Nature to world’s people: stop your modern living

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”

125 thoughts on “Nature to world’s people: stop your modern living

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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”.

  4. “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.

  5. Sheer lunacy. The sooner this “global warming” insanity is put to rest, the better.

  6. 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..

  7. “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.

  8. 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. ;->

  9. 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.

  10. 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……

  11. 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.

  12. 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!

  13. 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

  14. 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.

  15. 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….

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. Be careful what you wish for. Because while AGW (or CAGW or any of the other alphabet soup disasters) is a popular notion, it is not proveable, even in a court of law. By taking it to court, they could very well be shown to be a hoax, and then what?

    When you have to resort to lawsuits to get your way, you are admitting there is plenty of room for doubt.

  21. give ‘em a taste of their own medicine. sue the greenies for starving hundreds of thousands of people through artificially raised grain costs worldwide, for the destruction of natural landscapes by unsightly, creepy wind farms, and for artificially raising energy costs and causing harm to struggling families all over the world.

  22. Come off it, those people are clearly wack-jobs and we really shouldn’t be giving them the oxygen of publicity by even debating their power tripping, vindictive nuttiness.

  23. Fear not. There are a number of trends converging – geopolitical, economic, cultural, natural – which will throw us into another Age of Migrations. Population, already in a mathematically guaranteed death spiral (e.g. based on the current fecundity curve) will plummet even more rapidly. Man will lose ground to nature, all the settlement and development of the past 1000 years will be reversed. The wild beasts will terrorize the remnant. “Gaia” (whatever that means) will be “happy,” right?

  24. I look forward to being named a defendant in one of the lawsuits. I look forward to taking the deposition of the plaintiffs’ experts. In reality there will be no lawsuits; only puffing in magazines like Nature. The warmists will not want to have their case cross examined. They will huff and puff, but as Michael Crichton pointed out, they will not want to have to prove their case. It just won’t happen.

  25. If I understand, an article in >em>Nature argues that we should sue (i.e., extract money) from anyone who produces more than the “average” CO2 per person output. Don’t those bozos realize that unless everyone uses exactly the average (which is practically impossible) and if the “individual CO2 output” is symmetrical about the “mean CO2 output” that half the people are subject to a lawsuit by the other half. What nonsense. What are these people smoking?

  26. “billions … could be sued for “legal breach of their duty of care to the climate” by individually exceeding the worldwide average carbon dioxide footprint.”

    Dreaming of a future where no one is ‘above average’.
    I am calling on those who have fallen behind to get their game on and catch up with the rest of us!

  27. 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.

    (emphasis mine)

    Someone will always exceed average, by definition.

    If they used median instead of arithmetic average, they could even arrive at quite good estimate for the number of offenders. But I guess those guys have a pretty vague idea what ‘average’ means.

  28. Thank GOD – for a moment there I thought they meant me. You know, me and the wife out here working the oil sands, two Harley Davidsons in the garage, (the wife has her own bike), an SUV in at my front door, a gas lawn mower, gas pressure washer, gas snow blower, and we drive our bikes and ride our SUV just for the joy of being alive. A great sound system, a big screen TV (two actually) with all the modern appliances my wife and myself can afford. Out there at the 18 oil sands plants the largest gas and diesel machines on planet earth – down the road a couple hours south is farm and cattle country. Yep – for a nasty moment I was sure they meant folks like me.

    But on second thought who or what would power their homes? Their businesses to write Nature nonsense? Tree huggers? Eco freaks? Who would provide the fuel to stock their grocery shelves, fuel the entire transportation sector, power the electrical grids, feed those pesky critters? And all the other privileges those of us in fly over country (mining, logging, farming, oil, gas, etc., etc.,) do otherwise every modern city on planet earth would collapse on itself.

    Wonder who do they mean besides Grandma?

  29. Well, I can see how this is going to play out. It’s such an obvious solution I’m amazed no one has thought of it before. They take an average, and everyone emitting CO2 over the average gets fined.

    End result?

    Well, it will take a while because some people are stubborn, but eventually, everyone will be emitting less CO2 than the average person.

    TA DA!

    See how easy that was?

    w.

  30. Ah excellent idea. Lets have the Nature staff and publishing company demonstrate to the rest of us how to do it. They should all discard the trappings of modern life and live the way they state people should live. After all if it really is such a good idea let them demonstrate it to the rest of us.

