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.
JimB (05:04:44) :
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.
I’m sorry Jim. Didn’t Hansen say something similar about people denying AGW?
I refuse to go down that path & prefer to believe that their intransigence is just a mistaken belief.
Don’t go down the anti-science path of repercussions!
DaveE.
Danny Bloom
For your case before the Hague – answer these questions:
1. Why have temperatures been cooling since 2003?
2. What proof do you have that CO2 forcing is greater than water vapors?
3. Prove to scientists that CO2 stays in the lower and upper tropospheres more
than a year?
4. Why are the Earth temperatures uncorrelated with CO2?
5. Why is that CO2 measuements at the Kelling Towers have decreased this past
two years?
6. If we have all the CO2 in the upper and lower tropospheres, why isn’t the
temperatures hotter?
7. Why is it that water vapors make up 97% of greenhouse gases that we are not
hotter?
8. Why do all the temperature charts over the past ten years record a cyclical
pattern for temperatures?
9. Why do multidecadal cycles in the oceans correlate extremely well with the
solar cycles and global temperatures?
10. If temperatures are so high, why is the Arctic and Anarctic ice increase
greater over the past two years?
Answer these questions with any scientific data facts and you might have a case for global warming – otherwise, your case is out the door!
Danny Bloom
By the way, NOAA and other temperature recording stations can’t even agree with an exact or true scientific temperature reading. Dr Lindzen, MIT, Atmospheric Science, has stated that there is no exacting temperature. The correlation of stations around the world are not exacting. Most temperature recordings are placed into a complex algorithm to convert actual temperatures. The problem – adjustments have a tendacy toward the higher temperatures. (David Henderson and Ian Castle, mathematical analysis of IPCC global temperatures)
“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. ”
And what you are telling all those billions of people who face earlier death, worse subsistence poverty, and increased disease from your efforts to “do something”? Sounds to me like you are telling them to go screw themselves. Because they sure don’t figure into your risk assessment.
One more important question:
What is the correct temperature for the Earth?
I worry about anything that is in the hands of the courts. The assumption that a court can or could make a good decision based on scientific evidence is not something I want to bet my future on. Some countries have systems that make good decisions most of the time, but I certainly don’t think anything associated with the UN or any other international body is likely to produce a fair and unbiased court.
Dr Moffic: “What I also know professionally is that warmer temperatures in warmer climates leads to more violence”
Sorry Dr, I’m not buying that general statement. At least you could provide links to various studies as many other professionals do on this blog.
“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”
I think this blog has discussed this fear based mentality before. As a Psychiatrist one would think you could identify your position as such, even to the point of phobia.
OT – was alerted to two posts in E&E December, that look really important for tying up the good science:
(1) Beck goes to Mauna Loa
(2) Rate of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Controlled by Natural Temperature Variations
Look, guys and gals,
I don’t know much about the ICC (or courts in general) but I am clear on the need to bring this argument out into the public consciousness, under some sort of credible jurisdiction, the more open, the better.
So let’s take this opportunity seriously, and do whatever we can to draw the alarmists out into an open forum from which they can not run and hide.
ICC may not be impartial, but it could be a useful start point.
It may already be too late, but I think we should avoid overloading them (the alarmists) with so much seriously factual information that they withdraw their action. We do not want them to do that. We want this out in the open. We want them to prosecute this case.
They are only politicians, so they are not that smart!
So gently does it.
If we can cajole them into thinking they might win this case (in the ICC, at least), then we could possibly move from there to a more respected international arbiter.
I don’t know what that might be at the moment, but I am looking into it.
Keep your powder dry!
Steve
For those who are still convinced that the claim of Danny Bloom is true.
Article 77 of the Rome Statute stipulates that the penalties are imprisonment for a number of years or lifetime. In addition to imprisonment, the Court may order a fine or forfeiture of proceeds, property and assets derived from the crime. The Court can order imprisonment without a fine, but not a fine without imprisonment.
Article 79 of the Rome Statute deals with the establishment of a Trust Fund. The Court may order that the fine and/or forfeiture of proceeds, property and assest be transferred to the Trust Fund.
If there would be an ICC-court case (and there isn’t any), Danny Bloom will not receive a penny. It is not a civil court case.
Danny, I would like to challenge you once again; who must convicted of crimes against humanity and should go to prison?
