Litigious Lunacy

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

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

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.

I’m a Canadian and I resemble that.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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….

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?
======================================

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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

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.

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.”

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

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

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.

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.

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?)

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

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?

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.

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” ?

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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…

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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….

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.

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.

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….”

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.

@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?

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

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

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

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).

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.

Danny Bloom (01:17:29) “NOT about money”
I actually did roll on the floor laughing my arse off.

@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?

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.

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

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

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….

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!

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

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.”

“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.

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)

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!

“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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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….

”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/

Nick makes an excellent point.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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