  31. “Nature to world’s people: stop your modern living”

    World to ‘Nature’ staff and management: Stop your post modern alarmism , unsupported by reproducible science. Stop publishing your political brand of eco-rubbish. It’s polluting the planet and is a profound waste of our finite electron supply!

    Paul Irwin says:
    June 10, 2011 at 10:29 am
    “give ‘em a taste of their own medicine. sue the greenies…”

    I’m with you on this, Paul. Can a class action lawsuit be brought against these companies and even government agencies (Nature, GreenPeace, SierraClub, EPA, etc) that support and create regulations so very harmful to the already impoverished citizens of the planet?

  32. How about instead of fining me for going over a CO2 limit, I promise to not exercise and breathe really really slowly everyday.

  33. Billions will be sued? By whom? Isn’t that like the world suing itself? Who gets the money? My guess is that Nature’s subscriptions are tanking, and they put this sensational drivel in to boost them.

    What would really get peoples’ attention and boost Nature’s sales considerably would be to begin writing stories that tell the truth about so called “climate change.” Can’t you just imagine an article with the heading, “Scientists Admit No Factual Basis Exists for Anthropogenic Global Warming.” I guarantee it would sell more than their usual alarmist shtick.

  34. What a kick in the teeth for people trying to do honest science…..
    …that have been published in this rag

  35. There is one completely simple and totally achievable solution to this nonsense, and to all the other predations perpetrated by the teeming hoards of trial lawyers as well (which add an estimated 35% “litigation tax” to every activity of human life in the USA). It is so simple that it can be in two small words “Loser Pays”.

  36. Nature would put the Kangaroo in the court system.
    Nature is talking about mass punishment, something that is not allowed in our legal system. Since there is no way to individually collect the evidence against each individual of the billions to be sued, arrest or deliver the summons there is also no way to bring them individually into court other than to try the imagined guilty group in their individual absence. Perhaps they would model that part of their solution. The kangaroo comes to mind as a symbol of that legal system. Naturally such a punishment would have to be done under a world court that recognizes no national sovereignty, borders or restrictions.

    They would impose mass punishment on billions of people for something that does not exist except in the twisted minds of the incredibly ambitious.

  37. Let them win. Let them attempt to collect. In the UK our street lights will soon serve another purpose. I think I know why they call themselves greens.

  38. OT
    UN’s Environment Program is an Administrative Mess, Internal Study Reveals
    “EXCLUSIVE: The United Nations Environment Program, the flagship for environmental consciousness and creation of a new era of “global environmental governance,” doesn’t know how its money is spent or even who it may be dealing with when it comes to hundreds of corporate, public and non-governmental partners that are “key” to fulfilling its mission, according to a confidential internal study obtained by Fox News. ”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/06/10/un-internal-study-reveals-its-environment-program-is-administrative-mess/#ixzz1OtwojUR7

  39. Now how long will it take to put billions of cases through the courts? Someone has no concept of numbers.

  40. Let Nature set the standard.
    Nature should pull their website and reduce the CO2 load on the environment caused by the server requirements they demand. Show us the way, Nature.

  41. Isn’t this the point of smart meters, taxes on how many miles you drive, and all that other O’bama mess……..

  42. Willis Eschenbach says:
    June 10, 2011 at 10:54 am

    Well, it will take a while because some people are stubborn, but eventually, everyone will be emitting less CO2 than the average person.

    Actually, the eventual result of this as the top half (those above the average) lower their carbon footprint, consequently lowering the average and going though this cycle enough times, is that we all end up being forced to emit pretty close to NO CO2 at all. That’s how this all works out in the end. Shows how very little they know.

  43. I’m thinking of bringing a suit against the Sierra Club (have you seen their offices) and NRDC (their carbon spillage stains the tarmac). Anyone with a young granddaughter who needs counsel, let me know.

  44. Wasn’t the revolution in Kampuchea lead by young Khmer Rouge? They wanted to cleanse their people of the “wrong evil sort”.

  45. Maybe, just maybe, they’re considering a mechanism whereby those with the greatest carbon footprint can exchange it to those with the least carbon footprint–for a small exchange fee payable to the lawyers and Nature, of course. This way, everybody’s made fair and equitable in the system; everybody’s just as happy as they were before (those paying have the cash so they certainly won’t miss it and it will do WONDERS for their ego and conscience); and Gaia won’t see any harm (or difference, for that matter). By Jove, I think I should get a royalty or at least a finder’s fee for such a brilliant idea! Oh, wait… I vaguely remember hearing about something like this before…

  46. Hope the finger pointers are prepared to have their own personal lives examined under a microscope.

  47. “Definitely not Grandma, but how about the biggest hypocrite of all, Al Gore?”

