrating for you to use scare tactics to manipulate public opinion, thereby delaying the day when appropriate action can be taken on the actual problems facing humanity.

  79. Slamdunk says:

    Michael (01:40:04) :

    “… these frauds are ideological people haters and use the environmental movement to promote their GAIA cult?”

    Aileni Noyle (02:52:48) :

    “…. a new religion of intolerance based yet again on a lie.”

    I don’t know if it’s more anti-western capitalism or enviro-spirits that drive AGW, but no doubt both. For GAIA, see http://green-agenda.com/gaia.html

  80. John Macdonald
    Looking forward to those Mauna Loa measurements. We’ve been trying to work out on our forum if the CO2 rise is starting to tail off. It certainly doesn’t match the steepening human CO2 output.

  81. paminator says:

    re Hunter- “Michael Crichton is smiling at this.”

    My thoughts exactly. If Bloom follows the State of Fear storyline, we should see the whole mess create huge publicity (complete with riots by strangely-clad protestors looking for something to be angry at) just in time for the next international climate boondoggle conference. Then it will fizzle away, having performed its intended task of raising awareness of humanity’s carbon skidmark.

  82. Paddy says:

    A promising strategy would be for representatives of 3d world nations to intervene in the case and assert counter-claims for damages against the UN IPCC, EU, AL Gore, George Soros, Danny Bloom, James Hansen, et al, and all climate alarmist government institutions and NGOs. Liability would be based upon unlawful conspiracies and wrongful actions, including criminal enterprises, to gain control of global energy sources and production by maliciously promulgating false, fraudulent, and erroneous scientific research that projects climate calamities allegedly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

    The damage claim should be for a 100 trillion Euros to compensate for present and future deaths of their citizens due to famine, epidemics and pestilence, and for present and future harm to the counter-claimants’ economies.

    I leave the details of this strategy to the imagination of the learned readers of this Blog.

    However, since the International court of Justice is a creature of the UN, it will have to disqualify itself from adjudicating the case due to conflicts of interest. Never the less, the PR fallout from this case should focus everyone of the scope of the fraud being perpetrated on the public in the name of environmentalism.

  83. David Ball says:

    Danny Bloom states we should agree to disagree and move on. Then stop the litigation. Stop people from your camp making death threats. Stop them telling lies about people to marginalize them when their science threatens your viewpoint. Stop using the media to skew the facts to highlight your viewpoint. If you are solid in your beliefs, you wouldn’t have to resort to these tactics, as the truth would be self evident. I don’t know of any “radical skeptics” that would stoop to this type of grandstanding, but I can name quite a few “radical environmentalists”. “Methinks he doth protest to much”, as the Bard said.

  84. Tim L says:

    the stage will be set for a counter-suit worth the trillions of dollars in damages that the AGW lobby seeks to perpetuate upon economies of the free world and the following quite literal holocaust of lives carbon dioxide suppression would cause
    I agree
    Tim

  85. David Ball says:

    robertkyriakides, 78.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot, ….

  86. Aviator says:

    Let’s not hammer those ‘Darn Canucks as if we’re all guilty! We clearly understood what the ‘Green Shift” was and battered the Liberal Party at the polls. In my opinion, Stephen Harper is the most honest, straightforward politician we have put in charge of the country in living memory – and an economist, not a lawyer. He certainly has a better understanding of numbers that most of the world leaders and vastly more than Mr. Bloom (either of them). End of political comment…

    Incidentally, the rise from 280ppm to 385ppm over the industrialized era is not scientifically defensible. The error margins at the time of the 280ppm measurement were, IIRC, plus or minus 100 ppm. If it was 180 ppm, we wouldn’t be here since all the plants would have died and us with them. If it was really 380 ppm, then nothing has changed.

    This whole lawsuit nonsense is a publicity stunt, as admitted by the perpetrator, and should be ignored by the MSM – but it won’t be of course.

  87. Jeff Id says:

    Danny,

    This technique of coercion you are employing is not based on reasonable negotiation but rather a manipulation of the system to enforce what now appears to be a false belief on the rest of society. Reacting falsely to global warming destroys peoples lives. So when you say…

    “I am very serious about what I am doing. What I don’t understand is why you people here get so angry and riled up about all this….”

    People get riled up because your actions are not peaceful or innocent but are in fact manipulative and highly destructive of peoples lives. You should be ashamed to feel such superiority over us that you would find corrosive methods to shove your beliefs down our throats. We are intelligent, informed (perhaps more than yourself) and without denying the possibility of AGW, I for one strongly disagree with you.

    Shame on you sir.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com

  88. deadwood says:

    I suspect, as others have noted, that we are seeing cognitive dissonance in its purest form.

    The great AGW theory which appeared to fit so well when CO2 and temperature were both increasing is showing its weakness now that that the sun is silent and the PDO has flipped.

    The big question now is whether the people of the US and Europe will figure out they are being had before too much damage has been done. I suspect most of their leaders will follow what appears to be politically expedient.

  89. Timo van Druten says:

    From the webstite of the International Criminal Court:

    “Who can initiate (criminal) proceedings?
    Proceedings before the ICC may be initiated by a State Party, the Prosecutor or the United Nations Security Council. ”

    http://www.icc-cpi.int/about/ataglance/faq.html#faq5

    “The Prosecutor may start an investigation upon referral of situations in which there is a reasonable basis to believe that crimes have been or are being committed. Such referrals must be made by a State Party or the Security Council of the United Nations, acting to address a threat to international peace and security. In accordance with the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Prosecutor must evaluate the material submitted to him before making the decision on whether to proceed.

    In addition to State Party and Security Council referrals, the Prosecutor may also receive information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court provided by other sources, such as individuals or non-governmental organisations. The Prosecutor conducts a preliminary examination of this information in every case. If the Prosecutor then decides that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, he will request the Pre-Trial Chamber to authorise an investigation.”

    Danny Bloom hasn’t filed a lawsuit. He did sent a letter to the Prosecutor of the ICC kindly requesting to initiate criminal proceedings against governments around the world (which is probably not possible). Individuals can not initiate criminal proceedings.

  90. edcon says:

    There is no difference between this shenanigan and the actions taken by pirates recently asking for ransoms for pirated ships except this includes the whole world. The whole AGW mess is politically driven to exercise more control over populations thereby destroying freedoms. The sad reality is that the ignorance of populations of their knowledge of science is pervasive and the charlatans can readily take advantage of this ignorance. The only factor that may cause a wake-up call is the high cost or The Hague is covered with 300 feet of ice.

  91. Les Johnson says:

    The ICC is also a criminal court. I doubt they will take on civil cases, which is what this.

  92. Stevo says:

    Since, at least when in public, both sides in this court case would be AGW believers, I don’t believe we’re going to get any sort of open debate challenging it.

    Frankly, for only a billion (each, or shared between all governments?), the world governments might find it easier to plead guilty and pay the money. It’s not as if it’s their personal money anyway – it’s only the taxpayers’. And It’ll only go to the IPCC, which they’ve already shovelled billions of our money into. What’s the difference?

    What the case challenges is the governments simultaneously saying they believe in it when they want to introduce a few higher taxes and regulations, but quite obviously not when it comes to doing anything with a real cost. It’s a convenient excuse, no more. The court case would call their bluff.

    I don’t know if there’s more to it than that. In any normal court it would be thrown out, although the ICC is often reckoned to be heavily political so who knows. If it went ahead, there would certainly be no sceptical arguments. Whether there would be any arguments at all would depend on whether it potentially opened the door for further litigation, or settled it once and for all. But most likely it would involve a lot of finger-pointing and blame-shifting to show the governments had done all they can, but evil big business was obstructing them, or something. What that would lead on to, who knows…

  93. Pierre Gosselin says:

    brian johnson 8:11
    I think you need to READ my post a little more closely.

  94. Chris D. says:

    “The lawsuit is specifically seeking damages from ‘all world leaders for intent to commit manslaughter against future generations of human beings by allowing murderous amounts of fossil fuels to be harvested, burned and sent into the atmosphere as CO2, causing possible apocalyptic harm to the Earth’s ecosystem and the very future of the human species'”

    Pressing charges for future murder – kinda reminds me of that Tom Cruise movie where they ran around arresting people for murderers that some psychics said would take place in the future.

    Another publicity stunt, I suppose.

  95. Michael Newton says:

    If we can sue government for global warming, can’t we sue them for the recession? I will sue them for withholding taxes.

  96. Bobby Lane says:

    Hmm, I wonder if anyone thought of bringing a case against AGW for economic and environmental wrecklessness leading to the deaths (murders?) of thousands and perhaps millions because of the whole biofuels debacle which had in the past raised the price of grains enormously harming 3rd world countries by making the price of bread enormously expensive and putting many in jeopardy of starving. How about the people who have been pushed out of their jobs due to factory and power plant closures because of the obsession with carbon footprints? I am sure there is much more evidence to support the malign influence of the AGW theory, and in much more than just economic ways, than there is to support the idea that we through negligence are dooming our planet and future generations. Perhaps, like this case, it would not get far in producing any actual results, but it would produce the publicity and perhaps get some of the facts into public view…if any of the media are brave enough to cover it.

  97. George Bruce says:

    Paddy, you beat me to it. Great post. The only thing I would add would be that as Plaintiffs in Intervention, someone should appear to represent the billion or two people now living who would die if the Earth was forced to de-industrialize. I think they have a justiciable interest.

    Stevo re: for only a billion….

    Please don’t repeat that. You may give some politician an idea to attach to some kind of “stimulus package.”

  98. steven mosher says:

    First a few tidbits on some criminal concepts and then watch where it leads.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recklessness_(criminal)

    some interesting thoughts on concurrence

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrence

    But all of this makes me think of this:
    A climate model is nothing less than an indictment for a future crime.
    Technology is at the heart of all attempts to prosecute thought
    crimes and thus enhance thought and behavioral control by the technorati.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_Report_(film)

    Note the role technology plays in shaping people’s behavior.

    Interesting reading here:

    http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=aSfvNuUJNoUC&dq=stanfordd+persuasion+science&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=hJS0SKj_Wn&sig=Sm1E-8S-I5mLdRuH6aoGvuFqn9E&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasion_technology

    And in the end the technorati rule.

    “What distinguishes a persuasion technology from simple “persuasion” is that the individual being persuaded cannot easily respond by creating an equally effective counter-presentation in real time – a lack of reciprocal equality. ”

    hence the importance of this blog and hence the importance of FREEING THE CODE. As long as the AGW side limits access to its code and data, as long as only they have the computer power to excercise a Climate model, the individuals being persuaded cannot easily respond. Witness the struggles of SteveMcIntrye in trying to figure out what Mann is actually doing, or what NOAA is actually doing.

  99. Pete says:

    John McDonald (08:45:13) :

    You must need an independent party in Hawaii to check your work, so if you send me some tickets and get me a nice hotel, I’ll help you out. Really. No problem. Just don’t forget about my wife and kids. They need a beach front hotel. I’ll cover my food.

    As a side trip, maybe we should go check out Obama’s birth certificate?

  100. Bobby Lane says:

    Pierre,

    Yes, Kyoto is indeed designed to punish growth, which is why a lot of 2nd tier nations that did not sign onto it are encouraging 1st tier nations to make it even stricter. If the 2nd tier emissions do not meet the standards of Kyoto, that is to say they are in amount below the minimum to trigger the Kyoto protocols, then they have a leg up on their more handcuffed brethren.

    Besides that, is already well known that there is an international effort at bringing nations to a heel under the guise of climate change. I believe it was once said by a (former?) UN official that since industrialized nations will not cut off their nose to spite their face, so to speak, that it will have to be done for them by bringing them down. Interestingly enough on Drudge Report, I saw the IMF Chairman say the worst of the financial crisis is ‘yet to come.’ People continue to say that every few weeks or couple of months. I find it rather odd. If the worst is yet to come, people will be hesitant to lend or buy, and that keeps economies slow and, in theory, emissions down.

    It should not be lost on anyone that the main driver of AGW is the IPCC, and that the theory of AGW seems consistently at odds with human prosperity under our current industrial model. Only governments have the necessary capital and power to both fund emerging “environmentally-friendly technologies” and legislate so that markets are forced to accept those technologies as the only acceptable means of production (e.g., Britain’s current power generation crisis). The two conclusions one can draw from this is that the outcomes of AGW theory are statist (socialist, if you like) as well as internationalistic (that is, having no respect for sovereign nations). They do so without conscience because they believe that this emergency is so great that it supersedes all other concerns. And that is the main point of contention of course.

    This is just another case of outdated relics of the WW2/Cold War era (e.g., the Hague Court, the UN, the EU, etc.) causing more trouble. Now we get to hear the tedious sermonizing of dried up old men as their unelected and unaccountable majesties deign to tell us mortals how we ought to live. It makes me want to vomit.

  101. Pete says:

    Pierre Gosselin (01:28:35) :

    “0.27% sounds small, but it accumulates over the years.”

    I don’t think that saying that CO2 accumulates over the years is quite right. What I have read is that Co2 has about a 5 year residence time in response to a perturbation (Szelstag (sp?)). The long term ocean cycles perhaps create the appearance of CO2 accumulating over time.

  102. Robert Wood says:

    That said, those countries that signed Kyoto saw their overall emissions fall by 17% below 1990. The disgraceful outlier among those nations is Canada, whose emissions ballooned by over 20% in spite of having ratifying Kyoto.

    This is an outright lie. No country has reduced “emissions”, all signatories have increased “emmisions”.

    This law suit was attempted original;ly in Canada, and was laughed out of courst, as it were. Now “Danny Bloom” is going itnernational. Who is financing him?

  103. John Philip says:

    Does anyone know what became of John Coleman’s threat to sue Al Gore for fraud? Seems to have sunk without trace. What can this possibly mean?

    Lucy Skywalker says that a judge upheld all challenges to the science in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. This is simply not so, the challenge was to the distribution of the movie to schools by the UK Government on the basis that it breached laws on political partisanship, the Judge explicitly ruled that I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant’s expert, is right when he says that: Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate. Later the Judge writes Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. …in the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters – 9 in all – upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the ‘errors’ in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407.

    So the majority of the challenges to the science were actually dismissed, and the judge specifically made clear that he was evaluating the movie in the context of whether it breached the law on being unduly partisan. The challenge failed and the Government’s plans to distribute it to all schools were implemented. You can read the judgement here

    A spokesman for Al Gore pointed out Of the thousands of facts in the film, the judge only took issue with just a handful. And of that handful, we have the studies to back those pieces up

  104. james griffin says:

    As there has been no global warming for at least a few years one wonders how Mr.Bloom has got this far.
    Clearly some people are so thick it is embarrassing.

    Cue CNN in the their “Climate Change Week”.
    The jolly weather girl shows us satellite photos of the Arctic and low and behold the ice is 30% thicker this year than last year…and at the end of the warming season was 9% up.
    So fine…have your court case.
    Go on…and run it like a proper court.

    End of AGW “industry” and all the money they are screwing us for.

  105. George E. Smith says:

    Unfortunately, The “International Court” in the Hague actually takes itself seriously, and even though the USA and others don’t acknowledge it as having any legitimacy whatsoever, other countries do, including most of Europe.

    So this “Court” which enforces “laws”, that the uSA and others don’t acknowledge as having any legitimacy either; still will issue judjements on nincompoop suits like this one that emperor Danny claims to have filed; and many of these European Nations have plenty of their own nincompoops like Danny who would welcome the publicity they would get by “arresting” some US or other citizen they can get their hands on.
    These same European nations all ratified the Kyoto protocol scam; but as for the USA only one person signed, and that was the famous Nobel Laureate Climate expert Albert Gore, former Vice President of the USA.
    The US Senate, the only US Government body actually authorised to approve International Treaties, voted by a vote of 95 to zero, to not approve that piece of international mischief garbage; thereby telling Gore just where to go.

    Now if you were say President Clinton, or President Bush, or President not yet Elect Barack Obama; would you promote or push for any US heed being paid to any so-called treaty, that the entire US Senate has already rejected Unanimously.

    So Danny boy; in your exuberance to name international leaders and in particular any leaders of the United States of America; be advised that the entire legal machinery of the United States Government, acting on behalf of the people of the United Sates of America, and duly authorised to enter into international treaties on behalf of the people of the USA; that we have unanimously rejected your scam.

    So if you continue to proceed with this silliness; you better name all the voting citizens of the USA as defendants; individually by name of course; oh leave me out of it of course, since I am a citizen of a different country that already signed that snake oil treaty, but will likely now repudiate it, now that the adults have once again been put in charge of that country.

    The town square stocks, and the ancient art of tarring and feathering were specifically developed for busibody inebriates like you.

