This is quite something. Darn those Canucks. As we saw with his defense of eco-vandals in England, I wonder if Dr. James Hansen will rush to The Hague to testify for this one? And if by some furthest stretch of the imagination, this lawsuit is successful, what then? Will Pachauri use the spoils to whittle down the number of lifetimes if will take to erase his own carbon footprint? I wonder if Danny Bloom is related to omnipresent blog commenter, and Sierra Club representative, Steve Bloom? BTW Steve, we are still waiting, over a year now for your answer.
NOTE: The article below is reposted in entirety from the blog Northward Ho(t) The opinions are those of the author of that blog, Mitchel Anderson, not of myself nor of any WUWT contributor. – Anthony
Ballsy.
That is perhaps best word to describe a class action lawsuit filed this week in the International Criminal Court in The Hague in Holland against national governments refusing to act on reducing carbon emissions.
The suit was filed by climate activist Danny Bloom who is asking for “US$1 billion dollars in damages on behalf of future generations of human beings on Earth – if there are any”
No Joke
The lawsuit is specifically seeking damages from “all world leaders for intent to commit manslaughter against future generations of human beings by allowing murderous amounts of fossil fuels to be harvested, burned and sent into the atmosphere as CO2, causing possible apocalyptic harm to the Earth’s ecosystem and the very future of the human species.
The point of the suit of course is not to wring money out of carbon emitters, but to embarrass the legions of laggard governments in advance of upcoming international climate negotiations next month in Poland. According to Bloom, the legal action “is about trying to protect future generations of mankind, humankind, and a positive judgment in this case will help prod more people to take the issues of climate change and global warming more seriously. We fully intend to make all world leaders of today responsible for their actions in the present day and age.”
This case is a legal long shot no doubt, but Bloom’s team said “”it’s up to the court to decide whether this case has any merit. We fully expect the court to agree to at least hear the case and make a responsible and measured decision later.”
It would also be the first case of its kind to seek to act on behalf of future generations for the irresponsibility of their ancestors. The need to put world leaders on the hot seat is very real. International climate talks like the one happening next month in Poland have happening for over a decade yet global emissions just keep climbing. A recent report showed that in spite of international commitments, carbon emissions of 40 industrialized countries rose by 2.3 percent between 2000 and 2006.
That said, those countries that signed Kyoto saw their overall emissions fall by 17% below 1990. The disgraceful outlier among those nations is Canada, whose emissions ballooned by over 20% in spite of having ratifying Kyoto. Canada’s Prime Minister Harper has called Kyoto a “mistake” and he seems openly contemptuous of such international efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. Mr. Harper is of course not alone in the responsibility for Canada’ terrible climate change record. The Canadian public recently handed him another mandate in a general election.
Back to Mr. Bloom. His lawsuit seems directly targeted towards such irresponsible nations like Canada that have refused to take this issue seriously. If he wins, Bloom is planning to donate the $1 billion in damages to the Nobel winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Godspeed Mr. Bloom.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
Pierre Gosselin (01:28:35) :
“0.27% sounds small, but it accumulates over the years.”
I don’t think that saying that CO2 accumulates over the years is quite right. What I have read is that Co2 has about a 5 year residence time in response to a perturbation (Szelstag (sp?)). The long term ocean cycles perhaps create the appearance of CO2 accumulating over time.
That said, those countries that signed Kyoto saw their overall emissions fall by 17% below 1990. The disgraceful outlier among those nations is Canada, whose emissions ballooned by over 20% in spite of having ratifying Kyoto.
This is an outright lie. No country has reduced “emissions”, all signatories have increased “emmisions”.
This law suit was attempted original;ly in Canada, and was laughed out of courst, as it were. Now “Danny Bloom” is going itnernational. Who is financing him?
Does anyone know what became of John Coleman’s threat to sue Al Gore for fraud? Seems to have sunk without trace. What can this possibly mean?
Lucy Skywalker says that a judge upheld all challenges to the science in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. This is simply not so, the challenge was to the distribution of the movie to schools by the UK Government on the basis that it breached laws on political partisanship, the Judge explicitly ruled that I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant’s expert, is right when he says that: Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate. Later the Judge writes Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. …in the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters – 9 in all – upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the ‘errors’ in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407.
So the majority of the challenges to the science were actually dismissed, and the judge specifically made clear that he was evaluating the movie in the context of whether it breached the law on being unduly partisan. The challenge failed and the Government’s plans to distribute it to all schools were implemented. You can read the judgement here
A spokesman for Al Gore pointed out Of the thousands of facts in the film, the judge only took issue with just a handful. And of that handful, we have the studies to back those pieces up
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.
Unfortunately, The “International Court” in the Hague actually takes itself seriously, and even though the USA and others don’t acknowledge it as having any legitimacy whatsoever, other countries do, including most of Europe.
So this “Court” which enforces “laws”, that the uSA and others don’t acknowledge as having any legitimacy either; still will issue judjements on nincompoop suits like this one that emperor Danny claims to have filed; and many of these European Nations have plenty of their own nincompoops like Danny who would welcome the publicity they would get by “arresting” some US or other citizen they can get their hands on.
These same European nations all ratified the Kyoto protocol scam; but as for the USA only one person signed, and that was the famous Nobel Laureate Climate expert Albert Gore, former Vice President of the USA.
The US Senate, the only US Government body actually authorised to approve International Treaties, voted by a vote of 95 to zero, to not approve that piece of international mischief garbage; thereby telling Gore just where to go.
Now if you were say President Clinton, or President Bush, or President not yet Elect Barack Obama; would you promote or push for any US heed being paid to any so-called treaty, that the entire US Senate has already rejected Unanimously.