    Hey, what about tank girl? You know, the one that got his limo stuck in England.

  48. I’m not a lawyer but assume they would have to have a case that shows fully their methodology in determining the so-called causes of climate change.

  49. Well, It a safe bet that the journal Nature exceeds that average, so here’s an idea: skeptics should try to bring the very lawsuit they wish for – against the journal Nature. See how they like it then.

  50. That young lady in the picture has a vary healthy carbon footprint.
    To think I’ve been coming to WUWT to read the articles ;)

  51. Willis Eschenbach says:
    June 10, 2011 at 10:54 am

    Well, it will take a while because some people are stubborn, but eventually, everyone will be emitting less CO2 than the average person.

    We are all equal in the grave. At that point my foot print will be nil.

  52. Bring it on. I think the discovery portion of the lawsuit process would be very interesting. Maybe the warmists would finally have to reveal the data they have been desperately trying to hide from FOIA requests.

  53. This stupidity reminds me of the film “The Man Who Sued God”, starring Billy Connolly. He played a fisherman who lost his boat in a storm and when he tried to claim on his insurance policy the insurers refused to pay because it was “an act of God”. He therefore tried to sue God via the Church for the loss of his boat.
    My thoughts on this are as follows; “duty of care to the climate” implies that the “climate” is the same as an employee/patient/colleague/customer. These individuals can sue whoever causes them harm but the climate cannot since it is not a human being with rights in international law. In fact the humans living on Earth have the right not to have their standards of living constrained by the necessary downturn in the prosperity of their respective countries, by uneconomic energy production. If the warmists then say that Co2 produced now will affect the lives of future generations, then we need witness statements from these future generations.
    The whole thing is as nonsensical as man made global warming and if this is the latest weapon in the armoury of the warmist cause, to be frank it is pathetic.

  54. It must be hard being an all out CAGW proponent. It must be hard knowing whether to hope for the full manifestation of CAGW and all the trouble it may bring, or to hope that it doesn’t happen at the expense of “unsettled” science!

  55. @Adalberto

    Huh? It’s the greenest form of power. A fifteen mile radius semi-circle around Fukashima is going to revert to nature with none of those pesky humans paving and building over the environment. Nature loves a good nuclear disaster. I just hope the greenie wiennies don’t figure that one out.

  56. Should the editors/chiefs of the Nature publication have a real urge for this, they have the place to do so.

    Southeastern New Mexico, “Mescolero Sands” area, best chance for water over the summer is “railroad mountain” a narrow uplift that traps water on its north side. Easy to find about 2/3rds of the way going west out of Clovis toward Roswall on Highway 70 if memory serves.

    Little hot in the summer, but if you dig down in the wet sand in the spring and hollow out a large enough space like my great,great, great, great, great grandad for his wife and kids did you can stay a bit cool if not sandy.

    fools

  57. No fear, we will all be able to buy carbon offsets from folk who use less than half the average.
    In fact I’ve got some for sale right now at a cut price. Please form an orderly queue.

  58. Oh….and by the way, if the science is so “settled”, then why are we still spending so much money on trying to prove it? “I think he doth protest too much”!

    …..And, this whole carbon footprint is a complete red herring. If it really is the case that CO2 levels will be too high for the next 50-100years, even if we all stop burning tomorrow, then excuse me, but what is the ******* point?

    So, let’s all go live in mud huts and keep warm….. how? I guess most people would die pretty quickly……….er, ok… it would work…. less people… less problem……!!!!

    What’s the difference ultimately – starve and/or freeze in mud huts and caves in the short term or wait for CAGW and drown or dehydrate or starve or be poisoned be contaminated water, or eaten by a displaced polar bear, or blown away by bigger hurricanes/tornadoes etc,etc

  59. Surely if we are to start to play the lawyers-vs-lawyers game we should not ignore the decades of theft of publically funded research by Nature that has formed the primary imput to it’s little scienc-y business. Billions and billions of dollars of public research funding feeds the system of which Nature is a beneficiary. It’s time for Nature to start paying us back for its “free” input of scientific papers. A commercial publishing operation like Nature should not be the gatekeeper for science, the pay-per-view hoarder of knowledge, nor the self-appointed judge of public opinion and action. Pay your own way Nature. Stop being a freeloader. We don’t need your British lectures on environmental ethics especially since your national policies based on those opinions are destroying your once proud nation.

