From BusinessInsurance.com:
Supreme Court won’t hear global warming case
WASHINGTON —The U.S. Supreme Court decided Monday not to review a pivotal global warming case brought by coastal residents seeking damages for property damage caused by Hurricane Katrina.
In Ned Comer et al. vs. Murphy Oil USA et al., a group of Mississippi property owners alleged that greenhouse gas emissions of Murphy Oil USA—through more than 100 oil, coal and chemical companies—contributed to climate change and furthered the property damage caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
…
A federal district court in Mississippi dismissed the assertions on grounds that they presented a political question that could not be decided by the courts. However, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans reversed the lower court’s ruling in October 2009 and allowed the claims to proceed.
=============================================================
more here:
http://www.businessinsurance.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110110/NEWS/110119986
This bit of good news comes to us thanks to WUWT reader Paul from Sweden.
A huge area in Queensland in Australia is currently flooded and Brisbane, the capital city, is under threat. An article in the Guardian today blames La Niña.
Australia floods: La Niña to blame
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/12/supreme-court-rejects-hearing-hurricane-katrina-agw-claim/#more-31475
Professor Neville Nicholls at Monash University and president of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society is quoted as saying:
“The extent to which any of this – the floods, warm oceans, or very strong La Niña – is linked to global warming is unknown, because the requisite studies to test this have simply not been done yet.”
Professor Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the (British) Met Office is less cautious.
“As the average global temperature increases one would expect the moisture content of the atmosphere to rise, due to more evaporation from the sea surface. For every 1C sea surface temperature rise, atmospheric moisture over the oceans increases by 6-8%. Also in general, as more energy and moisture is put into the atmosphere [by warming], the likelihood of storms, hurricanes and tornadoes increases.”
Some sense from the Supreme Court? Given the current group of judges, this is somewhat shocking to me.
Aren’t these most of the same donkeys that agreed that CO2 is a harmful pollutant under the Clean Air Act? Maybe they read WUWT, now!
Every time I read this crap my eyes get sore from involuntarily rolling.
So, Vicky, I’m sitting here looking at the Argos data. Where’s your freaking warming Vicky?
But hey, George Bush sent Katrina because he hates black people. (See? Your eyes just rolled too)
Global warming was supposed to cause drought in Oz, according to CSIRO and WWF:
http://www.wwf.org.au/news/n36/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1765929.htm
Since we can’t sue Mother Nature, we sue the “deep pockets”. There’s an old saying about lawyers: “One lawyer in a small town will starve to death. Two lawyers in a small town can make a handsome living”.
It is great to see Vicky Dope, head of climate change advice at the (British) Met Office dismissing the scientific method, as usual, in favour of her gut feeling.
“As the average global temperature increases one would expect the moisture content of the atmosphere to rise, due to more evaporation from the sea surface.”
I thought rigorous science was about being prepared for the unexpected rather than gut feeling. Dope is well suited to her pious role.
I don’t think your textual summary quite sets out the true position according to the link given. Would it be better perhaps (corrections in []’s):
“A federal district court in Mississippi dismissed the assertions on grounds that they presented a political question that could not be decided by the courts. While a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans [initially] reversed the lower court’s ruling in October 2009 and allowed the claims to proceed […that decision was later itself reversed by the same Court of Appeals, allowing the Mississippi Court’s original decision to stand. The Supreme Court has decided that it will not intervene in this particular case.]”
I’m sure trial lawyers are all incredibly scientifically literate.
And the future of the world’s economy rests on a single man, a simple 5-4 majority against a world of propaganda and eco-zealous doctrine.
That real is laughable, why do people in the US want to sue for everything?
They might as well try and sue James Watt’s descendants for creating the steam engine and it’s part in the industrial revolution!
One afterthought to my earlier post: the Supreme Court decision leaves Prof Hansen well behind the loop in preparing his much-vaunted legal case for the courts.
The Supreme Court apparently accepted that the effect of “greenhouse emissions” was a political, not justiciable, issue. This is a really significant decision.
If I wreck my car sliding on the ice and snow today, from the latest heavy snowfall, can I also sue everybody that contributed to “global warming”
@SteveE says:
January 12, 2011 at 2:28 am
“That real is laughable, why do people in the US want to sue for everything?”
It’s called, “Jackpot Justice.” If you can’t earn your own money you sue the deepest pockets to get someone else’s money.
Brisbane is built on a flood plain, and for years the Aussies referred to “The Wet”. In fact on of Neville Shute’s books was titled “In the Wet” and describes the regular flooding between Brisbane and Cairns in some detail.
Perhaps more interesting as a book published in 1953 and fortelling what could happen in the 1980’s – Neville Shute describes how a UK Left Wing government is devious, manipulative and bullying.
Focussing on CO2 driven “Climate Change” (SORRY! – Climate DISRUPTION!) rather than taking care of little details like drainage is the real cause as such El Nino events have happened in the past. Hence my total contempt for the Warmists who first bleat “Weather not Climate” when the cold hits. Then when they are laughed at, they try to make out Cooling is really Warming, then floods in the Brisbane flood plain is “linked to Climate Change”.
The reality is that – tragic as these events are – they have happened before but are made worse by the urbanisation of flood plains. We can waste money on reducing CO2 if you want – but for my tax hit – i would rather see effective drainage and building controls.
