More of this “climate justice” rubbish, now “legitimized” by a publication in a leading science journal
From the Hockey Schtick:
The journal Nature suggests billions of people could be sued for legal breach of duty to care for the climate
This just in: the June 2011 edition of the journal Nature Climate Change entertains the wonderful notion that billions of people worldwide could be sued for “legal breach of their duty of care to the climate” by individually exceeding the worldwide average carbon dioxide footprint.
The apparently frustrated journal laments that “only if a case came to be judged on its merits [pity the thought], would the ‘science’ of climate change be called upon to help make the case: even then, there are difficulties.”
Definitely not Grandma, but how about the biggest hypocrite of all, Al Gore?
Story at the Hockey Schtick
h/t to reader “kwik”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Be careful what you wish for. Because while AGW (or CAGW or any of the other alphabet soup disasters) is a popular notion, it is not proveable, even in a court of law. By taking it to court, they could very well be shown to be a hoax, and then what?
When you have to resort to lawsuits to get your way, you are admitting there is plenty of room for doubt.
give ’em a taste of their own medicine. sue the greenies for starving hundreds of thousands of people through artificially raised grain costs worldwide, for the destruction of natural landscapes by unsightly, creepy wind farms, and for artificially raising energy costs and causing harm to struggling families all over the world.
Come off it, those people are clearly wack-jobs and we really shouldn’t be giving them the oxygen of publicity by even debating their power tripping, vindictive nuttiness.
Fear not. There are a number of trends converging – geopolitical, economic, cultural, natural – which will throw us into another Age of Migrations. Population, already in a mathematically guaranteed death spiral (e.g. based on the current fecundity curve) will plummet even more rapidly. Man will lose ground to nature, all the settlement and development of the past 1000 years will be reversed. The wild beasts will terrorize the remnant. “Gaia” (whatever that means) will be “happy,” right?
I look forward to being named a defendant in one of the lawsuits. I look forward to taking the deposition of the plaintiffs’ experts. In reality there will be no lawsuits; only puffing in magazines like Nature. The warmists will not want to have their case cross examined. They will huff and puff, but as Michael Crichton pointed out, they will not want to have to prove their case. It just won’t happen.
If I understand, an article in >em>Nature argues that we should sue (i.e., extract money) from anyone who produces more than the “average” CO2 per person output. Don’t those bozos realize that unless everyone uses exactly the average (which is practically impossible) and if the “individual CO2 output” is symmetrical about the “mean CO2 output” that half the people are subject to a lawsuit by the other half. What nonsense. What are these people smoking?
“billions … could be sued for “legal breach of their duty of care to the climate” by individually exceeding the worldwide average carbon dioxide footprint.”
Dreaming of a future where no one is ‘above average’.
I am calling on those who have fallen behind to get their game on and catch up with the rest of us!
Nature Climate Change?
Which NGO publishes that one?
Exceeding the average, mean or median? I’ll take the 7th principal component, please.
(emphasis mine)
Someone will always exceed average, by definition.
If they used median instead of arithmetic average, they could even arrive at quite good estimate for the number of offenders. But I guess those guys have a pretty vague idea what ‘average’ means.
Thank GOD – for a moment there I thought they meant me. You know, me and the wife out here working the oil sands, two Harley Davidsons in the garage, (the wife has her own bike), an SUV in at my front door, a gas lawn mower, gas pressure washer, gas snow blower, and we drive our bikes and ride our SUV just for the joy of being alive. A great sound system, a big screen TV (two actually) with all the modern appliances my wife and myself can afford. Out there at the 18 oil sands plants the largest gas and diesel machines on planet earth – down the road a couple hours south is farm and cattle country. Yep – for a nasty moment I was sure they meant folks like me.