  60. Maybe Nature Climate Change is just catering to the needs of its target audience, which are warmist authoritarian scientists. Who would gladly applaud an international kangaroo court that stops civilization in its tracks; not noticing that this would also derail their gravy train (after all, they’re ivory tower inhabitants with no knowledge of the economy – all that they know is that they get money for wamist papers).

  61. I think this is a wonderful idea. After all, it’ll give even more work to the poor starving trial lawyers who aren’t driving up the cost of health care quite enough yet in the States by advertising their services on every television station. We don’t have enough lawsuits over here in America, let’s increase the size and burden of the legal system by dealing with ridiculous claims and junk science vs. putting the real criminals in prison.

    Do these people even have a clue what living in the real world is like?

  62. Jay Curtis says:
    June 10, 2011 at 11:36 am
    Billions will be sued? By whom? Isn’t that like the world suing itself?
    Jay, you beat me to it. You could sue tens of people, hundreds of people, thousands of people, maybe tens of thousands. But could you sue billions of people? I think it more likely that the billions of people would turn around and crush you. Can you sue the US for using all the oil? Can you sue China for having all those people? Can Africa sue Europe for being rich?
    No. By no one. Yes. No. No. No. No. (I answer my own questions because no one responds to my posts).

  63. I’m so old I can remember when there was at least a soupcon of science in Nature. Now it appears to just be the blatherings of the desperate. I would suggest everyone start stockpiling greenies. That way they’ll be nicely seasoned for use as firewood when their comrades have destroyed civilization and the next ice age is upon us.

  64. Nature should start by suing themselves. Being they work in multiple big buildings, have personnel that fly all over the world, produce a magazine that is shipped all over the world made of the bleached dead bodies of trees; need I go on? Why does that saying keep coming to mind? “Do as I say, not as I do.” Only stupid people still listen to theses hypocrites!

  65. The West is now a Mad House. Our scientists are a bunch of paranoid navel-gazers who are trying to get rich quick out of the old Chicken Little “the sky is falling” gambit. Of course, we do live in an Age of Hysteria, so maybe “the sky is falling” is the way to go. However, the calamity that confronts mankind in the short and near term is nuclear war and no one in a Western government will address the issues raised by its prevention. The West is now a Mad House.

  66. Just another attack on the west by those who’s self hatred knows no bounds.
    I would sue them back for abdicating their duty when they cut the space program that could have us a multi-planet species by now.

  67. “But on second thought who or what would power their homes?”

    Please abandon any doubts you may have as to whether these people are foolish enough to end up sitting cold and in the dark by their own hands. They most certainly are, and we’re going to see it happen somewhere before this is over with.

  68. It sure looks like the depopulation of the world is one goal of the ‘warmists”. That is the only way to progressively decrease the number of people violating the “average” global carbon footprint standard.

  69. It looks like a natural class action lawsuit scenario. The compassionate green lawyers against the greedy masses of earth abusing energy gluttons.

  70. There are billions of sources of CO2 that should be eradicated … all you lot over there.

    Sorry, I don’t usually resort to SARC but these eco-fascists really need to be called out.

  71. jeez says @June 10, 2011 at 12:17 pm…

    AARGH!! Now I can’t get the theme song from Green Acres out of my head!

    Great show, though, especially Arnold the pig – which preceded California’s Arnold the pig by 45 years. : -)

  72. Won’t affect us in Europe.
    We have to book flights from the UK to France, then from France to the USA to avoid the taxes.
    And the EU has already decided to stop short-distance flights within Europe (assuming that the European Union survives another few years….the bets are that it won’t)
    The UK taxes the backside off its citizens (we pay an environmental levy on all fuel bills: Electricity, gas and fuel oil)
    We pay an absolute fortune in road fuel taxes (diesel is £1.40 per litre at the pumps….the cost of the fuel itself is £0.58 per litre, the rest is fuel tax…even the purchase tax on the fuel (VAT) is taxed !
    The Uk is going to have the lowest carbon footprint in the world soon….nobody will be doing anything except breathing, and that very slowly to save energy !

