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 responsibility for the levee maintenance in New Orleans was spread among a large number of organizations. Some of these organizations thought it was more to their interest to foster river boat gambling than maintain the levees. While I saw the destruction of this storm first hand in the 9th ward and it was truly horrible, it was a disaster that was waiting to happen. I seem to remember a NOVA program in 2002 that predicted what would happen if a large hurricane hit this city head on. They had 4 years to do remediation. All Nagin did was to play “Happy times are here again.” and ignore it.
@a jones A lot of the local law is built around the code of Napoleon, given that the French owned the area prior to the Louisiana Purchase. However, this suit is proceeding across state lines and therefore falls under the Federal jurisdiction.
But, but, but there is more CO2 now in the atmosphere than there was then and the ACE is at a 30 year low. Put that in your pipe (along with some weed) and smoke it.
Sort of related, storms and “one world gummint” etc, but really, are there more natural disasters than before?
http://www.timeistickingaway.com.au/program1.htm
You can’t make this stuff up…
“martin brumby (22:41:50) :
I just hope the US justice system is a bit more robust.”
I don’t know a single developed, western, country which has (Anymore) a justice system. What you have (Now) are legal systems. Two very different beasts.
Not the least interesting aspect of the case will be whether the Energy companies will be prepared to stop ‘playing green’, come out of the closet and start telling it like it is.
Maybe they will even realise where their intrests really are (perhaps prompted by their shareholders) and actually start to play hard ball with the eco-fascists. It is way over due.
JimB (19:20:32) :
“Will Al Gore be allowed to testify as an expert witness? Hmmmm…. not a bad idea…. finally, a member of that administration sent to prison for perjury…. still risky.”
I’d be absolutely shocked to see that happen, as if he testifies, he’s open to cross-examination, which he has NEVER allowed during this freak show that he at the very least, helped orchestrate.
He’s yapped in public as a self appointed expert / apostle and the Nobel Committee recognized his importance (so he has to show he is not important to dodge). Can you say subpoena (From the latin “sub” meaning below and “Pen…” oh, never mind…)
At a bare minimum you can bring him in for “discovery” of what pertinent evidence he might know about. Then he gets to either cough up what, who, and how he knows along with his conflicts of interest, or admit under oath he is without clue…
Maybe I missed my calling… I could really enjoy being a lawyer. If I could just get passed that being smarmy part…
You know, if you can get any witness on the prosecution side to admit having seen his movie or read his book, you can probably bring him in as a cross examination of the evidence / topics brought up…
“Did you ever see (foo) or read (foobar)?” yes
“And do you think it shows global warming is real?” yes
“Your Honor, defense wishes to examine this influential material that shaped the decisions of the plaintiff and to enquire of the author as to where he gathered this information.”
(or however a real lawyer would phrase it…)
AND it would be great fun in voir dire to ask the juror pool if they had ever seen AIT and were they influenced by it. Easy way to filter out the true believers…
Absolutely correct, I worked in emergency management for from the late 1970’s to early 1990’s and it was common knowledge (ie used as an obvious problem example) that if New Orleans was hit with a major hurricane there would be major destruction, and very high likelihood that they would have significant flooding due to over topping of levees, failure of levees, or lack of pumping capacity or pump failures making it impossible to keep the basin the city is built in pumped out.
Most of the city is below local sea level, the only reason the city is dry is due to large pumping systems.
It was one of those situations that everyone that had a clue knew was going to happen for about 40 years (at least ever since Hurricane Camille in 1969).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Camille
Larry
This article will sum it up global warming is real it is time we take action.
Baffin Island reveals dramatic scale of Arctic climate change
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/baffin-island-reveals-dramatic-scale-of-arctic-climate-change-1805623.html
@Bill Illis…
Bill, maybe you can offer up your paleo sea level reconstructions to the defense team. Most people in the courtroom would probably be shocked to see how much sea level had already risen before man ever burned his first lump of coal or Col. Drake drilled his well in Titusville PA.
On another note…
Wouldn’t the plaintiffs also have to go after the people who actually burned the coal and oil? It seems to me that the courts have fairly well established that firearms manufacturers are not liable for gun violence. Assuming that the plaintiffs use electricity, heat their homes and drive automobiles… They might just have to… Go sue themselves!
Forget about Louisiana and their legal system.
