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.
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.
Another blogger, linking to this blog, jblethen’s headlined his post as
“Not ballsy — insane misanthropy”
Wait till the Reuters story gets out on this, then the headlines will really be creative…. !
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)
Ah. Mr. Bloom has appointed someone to speak for skeptics.
Can I appoint someone to speak for climate alarmists?
[Regarding Reuters, it was an empty shell corporation with no assets following its bankruptcy in the early ’90’s. A Soros entity bought the shell for the well known, old time Reuters name; the same way that Black&Decker bought the old DeWalt name and now uses DeWalt’s former great reputation to sell tools made in China {not saying DeWalt tools are crap, just pointing out how these things are done}. Now Reuters is a very left-leaning news portal. So Bloom will probably get the publicity he so obviously craves.]
As far as speaking for skeptics goes, we should select our own spokesman, don’t you think? I’d nominate Anthony Watts or Steve McIntyre. There are plenty of others — in fact, skeptical scientists far outnumber the alarmist contingent. And keep in mind that a skeptic is someone who questions — not a denier of anything. All we are saying is “Prove it.” When the alarmists hear that, they run and hide.
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.
Interesting. “all world leaders for intent to commit manslaughter against future generations of human beings”
Intent? You mean he actually believes these ‘world leaders’ (this means the Somali Warlords and various despots around the world) INTEND to commit manslaughter of future generations? Good luck proving that little bit.
The only thing you can argue (and not very successfully) I think is that their actions could possibly unintentionally cause future death, not that said deaths would be ‘certain’.
Why is he only interested in protecting future generations of mankind who (in his opinion) will be killed by AGW? Why not all sources with ‘intent’ to kill future generations of mankind? Why isn’t he suing the owners/operators of abortion clinics? Why not the Chinese government for their population control restrictions on births? You could argue that they intend to ‘commit manslaughter against future generations of humankind’ (and actually are committing it and would most likely kill off a larger portion of ‘future humankind than AGW ever would) more so than leaders who do not support the draconian measures recommended by his heroes (not that those draconian measures could also be argued to ‘kill future generations of mankind as well).
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
Speaking of things Canadian, isn’t the sport of hockey a ‘sublime’ source of polluting CO2?
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.
It seems as if Mr. Bloom has found a way of increasing his readership by posting here. Anthony is very polite indeed.
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.
Off topic but more interesting, note today 23 nov 1979 to 2008
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=11&fd=23&fy=1979&sm=11&sd=23&sy=2008
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.
Publicity stunts re the ‘warming’side of the argument can and do backfire. I am given to understand a ‘Global Warming protest’ was called off recently in Australia.
Cause? Rain and cold.
I have an inkling that Mr Bloom’s lawsuit may likewise founder on the shoals of reality.
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.
Danny picked a bad week to file suit in Holland. This is what football looked like there this weekend.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2008/11/24/1227530233763/Gallery-24-Sport-AZ-Alkma-006.jpg
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?
Hi Danny,
What I already thought; A good joke.
See date on website:
http://northwardho.blogspot.com/2008/11/class-action-lawsuit-against-world.html
Nov 6, 3008 (and not 2008). That’s probaly also the reason why the lawsuit is still in process.
You haven’t filed a lawsuit nor did you sent a letter to the ICC.
You have kept us busy!! 😉
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
I think the lawsuit is a marvelous idea if this court has genuine subpoena power. Skeptics have been hoping for one for a while. He plans to call Dr. Hansen? Yes! Thank God for blessings! Do you folks really appreciate how much fun cross-examination can be? This is manna from heaven. The only thing better would be if he also called Michael Mann and Algore as witnesses.
I can’t think of anything that would do more to bring sanity to the crazy funhouse of mirrors that AGW has become than to have the principal scare mongers cross-examined under oath after having been forced to provide documentation under court order.
Please don’t throw us into that briar patch. 😉
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.”
Just to identify who I am first. I’m a psychiatrist who is concerned about the psychological aspects of climate change. What I know professionally is that our brains are hardwired in an evolutionary sense to respond to immediate danger, but not to potential danger may years away. Therefore, it was very easy to respond to the immediate danger of 9/11, but much easier to deny the future danger of global warming. At the very least, this lawsuit makes the potential problem more immediate, but can also elicit the usual fight-or-flight response. What we need to do is to repeatedly take some deep breaths and use our rational thinking processes to carefully consider all the pros and cons of this issue.
What I also know professionally is that warmer temperatures in warmer climates leads to more violence. I don’t think we need more of that.
What I also think is true psychologically is that it is hard to change old patterns of behavior that may be contributing to climate change, whether that be political, economic, or personal.
As a grandparent, 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. That does not preclude still working on all the current problems facing humanity, like hunger, the economy, etc., etc.
Steve
“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.
@Brian
Thanks for the link… Very interesting number and one that I think really puts things in perspective. Unfortunately the article linked doesn’t have any external references. Do you know if Dr. Koermer has any of this work published?
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)