  73. RE: Walt says:
    June 10, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    It sure looks like the depopulation of the world is one goal of the ‘warmists”.

    ==============

    No, they only want to depopulate the world of certain people. What they fail to realize is, depopulation is already inevitable. It will be a rather non selective depopulation.

  74. I know that Nature didn’t intend to publish this little missive just to give me a chance to comment about yet another inane absurdity, but that’s what they’ve done.

  75. I somewhat agree with Nature, that is why I stopped buying the journal Nature, so one could say I took their advice to heart.

  76. I promise that I will personally output as much CO2 in my lifetime as I possibly can.
    They can come and arrest me if they like,
    .. but someone has to take on the responsibility of feeding the plants and really caring for the planet.
    pollution is bad.. yes.. but CO2 is good

  77. Willis sed:

    Well, it will take a while because some people are stubborn, but eventually, everyone will be emitting less CO2 than the average person.

    TA DA!

    See how easy that was?

    Some years ago Seattle was having a drought so they raised water rates so people would conserve. The result was an abundance of conservation so they had to raise the rates again to pay the bills. Damned if you do, damned when you do.

  78. ew-3 says:
    June 10, 2011 at 1:11 pm
    “That young lady in the picture has a vary healthy carbon footprint.”

    Uhhh.. those aren’t footprints, ew-3.

    The nature article? If the suits start flowing we’ll be well into the next glaciation before anything gets settled.

  79. No-one wants to see Grandma held responsible for climate change harms because she drove to church on Sunday when she could have walked, even if her weekly devotion puts her above an annual emission budget.”

    “No-one” here is code for all of Britain’s arts-culture anti-science red-green elite. The only thing they hate more than climate deniers is christians. They hate them more than islamofascists hate them, and in fact pose a much more serious threat than islamofascists. There is no doubt that the political CAGW movement has entered a proto-fascistic stage. As the scientific case for AGW crumbles the arts-culture anti-science red-green elite, willfully oblivious to this, moves to further and further extremes in the statements they release which reveal their thinking, such as the 10-10 video. I have no doubt that there are dinner-party groups where an AGW military coup is being seriously considered. Who took Lenin’s bolscheviks seriously until very quickly it became far too late, or Hitler’s brown-shirts? If you are a known climate skeptic in the UK, make plans to leave the country at a moment’s notice.

  80. It does all seem a bit shrill, and maybe just a little desperate. The lurch from science to religion is becoming ever clearer.

  81. Frank K. says:
    June 10, 2011 at 9:35 am
    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.

    ======================
    Not the only recourse. But less messy than and preferable to the final recourse. As the politicians like to say, all options are on the table…;

  82. Adalberto says:
    June 10, 2011 at 10:01 am
    …. I tend tio [sic] 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.

    If you’re blathering about Japan, study some elementary geography. The entire country is perched on the Ring of Fire, and all the coasts are “beside major faults”. They must use coastal areas for reactors because the rest of the country is mountains, and because the sea is the only adequate heat sink.
    That’s the trouble with trying to sound smart when you don’t know enough.

  83. DirkH says:
    June 10, 2011 at 2:29 pm
    (after all, they’re ivory tower inhabitants with no knowledge of the economy – all that they know is that they get money for wamist papers).

    Megaphone from the window of the ivory tower:

    CYCLE TO WORK PEASANTS, AND DON’T BREATHE TOO HARD WHILE YOU DO IT!

  84. phlogiston says:
    June 10, 2011 at 6:17 pm
    I have no doubt that there are dinner-party groups where an AGW military coup is being seriously considered. Who took Lenin’s bolscheviks seriously until very quickly it became far too late, or Hitler’s brown-shirts? If you are a known climate skeptic in the UK, make plans to leave the country at a moment’s notice.

    We will fight them over the peaches (and cream).

  85. Sure glad I bought a bunch of those CCX carbon credits when they were on sale for 5 cents/ton before the CCX went belly up. I can breathe easy now.

  86. Apart from the complete impractical idiocy of such a suggestion, it is absolutely bizarre that a professional journal can write an article forgetting that the key step that would have to be taken would be to get such personal emissions limits written into law.

    Thank god we live in a democracy. Which is why the comments about the Bolsheviks and Brown shorts are indeed worrying. This is the only way lunacy can come to fruition. We should never forget our history.

