Guest essay by Roger E. Sowell, Esq. reposted with permission from Sowell’s Law Blog
In the past month, several articles appeared calling for the jailing of those who provide financial support for research into climate science with an objective of proving that man-made climate change does not exist. An overview is provided at WattsUpWithThat (see link). Responses to the call for jailing are numerous.
The background on this is that three sides exist in the climate change argument: one, the warmists, those who fervently believe that man’s activities by
burning fossil fuels will drive up the Earth’s temperature and cause all manner of horrible happenings; two, the skeptics, those who understand that the science simply does not support the warmists’ view, that any increase in global temperature is related to natural cycles but not to man’s fossil fuel consumption; and three, lukewarmers, those whose views fall in between the warmists and the skeptics. Disclosure: my own view after long and careful study and based on engineering, science, and mathematics, is that of a confirmed skeptic with a full understanding that carbon dioxide, CO2, does indeed absorb and emit thermal radiant energy.
My previous articles on SLB outline my views. (see My Journey, Warmists are Wrong, Chemical Engineer Takes on Warming, Cold Winters, Climate Science is Not Settled, and others). The leading climate scientists whose views most close approximate my own include Dr. S. Fred Singer of University of Virginia, and Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, who stated that “The claims that the earth has been warming, that there is a greenhouse effect, and that man’s activities have contributed to warming, are trivially true and essentially meaningless in terms of alarm.”
The basis for the jailing of skeptics is that many, perhaps millions, of human deaths will occur inevitably if drastic action is not taken immediately to prevent additional fossil fuel use. By fossil fuel use, what is meant is the burning of coal and natural gas in power plants and process plants, plus burning petroleum products as transportation and heating fuel. The supposed legal theory is that a person can be found criminally negligent if his (or her) actions cause serious harm or death to another. In this particular case, the assertion is that those who promote research into climate change to show that no alarm is justified will cause the death of millions of people due to events such as ice caps melting, subsequent sealevel rise and coastal inundation, droughts, and heat waves. It is criminal negligence, they assert, to try to prevent the alarm from being sounded when the consequences are so dire.
With that as background, it is necessary to examine the legal requirements of a criminal negligence case. There are two possible crimes, first is Involuntary Manslaughter with criminal negligence as an element, the second is Voluntary Manslaughter. Under existing California law, the following must be proven.
Involuntary Manslaughter
To prove that the defendant is guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter, the State must prove that:
1. The defendant committed a lawful act in an unlawful manner;
2. The defendant committed the act with criminal negligence; and
3. The defendant’s acts caused the death of another person.
Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal negligence when:
1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury; and
2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk.
In other words, a person acts with criminal negligence when the way he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act.
With the legal rules for Involuntary Manslaughter set forth, it is possible to examine the claim that it is criminal negligence to support research into climate change to show no reason for alarm exists.
First, was there a lawful act? The answer must be yes, conducting research into climate change is lawful.
Next, was the research done in an unlawful manner, meaning with criminal negligence? To prove criminal negligence, two things must be proven: the acts were performed in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury; and those acts caused the death of another person.
The act of conducting climate research from a skeptic view might be held to be performed recklessly and to create a risk of death or great bodily injury, but only if the research chose only data that confirmed the pre-conceived conclusion, or improper analyses were performed, or unwarranted conclusions were drawn from the data and analysis, or some combination of all the above. It is notable that the peer-review process exists to eliminate, or at least minimize, such research techniques because they lead to bad science and poor policy decisions when those policy decisions are informed by the bad science. The trial attorneys would identify and present evidence to show what the skeptic climate research used as data, the analysis techniques, and the conclusions. It seems more likely that the skeptics have an excellent claim to performing good science, with the many hundreds of peer-reviewed publications that support the claim of no alarm is justified. Indeed, the NIPCC reports show exactly such skeptical publications.
Third and finally, the research must have caused the death of another person, but in this case, as discussed below in Voluntary Manslaughter, linking any human deaths to research into climate change is extremely unlikely. Even though the concentration of carbon dioxide continues to increase in the atmosphere, severe weather events are declining in number and intensity.