    Don’t forget to also name as defendants, the citizens of any and all countries that signed onto that “treaty”, and promised to meet certain obligations under that “treaty”, but have so far failed to meet ANY of the targets they agreed to.

    Once again leave me out of it, because my country; along with the United States of America, are two of the handful of countries on this planet, that actually are net sinks for carbon; so they are not among the polluters that are the target of your frivolous suit; as well as your frivilous suit.

  106. Ed Scott says:

    November 21, 2008
    Global Warming? Bring it On!
    By Gregory Young

    The argument propounded by the dubious United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on Anthropogenic (human-induced) Global Warming (AGW) is willfully fraudulent. The report has been vigorously and critically undermined, scientifically denounced and found wanting from both notable scientists here and abroad.

    Meteorologist John Coleman perspicaciously asks:
    How can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? How can a trace element possibly be the cause of systemic Global Warming? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t…. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.

    Dr. Michael Griffin, the new NASA Administrator, looks at climate change in a refreshingly contrarian fashion. He has stated:
    To assume that [climate change] is a problem is to assume that the state of earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change.

    Here’s the Petition Statement we dissenters signed in opposition:
    “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
    “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/global_warming_bring_it_on.html

  107. Smokey says:

    John Philip:

    A spokesman for Al Gore pointed out Of the thousands of facts in the film, the judge only took issue with just a handful. And of that handful, we have the studies to back those pieces up

    Meaningless pap.

    Wake me when Al Gore stops hiding out in one of his many mansions, while having one of his sock puppets issue words on vague “studies” that are no doubt found only in the fevered imaginations of his True Believers.

    The day that Gore, or Hansen, or Schmidt, or Mann, or Tamino, or Suzuki, or any of these globaloney artists works up the courage to step up to the plate and agree to a moderated debate in a neutral venue, will be the day they start to earn some respect. It’s not pretty seeing them cower from a debate with their tails tucked between their legs.

    Hiding out and refusing to debate means only one thing: they can’t back up their phony AGW hypothesis.

    If I were them, I’d hide out too.

  108. Danny Bloom says:

    Lucy Skywalker,

    YES, i am still here, reading all comments. Good discussion.

    RE:

    “(3) it’s possible that Danny will now be so busy he will not see our replies here any more – some might like to post on his thread perhaps? — SURE PLEASE DO — http://northwardho.blogspot.com — and I do respect him saying “we are all in this together” – only I want the truth about the parlous state into which all environmental science has fallen – flagrant, serial denial of basic facts… oh, read my primer if you want details of the science and the real denial… and the need for courtesy and integrity.”

    And I am reading all these comments in the spirit of courtesy and integrity, yes. Thanks for commenting, Lucy. Reading you loud and clear….

  109. Danny Bloom says:

    Patrick Henry, above, mistakenly and incorrectly wrote that:

    “Danny frequently makes comments that we are all going to have to move to Portland or Alaska in the next 12 years to escape the heat,..”

    Patrick, I never said 12 YEARS….I said in the year 2500 or so. That’s 500 years from now…..please don’t misrepresent me…Yes, i did talk about polar cities for surviving and I still do, see images here: http://pcillu101.blogspot.com — but I NEVER SAID in 12 years…..I have always framed my statements about polar cities as an AS IF concept in the YEAR 2500 AD. …..Check again.

  110. Danny Bloom says:

    Mike M. (05:50:25) : wrote above:

    “I am m surprised, Danny. Where is the relentless pitching of your polar cities? In fact, considering your previous behavior, can we just assume that the purpose of your lawsuit is to bring more attention to your bizarre survivalist fantasies?

    Show of hands, please. Is Mr. Bloom a scammer, a nutbar, or “envisionary futurist” ? I vote “scammer.”

    NOTE TO MIKE: Polar cities project is a separate matter, feel free to see images here: http://pcillu101.blogspot.com — Dr Lovelock has seen the images and told me “Yes, it may very well happen and soon!” However, I still say not until 500 more years….There’s still time to talk about all this, in other words…..

    As for show of hands….SMILE….Mike, I am not a scammer,—- true, some people on the right do call me a nutbar (and worse) ……… but “envisionary futurist” is a bit too far out……How about just “citizen of Earth, concerned about the fate of the Earth, like everyone else here, pro and con the global warming debate”……and leave it like that…..I am on your side too, Mike.

  111. Bill Marsh says:

    Truly the lunatics are in complete charge of the asylum..

  112. Danny, old sock, I for one here do not question your motives. I applaud (and share) your compassion for future generations yet unborn. I have no problem with guerrilla theater, either.

    But, and it’s a big ‘but’ Danny, global warming is a GOOD thing. Warmer is better. Warmer means longer growing seasons, more rain, bumper crops, deserts blooming, more bio-productivity, more bio-diversity, more Life in general, lower heating bills, less need for fossil fuels, more abundance, easier living, more happiness, and as side effects, social and cultural advancements.

    History teaches us, Danny, that during warmer times civilizations rose, human ingenuity blossomed, wealth accumulated, art and science flourished, disease and famines were reduced, and people were satisfied and glad. But when it was colder just the opposite happened, crops failed, civilizations fell, art and science regressed, and disease, famine, pestilence, and war stalked the entire planet.

    Warmer is better. Your suit should fail on that point alone, regardless of ambiguous and non-credible theories about C02.

    I salute your goal. Do what you can to make this world a better place. But please be advised, warmer is better. If you wish to help humanity, fight the ice.

  113. Danny Bloom says:

    Timo Van Drunen, above said : “I believe it is just a publicy stunt, like we will see more of these kind coming months.”

    Timo, this is NOT a publicity STUNT…….it is a WAKE UP CALL……. there is no OUR SIDE or THEIR SIDE….we are all in this together……

    Danny

  114. Danny Bloom says:

    FYI, the Reuters reporter that I am in touch with at the Hague, told me today:

    “Hi Danny,

    I’m discussing this with my editors and will be in touch ASAP.
    However, I will probably need to speak with your lawyer about the lawsuit if I can go to press….”

  115. The Diatribe Guy says:

    I’m trying to figure out how in the world our governments are going to stop all future El Ninos, PDO flips, AMO flips, and short, high amplitude solar cycles.

    That could cost more than a billion dollars. Decisions, decisions.

  116. Patrick Henry says:

    Danny,

    My bad. I saw that you post on dotearth with the signature “Climate Retreat 2121 A.D. “- I had the wrong century.

    You really should spend a winter in Fairbanks before deciding to set up a climate retreat there. I’m guessing that you wouldn’t like it.

  117. Patrick Henry says:

    New South Wales in Australia has experienced unseasonably heavy snowfall, as summer approaches on the continent.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7744609.stm

  118. Luke says:

    @Brian Johnson…

    Exactly where does that .27% number come from?

    how does the 0.27% of the man made contribution to the total have any measurable effect whatsoever?

  119. P Folkens says:

    Mike Dubrasich (18:02:58) :
    Right on, Mike!
    Danny, read and remember what Mike wrote. If you need the benefit of the underlying science, take a long look at the work of Rhodes W. Fairbridge. An important piece of his work can be found in the journal Science. I’ll make it easy for you and give you the page numbers as well: Science 191 (4225) 353-359 1976.

    Then, just for fun and understanding, go find a publication known as “The Wall Chart of World History,” or you can consult any general world history publication. DK Publishing has a new one out at CostCo that should be about your speed. Note the information from what has become known as the “Fairbridge Curve” to major moments in history and the durations of successful dynasties and reigns. Tell us what you find out.

  120. Vincent says:

    looks like Mann’s proxy story has been completely demolished
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4428

  121. Brian in Alaska says:

    Are “we” all in this together? Somehow the leaders of the environmental movement give me the impression they’re not all that interested in saving anyone.

    * Jacques-Yves Cousteau, environmentalist and documentary maker: “It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.”
    * John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal: “I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
    * Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University population biologist: “We’re at 6 billion people on the Earth, and that’s roughly three times what the planet should have. About 2 billion is optimal.”
    * David Foreman, founder of Earth First!: “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”
    * David M. Graber, research biologist for the National Park Service: “It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
    * Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome: “My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.”
    * Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation: “The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man.”
    * John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club: “Honorable representatives of the great saurians of older creation, may you long enjoy your lilies and rushes, and be blessed now and then with a mouthful of terror-stricken man by way of a dainty!”
    * Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund: “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
    * Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
    * Ted Turner, CNN founder, UN supporter, and environmentalist: “A total population of 250–300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
    * Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: “I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds.”

    The preceding list of quotes is from The Mosquito: Environmentalism’s Weapon of Mass Destruction

    Nice crowd to freely associate with, that. Talk about crimes against humanity. Stalin, Mao, Hitler and the Black Death combined didn’t amass a body count like these creeps fantasize over. At best, “well meaning” environmentalists like Danny want us to return to Stone Age living conditions and the life expectancy of aboriginals.

    At worst, they dream of mountains of human corpses. Fight fire with fire, use their own words against them.

  122. Danny Bloom says:

    Hello Mike Dubrasich (18:02:58) , above comment:

    “Danny, old sock, I for one here do not question your motives. I applaud (and share) your compassion for future generations yet unborn. I have no problem with guerrilla theater, either. But, and it’s a big ‘but’ Danny, global warming is a GOOD thing. Warmer is better. ”

    MIKE,
    Really? Warmer is better? One or two degrees, yes, maybe, sure. I see your point. I am open-minded about this, old sock that I am, going on 60 and not too many years left on Earthville, but really, warmer is better? I accept what you say, and I understand it, a few degrees, but what if it goes to 6 degrees warmer, centigrade? Will that be cool?

    But thanks for note, and I will study what you said. It makes sense. One or two degrees, sure, warmer winters, nice. Alaskans will love it. Minnesota too. Even Portland Maine. But what about 6 degrees up? Mark Lynas, can I mention his name, says otherwise…..

    Okay, I will study up, brush up on my stats and info. Good points, sir.

    Old Sock Bloom

  123. Mongo says:

    Mongo just small pawn in big game of life…… but in this case here is what bothers me. I am not a fan of the ACLU and in particular it’s record of getting international law being cited successfuly and setting precedent in our judicial system. It was never meant to be twisted this way but it has. If the Hague were to rule in favor of this …..we are in big trouble folks.

    Ruling in favor of a science that has not gone through the process of falsification, coupled with our meager, paltry understanding of the systems of systems that define our planets climate….and the amazing level of politicization, emotionalization……makes me fear for our future.

    The U.S. has carbon laws already – thanks to a Congress who saw fit to add it to an emergency bill that added, in one fell swoop $700 billion to our national debt. This is just the tip of the iceburg (pun intended) and more is to follow – and I hate to say, in spite of any signs of AGW not rearing it’s head, we’re going to continue down this path of ignorance until we truly hit a wall.

  124. anna v says:

    AGW is an online illustration of “I have made up my mind, don’t bother me with the facts”.

    This is a lovely animation of how the arctic is freezing day by day. It is not even December and it looks as if Greenland and Iceland will be joined up.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.arctic.some.0.html

    It is still November and there is freezing and snow in the UK of the gulf stream weather:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3507737/UK-brought-to-standstill-as-five-inches-of-snow-falls-in-an-hour.html

    For ten years now the temperatures have stalled, and in the past year they are falling.

    Some people will stop the AGW Mantra only if the Thames freezes over. OOOHHM

  125. mr.artday says:

    Danny Bloom, old, old proverb: Empty pitchers make the most noise.

  126. Mongo says:

    I love it when people whip out “their” facts and figures, daring all comers to challenge them! :) I just try to focus on the basic science, and it tells me I need to be skeptical. All that means is you need to do a much better job of proving your case. “Denial” and “denier” is something that brings an emotional context into the discussion – subtract it and you’ll find you have a more receptive crowd, but won’t change the fact that a lot of us are skeptics.

    Statistics, of which I am a student, can be made to mean anything the manipulator…uh….statistician wants to make of them. You have to have the raw data – follow a guy like Steve McIntyre and his community discussions (something completely lacking with Mann, et al and GISS) and you’ll understand why so many are not willing to accept the party line on CO2 as the driver of AGW (if AGW actually existed as stated).

  127. Mongo says:

    oops- was meant for another topic – My sincerest apologies Anthony..bows and scrapes humbly……

  128. Robert says:

    Timo, this is NOT a publicity STUNT…….it is a WAKE UP CALL……. there is no OUR SIDE or THEIR SIDE….we are all in this together……

    “The future of our childeren”?

    Tell that to the 30 thousand childeren in the third world that won’t make it before the day is out because they have no access to clean drinking water, a decent amount food, basic healthcare and access to affordable energy. And tell it to the 30 thousand tomorrow, and those of next week.

  129. Jeff Alberts says:

    But, and it’s a big ‘but’ Danny, global warming is a GOOD thing. Warmer is better. Warmer means longer growing seasons, more rain, bumper crops, deserts blooming, more bio-productivity, more bio-diversity, more Life in general, lower heating bills, less need for fossil fuels, more abundance, easier living, more happiness, and as side effects, social and cultural advancements.

    Mike, what Danny isn’t telling you is that he doesn’t want humanity to flourish. He wants the de-industrialization of the world, and to prevent third world development. They’ve told us this over and over again, I guess they didn’t expect us to believe them.

  130. savo says:

    Danny Bloom (01:17:29) “NOT about money”

    I actually did roll on the floor laughing my arse off.

  131. savo says:

    kim (04:05:05) : “how does Bloom expect it to stand up in court?”

    He doesn’t, it’s just a bit of self indulgent theatre.

    I’m pretty new to the interweb, what is a troll?

  132. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    @Danny,

    Why not pledge to give the $1B to alleviating world poverty in the poorest nations?

    Why give it too the IPCC who are already well funded?

    Or is saving lives in the here and now a problem?

  133. jorgekafkazar says:

    Let’s leave the name-calling to other blogs, please. If you met Danny Bloom face-to-face, you’d probably like him. Heck, Michael Crichton said he liked Al Gore. This is supposed to be about science, not one long argumentem ad hominem showplace.

    “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” -John Stuart Mill, quoted in AWordADay

  134. Timo van Druten says:

    Danny Bloom (18:07:19) :

    “Timo, this is NOT a publicity STUNT…….it is a WAKE UP CALL……. there is no OUR SIDE or THEIR SIDE….we are all in this together……”

    Danny, you are not disputing or questioning my other statements. Based upon my knowledge about legal disputes, I like to challenge you to answer following questions:
    1. Who do you represent? Only yourself, a group, a State or humanity (now and in the future);
    2. When did you file the lawsuit?
    3. What is your evidence?
    4. Who will be your witnesses?
    5. Please disclose the actual lawsuit at a website of your choice which is available for the public.

    Awaiting your reply.

  135. Jeff — “They” is a big word. I rail against Luddites and anti-social, anti-human types every day at my blog, but I also know that a few are the prime manipulators and the vast majority are manipulatees. Better to light a candle than to condemn the poor sots trapped in the dark.

    Danny — According to estimates by paleoclimatologists, temps during the Climatic Optimum of 9,000 years ago were 5 degrees C warmer than today. Those were good times, not bad. And temps during 99% of the last 250 million years were warmer than that, by as much as 15-20 degrees C. The planet was lush and life flourished. In contrast, during the heights of previous glaciations it was cooler by 5 degrees C and vast ice sheets covered much of N. America and Eurasia. Those were tough, cruel times for plants and animals alike. Warmer is better. Count on it.

  136. Brian Johnson says:

    Luke (19:58:27) :
    @Brian Johnson…

    Exactly where does that .27% number come from?

    how does the 0.27% of the man made contribution to the total have any measurable effect whatsoever?

    From the quote below and I misquoted the 0.27 – should have been 0.28%

    Dr. James Koermer, a meteorology professor at Plymouth State University (NH)

    “Koermer said that water vapor is responsible for 95 percent of the green house gas effect in a given year while another 4.72 percent is caused by a mix of other greenhouse gases, including methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide, which are naturally produced.

    Humans are only responsible for .28 percent of all greenhouse gases produced during a year, he said.”

    http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081120/GJNEWS02/711203981/-1/CITNEWS08

  137. George E. Smith says:

    “”Danny Bloom (20:25:56) :

    >>>Deletions<<<

    “” MIKE,
    Really? Warmer is better? One or two degrees, yes, maybe, sure. I see your point. I am open-minded about this, old sock that I am, going on 60 and not too many years left on Earthville, but really, warmer is better? I accept what you say, and I understand it, a few degrees, but what if it goes to 6 degrees warmer, centigrade? Will that be cool? “”

    Mr Bloom perhaps I should use Danny since you and others are.