Mr. Bloom,
I applaud the work you have done entertaining questions and comments on here. I hope we are all the wiser with what you are doing although, I do not agree with your methodology. The judiciary is better left to judgment rather than publicity stunts. I await the first evidence of AGW, for none has been shown me yet. All the while loads of heavy metals, plastics, and toxins of all sorts are being dumped onto our land and into our oceans, yet all I hear is people crying foul over my harmless personal exhaust. For our sake I hope you are right. Avoiding an apocalypse is all that is worthy of leading astray the self proclaimed champions of earth. For if you are wrong, while all were busy wrestling the demos, it does become to late for another patch of mother nature.
Any lawyer out here that wish to make a quick bucks by suing all those environmentalist flying around in privet jet.
If these guy’s can sue politician for failure to act they sure can be sued for not acting themselves.
“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?”
Well what if Lovelock and Hansen are wrong and carbon sequestration leads to the next ice age on earth. What then? What then do you, the blind followers of AGW, tell your future greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat grandchildren in the year 2323 AD? OOPS? but hey it sure was fun while it lasted?
Seems to me either side would be better to wait for some EVIDENCE.
Tom in Florida (13:05:25) :
“One more important question:
What is the correct temperature for the Earth?”
Another would be exactly what do we do to attain that temperature, i.e., how much CO2 would we have to pump back into the atmosphere to stop the cooling (which is what I assume will have to happen) at that temperature.
These are important questions to know the answers too as we set out to terraform the planet.
@ur momisugly Danny Bloom (01:46:05) : and Danny Bloom (02:37:58) :
Thanks for the shift in pledge – my “opinion” of you just went up. (for what its worth).
However you make an “appeal to authority” wrt the evidence for Global Warming which cuts no ice here.
There is no climate risk or crisis. It’s a fabrication of vested interests to promote Gore’s GAIA, anti-westen capitalism and carbon taxes. Get it?
@H. Steven Moffic, M.D. (08:56:18) :
I would suggest as a rational approach (since you suggest the adoption of a rational approach) to risk management that you do the following.
1. Ascertain who are the stakeholders. I.e include the developing world where the carbon suppression activities will condemn to perpetual poverty.
2. Get the evidence lined up that there is an actual threat and quantify the costs of (a) CO2 Suppression vs (b) Climate Change mitigation activities.
3. Factor in the costs for all stakeholders and assess the path forward.
4. Note that wealthy societies are best placed to fund responding to climate change.
5. Get a clear distinction b/w AGW (Man made global warming caused by emissions of CO2) and “Climate Change”. The first is in dispute, the second isn’t.
6. Ascertain any benefits from an abundance of CO2 (enhanced plant growth, more crops, more food, etc) and/OR warmer world (longer growing seasons, fewer deaths from cold, etc).
7. Do a proper cost/benefit analysis.
Plus – if you want to be rational. What is the falsification criteria for AGW and has that been clearly defined anywhere by the AGW movement. And how rational is any ideology that is not falsifiable and how is AGW defined as “Man made Climate Change (true if warming/cooling)” distinguishable from any other pseudoscience.
I could posit that the world was created 10 minutes ago and we all have false memories – prove me wrong – can’t be done because it’s not falsifiable. AGW (defined as Climate Change and true in a warming or cooling world) is also just as bizarre.
Plus – do you think that your children and grand children will be better off in an economy/ society that has swapped cheap and effective energy sources for expensive and ineffective energy sources?
You suggest that warmer = more violence, what is the impact of poverty on violence?
Do you have any evidence that warmer = more violence and have you been able to factor out other possible causes? I.e. can you clearly identify the “warmer = more violence” signal from the background noise of other motivating factors?
Inquiring (indeed rational) minds would like to know.
Sorry Mr. Bloom, but I think you filed the wrong suit.
If you were serious about AGW, you should name every human being on the planet as defendants and ask that the court order everyone to stop breathing… immediately. No one gets a pass no matter how good or green are their intentions. After all, what human has zero CO2 output?
As a bonus it would also solve the over-population problem; a two-fer!
I’d wish you luck but my heart’s not in it.
Is FatBigot reading this? I would be interested in hearing your [FatBigot’s] professional opinion on the feasibility of this kind of legal action…
Re: Danny Bloom
Let’s be quite clear about all this. Whether this case goes to court or not, Danny, you are of the stated opinion that certain world leaders are guilty of commit manslaughter against future generations of human beings by not cutting back drastically on CO2 emissions.
Here in the UK, we have an impending crisis with regard to power supplies, and I understand other countries face similar problems. One of the root causes of the problems is the anti-coal, anti-nuclear, anti-oil stance of the green activist cause, of which I would class you as being a ardent supporter.