The specifics are different but the overall prediction of how the Left acts is quite remarkable.
Strange how 3 cold winters in the UK according to Vicky Pope is no worthy of mention except as ‘Its just weather not climate’ but a flood (Aussie 2011 and Pakistan 2010) or heatwave (Russia) is jumped on as Climate. Double standards and just confirms my gut feeling there never was a cold forecast for the 2010 winter in the UK.
The current Brisbane floods are about the same level as the 1974 floods. However, both are about 3 metres less that the 1893 and 1840 floods. AGW alarmists never mention inconvient histories.
http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml
I agree with TimC that you do not have the legal status of the case described correctly. Although the initial 3-judge panel reversed the district court, the fifth circuit eventually ended up dismissing the appeal, thereby allowing the district court decision to stand.
By deciding not to review the case, the United States Supreme Court has not expressed a view on the merits of the district court’s decision, one way or the other. The Supreme Court agrees to review only a tiny fraction of the cases presented to it and does not affirm or reverse a lower court decision when it decides not to review it.
I live in the Washington DC area, the epicenter of US global warming regulation and legislation. I believe the largest single emitter of greenhouse gases here are from government sources. The largest employer is the Federal Govt, so besides power plants, they would be the largest generator of CO2. There are also at least four trash incinerators that burn waste in the area (the landfills have been closed). Thus, second to the Federal Govt, the second largest emitter of CO2 (other than power plants) would be the local govts that operate these incinerators. They burn waste because it is the best way to get rid of it. Come to think about it, this is why the best fuel to burn to produce electricity is coal. So bottom line, here in DC, the govt does not walk the talk.
Flooding in the recent past in th UK was caused by the same silly human behaviour as the current Australian flooding – covering flood plains with suburbs, ignoring the fact that a ‘flood plain’ is so named for a very specific reason. It seems this phenomenon occurs everywhere in the Western world when developers spy an area of level grassland near a river and near a growing city. This combines two pieces of stupidity – it removes rich alluvial land built up by aeons of flooding from agricultural production and creates extreme future flood risks.
“Roy says:
January 12, 2011 at 1:34 am”
Well, here is Aus we get conflicting MSM content regarding this flood, fairly common as I see it (1840, 1898 *No SUVs then*, 1910, 1954, 1974, 1994 and 2010. But ask a 10 year old if they’d seen it before). A La Nina event is a cooling event. An El Nino event is a warming event. Apparently, the oceans around Aus are warm, ala, El Nino. So, depends where you read and what you hear, it’s BOTH El Nino AND La Nina. Co2 is amazing stuff!!
A global warming case in court would give the sceptics a FANTASTIC chance to argue against alarmists, so they had to prevent this case.
OT:
PIPS2 data is showing that we right now have a spectacular recovery of thick ice in the Arctic, a recovery at such a speed that the Arctic seems to demonstrate that it is in no way near a fading away death spiral:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/trends-in-arctic-ice-thickness-and-volume-211.php
K.R. Frank
SteveE says:
January 12, 2011 at 2:28 am
very true! but sadly you have probably now set that ball rolling – watch for a load of (particularly) American lawyers chasing James Watts descendants! One should never give these lawyer types ideas! LOL
This is a civil case. The dismissal wasn’t based on “science”, per say, so, in all liklihood, it will almost certainly have enough “umph” to go to a jury should the parties decide to roll the dice. There are numerous factual issues. Don’t forget a few key points. Just about all science-folks agree warming of some kind has occurred compared to pre-industrial times. Most agree humans have had “some” effect – call it urban heat or whatever you wish. In civil trials, the disputes over if, how much, etc., will be decided by a jury. Remember, climate things are not like deciding the 12th digit of the gravitational constant. The old “rule of 51” prevails meaning if, by a scintilla, one set of evidence outweighs the other then the scintilla wins. Juries can include greenies – imagine that – since you only get so many challenges during selection.
What will happen, typically, is both sides will present their experts who will mostly confuse the jury who will the toss out the expert opinions and decide the factual issues based on whatever they’re thinking at the time. Example, Hanson testifies then Monckton testifies. Both take three days (or a week) who mostly present “science blather”. It’s akin to that old Larson cartoon of dogs listening to human speech where they hear “blah, blah, blah, Rover, blah, blah, fetch, blah, blah…”.
This will be a tough case for either to win. It will be enormously expensive for each side. If the greenies win, a deluge of warming suites will follow – even it they agree to a settlement. Even if they lose, the greenies will refine their case and pursue another round. Just way too much money. Think of the Erin Brockovich case – flimsy or non-existent supporting science but still huge win. Emotions can easily prevail – think of all those children testifying how they lost their pet dog (just kidding).
One thing for sure, if “big oil” fights it for real, it will be years before it gets to the point of scheduling the trial. I’d use the old IBM method where one of their cases lasted over a decade.
Karoly here was up to the same kind of thing:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/fates-conspire-to-concoct-a-recipe-for-disaster-20110111-19mp7.html
He has form for telling us that AGW was contributing to our recent droughts.
I agree completly with the earlier comments about the Brisbane floods (NOTE the plural – floodsssss).