    On any average northern midsummer day on earth, there can be places in the Antarctic Winter midnight that are as cold as -90 C (-130 F) and at the same time there are places in the northern tropical deserts (Africa and middle East) with temperatures of about +60 C (140F) and there is someplace on earth with every possible temperature in that entire 150 deg C range, and there are people living in all of those places right now. Now strictly the highest officially reported weather station temperature was about +136 F (North Africa) and the lowest official Vostock station temperature was about -128F, but anecdotal evidence of somewhat lower.

    Now what was it you were saying about suppose it got six degrees warmer ?

    Most of the human population would totally thrive if it got six degrees warmer; and a whole lot fewer people would starve for lack of food.

    By the way; If I promise you sole personal control over the global thermostat, so you can set it anywhere you please; just what temperature would you set it to and what would be your rationale for choosing that temperature; well other than for the good of mankind and the planet; which anyone would do. ?

  138. Tallbloke says:

    Ahhh, the sweet oxygen of publicity.

  139. pkatt says:

    Can someone tell me why we are feeding this guys ego? Im sure you’ve all come in contact with the type here on the internet. He is the guy who eggs on the argument out of some perverse pleasure. Then he can go to his other blogs and say .. see see theyre all nuts:) We are above that.

  140. Danny Bloom says:

    To Patrick Henry , above , posting at (19:40:24) :

    HI Patrick,
    Nice to finally meet in cyberspace. I often see your good and perceptive comments on Dot Earth, and always wondered who you were. Now we meet again. Yes, thanks for correction, the polar cities are for the year 2500, so lots of time to plan or even to reject them. Future generations will decide.

    As for Alaska — and Fairbanks — you wrote: “You really should spend a winter in Fairbanks before deciding to set up a climate retreat there. I’m guessing that you wouldn’t like it.”

    Patrick, I lived in Alaska for 12 years. Juneau 10 years, Nome 2 years. Spent time in Fairbanks and Fort Yukon. Shishmaref and Diomede Island, flew out there in a ski plane to visit local community college, I was the PR rep at the time. Loved Alaska. Fairbanks winters! Yes, they are cold. Like 50 below on some days. Nome was not that cold, but the sea ice froze for about 2 miles out and I often walked out on the sea ice, solid as a rock, even went ice fishing on weekends there. Nome was great: 14 bars and 14 churches. I learned alot there!

    Keep in touch PH!

    Danny

  141. Danny Bloom says:

    Timo van Druten, above, (22:56:29), asked me:

    “Based upon my knowledge about legal disputes, I like to challenge you to answer following questions:”

    Okay, sir, challenge accepted. — Danny

    1. Who do you represent? Only yourself, a group, a State or humanity (now and in the future);

    ANSWER: TIM, I just represent myself, an invidual, no conection at all whatsoever to any group, any nonprofit, any university or research institute, any state or governemnt. Just a one-man band trying to raise the alerm. Good question. Really, I am not connected with anyone. I live on a small island in the Western Pacific and have been out of the USA for 17 years, in Asia. I don’t even know what a blue state or a red state is.

    2. When did you file the lawsuit?

    IT IS STILL IN PROCESS . see below

    3. What is your evidence?

    Oh, Evidence? Good question. Best question yet. I will let Dr Lovelock and Dr Hansen answer that. Personally, I have not noticed the temps going up at all yet, or the sea levels rising yet. On my island, coastline is the same as ever. But the experts will deliver the goods. Stay tuned.

    4. Who will be your witnesses?

    SEE ABOVE. You can be called too, if you wish, to argue against the case. All voices are welcome, pro and con.

    5. Please disclose the actual lawsuit at a website of your choice which is available for the public.

    HERE is prelim language:

    http://northwardho.blogspot.com/2008/11/class-action-lawsuit-against-world.html

    and HERE is ICC letter to me:

    Dear Mr. Bloom,

    Thank you for the communication that you sent to the International
    Criminal Court (ICC). Attached you’ll find a file on your
    claim to the ICC.

    With kind regards, etc.

    LETTER:
    Dear MR Bloom,

    On behalf of the ICC Prosecutor, I thank you for your query on how to submit information to the Office of the Prosecutor. The Office welcomes the submission of information on crimes that may fall within the jurisdiction of the Court.

    Communications may be addressed to the Office of the Prosecutor, Information & Evidence Unit, Post Office Box 19519, 2500 CM The Hague, The Netherlands, or sent by email to otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int , or sent by facsimile to +31 70 515 8555.

    Communications should be written in one of the working languages of the Court, i.e. English or French, or if that is not possible, then in one of the other official languages, i.e. Arabic, Chinese, Russian or Spanish. It is preferable for communications to contain as much detailed information as possible.

    Please be aware that the submission of information does not automatically trigger an investigation. In accordance with the Rome Statute, the Office of the Prosecutor must analyse all information submitted in order to determine whether the rigorous criteria of the Statute are satisfied. As you may know, the International Criminal Court has a carefully defined jurisdiction and mandate. We are pleased to provide supplementary information below summarizing the main aspects of the Court’s jurisdiction.

    Once a decision is taken whether or not there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, the Office will promptly inform the senders of relevant communications, along with reasons for the decision. The Office will protect the confidentiality of all information submitted.

    We are grateful for your interest in the Court. If you would like to learn more about the work of the Court, I invite you to visit our website at http://www.icc-cpi.int.

    Best regards,

    Information & Evidence Assistant

    Office of the Prosecutor

    International Criminal Court

  142. E.M.Smith says:

    From Mike Dubrasich (18:02:58) :
    I have no problem with guerrilla theater, either.
    end quote.

    Well, most folks find it a royal pain in the … and think it just makes whoever is doing it look like a spoiled brat. Joe and Jane average need to go to work every day doing things like installing tires and pouring coffee. They really don’t like this kind of stunt. Go ahead, annoy the masses. All it says is that you can waste valuable time and resources on a juvenile rant behaviour. So? Any 9 year old can do that.

    Please, do lots more of this kind of thing, since it will increasing alienate the typical person. Do enough of it and you can drain so many resources from things like the international tribunal (and damage its reputation so much) that it will fade into history as a bad dream / joke never to be worried about again.

  143. E.M.Smith says:

    From Danny Bloom (20:25:56) :
    MIKE,
    Really? Warmer is better
    end quote

    Yes Danny, Much better. That is why historic warm periods are called ‘optimum’ while the (naturally caused cyclical) cold periods that follow them are called ‘pessimum’. Optimums invariably have relative good times, health, food, plenty and peace. Pessimums invariably have bad times, disease, famine, scarcity and war over what is available. Civilizations fall and ignorance advances. The Dark Ages were a Pessimum…

    Just for fun, look up the Roman Optimum and Roman Pessimum (the wiki is ok). Look up the history of the Little Ice Age (French Revolution, famine, Irish leaving Ireland, Scandanavians headed to the U.S. etc. It isn’t pretty. Think about the present modern optimum with more food and more people living better lives than ever before.

    The flowering of Egypt happened in an earlier Optimum warm period, and it fell largely in later pessimum.

    Warm is good. Very good.

  144. Danny Bloom says:

    Robert Wood (15:10:11) : above, said:

    “This law suit was attempted originally in Canada, and was laughed out of courst, as it were. Now “Danny Bloom” is going itnernational. Who is financing him?”

    Ha! Robert, if you saw my finances, you would not even ask the question. Nobody is financing me, just me. I own no stocks, have no retirement fund, have no 401K or whatever that is, have no pension coming, no trust fund, just my small savings from a life of interesting travels, and travails….

  145. Danny Bloom says:

    Jeff Alberst, above post,

    “Mike, what Danny isn’t telling you is that he doesn’t want humanity to flourish. He wants the de-industrialization of the world, and to prevent third world development. They’ve told us this over and over again, I guess they didn’t expect us to believe them.”

    Jeff, come on, get real. I want humankind to flourish, where did I ever say that I didn’t. If you knew me, if you took time to know me, as Mike has just done by email, you would know that i care deeply about the future of humanity and want the best of the future. yes yes yes. I am not a doomsayer or a end of the worlder or a survivalist, and I am not a member of any green group. i am one person doing my own thing. WHO is this thEY you talk about above. THEY? I am not THEY. I am just me. Please.

    You say I “want the de-industrialization of the world, and to prevent third world development. ” Jeff, come on, please. I never said that. I love life, I love the world, I have had a very good and rewarding life, I want the future to last for a long long time. And I have travlled to the Third World and want only the best for those people, too. Don’t box me in, sir.

  146. TSH says:

    Everybody SIT DOWN. jorgekafkazar is gonna show us how not to silence expression of opinion by telling people to not express their opinion of Danny.

    I’m thinking of suing the world for killing, no MURDERING my inner child.

    I DEMAND TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

  147. E.M.Smith says:

    From savo (22:16:05) : I’m pretty new to the interweb, what is a troll?

    Someone who deliberately is fishing for an argument by posting provocatively.
    See:
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

  148. Danny Bloom says:

    Graeme Rodaughan (22:36:44) : above asked”

    “Danny,
    Why not pledge to give the $1B to alleviating world poverty in the poorest nations? Why give it too the IPCC who are already well funded?”
    Or is saving lives ….in the here and now…. a problem?”

    No, it is paramount to save lives in the here and now. I agree. And okay, I will pledge to damages if ever agreed upon, to the poorest nations. Better idea. I agree.

    — danny

  149. Bruce Cobb says:

    Danny:
    Really? Warmer is better? One or two degrees, yes, maybe, sure. I see your point. I am open-minded about this, old sock that I am, going on 60 and not too many years left on Earthville, but really, warmer is better? I accept what you say, and I understand it, a few degrees, but what if it goes to 6 degrees warmer, centigrade? Will that be cool?

    See, Danny, alarmism is basically all you people have, based on nothing but pseudo-science. Sure, we warmed up last century, about a whopping 1C, and a good thing we did, coming out of a very cool period known as the Little Ice Age. Thank the sun for that! As things warmed, C02 increased, which is what C02 always does, due to outgassing. Warming reached a peak in 1998, and has been cooling since then, despite increasing C02. It appears very likely we are in for another cooling, similar to the LIA.
    For an excellent primer on the science, though, check this out: Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax

    The more you learn, the more you will realize the whole AGW scare is just a bogeyman. Grow up.

  150. Danny Bloom says:

    jorgekafkazar (22:48:34) , above, SAID IT VERY WELL HEAR HEAR!:

    “Let’s leave the name-calling to other blogs, please. If you met Danny Bloom face-to-face, you’d probably like him. Heck, Michael Crichton said he liked Al Gore. This is supposed to be about science, not one long argumentem ad hominem showplace. ”

    I am sure you guys would like me if you met me face to face. Really. I am really a nice guy.

  151. Danny Bloom says:

    Another blogger, linking to this blog, jblethen’s headlined his post as

    “Not ballsy — insane misanthropy”

    Wait till the Reuters story gets out on this, then the headlines will really be creative…. !

  152. Danny Bloom says:

    A friend of mine, who holds opinions very differnet from mine on global warming and climate change, told me today: re the lawsuitcase:

    “Dear Dan,

    I understand that you may feel OK about such things. But if the goal is genuinely to win this lawsuit, it is just a scandalous plan. Not sure whether you have thought about the people who could lose this case. It would be completely devastating, for these people who have done nothing wrong and who are probably closer to the truth than you are.

    It is very clear that e.g. if the Czech president were ordered to pay comparably gigantic amounts of money, it would be effectively an attack on the whole Czech Republic and everyone who has some respects to its representatives – which is a lot of people.

    Although I like you, I still cannot imagine that a friendship with someone like you who is trying to financially overdestroy people whom I consider innocent and fundamentally right would be unaffected.

    Also, it’s my feeling that a Reuters story would be a good idea to join because what you probably look for is publicity. I don’t think it is really deserved, and I would only agree with helping such a publicity if it effectively helped to propagate the viewpoint of the skeptics.”

    (NOTE: I had asked my friend is he might want to speak for the skeptics here if the Reuters reporter decides to do a story. I think Reuters will want to include all points of view, and that’s cool. — danny)

  153. Smokey says:

    Ah. Mr. Bloom has appointed someone to speak for skeptics.

    Can I appoint someone to speak for climate alarmists?

    [Regarding Reuters, it was an empty shell corporation with no assets following its bankruptcy in the early '90's. A Soros entity bought the shell for the well known, old time Reuters name; the same way that Black&Decker bought the old DeWalt name and now uses DeWalt's former great reputation to sell tools made in China {not saying DeWalt tools are crap, just pointing out how these things are done}. Now Reuters is a very left-leaning news portal. So Bloom will probably get the publicity he so obviously craves.]

    As far as speaking for skeptics goes, we should select our own spokesman, don’t you think? I’d nominate Anthony Watts or Steve McIntyre. There are plenty of others — in fact, skeptical scientists far outnumber the alarmist contingent. And keep in mind that a skeptic is someone who questions — not a denier of anything. All we are saying is “Prove it.” When the alarmists hear that, they run and hide.

  154. Alan chappell says:

    I would give odds of 100,000 to 1 if D. Bloom and Co. arrive at a hearing date. Nothing, but nothing has legal basis, the only thing missing from this is the date, April the 1st.

  155. Bill Marsh says:

    Interesting. “all world leaders for intent to commit manslaughter against future generations of human beings”

    Intent? You mean he actually believes these ‘world leaders’ (this means the Somali Warlords and various despots around the world) INTEND to commit manslaughter of future generations? Good luck proving that little bit.

    The only thing you can argue (and not very successfully) I think is that their actions could possibly unintentionally cause future death, not that said deaths would be ‘certain’.

    Why is he only interested in protecting future generations of mankind who (in his opinion) will be killed by AGW? Why not all sources with ‘intent’ to kill future generations of mankind? Why isn’t he suing the owners/operators of abortion clinics? Why not the Chinese government for their population control restrictions on births? You could argue that they intend to ‘commit manslaughter against future generations of humankind’ (and actually are committing it and would most likely kill off a larger portion of ‘future humankind than AGW ever would) more so than leaders who do not support the draconian measures recommended by his heroes (not that those draconian measures could also be argued to ‘kill future generations of mankind as well).

  156. JimB says:

    Danny:
    “Timo, this is NOT a publicity STUNT…….it is a WAKE UP CALL……. there is no OUR SIDE or THEIR SIDE….we are all in this together……

    Danny”

    This is false. We are not all in “this” together, whatever you are trying to define “this” to be. One of the tragedies of this is the incredible amount of resources being wasted on a fool’s argument, and the repercussions in terms of both quality of and loss of life are staggering.
    That is the outcome of this course of action that your side of this argument will attempt to avoid all responsibility for.
    To pursue this course, contrary to solid scientific understanding, is nothing short of criminal. I would be willing to help fund a lawsuit that charged Gore, Hansen, et al with crimes against humanity, because I believe they are absolutely guilty.

    So no…this isn’t a “can’t we all just get along?…we’re all in this together!” kind of thing.
    Nor is it the innocent chatter of an old man.

    You should know better.

    JimB

  157. Arthur Glass says:

    Speaking of things Canadian, isn’t the sport of hockey a ‘sublime’ source of polluting CO2?

  158. hunter says:

    Mr. Bloom,
    Apocalyptic Global Warming is a publicicty stunt.
    There is no apocalypse or tipping point to one anywhere close.
    That you are a sincere participant in it does not make it less so.
    Pursuing AGW as a means of dealing with the environment does nothing for the climate and little for the environment.
    As to Arctic ice continues to grow from its cyclical lows, as temperatures moderate, and as lower soot emitting power plants come on line world wide, you guys are going to look more and more foolish.
    It is not too late to refocus on actually mitigating environmental damage, reducing environmental impacts and toxins, and in restoring vital eco-systems.
    But every year wasted on fear mongering and selling a false apocalypse will make worthy goals less attainable.

  159. TerryBixler says:

    It seems as if Mr. Bloom has found a way of increasing his readership by posting here. Anthony is very polite indeed.

  160. Timo van Druten says:

    Hi Danny,

    This is a nice joke. The website you refer to, now states:

    Nov 6, 3008

    http://northwardho.blogspot.com/2008/11/class-action-lawsuit-against-world.html

    You haven’t filed a lawsuit nor did you send a letter to the ICC.

  161. TerryBixler says:

    Off topic but more interesting, note today 23 nov 1979 to 2008
    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=11&fd=23&fy=1979&sm=11&sd=23&sy=2008

  162. CodeTech says:

    Bill Marsh:

    It reminds me of how “they” mock the idea of a giant conspiracy to promote AGW fear-mongering… and yet “they” seem to feel that everyone against them is in a giant conspiracy to destroy the planet. Too funny. Or wait… maybe it’s ironic. I’ll have to consult the climate scientist “Alanis Morrissette” about the meaning of Ironic.