Under the Federal system, in simple terms, a case may be tried in Federal court if there is diversity of citizens and the amount in controversy exceeds a Congress established minimum amount. The reason is to allow a citizen of one state to sue a citizen in another state (or states) and have the issues decided in a court that has jurisdiction over all the parties. See the US Constitution, Article III, Section 2. The appellate decision made clear there is no Federal subject matter jurisdiction. This means the issue will be tried on the law of the state in which the case was brought. The appellate decision indicates it’s Mississippi common law. Thus, the plaintiffs brought the case in the state of Mississippi. They can do this even if they were residents of California just as long as either the plaintiff or the defendant has a “presence” in Mississippi. This is sometimes called “forum shopping”.
The case, if it proceeds, will be tried under Mississippi law. The appellate court indicated it was under Mississippi common law meaning there is no statute that covers the plaintiffs claims. This is both good and bad.
Also, there is no requirement to sue everyone that may have injured the plaintiff. The plaintiff chooses their defendants.
As Bulldust pointed out, there is, however, a very real danger in all this. Anyone that’s gone to first semester evidence in law school will tell you that, all in all, expert witnesses will usually offset each other. For example, if Hansen testifies there is AGW using the usual scientific language he’ll obviously conclude there is AGW etc. A defence rebuttal witness will obviously conclude just the opposite. They would have to discredit the testimony of the plaintiff’s witness on the key issue of whether global warming causes hurricanes. This would be very, very difficult to do. If they get to trial. Don’t forget the jury will have to decide since there is obviously different expert opinions about this. Think about the Evolution cases.
If it gets to trial, I’d bet a jury, in their deliberations, will decide it’s possible that global warming has some connection to hurricanes. (Don’t forget there is a scrubbing process in jury selection so Anthony would be challenged and excluded from the jury pool. But so would Al Gore). With that, they move on to the contribution of humans to global warming. Suppose it’s 1 percent. Case won for the plaintiffs.
Since it’s a class action, anyone in the class, even those not part of the original suit, can collect. Then you’ll see TV ads soliciting victims. This is where the figures will skyrocket and why there are class action lawyers. Suppose the original plaintiff had losses due to Katrina of $100,000. One percent is only $1,000. Suppose losses are $60 billion. Even one half of one percent would be around $300 million. If only half of those “in the class” come forward, it’s still $150 million with about half that for the plaintiffs attorneys.
I’d bet a lot the plaintiffs will win if it goes to trial since I think a jury could be convinced there is a likely probability that heat and hurricanes go together. After all, look at how many believe it today.
Why can’t the prosecution just take the chart and turn it upside down and offer it as PROOF for their case?
jtom (19:59:14) :
………………
“Absolutely nothing was left except for the concrete slab.”
All of a sudden I came think of the story of the big bad wolf and the three pigs.
I wonder why.
Cedarhill, you make very good points – but I think you left out the most important one. The plaintiffs will need to show that the defendant’s actions were proximately linked to the harm caused. If the linkage between the defendants actions and the harm caused is too attenuated, then the defendants cannot be held liable.
This decision in favor of standing did *Not* (as I’m sure you know) establish that linkage – it simply allowed the plaintiffs the opportunity to establish that linkage in court. If they cannot, then this case is still subject to being tossed with a summary judgment. Standing is just the first of several hurdles that get progressively higher. I think this linkage will be extremely difficult to show for several reasons – if I understand correctly, they are suing oil and gas producers, not actual CO2 emitters. This means that not only are they trying to prove a linkage to “global warming”, but they have also got to prove that the defendants are responsible for their customer’s use of their products, even though they had no control over that use. For example, how could the producers control whether or not their customers used adequate emissions controls?
This argument has failed in almost every industry in which it has been tried (ie: gun manufacturers) and it is just one of many reasons why it is very unlikely that this ever makes it before a jury.
Okay, the link between global warming and hurricanes. This is how I understand it. Hurricanes are not caused by warming. Rather, they are caused by a large difference between surface temperatures and upper atmospheric temperatures. The surface is always warmer than the upper atmosphere. So, in order to create an environment more favorable for hurricanes, the surface needs to warm MORE than the upper atmosphere. And that is exactly what happens. Under NATURAL global warming.
However, if global warming is caused by mankind, via an “enhanced greenhouse effect”, then the upper atmosphere will, unquestionably, warm more than the surface. All of the anthropogenic global warming computer models agree on this. In fact, they DEPEND on this. (However, the EMPIRICAL data doesn’t agree with this at all, which SHOULD have been the first clue that, if global warming is occurring, it’s isn’t caused by mankind, but that’s another story.)
The point is, if anthropogenic global warming is occurring, then there should be FEWER, and WEAKER hurricanes, because anthropogenic global warming decreases the temperature difference between the surface and the upper atmosphere.