So Danny boy; in your exuberance to name international leaders and in particular any leaders of the United States of America; be advised that the entire legal machinery of the United States Government, acting on behalf of the people of the United Sates of America, and duly authorised to enter into international treaties on behalf of the people of the USA; that we have unanimously rejected your scam.
So if you continue to proceed with this silliness; you better name all the voting citizens of the USA as defendants; individually by name of course; oh leave me out of it of course, since I am a citizen of a different country that already signed that snake oil treaty, but will likely now repudiate it, now that the adults have once again been put in charge of that country.
The town square stocks, and the ancient art of tarring and feathering were specifically developed for busibody inebriates like you.
Don’t forget to also name as defendants, the citizens of any and all countries that signed onto that “treaty”, and promised to meet certain obligations under that “treaty”, but have so far failed to meet ANY of the targets they agreed to.
Once again leave me out of it, because my country; along with the United States of America, are two of the handful of countries on this planet, that actually are net sinks for carbon; so they are not among the polluters that are the target of your frivolous suit; as well as your frivilous suit.
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
John Philip:
Meaningless pap.
Wake me when Al Gore stops hiding out in one of his many mansions, while having one of his sock puppets issue words on vague “studies” that are no doubt found only in the fevered imaginations of his True Believers.
The day that Gore, or Hansen, or Schmidt, or Mann, or Tamino, or Suzuki, or any of these globaloney artists works up the courage to step up to the plate and agree to a moderated debate in a neutral venue, will be the day they start to earn some respect. It’s not pretty seeing them cower from a debate with their tails tucked between their legs.
Hiding out and refusing to debate means only one thing: they can’t back up their phony AGW hypothesis.
If I were them, I’d hide out too.
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….
Patrick Henry, above, mistakenly and incorrectly wrote that:
“Danny frequently makes comments that we are all going to have to move to Portland or Alaska in the next 12 years to escape the heat,..”
Patrick, I never said 12 YEARS….I said in the year 2500 or so. That’s 500 years from now…..please don’t misrepresent me…Yes, i did talk about polar cities for surviving and I still do, see images here: http://pcillu101.blogspot.com — but I NEVER SAID in 12 years…..I have always framed my statements about polar cities as an AS IF concept in the YEAR 2500 AD. …..Check again.
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.
Truly the lunatics are in complete charge of the asylum..
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.
Timo Van Drunen, above said : “I believe it is just a publicy stunt, like we will see more of these kind coming months.”
Timo, this is NOT a publicity STUNT…….it is a WAKE UP CALL……. there is no OUR SIDE or THEIR SIDE….we are all in this together……
Danny
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….”
I’m trying to figure out how in the world our governments are going to stop all future El Ninos, PDO flips, AMO flips, and short, high amplitude solar cycles.
That could cost more than a billion dollars. Decisions, decisions.
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.
New South Wales in Australia has experienced unseasonably heavy snowfall, as summer approaches on the continent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7744609.stm
@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?
Mike Dubrasich (18:02:58) :
Right on, Mike!
Danny, read and remember what Mike wrote. If you need the benefit of the underlying science, take a long look at the work of Rhodes W. Fairbridge. An important piece of his work can be found in the journal Science. I’ll make it easy for you and give you the page numbers as well: Science 191 (4225) 353-359 1976.
Then, just for fun and understanding, go find a publication known as “The Wall Chart of World History,” or you can consult any general world history publication. DK Publishing has a new one out at CostCo that should be about your speed. Note the information from what has become known as the “Fairbridge Curve” to major moments in history and the durations of successful dynasties and reigns. Tell us what you find out.
looks like Mann’s proxy story has been completely demolished
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4428
Are “we” all in this together? Somehow the leaders of the environmental movement give me the impression they’re not all that interested in saving anyone.
* Jacques-Yves Cousteau, environmentalist and documentary maker: “It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.”
* John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal: “I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
* Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University population biologist: “We’re at 6 billion people on the Earth, and that’s roughly three times what the planet should have. About 2 billion is optimal.”
* David Foreman, founder of Earth First!: “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”
* David M. Graber, research biologist for the National Park Service: “It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
* Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome: “My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.”
* Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation: “The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man.”
* John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club: “Honorable representatives of the great saurians of older creation, may you long enjoy your lilies and rushes, and be blessed now and then with a mouthful of terror-stricken man by way of a dainty!”
* Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund: “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
* Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
* Ted Turner, CNN founder, UN supporter, and environmentalist: “A total population of 250–300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
* Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: “I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds.”
The preceding list of quotes is from The Mosquito: Environmentalism’s Weapon of Mass Destruction
Nice crowd to freely associate with, that. Talk about crimes against humanity. Stalin, Mao, Hitler and the Black Death combined didn’t amass a body count like these creeps fantasize over. At best, “well meaning” environmentalists like Danny want us to return to Stone Age living conditions and the life expectancy of aboriginals.
At worst, they dream of mountains of human corpses. Fight fire with fire, use their own words against them.
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
Mongo just small pawn in big game of life…… but in this case here is what bothers me. I am not a fan of the ACLU and in particular it’s record of getting international law being cited successfuly and setting precedent in our judicial system. It was never meant to be twisted this way but it has. If the Hague were to rule in favor of this …..we are in big trouble folks.
Ruling in favor of a science that has not gone through the process of falsification, coupled with our meager, paltry understanding of the systems of systems that define our planets climate….and the amazing level of politicization, emotionalization……makes me fear for our future.
The U.S. has carbon laws already – thanks to a Congress who saw fit to add it to an emergency bill that added, in one fell swoop $700 billion to our national debt. This is just the tip of the iceburg (pun intended) and more is to follow – and I hate to say, in spite of any signs of AGW not rearing it’s head, we’re going to continue down this path of ignorance until we truly hit a wall.
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