    Ironically (maybe), the whole “it’s not about politics” crap spewed directly from the head conspirator himself, Alvin Gore.

    Yeah, it’s about politics, and nothing more.

    Personally I’m FAR more concerned about getting more countries to resume use of DDT than I am about CO2 or CFC emissions. If you want to actually pretend to be concerned about future generations you could at least send a whole boatload of fishing instructors out to third world countries. And while they’re at it, a few engineers could help them build buildings that don’t wash them into the ocean at the first tsunami or cyclone.

  163. Mister Jones says:

    Publicity stunts re the ‘warming’side of the argument can and do backfire. I am given to understand a ‘Global Warming protest’ was called off recently in Australia.

    Cause? Rain and cold.

    I have an inkling that Mr Bloom’s lawsuit may likewise founder on the shoals of reality.

  164. Jeff Alberts says:

    Jeff, come on, get real. I want humankind to flourish, where did I ever say that I didn’t. If you knew me, if you took time to know me, as Mike has just done by email, you would know that i care deeply about the future of humanity and want the best of the future. yes yes yes. I am not a doomsayer or a end of the worlder or a survivalist, and I am not a member of any green group. i am one person doing my own thing. WHO is this thEY you talk about above. THEY? I am not THEY. I am just me. Please.

    I’m being completely real. Someone already posted several quotes from leaders of “green” and misanthropic movements showing what the true goals are. “They” are the radicals who pull stunts like you’re doing now in order to gain attention to a phantom menace.

    Tell me, if you’re island is still there, the coastlines are still as they have been in living memory (as is my island in Western Washington), why do you believe Hansen and company will “deliver the goods”? If they were right, we should have seen a foot or more of sea level rise since the 1970s. We haven’t. We haven’t seen catastrophic anything. What we HAVE seen is continuation of wholly normal cycles. No one has yet shown, not for lack of trying, that we’re experiencing something abnormal. So you’re essentially telling us, “I see nothing wrong, but they tell me the apocalypse is coming, so I believe them.”

    No, Danny, I can’t say I would “like” you, and I’m a very easygoing person.

  165. Patrick Henry says:

    Danny picked a bad week to file suit in Holland. This is what football looked like there this weekend.

    http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2008/11/24/1227530233763/Gallery-24-Sport-AZ-Alkma-006.jpg

  166. Danny Bloom says:

    Tallbloke (00:45:27) : said above:

    “Ahhh, the sweet oxygen of publicity.”

    No, Tallbloke, the sweet oxygen of minds exchanging points of view.

    As for this comment by above, TerryBixler (07:13:17) :

    “It seems as if Mr. Bloom has found a way of increasing his readership by posting here. ”

    I am just replying to those comments I find interesting. Some people have asked me questions. I have replied. I didn’t post this blog. Anthony, who indeed IS very polite, posted the blog. I just found the blog a few days ago.

    One kind gentleman emailed me re all this:

    “Dear Danny,
    your explanation is little bit like a person who takes a gun and shoots somewhere in the direction of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. The point is not to shoot him, of course, but just to give a try and see how people behave. Well, maybe he will be hit and maybe not.

    You know very well what different people will do. The skeptics will think that the lawsuit is completely absurd, regardless of the not-quite-certain attitude of the court. And the superradical activists will do everything for the lawsuit to win because such things are their dreams. Most people will think that whatever the truth about the climate change is, the lawsuit is surely too much, but they won’t care.

    There’s no nontrivial information about the people’s behavior. A much more nontrivial information would be if the lawsuit were actually won – which would be far more consequential than some opinions of people who have nothing to do with the lawsuit.

    Good grief.”

    NOTE: as for warmer is better, I am getting more and more interested in this idea. But if true, then why did Lovelock and Lynas and Pearce and Hansen write those books and say what they said? They aren’t liars, are they? Then what is going on, and WHO is right, and HOW shall we know?

    I have never said I am certain of anything. But based on what i know now, as of 12 pm November 25, this is the direction I am going in, re the lawsuitcase…

    What IF in fact Lovelock and Hansen are right? What then? What then do you the skeptics tell their future greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat grandchildren in the year 2323 AD? OOPS?

  167. Timo van Druten says:

    Hi Danny,

    What I already thought; A good joke.

    See date on website:

    http://northwardho.blogspot.com/2008/11/class-action-lawsuit-against-world.html

    Nov 6, 3008 (and not 2008). That’s probaly also the reason why the lawsuit is still in process.

    You haven’t filed a lawsuit nor did you sent a letter to the ICC.

    You have kept us busy!! ;-)

  168. TerryBixler says:

    Off topic but more interesting to me, a look at arctic ice 1979 vs 2008
    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=11&fd=23&fy=1979&sm=11&sd=23&sy=2008

  169. stan says:

    I think the lawsuit is a marvelous idea if this court has genuine subpoena power. Skeptics have been hoping for one for a while. He plans to call Dr. Hansen? Yes! Thank God for blessings! Do you folks really appreciate how much fun cross-examination can be? This is manna from heaven. The only thing better would be if he also called Michael Mann and Algore as witnesses.

    I can’t think of anything that would do more to bring sanity to the crazy funhouse of mirrors that AGW has become than to have the principal scare mongers cross-examined under oath after having been forced to provide documentation under court order.

    Please don’t throw us into that briar patch. ;)

  170. Danny Bloom says:

    A DeSmogBlog commenter also says NO:

    “He would have to prove it”

    Submitted by JR Wakefield

    “Great, let Bloom take governments to court because that would force AGW warmists to prove their case. that is, they would have to PROVE AGW is actually happening and would have to PROVE that even if it is happening that it would be bad for humanity. And both those attempts will fail, and could quite likley put an end to AGW when it does fail.”

  171. H. Steven Moffic, M.D. says:

    Just to identify who I am first. I’m a psychiatrist who is concerned about the psychological aspects of climate change. What I know professionally is that our brains are hardwired in an evolutionary sense to respond to immediate danger, but not to potential danger may years away. Therefore, it was very easy to respond to the immediate danger of 9/11, but much easier to deny the future danger of global warming. At the very least, this lawsuit makes the potential problem more immediate, but can also elicit the usual fight-or-flight response. What we need to do is to repeatedly take some deep breaths and use our rational thinking processes to carefully consider all the pros and cons of this issue.
    What I also know professionally is that warmer temperatures in warmer climates leads to more violence. I don’t think we need more of that.
    What I also think is true psychologically is that it is hard to change old patterns of behavior that may be contributing to climate change, whether that be political, economic, or personal.
    As a grandparent, I’d rather err on the side of assuming global warming is a real problem and try to do something about it, because the risk is much higher to do nothing and be wrong about that. That does not preclude still working on all the current problems facing humanity, like hunger, the economy, etc., etc.

    Steve

  172. AKD says:

    “Timo, this is NOT a publicity STUNT…….it is a WAKE UP CALL……. there is no OUR SIDE or THEIR SIDE….we are all in this together……

    Danny”

    Then you should sue yourself.

  173. Luke says:

    @Brian

    Thanks for the link… Very interesting number and one that I think really puts things in perspective. Unfortunately the article linked doesn’t have any external references. Do you know if Dr. Koermer has any of this work published?

  174. Pete says:

    Aviator (11:04:09) :

    “Incidentally, the rise from 280ppm to 385ppm over the industrialized era is not scientifically defensible. The error margins at the time of the 280ppm measurement were, IIRC, plus or minus 100 ppm. If it was 180 ppm, we wouldn’t be here since all the plants would have died and us with them. If it was really 380 ppm, then nothing has changed.”

    Did you see the Georg-Beck (2007 or 2008?) compilation of past CO2 measurements? As I recall that 280PPM number in about 1880 happened to be the low since about 1810. Also, our current levels were exceeded 3 times since 1810 up to levels about 440PPM. I believe the peaks were in the early 1820’s, the 1850’s and then again in the early 1940’s.

    Unless his paper has been discredited, it is a significant argument against the idea that anthropogenic CO2 has any significant influence on atmospheric levels.

    Also, it occurs to me that if CO2 is somewhat well mixed, all Georg-Beck has to show is that just 1 of the high measurements of the 90,000 (?) he looked is valid (not influenced by a localized source and method/technique solid)

  175. DaveE says:

    JimB (05:04:44) :
    To pursue this course, contrary to solid scientific understanding, is nothing short of criminal. I would be willing to help fund a lawsuit that charged Gore, Hansen, et al with crimes against humanity, because I believe they are absolutely guilty.

    I’m sorry Jim. Didn’t Hansen say something similar about people denying AGW?

    I refuse to go down that path & prefer to believe that their intransigence is just a mistaken belief.

    Don’t go down the anti-science path of repercussions!

    DaveE.

  176. Jerry Alexander says:

    Danny Bloom

    For your case before the Hague – answer these questions:

    1. Why have temperatures been cooling since 2003?
    2. What proof do you have that CO2 forcing is greater than water vapors?
    3. Prove to scientists that CO2 stays in the lower and upper tropospheres more
    than a year?
    4. Why are the Earth temperatures uncorrelated with CO2?
    5. Why is that CO2 measuements at the Kelling Towers have decreased this past
    two years?
    6. If we have all the CO2 in the upper and lower tropospheres, why isn’t the
    temperatures hotter?
    7. Why is it that water vapors make up 97% of greenhouse gases that we are not
    hotter?
    8. Why do all the temperature charts over the past ten years record a cyclical
    pattern for temperatures?
    9. Why do multidecadal cycles in the oceans correlate extremely well with the
    solar cycles and global temperatures?
    10. If temperatures are so high, why is the Arctic and Anarctic ice increase
    greater over the past two years?

    Answer these questions with any scientific data facts and you might have a case for global warming – otherwise, your case is out the door!

  177. Jerry Alexander says:

    Danny Bloom

    By the way, NOAA and other temperature recording stations can’t even agree with an exact or true scientific temperature reading. Dr Lindzen, MIT, Atmospheric Science, has stated that there is no exacting temperature. The correlation of stations around the world are not exacting. Most temperature recordings are placed into a complex algorithm to convert actual temperatures. The problem – adjustments have a tendacy toward the higher temperatures. (David Henderson and Ian Castle, mathematical analysis of IPCC global temperatures)

  178. stan says:

    “I’d rather err on the side of assuming global warming is a real problem and try to do something about it, because the risk is much higher to do nothing and be wrong about that. ”

    And what you are telling all those billions of people who face earlier death, worse subsistence poverty, and increased disease from your efforts to “do something”? Sounds to me like you are telling them to go screw themselves. Because they sure don’t figure into your risk assessment.

  179. Tom in Florida says:

    One more important question:

    What is the correct temperature for the Earth?

  180. Wondering Aloud says:

    I worry about anything that is in the hands of the courts. The assumption that a court can or could make a good decision based on scientific evidence is not something I want to bet my future on. Some countries have systems that make good decisions most of the time, but I certainly don’t think anything associated with the UN or any other international body is likely to produce a fair and unbiased court.

  181. Tom in Florida says:

    Dr Moffic: “What I also know professionally is that warmer temperatures in warmer climates leads to more violence”

    Sorry Dr, I’m not buying that general statement. At least you could provide links to various studies as many other professionals do on this blog.

    “As a grandparent, I’d rather err on the side of assuming global warming is a real problem and try to do something about it, because the risk is much higher to do nothing and be wrong about that”

    I think this blog has discussed this fear based mentality before. As a Psychiatrist one would think you could identify your position as such, even to the point of phobia.

  182. OT – was alerted to two posts in E&E December, that look really important for tying up the good science:

    (1) Beck goes to Mauna Loa

    (2) Rate of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Controlled by Natural Temperature Variations

  183. Look, guys and gals,

    I don’t know much about the ICC (or courts in general) but I am clear on the need to bring this argument out into the public consciousness, under some sort of credible jurisdiction, the more open, the better.

    So let’s take this opportunity seriously, and do whatever we can to draw the alarmists out into an open forum from which they can not run and hide.

    ICC may not be impartial, but it could be a useful start point.

    It may already be too late, but I think we should avoid overloading them (the alarmists) with so much seriously factual information that they withdraw their action. We do not want them to do that. We want this out in the open. We want them to prosecute this case.

    They are only politicians, so they are not that smart!

    So gently does it.

    If we can cajole them into thinking they might win this case (in the ICC, at least), then we could possibly move from there to a more respected international arbiter.

    I don’t know what that might be at the moment, but I am looking into it.

    Keep your powder dry!

    Steve

  184. Timo van Druten says:

    For those who are still convinced that the claim of Danny Bloom is true.

    Article 77 of the Rome Statute stipulates that the penalties are imprisonment for a number of years or lifetime. In addition to imprisonment, the Court may order a fine or forfeiture of proceeds, property and assets derived from the crime. The Court can order imprisonment without a fine, but not a fine without imprisonment.

    Article 79 of the Rome Statute deals with the establishment of a Trust Fund. The Court may order that the fine and/or forfeiture of proceeds, property and assest be transferred to the Trust Fund.

    If there would be an ICC-court case (and there isn’t any), Danny Bloom will not receive a penny. It is not a civil court case.

    Danny, I would like to challenge you once again; who must convicted of crimes against humanity and should go to prison?

  185. Joseph Murphy says:

    Mr. Bloom,
    I applaud the work you have done entertaining questions and comments on here. I hope we are all the wiser with what you are doing although, I do not agree with your methodology. The judiciary is better left to judgment rather than publicity stunts. I await the first evidence of AGW, for none has been shown me yet. All the while loads of heavy metals, plastics, and toxins of all sorts are being dumped onto our land and into our oceans, yet all I hear is people crying foul over my harmless personal exhaust. For our sake I hope you are right. Avoiding an apocalypse is all that is worthy of leading astray the self proclaimed champions of earth. For if you are wrong, while all were busy wrestling the demos, it does become to late for another patch of mother nature.

  186. Sylvain says:

    Any lawyer out here that wish to make a quick bucks by suing all those environmentalist flying around in privet jet.

    If these guy’s can sue politician for failure to act they sure can be sued for not acting themselves.

  187. pkatt says:

    “What IF in fact Lovelock and Hansen are right? What then? What then do you the skeptics tell their future greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat grandchildren in the year 2323 AD? OOPS?”

    Well what if Lovelock and Hansen are wrong and carbon sequestration leads to the next ice age on earth. What then? What then do you, the blind followers of AGW, tell your future greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat grandchildren in the year 2323 AD? OOPS? but hey it sure was fun while it lasted?

    Seems to me either side would be better to wait for some EVIDENCE.

  188. Bill Marsh says:

    Tom in Florida (13:05:25) :

    “One more important question:

    What is the correct temperature for the Earth?”

    Another would be exactly what do we do to attain that temperature, i.e., how much CO2 would we have to pump back into the atmosphere to stop the cooling (which is what I assume will have to happen) at that temperature.

    These are important questions to know the answers too as we set out to terraform the planet.

  189. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    @ Danny Bloom (01:46:05) : and Danny Bloom (02:37:58) :

    Thanks for the shift in pledge – my “opinion” of you just went up. (for what its worth).

    However you make an “appeal to authority” wrt the evidence for Global Warming which cuts no ice here.

  190. Slamdunk says:

    There is no climate risk or crisis. It’s a fabrication of vested interests to promote Gore’s GAIA, anti-westen capitalism and carbon taxes. Get it?

  191. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    @H. Steven Moffic, M.D. (08:56:18) :

    I would suggest as a rational approach (since you suggest the adoption of a rational approach) to risk management that you do the following.

    1. Ascertain who are the stakeholders. I.e include the developing world where the carbon suppression activities will condemn to perpetual poverty.

    2. Get the evidence lined up that there is an actual threat and quantify the costs of (a) CO2 Suppression vs (b) Climate Change mitigation activities.

    3. Factor in the costs for all stakeholders and assess the path forward.

    4. Note that wealthy societies are best placed to fund responding to climate change.

    5. Get a clear distinction b/w AGW (Man made global warming caused by emissions of CO2) and “Climate Change”. The first is in dispute, the second isn’t.

    6. Ascertain any benefits from an abundance of CO2 (enhanced plant growth, more crops, more food, etc) and/OR warmer world (longer growing seasons, fewer deaths from cold, etc).

    7. Do a proper cost/benefit analysis.

    Plus – if you want to be rational. What is the falsification criteria for AGW and has that been clearly defined anywhere by the AGW movement. And how rational is any ideology that is not falsifiable and how is AGW defined as “Man made Climate Change (true if warming/cooling)” distinguishable from any other pseudoscience.

    I could posit that the world was created 10 minutes ago and we all have false memories – prove me wrong – can’t be done because it’s not falsifiable. AGW (defined as Climate Change and true in a warming or cooling world) is also just as bizarre.