The crime of Involuntary Manslaughter, by criminal negligence, would very likely not be provable beyond a reasonable doubt. First, there are no deaths that can be causally linked to such research, and second, the research has not been conducted in a reckless manner designed to create a risk of serious bodily harm or death.
Voluntary Manslaughter
In California, Voluntary Manslaughter has the following elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, for a conviction to be had.
1. The defendant intentionally committed an act that caused the death of another person;
2. The natural consequences of the act were dangerous to human life;
3. At the time he acted, he knew the act was dangerous to human life; and
4. He deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human life.
Causation
In California, an act or omission causes injury or death if the injury or death is the direct, natural, and probable consequence of the act or omission, and the injury or death would not have happened without the act or omission. A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes. In deciding whether a consequence is natural and probable, the jury is to consider all the circumstances established by the evidence. There may be more than one cause of injury or death. An act or omission causes injury or death only if it is a substantial factor in causing the injury or death. A substantial factor is more than a trivial or remote factor. However, it does not have to be the only factor that causes the injury or death.
See: California Pen. Code § 192(a); People v. Rios (2000) 23 Cal.4th 450, 463, 469 [97 Cal.Rptr.2d 512, 2 P.3d 1066].
With the legal rules above set forth, it is possible to examine the claim that it is criminal negligence to support research into climate change to show no reason for alarm exists.
First, did defendant, who supported climate research to show no reason for alarm exists, intentionally commit an act that caused injury or death to another person?
It must be determined if there were any deaths. If no deaths exist, then there is no need to examine any of the additional elements. At this writing, first quarter of 2014, there appear to be no human deaths that are attributable to man-made climate change. However, a World Health Organization study from 2009 concluded that 140,000 human deaths per year are attributable to increased warming since the 1970s. The events that caused the deaths are rather vague, but it appears the WHO claims events such as floods, severe storms, and a 2003 heat wave in Europe. Yet, the same organization admits that measuring the health effects of climate change can only be very approximate. WHO also states that there are benefits to human life from warming, as fewer deaths occur that can be attributed to cold weather. see link
Allowing for the WHO estimate to be true, that is, 140,000 deaths occurred each year from various weather events, the question to be answered is then, is there a causal link between the severe weather events and the almost trivial increase in global temperatures? A jury would be presented with expert testimony on the subject, most likely that no credible scientist holds the view that there is any link between the trivial amount of warming and weather events. In fact, almost every form of weather event can be shown to be either decreasing, such as tropical storms or hurricanes, or to be no worse today than those that occurred in the past. Droughts, floods, heat waves, all have been much worse in the past compared to today.
From the definition of Causation above, “an act or omission causes injury or death if the injury or death is the direct, natural, and probable consequence of the act or omission, and the injury or death would not have happened without the act or omission.”
Two questions then must be asked, first, were the 140,000 weather-related deaths the direct, natural, and probable consequence of research into climate change to show that no cause for alarm exists? And, second, would the 140,000 weather-related deaths have happened without research into climate change to show that no cause for alarm exists?
To answer the first question, on deaths being the direct, natural, and probable consequence of climate research, it must be established whether those who died did so because they had no idea that the weather events would be more severe, more intense, and more deadly. If the only word issuing from the climate researchers was that there is no cause for alarm, that proposition might be true. However, the alarmists from above have for many years clogged the media, the airways, and the internet blogs, with dire predictions of doom. The fact is, and this would be introduced in a trial, that warmists claim almost a consensus exists that global warming is not only real, but man’s fossil fuel consumption is the cause. That alleged consensus is found in print, in broadcasts, and electronically on the internet. It is unlikely that a jury would concluded that any weather-related deaths were the result of skeptical climate research. The fact that, for example, hurricanes have decreased in intensity and number over the past 40 years is not debatable, it is a fact. Similarly for tornadoes, droughts, and heat waves. see link and “Global Hurricane Frequency”
From the causation definition, the jury is to consider all the circumstances established by the evidence. This means that the conclusions by the leading warmists, the IPCC, must be considered. The IPCC admits that there is no conclusive evidence to link severe weather events with global warming. Indeed, it would be hard to conclude otherwise, with the hard evidence that hurricanes are less frequent and less intense, and all the other severe weather simply not matching known events from earlier years. The key evidence on this is the warmists’ admission that events that occurred before 1970 were not related at all to man’s fossil fuel consumption; instead, they were entirely of natural causes. Thus, all heat waves such as the long and strong heat wave of the 1930s, all droughts including the severe drought of the 1950s, and the many strong hurricanes pre-1970 all were natural occurrences.