It could be said, Danny, that by obstructing the future supply of electricity, the activists you presumably support are directly guilty of causing future blackouts which will almost certainly cost lives, especially in periods of severe cold – which is when they are most likely to occur. Additionally, the extra costs forced on the power generation industries worldwide (except China, India and others) will necessarily make electricity unaffordable for the least wealthy. Again, this may well cause death, whether through lack of heating or, in poorer parts, interruption to medical care and so on. These events are unavoidable but for green activism. Are we still talking manslaughter? Hmm.
Additionally, Danny, you should also reconsider your view of climate scepticism. It is my bet that the vast majority (myself included) would agree totally with Dr David Bellamy, a renowned and hard-working scientist/conservationist, and climate sceptic, who recently said: ” The thing that annoys me most is that there are genuine environmental problems that desperately require attention. I’m still an environmentalist, I’m still a Green and I’m still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of the world. But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming “problem” that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the world.”
So let’s sum up. Your stance would seem to support power outages, pricing energy out of the range of the poor and deflecting attention (and money) from real environmental issues such as rainforest destruction – which would cost a mere fraction of the amount the green activists have spent on propaganda and would want spent on their beloved global warming myth.
I would suggest that you are not a real Green, or a real conservationist. You are clearly enjoying the limelight, but as your head hits the pillow tonight, I would like you to think whether, through your very own actions if successful, a large number of humans could face poverty, ill-health, or death.
A sobering thought, Danny.
Sleep well.
Someone from DeSmogblog comments told me: “Remember what happened to the evolution deniers in Dover? They were made to look stupid because truth prevails in a court of law. The creationist/ID types who were prone to lying stayed away since they feared perjury. Yes, lets get the AGW deniers in court. It will show up their lies once and for all.”
True or not?
Reply: Kindly refrain from using the term “deniers” on this site. It is considered derogatory. ~ dbstealey, moderator
Timo asked, above: “Danny, I would like to challenge you once again; who must convicted of crimes against humanity and should go to prison?”
All current world leaders. They should not go to prison. They should hang their heads down in shame, except for the president of the Maldives, who is making plans to move his people to “higher” land on the continent….
Nick (15:58:28) : above, said:
“…. You are clearly enjoying the limelight, …”
Nick,
There is no limelight where I am. I am not enjoying anything about this. Not everybody does things for money or fame or limelight or careerism or job promotions. Have you never heard a “cri du coeur” before?
Danny
And Dr Moffic, above, made a good point, several good points. He had a letter published in TIME magazine a few years ago that read:
LETTER TO EDITOR, PUBLISHED:
“Reading Earth’s Danger Signs”
“How fearsome must the headlines be about tomorrow before people
change their ways today?” reporter Ms Gibbs asked in her article in your magazine last week [Time magazine, Sept.24]. Psychologically
speaking, people need to worry more about the present to change. Our
brains are hardwired to respond to immediate dangers, not ones that
are years or decades away. And a term like global warming is too
benign, especially for those like me who live in a cold climate and
might welcome an increase of a few degrees.
Perhaps we should use the
term global boiling, like the proverbial experiment in which a frog
stays in a gradually warming pot of water and eventually dies.
Maybe
we all need to visualize the destruction to make us feel a sense of
immediate danger.
H. Steven Moffic, M.D.,
professor of psychiatry,
Medical College of
Wisconsin,
USA
”Are Words Worthless in the Climate Fight?”[ Yes or No?]
By Andrew C. Revkin on DOT EARTH blog in the New York Times
If you missed this, you need to read this right now.
— Danny
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/are-words-worthless-in-the-climate-fight/
Joe Romm, some of you know his name, says the world will need “Mutliple Pearl Harbors over the next decade” to wake even the skeptics up — with half or more of these happening:
1) Arctic goes ice free before 2020. I have bets out on this. It would be a big, visible global shock.
2) Rapid warming over next decade, as recent Nature and Science article suggests is quite possible
(posts here and here)
3) Continued (unexpected) surge in methane
4) A megadrought hitting the SW comparable to what has hit southern Australia.
5) More superstorms, like Katrina
6) A heatwave as bad as Europe’s 2003 one.
7) Something unpredicted but clearly linked to climate, like the bark beetle devastation.
8) Accelerated mass loss in Greenland and/or Antarctica, perhaps with another huge ice shelf breaking off, but in any case coupled with another measurable rise in the rate of sea level rise,
9) The Fifth Assessment Report (2012-2013) really spelling out what we face with no punches pulled.