    Plus – do you think that your children and grand children will be better off in an economy/ society that has swapped cheap and effective energy sources for expensive and ineffective energy sources?

    You suggest that warmer = more violence, what is the impact of poverty on violence?

    Do you have any evidence that warmer = more violence and have you been able to factor out other possible causes? I.e. can you clearly identify the “warmer = more violence” signal from the background noise of other motivating factors?

    Inquiring (indeed rational) minds would like to know.

  192. H.R. says:

    Sorry Mr. Bloom, but I think you filed the wrong suit.

    If you were serious about AGW, you should name every human being on the planet as defendants and ask that the court order everyone to stop breathing… immediately. No one gets a pass no matter how good or green are their intentions. After all, what human has zero CO2 output?

    As a bonus it would also solve the over-population problem; a two-fer!

    I’d wish you luck but my heart’s not in it.

  193. Paul Shanahan says:

    Is FatBigot reading this? I would be interested in hearing your [FatBigot's] professional opinion on the feasibility of this kind of legal action…

  194. Nick says:

    Re: Danny Bloom

    Let’s be quite clear about all this. Whether this case goes to court or not, Danny, you are of the stated opinion that certain world leaders are guilty of commit manslaughter against future generations of human beings by not cutting back drastically on CO2 emissions.

    Here in the UK, we have an impending crisis with regard to power supplies, and I understand other countries face similar problems. One of the root causes of the problems is the anti-coal, anti-nuclear, anti-oil stance of the green activist cause, of which I would class you as being a ardent supporter.

    It could be said, Danny, that by obstructing the future supply of electricity, the activists you presumably support are directly guilty of causing future blackouts which will almost certainly cost lives, especially in periods of severe cold – which is when they are most likely to occur. Additionally, the extra costs forced on the power generation industries worldwide (except China, India and others) will necessarily make electricity unaffordable for the least wealthy. Again, this may well cause death, whether through lack of heating or, in poorer parts, interruption to medical care and so on. These events are unavoidable but for green activism. Are we still talking manslaughter? Hmm.

    Additionally, Danny, you should also reconsider your view of climate scepticism. It is my bet that the vast majority (myself included) would agree totally with Dr David Bellamy, a renowned and hard-working scientist/conservationist, and climate sceptic, who recently said: ” The thing that annoys me most is that there are genuine environmental problems that desperately require attention. I’m still an environmentalist, I’m still a Green and I’m still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of the world. But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming “problem” that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the world.”

    So let’s sum up. Your stance would seem to support power outages, pricing energy out of the range of the poor and deflecting attention (and money) from real environmental issues such as rainforest destruction – which would cost a mere fraction of the amount the green activists have spent on propaganda and would want spent on their beloved global warming myth.

    I would suggest that you are not a real Green, or a real conservationist. You are clearly enjoying the limelight, but as your head hits the pillow tonight, I would like you to think whether, through your very own actions if successful, a large number of humans could face poverty, ill-health, or death.

    A sobering thought, Danny.

    Sleep well.

  195. Danny Bloom says:

    Someone from DeSmogblog comments told me: “Remember what happened to the evolution deniers in Dover? They were made to look stupid because truth prevails in a court of law. The creationist/ID types who were prone to lying stayed away since they feared perjury. Yes, lets get the AGW deniers in court. It will show up their lies once and for all.”

    True or not?

    Reply: Kindly refrain from using the term “deniers” on this site. It is considered derogatory. ~ dbstealey, moderator

  196. Danny Bloom says:

    Timo asked, above: “Danny, I would like to challenge you once again; who must convicted of crimes against humanity and should go to prison?”

    All current world leaders. They should not go to prison. They should hang their heads down in shame, except for the president of the Maldives, who is making plans to move his people to “higher” land on the continent….

  197. Danny Bloom says:

    Nick (15:58:28) : above, said:

    “…. You are clearly enjoying the limelight, …”

    Nick,

    There is no limelight where I am. I am not enjoying anything about this. Not everybody does things for money or fame or limelight or careerism or job promotions. Have you never heard a “cri du coeur” before?

    Danny

    And Dr Moffic, above, made a good point, several good points. He had a letter published in TIME magazine a few years ago that read:

    LETTER TO EDITOR, PUBLISHED:
    “Reading Earth’s Danger Signs”

    “How fearsome must the headlines be about tomorrow before people
    change their ways today?” reporter Ms Gibbs asked in her article in your magazine last week [Time magazine, Sept.24]. Psychologically
    speaking, people need to worry more about the present to change. Our
    brains are hardwired to respond to immediate dangers, not ones that
    are years or decades away. And a term like global warming is too
    benign, especially for those like me who live in a cold climate and
    might welcome an increase of a few degrees.

    Perhaps we should use the
    term global boiling, like the proverbial experiment in which a frog
    stays in a gradually warming pot of water and eventually dies.

    Maybe
    we all need to visualize the destruction to make us feel a sense of
    immediate danger.

    H. Steven Moffic, M.D.,
    professor of psychiatry,
    Medical College of
    Wisconsin,
    USA

  198. Danny Bloom says:

    ”Are Words Worthless in the Climate Fight?”[ Yes or No?]

    By Andrew C. Revkin on DOT EARTH blog in the New York Times

    If you missed this, you need to read this right now.

    — Danny

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/are-words-worthless-in-the-climate-fight/

  199. Danny Bloom says:

    Joe Romm, some of you know his name, says the world will need “Mutliple Pearl Harbors over the next decade” to wake even the skeptics up — with half or more of these happening:

    1) Arctic goes ice free before 2020. I have bets out on this. It would be a big, visible global shock.
    2) Rapid warming over next decade, as recent Nature and Science article suggests is quite possible
    (posts here and here)
    3) Continued (unexpected) surge in methane
    4) A megadrought hitting the SW comparable to what has hit southern Australia.
    5) More superstorms, like Katrina
    6) A heatwave as bad as Europe’s 2003 one.
    7) Something unpredicted but clearly linked to climate, like the bark beetle devastation.
    8) Accelerated mass loss in Greenland and/or Antarctica, perhaps with another huge ice shelf breaking off, but in any case coupled with another measurable rise in the rate of sea level rise,
    9) The Fifth Assessment Report (2012-2013) really spelling out what we face with no punches pulled.

  200. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Nick makes an excellent point.

  201. Pete says:

    Lucy Skywalker (13:14:08) :

    Wow. If the “advanced statistical multiregression analysis” addressed in the item (2) paper is solid, the conclusions could be a “killer”….

    “Therefore it is likely that there is no anthropogenic climate change on a global scale. The natural exchange of CO2 between ocean, biomass on land and the atmosphere is very large. In only four to five years all the CO2 in the atmosphere has been recycled through the oceans and the biomass system. The annual anthropogenic human production of CO2 is neutralized by nature in as little as 12 days. Recent studies of the solar forcing, changes in cosmic radiation and its role in cloud formations explain the global warming that has taken place since 1910.”

  202. sauerkraut says:

    Someone, above, has the nerve to complain about stupid but then posts this doozy: “CO2 is plant food and does humans no harm. We exhale over 40,000 ppm CO2, so just how exactly is this going to exterminate us? ”

    Well, it’s like this. The human body has certain threshholds for nearly all substances, from pure atoms to molecules to mixtures and right up the line. Once you exceed that threshhold, zoop, that’s all she wrote. You die.

    This holds as true for CO2 as it does for pure oxygen as it does for water as it does for CO.

    And that’s where the harm lies and how Darwin Award-winners get exterminated.

  203. Old Coach says:

    Danny Bloom (18:55:13)

    5) More superstorms, like Katrina

    Danny,
    I am glad you are on here posting! It is good to see your arguments. Next time you list your reasons you should not mention this one about Katrina. Not on this site. The readers on this post have a much better grasp of history and weather than the general population, and so including this item will cause you to lose credibility. I am fairly certain that you do not have much credibility with these readers anyway, but still, every bit helps. This is a tough audience, my man, and you should try to get to know them so that you will be better able to sell your arguments.
    It is tough to argue climate with specific weather here. The readers are just too educated. Still, if you must try, you should use a storm that is really an outlier, not just a regular category 3 hurricane that hit a poorly constructed city. I would suggest the March storm of 1993. Or, if hurricanes are your flavor, there was a truly amazing storm in the pacific a couple years back that had a 250 mile across eye wall. Now that was a storm!

  204. peerreviewer says:

    danny, how do you know what the right temperature is and how do you know if we are fixing it? from 1940 to 1980 in the usa it cooled. the temp went up a little in the next decade, more in the next and came down to where it started from 3 decades ago in the third.

    if we had reduced our co2 output from the year 2000, we would be telling ourselves, look here is proof positive, we reduced c02 and we cooled the planet.
    but we would be very wrong Danny, wouldn’t we?

    there is no way to measure the success of taking out co2, since temperature changes occur independently of co2.

    And there fore you can never know if you are doing the right thing or the wrong one, and
    you can not make a predicition of how much co2 to take out.

    Invent a better bio measure or physical measure of harm for c02 effects. I will be glad to study it

  205. Stephen says:

    wowser there’s some very misinformed people commenting here with little clue about science.

    There won’t be an international court case right now, but will there ‘climate criminals’ be brought to some kind of rough justice in 10 or 20 years???

    Something to think about.

  206. hunter says:

    Danny,
    To take your list:
    1) Arctic goes ice free before 2020. I have bets out on this. It would be a big, visible global shock.
    -Arctic ice is cyclical, and driven by currents. It is rebounding. By 2020 it will be more. Check Cryosphere, the daily satellite report. Get out of your bets.

    2) Rapid warming over next decade, as recent Nature and Science article suggests is quite possible
    (posts here and here)
    -Why should it? It has been cooling for awhile, and the PDO looks like temps will continue down for awhile. And, more importantly, none of the changes over the last 100 years up or down have been significant.
    3) Continued (unexpected) surge in methane
    -Uexpected by whom? Describe ‘surge’.
    4) A megadrought hitting the SW comparable to what has hit southern Australia.
    -Please study the history of droughts. Droughts come and go. They did before AGW, and they will long after AGW.
    5) More superstorms, like Katrina
    -Danny, you do realize that Katrina was not a ‘super storm’? That its damage was due to levee failure? It was a cat3 storm when it hit Mississppi/Louisiana
    6) A heatwave as bad as Europe’s 2003 one.
    – While your list is sort of morbid the way you depend on betting on bad things to get your way, betting on summer heat waves, when summer is when heat waves happen, is sort of sad. If heatwaves mean AGW is ‘real’, then harsh winters mean AGW is not real.
    7) Something unpredicted but clearly linked to climate, like the bark beetle devastation.
    -Bark beetles were due to monoculture forests and poor land use management.
    8) Accelerated mass loss in Greenland and/or Antarctica, perhaps with another huge ice shelf breaking off, but in any case coupled with another measurable rise in the rate of sea level rise,
    -You do hope for doom. The mass budget is of Greenland is not in dangerous shape, and Antarctica is growing. Worldwide sea ice is growing.
    9) The Fifth Assessment Report (2012-2013) really spelling out what we face with no punches pulled.
    So the political program of the IPCC has done its best to scare us, and we just won’t get sacred enough?
    If I was actually concerned about something really bad happening to the world, and I kept finding out that my fears were not being confirmed by reality, I would be glad.
    It seems that you and many others involved with promoting AGW are very distressed when the apocalypse keeps getting delayed, and predictions about it keep getting proven wrong.
    Why?

  207. Cory says:

    No matter how shrill the global warming fanatics become, the natural fact remains that CO2 is plant food… and that every time every human on this planet exhales… they exhale (guess what folks) this ‘pollution’ they call the primary global climate change catalyst C O 2.

  208. davidc says:

    Danny,

    “3. What is your evidence?

    Oh, Evidence? Good question. Best question yet. I will let Dr Lovelock and Dr Hansen answer that. Personally, I have not noticed the temps going up at all yet, or the sea levels rising yet.”

    It is the Best question yet. So what in your view is the evidence. OK, leave it to others to put the detailed case but surely you have some idea what they are going to put as evidence on your behalf. We hear so much about “the experts” agreeing, but what exactly is it that they agree on. No-one ever says.

  209. Robert says:

    1, That would be in just 11 years time, but somehow they did not even predict this year correctly or even close.

    2. Rapid warming over the next decade, you know i have been hearing this already over the past 25 years, but after 1995 the temperatures somehow leveled out and the last year we actually saw a drop in temperatures.

    3. The surge in methane came after ±10 years of constant levels (while we continued to produce more year after year), and the surge was worldwide and happend on both hemispheres wich baffeled climatologists because this would indicate a natural cause.

    4. Don’t know about the megadrought, but i will look it up.

    5. Studies show that a warmer world will actually see a decrease in storms, this backed by realworld data and observations.

    6. Aha the 2003 heatwave wich mainly hit France in august and showed that it was much more of social problem than it was a natural one. BTW i probably won’t hear you about the 25.000 deaths in the UK a year later because of a rather cold winter.

    7. The bark beetle devastation, people who work in those forrest claim its rather bad management of those (production) forrests, mass transport of logs out of the area on wich the those bad flying beetles can hitch a ride over barriers like rivers, all in all it is manmade disaster, but not because of globalwarming but of mismanagement of those forrests.

    8. huge ice mass loses, in order to achieve the sea levelrises claimed by Al Gore in his powerpoint presentation we need to melt about 30.000 CUBIC km of ice, EVERY YEAR from now on.

    9 If there is ever going the be a fifth report. The last report claims a sea level rise between 30-60 cm’s wich is no problem accoording to our engineers over here in the Netherlands, we can manage it. Strange though that politicians claim that the sea level rise will actually be somewhere between 1 and 2 meters.

  210. anna v says:

    People, Danny is not reading your replies. He is the classical case of:

    I have made up my mind, do not bother me with facts

    All this is part of his publicity gimmick.

  211. Danny Bloom says:

    Anna V, above, said: “Danny is not reading your replies….:”

    Anna,
    I am reading all the comments here, from A to Z, from 1 to 201, yes I am. Everyone here knows this, except you. Anna, I am reading everything here. I am very interested in all points of view. That’s why I am here.

    Now then, just What do we call the anti-global warming crowd?

    James Hrynyshyn on his blog suggests:

    Over at ”A Few Things Illconsidered”, the commenters are debating what to call those folks who just can’t bring themselves to accept the science of climate change. You know, the science that says we have to stop spewing the products of the combustion of fossil fuels into the air if we want to keep the planet’s ecology close to something we’d consider habitable.

    Denialists? Skeptics? Scoffers?

    I’d like to weigh in with a defense of the term that I now use regularly in this space: “Pseudoskeptics.”

    The reason is simple. Pseudo means false. And false skepticism is what we’re talking about. It captures the essence of the attitudes exhibited by those who refuse to accept the science of climate change. Such people consider themselves skeptics, in that they aren’t convinced by the evidence. But of course, a true skeptic is willing to be convinced by the evidence. For whatever reason — ideology, stupidity, stubbornness — such ilk are not only unwilling to accept solid science, but are unwilling to subject their own positions to skeptical or critical analysis. No matter what evidence you supply, it just won’t meet their standards, usually because they consider the entire climatology community corrupt.

    They are false skeptics. Hence: Pseudoskeptics.

    I first came across the term at Orac’s blog, ”Respectful Insolence”, but it seems the term can be traced back a ways to one Marcello Truzzi, a sociologist who defined pseudoskepticism as:

    “a variety of pseudoscience: the behavior of highly biased ‘sneering scoffers’ who try to legitimize their prejudice by donning the mantle of science and proper skepticism. They claim to support reason/logic while in fact filling their arguments with plenty of ad-hominems, straw-man, poisoning-the-well, and numerous other emotion-enflaming fallacies and debating tactics.”

    Now, I recognize that those I call pseudoskeptics will charge that those of us who do accept the climate science are the true pseudoskeptics, but that’s the nature of the beast. I’m not expecting to change any minds through the use of labels, just use the most precise terms for the purpose of the discussion.

    http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2008/11/what_do_you_call_the_antigloba.php

    Reply: Rude and condescending, but since you are essentially the subject of this thread I will allow the post unedited. Please try and be more respectful. ~ charles the moderator.

  212. Gimmick or not, I see great virtue in a global warming show trial. Much like the ‘Scopes Monkey Trial’ it could pit advocates for the Alarmists against advocates for Skeptics.

    I want Lord Monckton on my legal team, and could name some others as well. Let the Alarmists pick their own champions, such as Gore and Hanson.

    Televise the trial. Call witnesses and ‘experts’. Make it last for weeks. Do it up royal. Heck, sell advertising during the commercial breaks. We all could make some coin.