It must be concluded, then, that element 1 from above is not true; it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if defendant intentionally performed skeptical climate science research, that research could not have caused the death of another person.
In a criminal trial, the accused is acquitted if any element is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the defense attorney cannot know which, if any, of the elements will be found not proven to that standard, so he continues on to the other elements. One never knows what a jury will decide until the verdict is read.
Moving then to the second element, the State must prove that the natural consequences of the act were dangerous to human life. As above, the act is skeptical climate research. What are the natural consequences of skeptical climate research? As time has shown, skeptical climate research has produced many hundreds of peer-reviewed and published scholarly papers that show there is no cause for alarm due to man’s fossil fuel consumption. Also, since there is no causal link between such research and human deaths, there can be no danger to human life. The element, too, must fail in the State’s case. (see link) (and this link to hundreds of peer-reviewed skeptical papers)
The third element of Voluntary Manslaughter is: at the time he acted, he knew the act was dangerous to human life. Again, the act is performing skeptical climate research. The jury would be told that the results of the skeptical climate research is that there is no danger. The reasons for that conclusion would be explained in great detail, with large and colorful graphs and visual displays to emphasize each point. The defendant, who performed the skeptical climate research, would know quite the opposite: he would know that there was no danger to human life. Element three then would also fail in the State’s case.
Finally, the fourth element is: he deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human life. On this point, the State must prove that defendant performed his skeptical climate research knowing that human life would be at stake, and consciously disregarded that threat to life. Quite the contrary exists, however. Skeptical research has shown that there is no cause for alarm, for the reasons outlined above.
The inevitable conclusion, then, would be a verdict of Not Guilty on a charge of voluntary manslaughter for those who perform skeptical climate research. Each of the four required elements is found in the negative, that is, the State cannot prove the element exists beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is interesting, however, that those who seek an arrest and conviction for criminal negligence, or voluntary manslaughter, want the crime to be charged before the victims are dead. The usual cry from the alarmists uses the future tense, as polar ice caps WILL melt, and sea levels WILL rise. Or, more often, the conditional form is used, saying sea levels COULD rise by 20 feet in 100 years.
There are some crimes where a conviction may be obtained without a death, such as attempted murder, but there is no crime in California of conspiracy to commit murder ( People v. Iniguez (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 75). There is also a crime of attempted voluntary manslaughter, but it requires the fact of heat of passion that does not arise in the climate research context (People v. Van Ronk (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 818).
Conclusion:
The facts related to the conduct of climate research that results in a conclusion of no alarm is warranted do not yield a conviction on a charge of voluntary manslaughter, or criminal negligence as described above. The facts show that, even if some people have died from violent weather events, those weather events are in no way connected with man-made global warming that results from the consumption of fossil fuels. The clear evidence shows that hundreds of peer-reviewed scholarly papers have been published that show there is no reason for concern, indeed, the leading body of warmist scientists also conclude there is no link between global warming and severe weather. For a criminal conviction, each element of a crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, each element of the charge would be shown to be discredited, not proven at all. The exception is that a lawful act, climate research, was committed, however, that act was performed in a lawful manner.
The above is written to provide an overview of a general area of the law, and is not intended, nor is it to be relied on, as legal advice for a particular set of facts. Specific legal advice is available from Mr. Sowell and anyone who seeks such advice is encouraged to contact Mr. Sowell.
fair enough if the corollary is true too
In describing the sceptical research that would be culpable, Sowell says it “might be held to be performed recklessly and to create a risk of death or great bodily injury, but only if the research chose only data that confirmed the pre-conceived conclusion, or improper analyses were performed, or unwarranted conclusions were drawn from the data and analysis, or some combination of all the above.”
I haven’t read all of the comments or even all of Sowell’s posting, but has occurred to anyone else that this is a perfect description of most so-called climate science as promulgated by the IPCC?
