I say BRING IT ON. Finally we’ll get to put this absurdity about the connection between global warming and hurricanes to rest, because, it doesn’t exist. I hope the defense will bring in the findings of Ryan Maue at FSU COAPS as shown below.
From the Wall Street Journal Law Blog
For years, leading plaintiffs’ lawyers have promised a legal assault on industrial America for contributing to global warming.
So far, the trial bar has had limited success. The hurdles to such suits are pretty obvious: How do you apportion fault and link particular plaintiffs’ injuries to the pollution emitted by a particular group of defendants?
Today, though, plaintiffs’ lawyers may be a gloating a bit, after a favorable ruling Friday from the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, which is regarded as one of the more conservative circuit courts in the country. Here’s a link to the ruling.
The suit was brought by landowners in Mississippi, who claim that oil and coal companies emitted greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming that, in turn, caused a rise in sea levels, adding to Hurricane Katrina’s ferocity. (See photo of Bay St. Louis, Miss., after the storm.)
For a nice overview of the ruling, and its significance in the climate change battle, check out this blog post by J. Russell Jackson, a Skadden Arps partner who specializes in mass tort litigation. The post likens the Katrina plaintiffs’ claims, which set out a chain of causation, to the litigation equivalent of “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.”
The central question before the Fifth Circuit was whether the plaintiffs had standing, or whether they could demonstrate that their injuries were “fairly traceable” to the defendant’s actions. The defendants predictably assert that the link is “too attenuated.”
Read the entire article here
h/t Ron De Haan
The final stages of degeneracy are when the leadership actively seeks the destructoin of the society.
We are there now.
Yeah, I question the timing.
If this meant to re-kindle the fires of Copenhagen, good luck.
So, first they’ll have to prove Global Warming.
Then CO2 is the cause.
Then the CO2 is from industry and not natural.
Then GW causes increased hurricanes.
And then…. natural GW does not exist.
We’re going to need Big bucket of popcorn for this movie.
a jones (19:36:55) :
This ruling occurred in a Federal Circuit Court and the matter originated in Mississippi, so there is no variance in the law as it relates to this matter. What you are referencing is that the US’s and individual state’s legal systems are primarily based on common law, which relies upon case law to establish precedents. However, Louisiana uses a mixed system that draws from both common law and civil law. Civil law relies upon a written collection laws that are established through legislation.
Wikipedia does a pretty good job with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_%28legal_system%29
It should be a UFC Championship fight between the IPCC and the Farmers Almnac.
So much for the notion of Tort Reform.
Can they call God Almighty to the stand (or whatever your belief states as the Supreme Being) to explain exactly where the Hurricane was headed prior to the steering caused by AGW?
This would make a great Boston Legal episode. Denny Crane calls God to the witness stand.
Judge has a fit, calls them to chambers. Denny proceeds to shoot a Bible declaring “If you rule for the plaintiff, then we have to declare God is dead first”.. Judge goes bananas, puts Crane in the slammer for contempt.
Alan Shore sums up by saying “Every Insurance policy explicity states that they are not responsible for Acts of God”.
Judge throws case out.
Alan pays Denny’s fine.
D. King (20:17:37) :
“We’re going to need Big bucket of popcorn for this movie.”
Remember to use the non-butter flavour stuff… don’t want to get sued for popcorn lung*.
* And some of you probably thought I was making it up…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronchiolitis_obliterans.
D. King (20:17:37) :
Better than the OJ Trial.
The ratings will be through the roof.
Bring it. We already know the prosecution has ‘contaminated’ the evidence.
I can’t see the oil and gas companies having any option but to defend themselves from this. Otherwise, it will just open the floodgates to all sorts of nuisance claims, even if they were to settle out of court with no fault attached.
In order so that justice can be done, absolutely all the evidence will have to be submitted. This could be the Scopes trial we were talking about in previous threads. Exciting times.
Maybe Moncton will have his debate with Gore after all, in court!
The interesting aspect of the legal procedure of course is the fact that they finally put AGW on trial.
Hopefully the trial will start before the new World Government is sworn in (sarc).
I had already read the article. The article, of course, also says that the plaintiff’s lawyers will still have a problem with causation, with one of the judges on the panel stating that if the causation issue had been part of the appeal, he would have affirmed the dismissal order of the district court.