    I have every confidence my (our) side will win, because just by holding such a trial Skeptics would attain equal status with Alarmists. Furthermore, our arguments are superior and will prevail.

    Altogether a good idea. I hope Danny can pull it off.

  213. jeez says:

    Danny Bloom,

    Until the GISS, Hadley Center, NCDC, and other promoters of AGW dogma (consensus) become truly open with data and methodology, open to a real review and replication, nothing resembling solid science is occurring. End of story. The fat lady has sung.

    As long as there is any obfuscation, and it continues unabated, they cannot be taken seriously as science.

    What they are pushing out under the guise of “science” and incestuous “peer review” is simply incantations, nothing more.

  214. kim says:

    Danny, the globe is cooling. The new deniers are those who refuse to look at the thermometer.
    =============================================

  215. CodeTech says:

    Well – since I just read danny’s most recent post, I’m done with this thread.

    Yeah, I deal with idiots all day in the real world, I’m going to just stop dealing with same on the net.

    It will, however, always amaze me how the “useful idiots”, those who are marginally brainwashed into promoting a cause that they have no idea about, can be so easily manipulated.

    There is absolutely no proof or evidence, ABSOLUTELY NONE, only hyperbole and projections for the alarmists… but that doesn’t stop these guys. I have in mind that weirdo that was seen crying about Britney Spears on YouTube, or maybe the “obama girl”. Sure, they’re promoting a cause, but they have absolutely no idea what the cause is, or who is pulling the strings, or what the ultimate outcome will be.

  216. Danny Bloom says:

    Cooling. Warming. Cooling. Warming. Who knows? Who knew? Go figure.

    I have truly learned a lot from this long 200 plus comment discussion, and as a guest at this blog, I thank the comment section for all the good input. THEM versus US, US versus THEM. They. We. You. Me.

    I like Mike’s idea, above. A globally televised court hearing, with both sides well represented. Let the judge decide. May the best arguments win.

    Meanwhile, we ALL have a lot of work to do. Godspeed!

  217. Danny Bloom says:

    Charles the Mod

    RE:

    Reply: ”Rude and condescending, but since you are essentially the subject of this thread I will allow the post unedited. Please try and be more respectful.” ~ charles the moderator.

    Charles, Those were not my words or my blog. I just wanted to show commenters here what THEY think of YOU. Not me. I like you guys. You have
    spirit and pizzaz, and you put up with me for this long, so I salute you all. Charles, again, that was not ME, that was just a link. Sorry if it appeared rude. — Danny the commeter

  218. Mike Bryant says:

    Danny,
    No regulars on this blog are pseudo-anything. The people here are loving caring individuals who want the best for mankind. It distresses me that you would try to demonize those who want people to live rather than die. I fear that the momentum has switched to your view, and the great “experiment” will soon be underway. As these changes begin to take place, I hope you will begin to see the folly of the de-industrialization of humanity. Like other great “experiments” many will have to die and the movement will eventually come to naught. I am about your age, and I can barely believe that you could fall for such an obvious ploy.

    Vaclav Klaus has not been fooled. The temperature is not the issue. It is all about what happens to the people. It is really about freedom. Please watch this short video from someone who has been through this before.

  219. kim says:

    Great, Danny has posted a link to here on DotEarth. ‘Waves’ to the crowd. Hey, Dot Earthers, the globe is cooling, for how long even kim doesn’t know.
    =======================================

  220. David Ball says:

    I noticed you haven’t addressed my comment, Mr. Bloom. I’m afraid you cannot deny what you and your ilk have done to my father, and by extension, myself and my family. For me, it is personal. Kim is absolutely correct. It is you who are the deniers. Deniers of free speech, deniers of equity in science, deniers of the right to earn a living. You know that all that desmogblog has written about my father has been lies, heaped upon lies. Is it your contention that the “means justifies the end”? If so, it is a frightening stance to take as I have been personally affected by your misguided need to “do good” . Good is the furthest removed from what you and you “friends” are doing. Reality and truth will reveal you for what you are.

  221. AKD says:

    Danny: “Now then, just What do we call the anti-global warming crowd?”

    Why not skip to the point and call them heretics?

  222. TSH says:

    Pseudoscience: When you, rather than answer your critics, devote your time to arguing about what name to call those critics.

    Thanks for playing, Danny. As for the rest of you:
    Obvious troll is obvious. So stop feeding it.

  223. shaken says:

    Should be fun proving intent. Can we countersue for wasting our time?

  224. Brian in Alaska says:

    “Now then, just What do we call the anti-global warming crowd?” How about: Realists? The well-informed? The not-easily-misled crowd? And for some here, Scientists.

    Thanks for showing your true colors with your last post, Danny. I believe your personal likability index just took a big hit.

  225. Tim L says:

    This is very funny. lol and just a little true.

    http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e46UZukUSU

    enjoy and lighten up a bit.

  226. hunter says:

    Mr. Bloom,
    So now I am a ‘false skeptic’?
    That might be more credible and less transparently shallow and rude, if you would bother to respond to the legitimate issues raised by skeptics here.
    Instead, it would appear your odd characteriztion is really just a transference by you.

  227. Jerry Alexander says:

    Hunter (20:39:50)

    I agree with you response!

    #9 – If the Fifth Assessment is anything like the fourth Assessment, it will be full of assumptions and estimates. Most of the IPCC information has been recycled. All temperature and CO2 studies have disproved AGW.

    Danny

    If temperatures are not cyclical, why don’t we have warmer climates? All new statistics have indicated a cooling period.

  228. Jerry Alexander says:

    Danny

    Your number 6 – Europe heatwave, 2003 – offset by WUWT Post

    “UK brought to a standstill as five inches of snow falls in an hour.” This the lowest temperature for this area. Europe is having a cold winter due to the Arctic Oscillation air current moving down from Norway and Sweden.

    Canada is having an early freeze due to the extra cold Arctic Oscillation.

  229. Mike from Canmore says:

    David Ball: Your Dad is one of the nicest people I have ever met.
    Cheers

  230. Pete (18:57:10) :
    Recent studies of the solar forcing, changes in cosmic radiation and its role in cloud formations explain the global warming that has taken place since 1910.”

    This is simply not true. Combatting bad science with worse science is not the thing to do. We do not need to invoke the Sun, there is enough natural variability in the system as it is.

  231. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Danny Bloom (00:24:35) :

    Why post someone elses words, without caveat, unless you agree with them?

    Opinion officially revised back down…

    The false bonhomie, hearty, “were all friends here, we’re all on the same side” is just plain garbage.

    Reminds me of a Crocodile suggesting to a Monkey that the “the river waters just fine, all we want to do is play”

    Only a foolish monkey would listen to a crocodile.

    I’m done talking to Mr Bloom – it’s a waste of time.

  232. hunter says:

    Jerry Alexander,
    Thanks.
    Notice that the AGW believers cannot answer the specific rebuttals. They always fall back on authoritarian and demeaning strategies.
    Earleir this year, when the AGW industry was telling how this year we would see the Arctic go ‘ice free’, but were wrong, they never questioned the underlying assumptions as to why they made the assertion, or wondered why- out lous at least- why they were wrong. They simply moved over to yet another false assertion, usually a recycled one at that.
    And the oddest part, to me is this: If I was concerned that evidence I was beleiving was indicating the end of the world was near, and I found out I might be wrong, I would be happy.
    On the other hand, the AGW believer, in the face of clue after clue that their fear is misplaced, refuses to see that as good news.

  233. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    @hunter (12:36:42) :

    I’m forming the POV that a significant number of AGW Alarmists require an “Apocalyptic end-time”, “Catastrophic” belief to give their lives meaning.

    Without such a dramatic framework, they would be lost and empty.

    Hence, part of the ‘need’ and ‘desire’ for AGW to be true and the dismay when contrary evidence is presented.

    Another separate factor seems to be a fascination with disaster. The bigger the disaster, the more fascinating it is. AGW as entertainment.

    Without AGW – life is ‘boring’. Hence some of the dismay seems to be the sort that comes when a small boy is separted from a favourite toy.

    All of this speaks to a pervasive lack of emotional maturity and awareness of, and empathy for other people.

    As further evidence to the last, there never seems to be a real concern, – leading to specific concrete actions – on the part of the AGW Movement to encompass the needs of people, in the here and now.

    There ‘concern’ is all about ‘saving people, habitats, etc, in the future’ – which can’t be tested. I.e was anyone hurt in the future? was anyone saved?

    It’s all very convenient.

  234. Ron de Haan says:

    Some more lunacy.
    This article is about which WWII, Pearl Harbor like events regarding our climate should happen in order to promote their green AGW agenda.
    It makes us cristal clear with what kind of people we have to deal with.
    Do not try to leave a response on their site because you will be blocked out.
    (Unless you agree with them).

    My response would have been as followed:
    If it is your objective to kick humanity back into the stone age, why don’t you ask for a new ice age?

    Here is the story:
    What are the near-term climate Pearl Harbors?
    http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/24/what-are-the-near-term-climate-pearl-harbors/

    Andy Revkin saw my post on Hansen Sunday night and e-mailed me some questions and then turned my reply into a post at Dot Earth, “Joe Romm on Hansen’s Mistakes, Cap’s Limits.”

    To Revkin’s question of what might drive action strong enough to avoid the worst, I cited my post on “The harsh lessons of the financial bailout” — in particular a key driver is “bad things must be happening to regular people right now.” One of the media’s greatest failings is ‘underinforming’ people that “Bad things are happening to real people right now thanks in part to human-caused climate change — droughts, wildfires, flooding, extreme weather, and on and on.” I listed a perfect recent example: “my article criticizing the NYT on the bark beetle story“.

    Building on what I wrote about Hansen:

    We will need a WWII-style approach, but that can only happen after we get the global warming Pearl Harbor or, more likely, multiple Pearl Harbors.

    Revkin then asked “What kind of wake-up call does Mr. Romm think is conceivable on a time scale relevant to near-term policy?”

    My quick response is below — but I am certainly interested in your thoughts on what kind of climatic mini-catastrophes might move public and policymaker opinion over the next decade. Preferably these “mini-catastrophes” would not themselves be evidence that we had waited too long and passed the point of no return.

    Here is my list — I await yours:

    Mutliple Pearl Harbors over the next decade — half or more of these happening:

    1. Arctic goes ice free before 2020. It would be a big, visible global shock.
    2. Rapid warming over next decade, as recent Nature and Science article suggests is quite possible (posts here and here)
    3. Continued (unexpected) surge in methane
    4. A megadrought hitting the SW comparable to what has hit southern Australia.
    5. More superstorms, like Katrina
    6. A heatwave as bad as Europe’s 2003 one.
    7. Something unpredicted but clearly linked to climate, like the bark beetle devastation.
    8. Accelerated mass loss in Greenland and/or Antarctica, perhaps with another huge ice shelf breaking off, but in any case coupled with another measurable rise in the rate of sea level rise.
    9. The Fifth Assessment Report (2012-2013) really spelling out what we face with no punches pulled.

    I say multiple events because we need a critical mass understanding the climate is changing catastrophically. Multiple events will be needed to make the case that this is global and climate-related, as opposed to local and weather-related.

    For me and others, one Hurricane Katrina was enough to motivate more action, but the superstorm’s devastation could not and cannot be directly linked to climate change. It was clear evidence of what kind of catastrophes we will face in a world of superstorms and rising seas — and it is now painfully clear that future Katrinas will be worse (see “Nature: Hurricanes ARE getting fiercer — and it’s going to get much worse” and “Why future Katrinas and Gustavs will be MUCH worse, Part 2“).

    And yes, for a large fraction of the population, no evidence will prove persuasive (see “The Deniers are winning, but only with the GOP“). We will have to save them in spite of their willful and self-destructive ignorance, assuming they don’t stop us.

    “The science is beyond dispute… Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.”

  235. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    @Ron de Haan (15:46:33) :

    I read the link to climateprogress.org – best described as “people in love with fear”.

    A lot of the posters seem to be expecting irreversible catastrophy within the next 5 years or so.

    Fear is contagious.

  236. Danny Bloom says:

    David Ball (06:48:13) : wrote, above:

    ” I am m afraid you cannot deny what you and your ilk have done to my father, and by extension, myself and my family. For me, it is personal. ”

    David, I don’t know who you are, and I don’t who your father is, and I have no connection to DeSmog Blog, so I cannot really reply to this. But as someone above said, your Dad is a very nice guy and I am sure he is. I have no knowledge of what you are talking about. I am not connected to DeSmog. I am not part of any ilk. But I can see from your comment that someone has hurt you, and you have my sympathy on this. Really.

    — Danny

  237. David Ball says:

    Mr. Bloom, to fill the readers in on my father’s credentials ( for I believe you know very well), here it is. He has a Doctor of Science (climatology) from Queen Mary College of London. The thesis was based on the climate records from the Hudson’s Bay archive dating from 1605 to 1951. The thesis itself focused on only about 100 years of the data, but the record is approximately 350 years long. Countless late nights for years to document all 350 years worth. This is sub-arctic and would seem to me to be relevant to the debate. Just to give you an idea of what science was being done by Hudson’s Bay at the time, Captain James Cook, the explorers Mason/Dixon, and the men at Fort York were involved in a global experiment to map the transit of Venus, in the 1790’s. Most people don’t know what the transit of Venus is. As many on this blog will concur, weather itself can be fascinating. Canada was founded mainly on the fur trade, which was being driven by cold temperatures in Europe at the time, LIA. It is very sad that one has to close ones eyes to so much cool information, in order to believe what you are trying to sell us. I am not buying. You have mentioned the desmogblog ( I noticed you even put the capitols in the right locations) so I know damn well that you know who Dr. Tim Ball is. Nice try. Keep your pious platitudes and move on. My father is a nice guy (thank you Mike from Canmore), and one of the most honorable and knowledgeable men alive. I can see why you and your ilk would want to silence his voice. If he was given just an hour of MSM time, you would find yourself looking for a new line of work. Perhaps you can stop the scourge of “continental drift”. I hear it is dislocating billions of people as we speak. P.S Did you know the Suzuki Foundation has people on staff whose sole job is to discredit my father in the media? But then you already knew that , too, didn’t you?

  238. Roger Carr says:

    Graeme Rodaughan (17:29:36) Fear is contagious.
    If that line alone were all you had ever written, Graeme, you would win both my admiration and respect… and if it chances not to be your own original, then you have my thanks for bringing it to my notice. The fit, here, is seamless.

    David Ball (20:19:56) :: My view is that for you to defend your father in this thread to this fairytale named Danny is demeaning. Your father stands head and shoulders above this dilettante, who should not be seriously addressed at any level.

  239. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Hi Roger C,

    Thanks very much for the kind praise. I doubt that “Fear is contagious” is in fact original – I thought that it was a well known concept.

    Cheers G

  240. Roger Carr says:

    Graeme Rodaughan (21:56:37) :: May I drop back a pace here, Graeme? When I first read your Fear is contagious line my mind was a’seethe with several conflicting emotions relating to AGW (tin) trumpets and your words leapt out at me with a freshness and, I realize now, and added dimensions which are not actually spelled out there.
    Yes; I have heard the phrase before, but my mindset of that moment gave them an additional clarity. I still owe you, and add that, had it been two lines, it could have been said that I was reading between them…

  241. kim says:

    Roger and Graeme, with any luck this fever of AGW will give us antibodies to the next ‘madness of crowds’.
    ==============================

  242. Roger Carr says:

    kim (23:32:32) : : Wal… I’ll hope, too; but we have already done Piltdown Man and O for a Hole to mention just two of many without developing any immunity.
    I worry that we just like being scared stupid, or given a banner to march beneath, too much to quit.
    I do not think we are inherantly stupid… just bored (when the livin’ is easy).
    Now a sharp cold spell…

  243. Danny Bloom says:

    To David Ball, above:

    Again, David, please hear me: you have my sympathies for whatever mischief some people might have sent your way, but please understand me, I had never heard of your father or his work before — I am not well read in the literature — and I have no connection to DeSmogBlog other than that I know how to CAP it initials. I am literate, yes, sort of, but I am not well read. So please understand, David, I never heard of you or your father before. I would like now to read his research and see what this is all about. Again, I am not a member of any ilk. I don’t understand the venom here. I don’t have any toward anyone. Like I have said from the beginning, I have an open mind and I like all people. I am not left or right, blue state or red state. I live on a small island in the western Pacific and have not set foot in the Western world for since 1991, and even then I was in Alaska for 12 years, and that is hardly the Western world either.

    Again, David, you have my sympathies. Really..

    That said, a blogger in California today writes a post titled

    “Hansen Faces Hatred and Death Threats”

    and he says:

    “I interviewed author Mark Bowen a year ago about James Hansen, the world-famous climatologist, with whom Bowen wrote the book Censoring Science. Somehow the discussion went to the intensity of reaction against Hansen from those who refuse to accept the reality of global warming.