Research is defined in Merriam Webster as:
Full Definition of RESEARCH
1 : careful or diligent search
2: studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws
3: the collecting of information about a particular subject
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research
Nobody from either side of the debate apart from politicians, would say that everything is known about climate systems. Therefore there is a need for more research. The assumption made by these ‘non-skeptics’ is that research is carried out to achieve a ‘result’. This seems to be a case of psychological projection as that is precisely how hockey sticks keep on appearing. However, in real research, observations lead to the development of hypotheses then experiments or more observations are carried out with the intention of falsifying the hypothesis. So the research hypothesis that anthropogenic activities do not cause global warming would be tested by trying to show that anthropogenic activities do cause global warming.
Are those who call for the jailing of researchers really going to succeed when they try to jail them for attempting to falsify the hypothesis that “anthropogenic activities do not cause global warming? Surely, these potential litigants would want the researchers to succeed in their falsification? And as long as all original data, calculations and algorithms are published for repeatability failure of the researchers can only strengthen the case for AGW.
The problem is climate ‘science’ is not used to this type of ethical repeatable research,. These potential litigants project onto others their own behavior of provision to the funding authority the results they want to hear and the ‘loss’ of original data and the fighting of court battles to hide their algorithms calculations and assumptions -and even their emails on the subject.
Indeed, the more these people demand legal action and litigation the more they expose their fundamental ignorance of scientific ethics and the scientific method.
Sorry, but as a UK lawyer I don’t wholly agree with this, speaking as from the UK – and the fundamental legal principles don’t differ much as between US and UK criminal jurisdictions.
If (so-called) climate skeptics stay rigorously within the bounds of postulating scientific theory, this means they never commit any “actus reus” (guilty physical act) directed against specific individuals, a necessary element of any crime (unless the definition of crime comes to be changed …). The clearest indication of staying within these bounds is that the theory is presented expressly as theory and with a realistic nul hypothesis, acknowledging that the theory fails if the nul hypothesis comes to occur.
However research is the difficulty: if a scientist carries out (or, arguably, a financier pays for) research into any theory, the research could easily comprise a series of actus rei so that if (objectively) the consequences of the acts could be dangerous to human life the defendant researcher or financier might be left facing trial for manslaughter.
And davidmhoffer says “Those who grasp for power sow hate and fear against their opponents. If they are successful, they rise in power on the back of popular support for their hate. They then seize power on the promise to do something about all those hated people.”
Thank goodness for the Founding Fathers’ wisdom in framing the US Constitution then – the “do something” popular promise must still be constitutional to get past SCOTUS even if (these days) authorised by executive order. And, here in the UK, I believe HM would just have a quiet word with the PM at a Tuesday audience, to put a stop to anything purely driven by hatred. But I accept this isn’t working out too well in Ukraine …
How about false claims about warming go to jail. Like yelling fire in a global movie theater.
An even simpler issue is can climate skeptics be held liable for being wrong?
Climate change profiteers can and should be charged with: Fraud, extortion and assorted environmental crimes. (death of millions of birds, anyone?) Prison and restitution would be in order as well.
Yes, Our former Veep is at the top of the list.
One must assume by these arguments that the first ‘person’ to be put in the dock would have to be the Lord Above, since the Good Book clearly describes the most heinous outcomes of weather extremes, be they floods evaded by Noah; the seven year cycles of feast and famine in ancient Egypt etc etc.
Would Rowan Williams like to take the lead in prosecuting his Heavenly Father?!
I wonder if the model makers could be held strictly liable under products liability laws. They were paid to come up with models, people and governments relied upon the models and spent billions of dollars based upon the models, and now the models have proven to be wrong (defective).
Roger E. Sowell
Thanks for your legal review.
I encourage you to examine legal implications of the converse:
1) Are climate mitigation policies increasing deaths among the extreme poor?
Indur Goklany (2011) quantitatively evaluated the biofuel mandates and found that they caused 192,000 “premature” deaths in 2010 alone by increasing grain prices.
Indur Goklany (2011) Could Biofuel Policies Increase Death and Disease in Developing Countries? Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 16 Number 1 Spring 2011 pp 9-13.