But on second thought who or what would power their homes? Their businesses to write Nature nonsense? Tree huggers? Eco freaks? Who would provide the fuel to stock their grocery shelves, fuel the entire transportation sector, power the electrical grids, feed those pesky critters? And all the other privileges those of us in fly over country (mining, logging, farming, oil, gas, etc., etc.,) do otherwise every modern city on planet earth would collapse on itself.
Wonder who do they mean besides Grandma?
Well, I can see how this is going to play out. It’s such an obvious solution I’m amazed no one has thought of it before. They take an average, and everyone emitting CO2 over the average gets fined.
End result?
Well, it will take a while because some people are stubborn, but eventually, everyone will be emitting less CO2 than the average person.
TA DA!
See how easy that was?
w.
Ah excellent idea. Lets have the Nature staff and publishing company demonstrate to the rest of us how to do it. They should all discard the trappings of modern life and live the way they state people should live. After all if it really is such a good idea let them demonstrate it to the rest of us.
“Nature to world’s people: stop your modern living”
World to ‘Nature’ staff and management: Stop your post modern alarmism , unsupported by reproducible science. Stop publishing your political brand of eco-rubbish. It’s polluting the planet and is a profound waste of our finite electron supply!
Paul Irwin says:
June 10, 2011 at 10:29 am
“give ‘em a taste of their own medicine. sue the greenies…”
I’m with you on this, Paul. Can a class action lawsuit be brought against these companies and even government agencies (Nature, GreenPeace, SierraClub, EPA, etc) that support and create regulations so very harmful to the already impoverished citizens of the planet?
How about instead of fining me for going over a CO2 limit, I promise to not exercise and breathe really really slowly everyday.
Billions will be sued? By whom? Isn’t that like the world suing itself? Who gets the money? My guess is that Nature’s subscriptions are tanking, and they put this sensational drivel in to boost them.
What would really get peoples’ attention and boost Nature’s sales considerably would be to begin writing stories that tell the truth about so called “climate change.” Can’t you just imagine an article with the heading, “Scientists Admit No Factual Basis Exists for Anthropogenic Global Warming.” I guarantee it would sell more than their usual alarmist shtick.
What a kick in the teeth for people trying to do honest science…..
…that have been published in this rag
There is one completely simple and totally achievable solution to this nonsense, and to all the other predations perpetrated by the teeming hoards of trial lawyers as well (which add an estimated 35% “litigation tax” to every activity of human life in the USA). It is so simple that it can be in two small words “Loser Pays”.
Talk is cheap?
Nature would put the Kangaroo in the court system.
Nature is talking about mass punishment, something that is not allowed in our legal system. Since there is no way to individually collect the evidence against each individual of the billions to be sued, arrest or deliver the summons there is also no way to bring them individually into court other than to try the imagined guilty group in their individual absence. Perhaps they would model that part of their solution. The kangaroo comes to mind as a symbol of that legal system. Naturally such a punishment would have to be done under a world court that recognizes no national sovereignty, borders or restrictions.
They would impose mass punishment on billions of people for something that does not exist except in the twisted minds of the incredibly ambitious.
Let them win. Let them attempt to collect. In the UK our street lights will soon serve another purpose. I think I know why they call themselves greens.
OT
UN’s Environment Program is an Administrative Mess, Internal Study Reveals
“EXCLUSIVE: The United Nations Environment Program, the flagship for environmental consciousness and creation of a new era of “global environmental governance,” doesn’t know how its money is spent or even who it may be dealing with when it comes to hundreds of corporate, public and non-governmental partners that are “key” to fulfilling its mission, according to a confidential internal study obtained by Fox News. ”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/06/10/un-internal-study-reveals-its-environment-program-is-administrative-mess/#ixzz1OtwojUR7
Now how long will it take to put billions of cases through the courts? Someone has no concept of numbers.
Let Nature set the standard.
Nature should pull their website and reduce the CO2 load on the environment caused by the server requirements they demand. Show us the way, Nature.
Isn’t this the point of smart meters, taxes on how many miles you drive, and all that other O’bama mess……..