Litigious Lunacy

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.