I think they have a better case against the Smithsonian and the estate of Lorenz:
http://www.gardens.si.edu/horticulture/gardens/nmnh/butterfly.html
I for one do not support this rush to judgement. I contend that American industry is not to blame in this case. I have witnesses who will testify that Katrina got in with the wrong crowd as a youth in the Bahamas. At first it was just flooding. Then she moved on to light property damage. By the time she entered the Gulf she was recklessly sporting high winds, displacing cargo ships, and threatening massive flooding and destruction to the people of the southern United States. She was out of control, but she acted alone in this wanton act of vandalism.
Crow:
Thanks for the link. I read it. Doesn’t prove a thing. The author ADMITTED that this area is “warming faster than most other parts of the world”. So, what you have here is ANECDOTAL evidence of warming. Not GLOBAL evidence of warming.
Funny, any time a skeptic points out cooling in a specific location, or at a specific time, the alarmists scream about it being “anecdotal evidence”. But they don’t have a problem using the same kind of anecdotal evidence when it supports their own whacky conclusions.
And where did the author come up with this “natural cooling trend which began 8,000 years ago”? I’ve never heard of this before. I thought we were in the middle of an Interglacial which began around 10-12,000 years ago, at the end of the last Glacial Maximum. If this is based on a 21,000-year cycle, we should have experienced gradual WARMING over the last 10,000 years, not cooling. This is the first article I’ve seen claiming any kind of cooling trend over the last 8,000 years. (Mann claimed a 1,000-year cooling trend, but that has been thoroughly discredited, as have, now, the subsequent papers by Mann’s buddies claiming to confirm it.)
“http://ngs.woc.noaa.gov/katrina/KATRINA0000.HTM”
[Please provide a few words of explanation when posting a link. ~dbs, moderator]
Going by her alarming link, Sue believes that the ‘plastic vortex’ is so thick you could walk on it.
But this person actually did some analysis:
http://politicalpen.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/plastic-vortex
Not to excuse using the ocean as a dump, but the truth is much less alarming.
Sorry moderator…
I was trying to post an image of the actual track of Hurricane Katrina.
In my original post at the top of this discussion, I claimed that hurricane Katrina hit the State of Mississippi.
This was intended as a rebuttal to something rather misleading:
Jerry Lee Davis (20:06:18) :
Steve, please see Katrina’s actual Louisiana landfall at the National Hurricane center link:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/KATRINA_graphics.shtml
My point: Inaccuracy in news reporting (regarding landfall) and lack of precision with insults (regarding corruption causing the main damage in New Orleans), will reduce our credibility when we insult our common enemy, the AGWers.
The Mississippi gulf coast was hit by a similar surge ~100 years ago.
This is total bunk, and the 5th Circuit is completely out of line on this.
It is not clear from the article, but was this the complete panel of the 5th, or a smaller subset.
If it is not the complete Circuit, there is some hope it can still be treated as it should be: tossed out.
The flip side is that this may become the much sought after trial about AGW that is long over due.
I do have a practical idea:
The energy companies should provide immediate voluntary relief to all plaintiffs, attorneys and judges in the case:
Power companies should halt all electricity sales to anyone on the plaintiff side, oil and gas companies should cut off sales of all products to them as well, and any stores that receive products in a manner that involves the release of CO2 should stop all sales to the plaintiffs, their lawyers, and the Judges who have contrived this ridiculous false claim.
That way the defendants can mitigate their damages to these special people.
And the plaintiffs and their pals can start experiencing the fruits of the desires immediately.
Crow,
Perhaps there is an AGW true believer blog that will be low enough in critical thinkgin skills to agree with you.
This is not that blog.
Please do not post self referential propaganda as if it proves anything.
Baffin island proves yet again that AGW’s biggest danger is that it makes its believers stupid.
I think it is unwise to assume that this will be the “trial of AGW” that many of us hope for.
Depending on what the defendants think is in their best interests – or their least-worse option. they may not even try to argue that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.
For example, they might settle, thinking that, after all the propaganda, that they will struggle to convince a jury that AGW is nonsense.
Some industries might even accept their “guilt” because the payout could be cheaper than losing their place on the AGW gravy-train.
When you have such insanity as the UK government giving grants to environmental groups specifically so that they can lobby the UK government (so that government ministers can then claim that they are responding to “public pressure”) then Alice in Wonderland and Catch 22 are the most useful handbooks.
Be careful what you wish for.
Be mindful that as a result of the public indoctrination by the media propagandists you would very likely get an “OJ” jury.
Where a trial would be held would be crucial because of the prospective jury pool. Rules of evidence are one thing but if they are ignored you have a kangaroo court.
In my not so humble ass opinion, most of the broadcast media should have their licenses suspended for knowingly broadcasting false information under the guise of news with the intent of inciting the public.