2. Are climate mitigation policies reducing economic development, thus causing more deaths than expected benefits under business as usual among the extreme poor?
Bjorn Lomborg quantifies these issues. e.g. The Poverty of Renewable Energy:
Lomborg further observes:
Western principles of resource stewardship are built on Jesus’ parable of the Talents.
Contrast the projected benefits that could have been provided the poor with the wasted resources. See The Copenhagen Consensus. Scorecard for Humanity 2013
Is it criminal negligence to bury money in a hole with no benefit that could have been used to save millions of extreme poor from death?
“the skeptics, those who understand that the science simply does not support the warmists’ view…”
I disagree with the attempt to lump all skeptics into one category. To be skeptical means to “have doubts or reservations.” It is not proper to brand all skeptics as those who have gone beyond having doubts to the point of being convinced that the warmists’ view is wrong. There are degrees of skepticism. Lukewarmers fall on one side of the spectrum because they have doubts about some of the claims being made, but not all. Extreme skeptics, who doubt everything the warmists say, fall on the other side of the spectrum. Then there are skeptics who are in between. I fall in that category because I think warmists have jumped to conclusions based on too little data. They have exaggerated what they know about the climate because of political bias, extreme environmentalism, or the desire for grant money. We don’t have enough reliable data to declare a verdict one way or the other. The error bars on the data we do have are much larger than climate researchers admit, and we simply do not have a way to take an accurate temperature of the entire planet. So it makes sense to doubt the claims of those who say “the science is settled” and who want to force everyone to make drastic changes in lifestyle based on incomplete and/or fudged data. The many predictions of gloom and doom have not come to pass. There is no reason not to wait for more data before we act. Those who do not want to wait, but want to act now, seem to be afraid that additional data will prove them wrong. They are using climate as a means to an end and don’t care if the means are valid. That’s why I’m skeptical of their claims. But being skeptical does not mean I’m convinced. I need more data to be convinced.
It does little good to speak of the Law (with a capital “L”) to people who take the law into their own hands.
I am not reassured that those who “adjust” data to suit their own needs have the respect for the Truth (with a capital “T”) necessary for a proper understanding of the Law.
They may have some tentative grip on a vague, dimly-remembered idealism based on Truth, but when lying becomes habitual the grip on idealism starts to slip. What began as righteous indignation gradually dissolves into cankering animosity, if not foaming rage.
The golden threads of Truth are woven into the very fabric of reality by a divine touch, and those who scoff at the Law are sawing at the very limbs they venture out on. The Law cannot be mocked. It must be obeyed or troubles result, and, just an an engineer cannot say, “this bridge will hold traffic in the future though I neglected to put in supports in the present,” when a person says “the ends justify the means” they are neglecting the Law and the Truth and expecting good to come of it. It is not all that different from Wimpy’s line, “I will gladly pay you next Thursday for a hamburger today,” only while Wimpy is a cartoon character, these people are no joke.
The people who mock the Law and the Truth think they are free from its consequences, but the consequences are inescapable. Such lawless people are completely fooling themselves.
Ian W says:
March 31, 2014 at 9:45 am: [ … ]
Excellent comment, well thought out.
===========================
Steve from Rockwood says:
An even simpler issue is can climate skeptics be held liable for being wrong?
Isn’t that exactly what happened to the Italian scientists? They were prosecuted for failing to predict an earthquake. In other words, for being wrong [I know that is a simplistic explanation, but that is essentially what happened].
I would like to see anyone predict an earthquake. Los Angeles just experienced a 5.1 magnitude quake last Friday. As far as I know, no one predicted it – and LA has a lot of experience with earthquakes.
Predicting the [non-] effects of runaway global warming [AKA: ‘climate change’] appears to be far more difficult than predicting earthquakes. So far, every climate model prediction has been wrong: not one of the multi-million dollar GCMs was able to predict the current, 17 year long halt to global warming. They were all wrong. In fact, they are still wrong. None of them can predict when, or if, global warming will resume.
Are the programmers of those GCMs to be prosecuted for being wrong?
Hmm.. One could just as easily reverse the issue.