    Bowen mentioned that Hansen had gotten some death threats. He said Hansen considered the threats too flaky to be very worrying.

    I didn’t pursue the topic far,, but today I was reminded of Bowen’s remark by a long thread of web comments notable for the disgust and hatred directed against Hansen…

    Climate activist …Danny Bloom has, according to the popular site Watts Up With That, filed a suit against national governments seeking $1 billion in damages from “all world leaders for intent to commit manslaughter against future generations of human beings.”

    Filing such a suit was a misguided idea on Bloom’s part, in my view, for the same reason that pursuing impeachment against Bush and Cheney would have been a misguided strategy for Democrats to pursue.

    Better to elect Barack Obama president. And better to back ways and means of conserving energy and increasing societal resilience, to protect us against the harms of global warming — and other threats.

    Nonetheless, the rawness and the viciousness of the hatred on the WattsUpWithThat thread can be quite shocking. Particularly since Hansen has absolutely nothing to do with this lawsuit Bloom has been talking up.

    One has to wonder if this deeply thoughtful, thoroughly decent man, Dr Hansen, really is at risk and should take precautions, in the same way that others in the public sphere have to guard against fanatics.

    Here’s an example from the thread:

    Someone with userid Brooklyn Red Leg (03:16:48) : said

    “If I believed in Divine Retribution, I would think Dr. Hansen’s plane would go down in a remote, frosty part of the world and his supporters on the trip would be forced to eat him to stay alive. Same with the other Blood Sucking Vampires and assorted Vultures that prey on us.”

    Troubling, [says the blogger in his final word]. See LINK below

    LINK:
    http://www.achangeinthewind.com/2008/11/death-threats-against-james-hansen.html

  244. hunter says:

    Graeme Rodaughan,
    I have said for years, including a radio interview with the BBC, that AGW is a social movement, not a climate science.
    I believe there is a pattern in societies and cultures that demands a apocalyptic resolution of internal stresses.
    The lucky thing with Christianity is that the apocalypse is generally so nebulous and subject to reinterpretation that little damage has been done in recent history.
    AGW, which I call Apocalyptic Global Warming, is not amenable to reinterpretation.
    The skeptics are not real skeptics- they are deniers or ‘psuedo-skeptics’.
    They deserve to be punished for their lack of faith, according to the AGW leadership.
    AGW at its heart is a very dark and anti-human movement. We are right to resist it.

  245. kim says:

    Danny, the venom is at least partly because self-admitted but earnest ignoramusus like you are stampeding the herd into self-destruction. The paradigm that CO2=AGW is simply wrong and damaging and dangerous policies that depend upon it are still being rushed into force. People, many people, are being hurt by this ‘madness of the crowd’, and those of us who don’t want to be trampled by you and your kind object. Also, despite your passivity here, I’ve heard plenty of like venom from you and yours on DotEarth. They are still maundering on over there; Revkin could use a 2X4 upside the head; reason and facts don’t seem to be impacting him.

    Frankly, the coming cooling and the coming economic dislocation are going to generate a re-examination of your precious paradigm. It’s too bad that truth can’t be demonstrated except by hard times.
    ===============================================

  246. kim says:

    Heh, I should have said ‘you and your kine’.
    ===========================

  247. John M says:

    Danny Bloom (05:25:50) :

    Interesting site you link to.

    Here’s how politicians are treated there.

    Hansen’s problem is that he has chosen to enter the political realm. He’s done more than just grant a few media interviews and appear on a few talk shows. He’s become a political activist, voluntarily flying to Europe to defend vandalism and openly supporting one political party over the other. It’s a little too late to start saying “oh poor little scientist me, look at all the mean things people are saying about me”.

    This is not to defend such behavior, but you might as well go to all the politcial blogs and whine about how your favorite politcian is being treated.

    BTW, how’s that Reuters expose coming?

    It’s been several days since your self-promoting PR release, and in fact, that’s the only hit I get when I search “Danny Bloom” in Google News.

    Even more curious:

    About the author: Dan Bloom is a RushPRnews political and environmental news columnist/reporter and a freelance writer from Boston, who has been based in Asia since 1991. He graduated from Tufts University in 1971 and has worked in media, public relations and education in several countries. He is currently doing research on climate change and global warming as the founder of the Polar Cities Research Institute. Write him at danbloom@RushPRnews.com

    Did you write your own press release under a different by-line and did you wish yourself “godspeed”?

  248. kim says:

    John M. (06:44:47)

    James Hansen is going to one of the great hubritic figures of our era. People forget that the road to Heaven is also paved with good intentions, and I truly believe that Hansen started out with good intentions. I believe he still has good intentions. Unfortunately, the path of honest science diverted from his, and he’s been leading us all to Hell, lately.
    ===========================================

  249. John Laidlaw says:

    Just in the spirit of completeness:

    Danny Bloom – SourceWatch

  250. Jeff Alberts says:

    Actually, Kim, I think the saying goes “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Not that there’s a heaven or a hell, but the point is that you can mean to do good things and totally screw them up.

  251. Smokey says:

    Thanks to John Laidlaw and others for the Bloom links above, which state:

    “Bloom isn’t a scientist or any other kind of expert,” according to IPS News.

    After watching the rude, condescending and self-serving Bloom preening at all the attention for a quarter of a kilopost here, it is crystal clear that Danny is first and foremost a publicity hound. Answers don’t matter, logic doesn’t matter, only the self-promoting limelight matters.

    So I’m going to ignore him. Maybe he’ll go away. There are much more interesting threads anyway than this ego showcase for Danny Bloom.

  252. Jerry Alexander says:

    TO ALL!

    Threats, vulgar statements and daming criteria have no place in the discussions on climate/weather changes. Scientific facts should be the main thrust in climate change debates.

    Having stated the above, where are the instruments that actually record GW. Every study I’ve read, with any merit, have all resulted in assumptions, estimates and man-made adjustments. All these lead to the conclusion that scientific facts can be manipulated to suit the debaters.

    Dr. James Hansen, by the way, is not a climatologist, he was trained as an astronomer, which brings his expertise into question in leading GISS.

  253. kim says:

    Jeff (08:40:36)

    Yes, you get my point. I’ve little doubt that Hansen once thought he was saving the world. Now, I’m not sure what he is doing except trying to save himself.
    =========================================

  254. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Roger Carr and Hunter.

    Agreed.

    Cheers G

  255. Ron de Haan says:

    More litigious lunacy:
    Now a group plans suit against Bush Administration for Ignoring Global Warming threat to coral habitat.
    What threat?

    http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2008/corals-11-25-2008.html

  256. Smokey says:

    Ron de Haan:

    Now a group plans suit against Bush Administration for Ignoring Global Warming threat to coral habitat.

    What threat?

    The threats to coral can be found here.

    But the evil George W. Bush deliberately ignores the threat!

    Of course, the fact that it’s a completely bogus threat which has been disproven means nothing. Pay no attention to that particular aspect of this case. And it is difficult to buy into the proposition that a fraction of one degree temperature change has any effect on coral — or anything else.

    From the article linked by Ron above:

    rising temperatures are driving corals extinct,” said Miyoko Sakashita, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity.

    Coral globaloney aside, if I were the opposing counsel, I would have a hard time keeping a straight face when addressing the sadly named Mr/Ms Sakashita.

  257. Ron de Haan says:

    Graeme Rodaughan (17:29:36) :

    “@Ron de Haan (15:46:33) :

    I read the link to climateprogress.org – best described as “people in love with fear”.

    A lot of the posters seem to be expecting irreversible catastrophy within the next 5 years or so.

    Fear is contagious.”

    Graeme Rodaughan,

    Fear plays an imminent role in the AGW hoax.
    But Mr. Romm is not driven by fear, he initiates fear.

    Read this story published today at ICECAP.US:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Romm is Burning

    By Chris Horner on Planet Gore

    My colleague William informs me that Joe Romm has squealed like a stuck pig about my calling him out for his most recent tantrum – over a Politico reporter daring to write about climate science as if a debate exists. His immediate concern – before trailing off into a stream of reflexive ad hominem – is that I describe him as an “aspiring Obama administration thug” in the course of deriding his ritual name-calling. Apparently in Romm’s world, describing someone as wanting to work for the Obama administration is “libel.”

    Oooh. Let’s leave that little spat for the comrades to sort out. I assure you, my intention was not to claim that Romm could make it through the vetting questionnaire about embarrassing statements or actions. I was suggesting that those who follow climate issues watch him in the next few months – as the alarmism that Team Obama forgot about during the campaign comes roaring down the pike as they try to get a global-warming regime in place – and decide for yourself whether it serves the interests of the Obama administration’s effort.

    But consider Romm’s rant. Remember: His complaint about the Politico item consisted of sniveling dependence on the accusation “denier”; he resorted to calling the reporter a “pimp” for skeptics, guilty of professional “malpractice,” “amateurish,” and “a pseudo-serious new media journalist.” He likewise goes ad hom on meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, whom he also accuses of “mak[ing] stuff up,” and otherwise takes out personally after anyone who disagrees with him – including a center-left political publication that failed to toe his line . . . then he demands an apology from me as being “beyond the pale” – twice.

    He disparages meteorologists as unqualified to speak to the issue of climate change (selectively, of course), though he has a long history of saying that about anyone who disagrees with his prophesying, including mere physicists like Freeman Dyson and particularly economists and engineers ["For instance, since when have economists, who are pervasive on this list, become scientists, and why should we care what they think about climate science?"]. Mere economists and engineers – like IPCC “chief climate scientist” Rajendra Pachauri. Sheesh. The guy’s not even a meteorologist.

    Other than that, he’s thoroughly measured and adult about it all – and then whines that he’s been libeled and demands apologies. At least some people were rational, anyway.

    All of this venom, by the way, is directed at those who dare to dismiss the notion of “consensus” – and comes from a man who has written, in a calmer moment, “I do think the scientific community, the progressive community, environmentalists and media are making a serious mistake by using the word ‘consensus’ “ to describe the state of climate science. Well, the holidays tend to bring a particular segment of the population down.

    As Romm clearly is a Planet Gore reader, let me state here the nuance that escaped him: I of course did think about, and appreciated the humor of, calling him a thug for his name-calling and other full-throated unhingedness. My thinking is that he long ago sacrificed any immunity from being called what he demonstrably is: someone dedicated to shouting down, seeking to smear, demean, or otherwise intimidate dissenters. He merely proved that today – which, amusingly, seems to have eluded him in his froth. I note that thuggishness is his one move, as opposed to simply calling him corrupt or incompetent – as he reminds us again today is his preferred style. We’ll leave him to that, and good luck with it. Mr. Soros doesn’t seem to mind.

    Remember, dear PG readers, Romm is the fellow who embarrassed himself publicly when claiming that the Minneapolis bridge collapse of 2007 was due to global warming. So he does have a habit of shooting from the lip. I’m told by the subject of one of his complaints that Romm has gone to the Department of Energy and voiced concern about a particular scientist there expressing climate skepticism. Search Roger Pielke Jr.’s site for a sober and otherwise serious discourse on some of Romm’s public stunts. His overreaches are a gift of some magnitude to our team, helping to discredit his own movement and – I would venture to guess – a key reason that people like Pielke Jr. have turned away from them. Keep up the good work, Romm. And stay classy.

  258. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Is having the name “Sakashita” an Ad-Hom?

    The more law suits the better… Get this out in the open.

  259. Danny Bloom says:

    John M, above, wrote:

    “BTW, how’s that Reuters expose coming?”

    It’s been several days since your self-promoting PR release…..”

    JOHN,
    The Reuters story is being edited and is due out around Dec. 1, when the Poland climate talks begin. That’s what I’ve been told, although the editors at Reuters are figuring out what to do with the story. Stay tuned, sir.

    BTW, that was NOT a self-promoting PR release you apparently read online somwhere. That was the DeSmogBlog article by DeSmogblog blogger Mitchell Anderson, published first on DeSmogBlog and that is HIS real name. The author ID you read at the bottom of that link you linked to was an editor’s mistake. That article was written by Mr Mitchell. Compare the two and you will see. Jeez, talk about shoot first and ask questions later! Now I am beginning to understand why there is so much venom and confusion, not only here, with some posters, but everywhere on the Blogosphere. People don’t read anymore. People just aim, shoot and ask questions later. That is NOT the proper way to have a discussion. John, better to ask questions first, and then if you don’t like my answers, okay, shoot me! But ask first…..

    To repeat: that so called PR release was NOT a PR release, it was a blog post from DeSmogBlog. Mr Anderson wrote the article, and a very good one, I thought.

  260. Danny Bloom says:

    John, above, FYI, re the Reuters “expose” — not an expose, a balanced report, both pro and con, about all this. It is not a press release, it will be a reporter’s balanced article, giving both sides of the story, both pro and con. That’s how news operations work.

    The Reuters reporter that I am in touch with told me a few days ago:

    “Hi Danny,

    I’m discussing this with my editors and will be in touch ASAP.
    However, I will probably need to speak with your lawyer about the lawsuit if I can go to press….”

  261. kim says:

    Kids, kids, kids. Joe Romm is a paid propagandist. Go source his funding. Also, he banned me from his blog.
    ====================================

  262. Smokey says:

    Bloom sez:

    To repeat: that so called PR release was NOT a PR release, it was a blog post from DeSmogBlog.

    In other words, the post was a big step below a press release.

    Nice try, junior.

  263. Danny Bloom says:

    Kim, above, noted:

    “Joe Romm is a paid propagandist. Go source his funding. Also, he banned me from his blog.”

    Really? Romm is a paid propagandist? I wish someone would pay me to propagandize. I have to pay my own way, as things stand now. But I was banned by Markos’s DAILY KOS blog, so maybe I can get some funding now?

    — Danny

  264. John M says:

    Danny Bloom (20:18:24) :

    You said:

    BTW, that was NOT a self-promoting PR release you apparently read online somwhere.

    Well, people can judge for themselves whether one might think this is a press release. The fact that it has a large heading saying “RushPRnews” may confuse some folks, I suppose.

    With regard to self-promoting, they can also go to any climate blog and see the landscape littered with comments from Danny Bloom along the lines of “Hey everyone, I’m suing everyone in sight! Wait’ll ya’ see it!”

    And as far as asking questions (and reading carefully), re-read the last sentence in my comment at John M (06:44:47) .

  265. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    @ Ron de Haan (18:00:11) :

    First frighten people – then control them. The strategy is that simple and it has worked countless times in the past, and will no doubt work again.

  266. Danny Bloom says:

    John M (04:59:13) : noted, above:

    [ Danny Bloom
    You said:
    "BTW, that was NOT a self-promoting PR release you apparently read online somwhere. "

    Well, people can judge for themselves whether one might think this is a press release. The fact that it has a large heading saying “RushPRnews” may confuse some folks, I suppose. ]

    John,
    To clarify. The RushPrNews site you link to picked up the original story that was a blog post by Mitchell Anderson at DeSmogBlog. That was NOT a PR release. I think I know what you mean, and why you are confused about these terms. I hope you know what I mean now.

    As for publicity stunt, you might want to think of this lawsuit rather as a “publicity action” or a “publicity gesture” or a “publicity outreach”. I am not selling anything. I am not hawking any product. I know that you, John, care about the Earth and the future of humans beings on it, and so do I. That we differ on strategies to try to help out is clear. But I consider you my brother nevertheless.

    Cheers

    Danny

  267. Roger Carr says:

    Graeme Rodaughan (18:11:56) : “First frighten people – then control them.”
    There are those seemingly born with a sense of wonder and an insatiable desire to adventure, explore, and discover ~ if only for the reward of personal knowledge and growth…
    …and others seemingly born bitter, with an equally insatiable desire; in this case to destroy, sully and disparage ~ if only for the sake of inflicting distress…
    …and yet others born neither with a sense of wonder nor of bitterness who simply seek notoriety and who will raise any flag of convenience to gain it.

    Then there are the rest of us; just kinda bemused by all of it…

  268. Roger Carr says:

    Danny Bloom (18:55:24) writes: “I am not selling anything. I am not hawking any product.”
    But you are, Danny. You are selling a dangerous distortion which you acknowledge you do not have the scholarship to understand.
    You are hawking a product with a potential for harm with no personal conviction to back it.
    At best you are simply naive.
    At worst, malicious.

  269. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Roger,

    Mr Bloom drops his mask a tad at “Danny Bloom (00:24:35) :” i.e the “pseudoskeptics” comment.

    The mask is that of a cheery, happy, boon companion, hale-fellow well met, who only wants to share information in a open and honest way with fellow travellers who are all motivated by a desire for the betterment of all.