  87. Adalberto says:
    June 10, 2011 at 10:01 am

    This is a must see for all here.

    Pretty Funny! Well expressed.

  88. 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.

    Other peoples’ carbon dioxide footprints are the only thing allowing this plague of babbling parasites to even exist. And for whatever little part I’ve contributed towards producing the horribly malforming niche responsible for creating and supporting their malignant natures, my sincere apologies. [btw, Dr. Frankenstein, eat your heart out!]

  89. face/palm

    I have only two words to say to these authoritarian morons and one of those words is off. The other word can also be, and often is, used used as an epithet and it describes the author of this latest piece of eco-wibble perfectly.

  90. phlogiston says:
    June 10, 2011 at 6:17 pm
    “I have no doubt that there are dinner-party groups where an AGW military coup is being seriously considered. Who took Lenin’s bolscheviks seriously until very quickly it became far too late, or Hitler’s brown-shirts?”

    With regard to Lenin, the German Reich did – the Bolsheviks were financed and helped by the Germans to bring down Russia. See

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

    but remember that the wikipedia is mostly on the party line (also called NPOV).

    Maybe today’s green activists are controlled by China to bring down the West.

  91. @ Louis Hooffstetter

    “The journal Nature has NEVER been a leading science journal. Nature Climate Change demonstrates this even more clearly.”

    Do you think that history began yesterday? Nature has been published since 1869 and for most of the time since then has been the world’s leading science journal. See the link below.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/history/

    Some people might argue that Science (the academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) has been the world’s top scientific journal for the past few decades but there is not a great deal to choose between them. They are pretty much on a par and deciding between them is largely a matter of opinion.

    Unfortunately the editors of Nature have in recent years tended to adopt an uncritical attitude to the theory of anthropogenic global warming and if they persist in that policy they will damage the journal’s reputation. However anyone who claims that Nature has NEVER been a leading science journal is obviously completely ignorant of the facts and makes people who adopt a sceptical attitude to AGW look like complete idiots.

  92. I have read, but cannot vouch for the accuracy of the following calculation:

    “The average person has a breath with the volue of 500ml (0.5l)
    A normal intake of breath is normal atmospheric composition, as such contains 0.0360% CO2 or 0.18ml of CO2 intake. However we breathe out about 5% CO2 or 25ml with an average of 13,000 breaths a day. Thats 325,000ml (325L )of CO2 Which means by the end of the day, a person on average will exhale 1kg of CO2. Now add there are 6 billion people alive we can say humans exhale 6 billion kg of CO2 a day.”

    If that is correct, we can further calcukate that 1kg CO2 exhalation per day makes about 360kg per year, so it will take about 7.5 years from breathing alone for the average human to reach a total of 2.7 tonnes. So according to the German Advisory Council on Global Change, we are already all well over the limit just on account of breathing and we should all be suing each other for damages. Should make the lawyers happy anyway.

  93. This could certainly set some interesting precedents. For example, some or all of the members of the jury would also be defendants !!

  94. I want to see the private carbon footprints of all the employees at Nature. I also want to see the carbon footprint of Nature Magazine as a whole. How much deforestation has Nature (paper mag) caused since its inception?

    Hypocrites!

  95. Brian H says:
    June 10, 2011 at 7:59 pm

    Adalberto says:
    June 10, 2011 at 10:01 am
    …. I tend tio [sic] 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.

    If you’re blathering about Japan, study some elementary geography. The entire country is perched on the Ring of Fire, and all the coasts are “beside major faults”. They must use coastal areas for reactors because the rest of the country is mountains, and because the sea is the only adequate heat sink.
    That’s the trouble with trying to sound smart when you don’t know enough.

    I followed the discussion of the recent quake-aftermath on the zerohedge site. One of the commenters stated that the west coast of Japan would have been a safer location, as it had not historically been subjected to the large tsunamis that have struck the east coast. (I’m not sure, but he may also have said that the severity of the quakes there is somewhat less.) This would have required longer transmission lines to the large urban locations that used most of the electricity, which was presumably why it wasn’t done.

    Another commenter said that a coastal location would not have been so bad if it had been set back a bit from the water’s edge, at a higher elevation. This would have meant more expense in pumping the water back and forth, which presumably was why it wasn’t done.

