More of this “climate justice” rubbish, now “legitimized” by a publication in a leading science journal
From the Hockey Schtick:
The journal Nature suggests billions of people could be sued for legal breach of duty to care for the climate
This just in: the June 2011 edition of the journal Nature Climate Change entertains the wonderful notion that billions of people worldwide could be sued for “legal breach of their duty of care to the climate” by individually exceeding the worldwide average carbon dioxide footprint.
The apparently frustrated journal laments that “only if a case came to be judged on its merits [pity the thought], would the ‘science’ of climate change be called upon to help make the case: even then, there are difficulties.”
Definitely not Grandma, but how about the biggest hypocrite of all, Al Gore?
Story at the Hockey Schtick
h/t to reader “kwik”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What a great suggestion Nature. You can start by pointing the lawsuit finger at all the jet-setting climate “scientists” and their hollywood elite spokesmen. These not to be outdone by the politicians themselves, the jet-setting green organizations, or the very leaders of the green movement themselves for pointing the finger so strongly at the U.S. while ignoring China and India for making far worse contributions to pollution in the present and future. If you’re going to hold people to a standard of care, might as well look in a mirror.
A few years ago this would be ridiculous. But we have all seen how the Judiciary have moved away from individual rights in favor of ill-defined group rights.
This is an excellent idea; as long as first in the dock are jet-setting warmists who preach “do as I say” rather that “do as I do”.
The Lunatics Have Taken Over the Asylum!
These people are mad.
“This just in: the June 2011 edition of the journal Nature Climate Change entertains the wonderful notion that billions of people worldwide could be sued for legal breach of their duty of care to the climate by individually exceeding the worldwide average carbon dioxide footprint.”
Folks – I’ve been saying this from day one. THIS IS THE END GAME FOR CLIMATE “SCIENCE” – the central control of our daily lives and the destruction of our freedoms. And it’s happening now. The only recourse we ordinary citizens have is to defeat these people politically before they have a chance to destroy our society.
My solution for the CAGW lobby no longer involves wasting time in the Courts!
Sheer lunacy. The sooner this “global warming” insanity is put to rest, the better.
thanks for the lulz 🙂 That is why it is illegal for non-qualified lawyers to give “legal advice” in any country I know of 🙂 haha..
“legitimized” by a publication in a leading science journal?? You have quite the sense of humor. The journal Nature has NEVER been a leading science journal. Nature Climate Change demonstrates this even more clearly.
I can foresee an increasing carbon footprint for trial lawyers, as they use their profit from this loony lawsuit idea to buy many yachts and private jets. ;->
The second amendment to the US Constitution is exactly why these bozos should think twice before trying to collect on any punitive or civil damages. Better yet, let’s countersue and let them pay for denying the biosphere that life-giving carbon dioxide they’re so quick to denigrate.
Abject fools! I will avoid Nature entirely from now on.
Comment left at Hockey Schtick page, repeated here for good measure: The Nature article author David Adam in the piece is the very same author of another Nature article in which he regurgitated a 15-year old talking point about “‘balance’ in the media gives too much coverage to the small minority of climate-change sceptics”. The problems with that were detailed in this article, “‘Media Too Fair to Climate Skeptics’, say reporters who’ve been unfair to skeptics” http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/06/02/media-too-fair-to-climate-skeptics-say-reporters-whove-been-unfair-to-skeptics/
Global warming lawsuits themselves are awash in the same set of old anti-skeptic scientist talking points, as was shown in this article: “Global Warming Nuisance Lawsuits Are Based on a Fatal Flaw” http://biggovernment.com/rcook/2010/11/27/global-warming-nuisance-lawsuits-are-based-on-a-fatal-flaw/
There’s a good possibility that Nature magazine has a bit of explaining to do about their anti-skeptic climate scientist stance……
These people are really off the rails. I suppose this would include being sued for giving birth (production of yet another carbon spewing human being). Eventually some enterprising individual is going to make a fortune selling butterfly nets and straight jackets.
I’m going camping for a week, does that count? Probably not with all the wood I’ll be burning. We need to stop the modern living, and live without the fire too. So it’s back to raw bugs and grass, folks!
This is a must see for all here. This has got to be major for the AGWs
A very influential ex-hippie colummnist turns completely against warmistas. I tend tio agree with his nuclear stance as well oddly enough I used to support it but building these things beside major faults is really really stupid
Rubbish is right! The Idiot Left appears to be pulling all the stops in their march to wherever the hell they think they are going (heh, maybe it IS hell!). I’m all for it, as I believe it will hasten their demise.
I think its very reasonable. The principle should be applied more widely. It is clear that anyone earning much less or more than the average income is deviant. There are, so I gather, people who have distressingly large collections of books, but who do not go on holidays to the usual destinations. This must be grounds for if not action, at least enquiry, to make sure they are feeling quite well. Alcohol is another difficult area, there are people drinking both more and less than the average, and sometimes indeed they do both in the same calendar period. This is most disturbing, though some recent research into the concept of the average has suggested that they may be average in their variability, so that would help a bit.
It is surprisingly difficult to tie this down, as the above example shows. Do we want everyone to be average all of the time, or just average in their fluctuations? The concept of normality also comes into it here, is the average something we should aspire to, or something everyone should be legally targeted to achieve? We think the latter. It is not enough to have people aspiring to be average, they must actually BE average, otherwise our nation will be the poorer.
On average, than its international competitors….
Rick says:
“I’m going camping for a week, does that count? Probably not with all the wood I’ll be burning. We need to stop the modern living, and live without the fire too. So it’s back to raw bugs and grass, folks!”
Don’t forget to take a copy of the journal Nature Climate Change. Every latrine needs one.
Perhaps we should all file individual suits against this dumb rag for libel. I figure the cost of defending several million libel suits in the US would take some sales out of their wind so to speak.
time to run the clip of Fonzie jumping the shark again.
Nature is no longer a “a leading science journal”, it has become agitprop.
Definition of AGITPROP
: propaganda; especially : political propaganda promulgated chiefly in literature, drama, music, or art
It is no longer a publication to take seriously as it obviously now exists to further an agenda rather than to objectively examine the nature of things. It is no longer science.
Funny that no-one has yet mentioned “burden of proof”. Those who bring the action must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. I believe this applies to civil as well as criminal cases.
So, if this is merely a scare tactic, it will fade away, and if not, some interesting things should come to light.
Yeah? Just try and collect…
Nature is like The Times of London, the more you know it the less you respect it.