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.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 10, 2011 at 10:54 am
Actually, the eventual result of this as the top half (those above the average) lower their carbon footprint, consequently lowering the average and going though this cycle enough times, is that we all end up being forced to emit pretty close to NO CO2 at all. That’s how this all works out in the end. Shows how very little they know.
I’m thinking of bringing a suit against the Sierra Club (have you seen their offices) and NRDC (their carbon spillage stains the tarmac). Anyone with a young granddaughter who needs counsel, let me know.
This debate has been ongoing for more than 45 years.
Wasn’t the revolution in Kampuchea lead by young Khmer Rouge? They wanted to cleanse their people of the “wrong evil sort”.
Maybe, just maybe, they’re considering a mechanism whereby those with the greatest carbon footprint can exchange it to those with the least carbon footprint–for a small exchange fee payable to the lawyers and Nature, of course. This way, everybody’s made fair and equitable in the system; everybody’s just as happy as they were before (those paying have the cash so they certainly won’t miss it and it will do WONDERS for their ego and conscience); and Gaia won’t see any harm (or difference, for that matter). By Jove, I think I should get a royalty or at least a finder’s fee for such a brilliant idea! Oh, wait… I vaguely remember hearing about something like this before…
Hope the finger pointers are prepared to have their own personal lives examined under a microscope.
RE: The end of the (Holocene) age …
http://www.iceagenow.com/Snow_in_Namibia.htm
I must wonder, having viewed that image, about markings of Zebras. Are they actually a pre Holocene relic? That’s actually pretty good cammo for snowy steppes.
“Definitely not Grandma, but how about the biggest hypocrite of all, Al Gore?”
Hey, what about tank girl? You know, the one that got his limo stuck in England.
I’m not a lawyer but assume they would have to have a case that shows fully their methodology in determining the so-called causes of climate change.
Well, It a safe bet that the journal Nature exceeds that average, so here’s an idea: skeptics should try to bring the very lawsuit they wish for – against the journal Nature. See how they like it then.
That young lady in the picture has a vary healthy carbon footprint.
To think I’ve been coming to WUWT to read the articles 😉
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 10, 2011 at 10:54 am
Well, it will take a while because some people are stubborn, but eventually, everyone will be emitting less CO2 than the average person.
We are all equal in the grave. At that point my foot print will be nil.
Bring it on. I think the discovery portion of the lawsuit process would be very interesting. Maybe the warmists would finally have to reveal the data they have been desperately trying to hide from FOIA requests.
This stupidity reminds me of the film “The Man Who Sued God”, starring Billy Connolly. He played a fisherman who lost his boat in a storm and when he tried to claim on his insurance policy the insurers refused to pay because it was “an act of God”. He therefore tried to sue God via the Church for the loss of his boat.
My thoughts on this are as follows; “duty of care to the climate” implies that the “climate” is the same as an employee/patient/colleague/customer. These individuals can sue whoever causes them harm but the climate cannot since it is not a human being with rights in international law. In fact the humans living on Earth have the right not to have their standards of living constrained by the necessary downturn in the prosperity of their respective countries, by uneconomic energy production. If the warmists then say that Co2 produced now will affect the lives of future generations, then we need witness statements from these future generations.
The whole thing is as nonsensical as man made global warming and if this is the latest weapon in the armoury of the warmist cause, to be frank it is pathetic.
It must be hard being an all out CAGW proponent. It must be hard knowing whether to hope for the full manifestation of CAGW and all the trouble it may bring, or to hope that it doesn’t happen at the expense of “unsettled” science!
@Adalberto
Huh? It’s the greenest form of power. A fifteen mile radius semi-circle around Fukashima is going to revert to nature with none of those pesky humans paving and building over the environment. Nature loves a good nuclear disaster. I just hope the greenie wiennies don’t figure that one out.
Should the editors/chiefs of the Nature publication have a real urge for this, they have the place to do so.
Southeastern New Mexico, “Mescolero Sands” area, best chance for water over the summer is “railroad mountain” a narrow uplift that traps water on its north side. Easy to find about 2/3rds of the way going west out of Clovis toward Roswall on Highway 70 if memory serves.
Little hot in the summer, but if you dig down in the wet sand in the spring and hollow out a large enough space like my great,great, great, great, great grandad for his wife and kids did you can stay a bit cool if not sandy.
fools
No fear, we will all be able to buy carbon offsets from folk who use less than half the average.
In fact I’ve got some for sale right now at a cut price. Please form an orderly queue.
Oh….and by the way, if the science is so “settled”, then why are we still spending so much money on trying to prove it? “I think he doth protest too much”!
…..And, this whole carbon footprint is a complete red herring. If it really is the case that CO2 levels will be too high for the next 50-100years, even if we all stop burning tomorrow, then excuse me, but what is the ******* point?
So, let’s all go live in mud huts and keep warm….. how? I guess most people would die pretty quickly……….er, ok… it would work…. less people… less problem……!!!!
What’s the difference ultimately – starve and/or freeze in mud huts and caves in the short term or wait for CAGW and drown or dehydrate or starve or be poisoned be contaminated water, or eaten by a displaced polar bear, or blown away by bigger hurricanes/tornadoes etc,etc
@mkelly
Not exactly nil, but decaying towards nil.
Surely if we are to start to play the lawyers-vs-lawyers game we should not ignore the decades of theft of publically funded research by Nature that has formed the primary imput to it’s little scienc-y business. Billions and billions of dollars of public research funding feeds the system of which Nature is a beneficiary. It’s time for Nature to start paying us back for its “free” input of scientific papers. A commercial publishing operation like Nature should not be the gatekeeper for science, the pay-per-view hoarder of knowledge, nor the self-appointed judge of public opinion and action. Pay your own way Nature. Stop being a freeloader. We don’t need your British lectures on environmental ethics especially since your national policies based on those opinions are destroying your once proud nation.
Maybe Nature Climate Change is just catering to the needs of its target audience, which are warmist authoritarian scientists. Who would gladly applaud an international kangaroo court that stops civilization in its tracks; not noticing that this would also derail their gravy train (after all, they’re ivory tower inhabitants with no knowledge of the economy – all that they know is that they get money for wamist papers).
I think this is a wonderful idea. After all, it’ll give even more work to the poor starving trial lawyers who aren’t driving up the cost of health care quite enough yet in the States by advertising their services on every television station. We don’t have enough lawsuits over here in America, let’s increase the size and burden of the legal system by dealing with ridiculous claims and junk science vs. putting the real criminals in prison.
Do these people even have a clue what living in the real world is like?
Jay Curtis says:
June 10, 2011 at 11:36 am
Billions will be sued? By whom? Isn’t that like the world suing itself?
Jay, you beat me to it. You could sue tens of people, hundreds of people, thousands of people, maybe tens of thousands. But could you sue billions of people? I think it more likely that the billions of people would turn around and crush you. Can you sue the US for using all the oil? Can you sue China for having all those people? Can Africa sue Europe for being rich?
No. By no one. Yes. No. No. No. No. (I answer my own questions because no one responds to my posts).
I’m so old I can remember when there was at least a soupcon of science in Nature. Now it appears to just be the blatherings of the desperate. I would suggest everyone start stockpiling greenies. That way they’ll be nicely seasoned for use as firewood when their comrades have destroyed civilization and the next ice age is upon us.