  96. Coldish says:
    June 11, 2011 at 2:47 am

    I have read, but cannot vouch for the accuracy of the following calculation:….”Which means by the end of the day, a person on average will exhale 1kg of CO2″

    Not finding any calculation of the world’s average CO2/person/day output and also struggling around for awhile, then making some big but hopefully “ballpark” assumptions about ave. body size from infant to adult, state of heath including fevers, and thus ave. respiratory [= ventilation = CO2 exhalation] rate and volume per person, I got the same result, 1kg.CO2/person/day. [Although intense exercise can generate around 454 gm. CO2/hour, so all you exercise addicts beware!]

    Later someone here reported a gov’t source showing 900 gm./day/average person, but the links didn’t lead to the method. Anyway, at least it’s a “consensus”!

    [But your source’s 13000 breaths per day at least appears to be too low by about 1/2 : at, say, adjusted for some activity beyond resting rate, 20 breaths[exhalations]/min x 1440 min./day = 28800 exhalations/day, each one removing relatively large amounts of CO2 net .]

  97. If people can be convinced to surrender a significant proportion of their earnings in order to pay for the slaughter of children in Iraqistan for ‘world security’ then I don’t see why they can’t be sued for alleged crimes against the sky.

    Can someone show why one is any less preposterous than the other?

    That’s why I always think we should be careful when we think ‘that’ll never happen – it’s just too crazy’.

    We already live in a world of talking lamp posts, facial recognition software and perpetual illegal wars and most people don’t seem to care (or have even noticed).

  98. I haven’t driven anything with a motor since December 8, 1999. I do live too modern in some ways, but switching to bicycling every day took a big ol’ chunk out of my carbon footprint.

  99. MichaelEdits,

    Thanx for contributing to global starvation. The planet already has too many poor folks, right?

  100. From Roger Knights on June 11, 2011 at 5:09 am:

    I followed the discussion of the recent quake-aftermath on the zerohedge site. One of the commenters stated that the west coast of Japan would have been a safer location, as it had not historically been subjected to the large tsunamis that have struck the east coast.

    However the west coast has historically been subjected to Chinese military aggression. Keeping them far away from Chinese artillery and missiles was an important military consideration when the siting was chosen for those old plants, likely still is important. Which seemed more likely, a monster super-tsunami or an attack from Communist China? Now that the once-a-century tsunami has hit, and given the recent Chinese military advances (aircraft carriers and stealth fighter jets, etc), which currently seems more likely?

  101. Billions could be sued…….

    Such drivel. Everyday for years now I think I have read the most stupid thing about climate change ever – and almost every day I realise I haven’t.

    Just one thought – if anyone or any organisation or whatever sues “billions” of people just by the law of averages quite a lot of them will just come and kill you…….just saying.

  102. So the eco-freaks are finally getting bold enough to start to put into print what they really want. Their goal is to find a way to force humanity to commit mass suicide leaving perhaps 10% of the current population. That’s what they think is required to “save the planet.”

  103. Is there any liablity for polititians who make dumb decissions that cost the community money?
    How about millions, no lets say Billions of dollars on a “wrong” decission?
    Any liability there ? Class action anybody ?

  104. Well, we are all sue happy. Everybody wants to sue against CO2. I say we sue FOR CO2, All the rich CO2 producing individuals sue all the non CO2 producers for not paying for their free CO2, which has the KNOWN benefit of increasing food production. Fair is fair, and we need to be compensated for our generosity.

    Then we can all have a drink, when we are done thinking of things to drink for, we can start finding things to drink against. AWGM (a world gone mad)

  105. Ah, this is SO funny! My brother lawyers are ALWAYS looking for something to do! This is welfare for lawyers, friends. Nothing more.

  106. You can sue for anything. That said more people can be sued for emitting below the “average” carbon footprint. In order to sue successfully damages have to be demonstrated. I believe it’s easier to demonstrate that more CO2 in the atmosphere fosters larger agricultural yields and extends growing seasons in higher latitudes where length of growing season is of great concern. Thus those people with a larger than average carbon footprint are making the world a better place moreso than those with a smaller footprint.

  107. @Roger Knights:
    Another commenter said that a coastal location would not have been so bad if it had been set back a bit from the water’s edge, at a higher elevation. This would have meant more expense in pumping the water back and forth, which presumably was why it wasn’t done.

    Yeah, except some egghead scientist using a whamodyne computer model said you only had to build for an x meter tsunami.

Comments are closed.