    Unfortunately it’s just a mask to hide the contempt that he actually holds us in – as demonstrated by the referenced post (without caveat).

    I do not detect any naivety in his words, and I’m confident that he is fully aware of his actions.

  270. Roger Carr says:

    Graeme:

    Accepting your opinion, “malicious” is therefore the fitting description.
    I will be relieved to see this thread closed. It offers a too generous platform to this distortion of the vital debate.

  271. Danny Bloom says:

    Roger and Graeme, it is you guys who are malicious. I didn’t write that psuedoskeptic post, I just wanted you to see how others view you. Those were not my words. If I am naive, so be it. One thing for sure, I am NOT malicious. But I will leave that up to others to decide.

    An email today from someone who sees the world a bit differently than you do. He lives in Germany, born in the USA.

    “Dear Danny,
    You are one of my heroes!
    Your lawsuit is speaking for 95% of humanity. Thank you so much for doing this and pushing it all the way home! I announced what you are doing on the http://www.just-stop.org black board at this link:
    http://www.possibilica.org/136.0.html?&L=0

    Clinton”

    PS: Roger and Graeme, no need to close this thread. Unless closing things is your way of censoring things….

  272. TSH says:

    Danny, you’re trying to support your case with fan mail from someone who thinks people in africa, asia and south america aren’t human? I’m gonna have to ask you to tone down that white supremacy vibe.

  273. Roger Carr says:

    Danny Bloom (00:30:52) wrote: “PS: Roger and Graeme, no need to close this thread. Unless closing things is your way of censoring things…”

    Item #1: This is not my blog, Danny, so I have no control, not wish for any control, over it.

    Item #2: Closing this thread would not be censorship. If it were closed I would see it as a husbanding of resources.
    Anthony and the Dreamers give freely of a great deal of time to the exploration of the science involved here.

    p.s. “WordPress” make blog space freely available, so you, Danny, could continue to have full access to the world; and the world would be free to beat a path to your mousetr… um… flagstaff should you choose to fly your own colours in your own breeze.

  274. John M says:

    Danny Bloom (18:55:24) :

    To clarify. The RushPrNews site you link to picked up the original story that was a blog post by Mitchell Anderson at DeSmogBlog.

    Danny, to further clarify, how did the site happen to have “picked up” the story?

    It wouldn’t have anything to do with:

    Dan Bloom is a RushPRnews political and environmental news columnist/reporter

    Would it?

  275. Danny Bloom says:

    Speaking of lawsuits, this news just in. It is not PR. It news report from conservative, rightwing newspaper THE TELEGRAPH in the UK:

    Lawyers call for international court for the environment

    A former chairman of the Bar Council is calling for an international court for the environment to punish states that fail to protect wildlife and prevent climate change.

    By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent, TELEGRAPH, UK
    27 Nov 2008

    Stephen Hockman is proposing a body similar to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to be the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment.

    The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.

    But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the “right to a healthy environment”.

    The innovative idea is being presented to an audience of politicians, scientists and public figures for the first time at a symposium at the British Library.

    Mr Hockman, a deputy High Court judge, said that the threat of climate change means it is more important than ever for the law to protect the environment.

    The UN Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland this month is set to begin negotiations that will lead to a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen next year. Developed countries are expected to commit to cutting emissions drastically, while developing countries agree to halt deforestation.

    Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has agreed the concept of an international court will be taken into account when considering how to make these international agreements on climate change binding. The court is also backed by a number of MPs, climate change experts and public figures including the actress Judi Dench.

    Mr Hockman said an international court will be needed to enforce and regulate any agreement.

    “The time is now ripe to set this up and get it going,” he said. “Its remit will be overall climate change and the need for better regulation of carbon emissions but at the same time the implementation and enforcement of international environmental agreements and instruments.”

    As well as providing resolution between states, the court will also be useful for multinational businesses in ensuring environmental laws are kept to in every country.

    The court would include a convention on the right to a healthy environment and provide a higher body for individuals or non-governmental organisations to protest against an environmental injustice.

    Mr Hockman said the court may be able to fine businesses or states but its main role will be in making “declaratory rulings” that influence and embarrass countries into upholding the law.

    He said: “Of course regulations and sanctions alone cannot deliver a global solution to problems of climate change, but without such components the incentive for individual countries to address those problems – and to achieve solutions that are politically acceptable within their own jurisdictions – will be much reduced.”

    The court would be led by retired judges, climate change experts and public figures. It would include a scientific body to consider evidence and provide access to any data on the environment.

    Most importantly, Mr Hockman said an international court on the environment would influence public opinion which in turn would force Governments to take the environment seriously. He said: “If there are bodies around that can give definitive legal rulings that are accepted as fair and reasonable that has its own impact on public opinion.”

    Friends of the Earth welcomed the idea.

    A spokesman said: “We think any institution that is going to promote and help people enforce their right to a clean and healthy environment is a good thing.”

  276. Danny Bloom says:

    And this, MIGHT be interesting to some of you here, too. MIGHT.

    NEWS from SWEDEN TODAY:

    Hundreds of representatives of the world’s leading religions are in Sweden for a summit on climate change – said to be the first of its kind.

    The two-day conference involves Christians, Muslims, Jews, Chinese Daoists and a native American representative, among others.

    They aim to set a manifesto to encourage far-reaching policy goals from the United Nations.

    They also want to encourage personal commitments from people of faith.

    BBC religious affairs correspondent Christopher Landau, at the meeting convened by the archbishop of Sweden in Uppsala, says the lack of enthusiasm for action on climate change in some religious quarters is being tackled head on by the meeting.

    The Anglican Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, says the religious community must speak out.

    “Here is a major, human emergency.

    “Many of our constituencies regard this still as a peripheral second-order issue – it’s got to be moved up the agenda.”

    REPLY: And Danny, this, MIGHT be interesting to you here, too. MIGHT.

    International poll: ‘Growing public reluctance’ to support global warming efforts

    http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=f0a1687c-decd-4c72-9d0e-7e6dd92d4ebe

    Efforts to support global climate-change falls: PollPeter O’Neil, Europe Correspondent, Canwest News ServicePublished: Thursday, November 27, 2008PARIS – There is both growing public reluctance to make personal sacrifices and a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the major international efforts now underway to battle climate change, according to findings of a poll of 12,000 citizens in 11 countries, including Canada.Results of the poll were released this week in advance of the start of a major international conference in Poland where delegates are considering steps toward a new international climate-change treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.There already are reports emerging that some countries, such as coal-dependent Poland, are pushing for special treatment to avoid making major commitments to slash carbon emissions during a global economic downturn.

  277. kim says:

    Danny, the globe is cooling. Look at the thermometers instead of all this fantasy in your head.
    =====================================

  278. Danny Bloom says:

    Kim and John and Graeme,

    You might be right, The Earth might be cooling. I might be wrong. I completely agree with you that I might be wrong. I often am. Let’s check back in 2015 and again in 2020 and again 2040, and see whether dear Earth got warmer or cooler. Could very well be that Earth grew cooler. I am open to your views. Cheers! And Happy Holidays! — Danny

    Meanwhile, here is the REUTERS story, finally, it has been published today:
    Egg on my face? No, sunscreen on my face. Well, ……Okay, they call it a stunt. But “stunt” could be a positive, wake-up call, alarm bell public awareness action, or it could be seen as a publcity-hound negative action. Let’s see what readers around the world think.

    HEADLINE: (and note the question mark!)

    “Sue world leaders US$1 billion for global warming?”

    By Aaron Gray-Block, [Reuters reporter in Holland]

    Tags: Environment, climate treaty, crimes against humanity, global warming, greenhouse emissions, international criminal court, skeptics, denialists, James Lovelock

    TEXT OF NEWS STORY:

    AMSTERDAM — In a global stunt, a U.S. environmental activist is poised to lodge a US$1 billion damages class action lawsuit at the International Criminal Court (ICC) against all world leaders for failing to prevent global warming.

    Activist and blogger Dan Bloom says he will sue world leaders for “intent to commit manslaughter against future generations of human beings by allowing murderous amounts of fossil fuels to be harvested, burned and sent into the atmosphere as CO2″.

    He intends to lodge the lawsuit in the week starting Sunday, Dec. 6.

    The prosecutor’s office at the ICC, the world’s first permanent court (pictured below right) for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, says it is allowed to receive information on crimes that may fall within the court’s jurisdiction from any source.

    “Such information does not per se trigger a judicial proceeding,” the prosecutor’s office hastened to add.

    The question is: will or should the prosecutor take on the case?

    One might argue in defence that world leaders are in fact trying to impose climate-saving measures. In Vienna last year, almost all rich nations agreed to consider cuts in greenhouse emissions of 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Talks on a new climate treaty will be held in Poznan, Poland, from Dec. 1-12.

    Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N. Climate Panel, says the cuts are needed to limit temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius, an amount seen by the EU, some other nations and many environmentalists as a threshold for “dangerous” climate change.

    Granted then that there is growing consensus that climate change poses a real threat, is it not only world leaders who are failing to prevent global warming?

    Perhaps the global collective of individuals, governments and industry is to blame and the ICC lawsuit a valid publicity stunt in the constant battle to raise awareness and prompt action?

    Because it’s action we need — and now, right?

    [Danny adds: COMMENTS WELCOME at the Reuters website. Google for it. Or see here:]

    http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/11/28/sue-world-leaders-1-billion-for-global-warming/

    Let the global discussion, pro and con, begin!

  279. Danny Bloom says:

    2 comments at Reuters website so far:

    1.
    “From a purely legal point of view, Bloom would have to prove that there is some conceivable and legal course of action (so declaring military law and shooting SUV drivers is out), which could have been taken by these leaders, which if taken would have reduced warming.

    Clearly, nobody can prove such a proposition. The real problem is that the most likely outcome is that he will simply harden the resolve of all those SUV drivers.”

    – Ian Kemmish

    2.
    ” Take it to court. At least that way the science will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the globe HAS NOT WARMED in 10 YEARS, even though carbon emissions have continued to rise! Case dismissed. At least the people aren’t fooled. Thank God for democracy.”

    – Posted by ”totalkaosdave”

  280. Danny Bloom says:

    Comment 3
    “….The question is: will or should the prosecutor take on the case?” ……As the plaintiff for this class-action lawsuit, I do hope the ICC will take the case. I think they should. However, while some readers here might see my lawsuit as futile, it is not pointless. Some will agree with me, others will disagree. Let the worldwide discussion, pro and con, begin. Politely. While some observers might call this a “publicity stunt”, and in many ways it could be seen as such, I prefer to call it a “publicity gesture” or a “publicity outreach”, to say to all world leaders and IPCC conference participants in Poland next month: “Please listen to James Lovelock and James Hansen and Tim Flannery and Fred Pearce and Mark Lynas and Sharon Astyk and James Howard Kunstler now. Before it is too late!”

  281. Roger Carr says:

    Danny Bloom (17:40:36) wrote: “However, while some readers here might see my lawsuit as futile, it is not pointless. Some will agree with me, others will disagree. Let the worldwide discussion, pro and con, begin.”

    You cause me to feel a real despair, Mr Bloom. The worldwide discussion, pro and con began some considerable time ago and has been robust.

    Are you asking the rest of us to wait until you catch up?

    It would be better if you caught up with the rest of us rather than see resources expended on an historical replay just so you can join the vanguard.

  282. Danny Bloom says:

    Roger,
    Story of my life. I am usually way behind the curve. Still, be a sport, and let me try to catch up. I still got a lot of learnin’ to do, I know. We all do. I’ve learned alot already on this blog, and I thank everyone for keeping me posted on things I still need to learn, and really, I have learned a lot here this week. You have widened my horizons on this ongoing discussion and I appreciate the advice and suggestions, even if some of them were a bit snide. That’s okay. Comes with the territory. But most people here have been very supportive and encouraging, and I appreciate that. Cooling, warming, let’s check back in 10 years and see what the stats say. It might all be cooling, yes, and I might have been very wrong. In which case, I will withdraw my lawsuit and apologize. Give me some room to grow. After all, I am a growing boy! Sixty going on 80. Learn something new everyday. If I am wrong about global warming, I will eat my hat. Promise. In 2025.

  283. Jeff Alberts says:

    You might be right, The Earth might be cooling. I might be wrong. I completely agree with you that I might be wrong. I often am. Let’s check back in 2015 and again in 2020 and again 2040, and see whether dear Earth got warmer or cooler. Could very well be that Earth grew cooler. I am open to your views. Cheers! And Happy Holidays! — Danny

    Whether it warms or cools is irrelevant. The question is are we causing it to warm. So just because it warms is not proof that we are causing it, or can stop it. We simply need to learn more about the global climate than we currently do, a lot more. Right now there is zero evidence of a catastrophe going on (at least regarding climate). Which means there is no reason to halt progress and de-industrialze the world.

  284. Roger Carr says:

    Danny Bloom (19:26:00) wrote: “Roger, Story of my life. I am usually way behind the curve. Still, be a sport, and let me try to catch up. I still got a lot of learnin’ to do, I know. We all do.”

    I fully support your “catching up”, Mr Bloom. I am only suggesting you do it in your own time.

  285. Jeff Alberts says:

    “Please listen to James Lovelock and James Hansen and Tim Flannery and Fred Pearce and Mark Lynas and Sharon Astyk and James Howard Kunstler now. Before it is too late!”

    Then you agree that those who disagree with the abovenamed individuals should be jailed? Are you really ready for a totalitarian state? That’s what you’re proposing. We’re proposing better science, transparent data and methods, facts, not hyperbole. Tell Hansen to tell us all how he adjust his data. Tell Mann, Jones, Santer, Briffa, etc to release their data and methods so proper science can be done.

    Oh, and take a valium, BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!

  286. Roger Carr says:

    Danny Bloom (19:26:00) wrote: “Give me some room to grow. After all, I am a growing boy! Sixty going on 80.”

    To be 60 again, Mr Bloom, would make me feel like a youth… but not, I trust, a whining child.

  287. Danny Bloom says:

    I agree 1000000%.

    “We simply need to learn more about the global climate than we currently do, a lot more. Right now there is zero evidence of a catastrophe going on (at least regarding climate). Which means there is no reason to halt progress and de-industrialze the world.”

  288. Danny Bloom says:

    I bid adieu to all my new-found friends here. Let’s meet again in ten years time and compare notes. I might be a skeptic by then. For now, I am just a mere nutcase. I know. Everyone tells me. Sigh. Growing up is hard to do…

    Outta here. My last post. Anthony, thanks for hosting this superb discussion.

  289. JimB says:

    “Hundreds of representatives of the world’s leading religions are in Sweden for a summit on climate change – …”

    Dept. of Redundancy Dept. ?

    JimB

  290. Jeff Alberts says:

    Danny, if you agree with me why the lawsuit? That just makes no sense at all, but then again this whole thread makes no sense at all.

  291. kim says:

    Jeff (22:40:13)

    You’ll see more and more of this Jeff. It’s called cognitive dissonance and it will become epidemic as those who believe in the paradigm of CO2=AGW are confronted with dropping temperatures worldwide. I applaud Danny for at least exposing himself to alternative points of view.

    Danny, maybe you could use some of your energy creating communities of sanity and comfort for those with severe climatic cognitive dissonance. Call the first one ‘DotEarthopolis’.
    ==================

  292. Danny Bloom says:

    Hmmm, good suggestion, Kim, re DOTEARTHOPOLIS. I will tell Andy. What’s nice about this debate, despite the fact that it might be a life or death issue in the far distant future — not NOW, of course, NOW life is wonderfull (sic) — what’s nice about everyone in this debate, pro and con, is that we all, or most of us, have a good sense of humour about it all. Love it: DOTEARTHOPOLIS.

    When I finish with lawsuit, will get right on it. [Over and out.]

  293. Smokey says:

    Danny Bloom (22:02:34) :

    I bid adieu to all my new-found friends here.

    If only, if only…

    And:

    As the plaintiff for this class-action lawsuit…

    It is very likely that Danny Bloom is fibbing outright about a lawsuit, and has been all along.

    What law firm would take a case that requires them to prove intent for a future act?

    And any lawyer worthy of the name would have two words of advice for Bloom regarding his endless discussion of the case here and elsewhere: “Shut …UP!!

    So there is no lawsuit. Bloom is making it all up, so he can bask in the publicity.

    Prove me wrong, Bloom. Post the name and address of your law firm right here, along with the case number and the court it was filed in. Lawsuits are a matter of public record, so simply acknowledging that one has been filed is no problem.

    Ball’s in your court, Danny boy. This is where we see if you have credibility — or if you’re just a publicity hound.

  294. wattsupwiththat says:

    Comments are closed for this article.

Comments are closed.