Being a lawyer, I unfortunately know that this does not stop some lawyers from making absurd arguments with a straight face. It is not a good thing that my profession is trying to do.
5th Circuit? Sounds like a trap to me.
rbateman (20:31:49) :
We already know the prosecution has ‘contaminated’ the evidence.
But “hot air” decreases the differential.
Less energy transfer.
If the oil and gas companies did this, the people filing the suit are participants due to using oil and gas. As those are the only identifiable people, let them pay themselves any penalty.
As the NRA has always been careful to say …
bad lawsuits make bad law
One more piece of nonsense from the legal system, and one more reason tort reform is needed.
Hang on… oil companies don’t cause warming… people who drive cars do!
I am sure I heard something like this before somewhere…
Larry (20:36:39) :
I disagree with Shakespeare and I don’t think it is your profession that is doing anything dishonorable. Some members… perhaps…. but everyone with a grievance needs to be heard at least once… and our system is one of laws, interpretations and precedents. Doesn’t always work well, but there are worse alternatives. Not that there aren’t professionals who don’t game the system…. I’ve been setting a snare all summer for a lawyer who is the sole partner in an LLC that buys bad debts from banks and then files suit for recovery utilizing his law firm, tacking on “attorney fees” twenty percent higher than the norm just for writing the collection letter…. essentially representing himself. This attorney has about two hundred collection cases (more than half his entire case load) where he is representing himself. To my immense surprise the judge assigned to the case has scheduled oral arguments. My attorney friends have been happy to offer advice…. with the caveat that I never heard it from them…. perhaps the Fifth Circuit panel feels somewhat the same way….
whats happened to DMI? seems to be permanently closed (3 weeks now?)
Water vapor is responsible for 96% of the Greenhouse Effect, while AGW is responsible for 0.1% of greenhouse gases.
Climate is controlled by water not CO2. Bring it on!
If this suit happens, do “Discovery” on the decisions to delete thermometers over the period from about 1989 to today. I’m fairly certain there is enough evidence of deliberate bias in the deletion of thermometers from the GHCN series to justify a “Discovery process” and that there has likely been some fraudulent action in that thermometer deletion. At this point it is only a pattern of evidence, but discovery ought to turn up something in the pattern of meeting attendance and approval signoffs.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/how-to-cook-a-temperature-history/
Proving intent would be the hard part. OTOH, if it is a major party who has been vocal in public about their strong beliefs… (Motive clear, capacity clear, opportunity check, memos & emails mate)
Also, it would be reasonable to try to apply the “disparate impact” standard set in harassment law. You don’t need to prove intent, just that the act had a negative impact. Probably a bit of a stretch, but cases have been won on greater stretches…
Indur Goklany’s article here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/12/linking-health-wealth-and-well-being-with-the-use-of-energy/
Should be used in the countersuit… Those people should be sending money to the energy companies…
Unfortunately there is a real danger here and it is not just the danger of the courts awarding cash from “rich” energy companies to destitute hurricane victims.
Remember the Kingsnorth Power Station case in the UK where the eco-fascist morons who vandalised the station were found not guilty by a jury obviously persuaded by Jim Hansen and his gang of clowns.
The interesting thing in that case, which hasn’t been much commented upon:- what kind of prosecution case was put forward? Did they put Lord Monckton (say) up as an expert witness to rubbish Hansen’s testimony? No chance!
What kind of outcome from the Kingsnorth case was Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband and the rest hoping for? The one they got, of course!
And what outcome will Obama hope for in this New Orleans case? No prizes for guessing! Will genuine science, logic and common sense even get an airing in court?
I just hope the US justice system is a bit more robust.
Ah, but the ‘blanket’ of C02 they claim causes runaway warming is as thin as saran wrap per 1″ column of air. While saran wrap can be stretched tight, C02 cannot be.
If you buy the “Power of C02” theory, then I have a windowless greenhouse I’d like to sell you.
James H (19:59:20) :
This is pretty high-stakes, though. If the plaintiffs prevail, it would open the floodgates to sue anyone that emits CO2. I think that people even exhale CO2, so I guess we’re all responsible. Also, remember in a civil case, the burden is not beyond a reasonable doubt but rather the preponderance of evidence.
If that happens James, we return America to the Indians and move on.