If some fat American with a 4×4 arrived in my ‘market’ and proceeded to buy up all the ‘grains’ for prices that excluded everyone else and then proceeded to pour them into his ‘gas tank’ while my children starved then what is he guilty of?
The idea that ‘slowing progress on climate change’ is some kind of ‘future crime’ is nonsense. There are no laws dealing with future crime.
Dead children whose parents couldn’t ‘out bid’ the ethanol scammers is a crime of the now. Can we charge them with killing children in the ‘third world’ and, probably a better chance of success, the murder of hundreds of thousands of people in the ‘first world’ who had to deicide between fuel and food?
Green shirts everywhere should to remember that one can only be charged by actual crimes. Right now … They are the only ones heading to ‘Nuremberg’ with actual bodies on the charge sheet.
you could probably argue that the burning of fossil fuels is saving lives, we had one of the coldest winters of the century this year. I can only imagine how many people would have frozen to death.
secondly you might argue that a warmer earth is likely to support a higher population due to an increase in growing season and being able to provide more food for the global population.
this could get confusing, what if the earth doesnt warm over the next 15 years, are you then having to pay skeptics reperatations for prosecuting them under bogus terms? And what of all the money wasted that could have been used for more worthwhile pursuits.
I would go so far to say, are the scare mongers and their believers liable for fraud, misappropriation of government funds and probably a host of other crimes.
As with all things liberal (er, now “progressive”), it is always far less about the complaint or worry of the moment, and far more about the goal the complaint or worry helps to achieve.
Global Warming/Climate Change is no different. In this case, we are being scolded that we must change now so that we prevent some climate disaster that computer models assure us will happen based on trends in hyrdocarbon fuel use Now these models are based on estimates and “adjusted” climate data. We already have many models that have been shown to be at substantial odds with the real climate just a few years later.
It is no coincidence that the same people who are so frantic to prevent this disaster that they are even willing to shoot and jail people who remain skeptical of these models, cannot accept the mathematical certainty of financial disaster should our government continue to spend beyond its means and not address over $100 trillion in future unfunded government obligations.
The reason that I say there is no coincidence is because both situations have the same harmonious goal in mind. To use government to control people and to accrue power to the socialists who love big government.
The fact that we are even having this conversation should be a concern to everyone. The last time I checked private citizens can pontificate in public on a whole range of issues they have no expertise at. And if we’re going to imprison people (preemptively I might say, as none of the dire events have come to fruition), then state AGs can indict and arrest the hundreds if not thousands of “climate experts” who have directly impacted policies, laws, and regulation that have resulted in the loss of thousands if not millions of jobs, hundreds of billions in costs, and trillions tax liabilities. Two can play the game. AGW advocacy has led to the use of corn as a fuel (running up costs of food and energy), AGW advocacy has led to the increased CAFE standards, which have increased the price of autos and resulted in more traffic fatalities and casualties; AGW advocacy has led to the rise in electricity costs, which in turn have resulted in utilities being shut off for tens of thousands of customers who no longer can afford them.
We could go on and on and on. As a matter of fact, we should lobby state AGs to begin grand jury proceedings against the entire Team. That is one sure way to stop this insanity.
“ferdberple says:
March 31, 2014 at 6:49 am
Certainly people in third world countries … could make that case right now.
============
They are. Led by China the third world is demanding hundreds of billions of dollars in reparations for the climate damage done by the West as a condition of any climate treaty.”
What’s interesting here is that China is feeding off both ends of the trough here – on the one hand, they are claiming to be a third-world, developing country, yet on the other, they are a huge economy and manufacturing base, sooner or later to dictate what gets built/sold, and at what price.
Their CO2 and pollutant output dwarfs that of the rest of the world, and yet they want reparations for “first world pollution”. This self-centeredness is breathtaking, and yet we just wink it away….
Great line from the musical Starlight Express – when asked “Whose side are you on [race between
Rusty, Diesel, and Electra] Caboose replies “I’m on MY side”.
Similar with China and Russia….the US and Europe could cut CO2 (and pretty much all other) emissions to zero, and it wouldn’t be a drop in the bucket compared to China, and/or India.
pottereaton says:
March 31, 2014 at 9:10 am
I think you probably meant “immunity” here, but sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference with our Congress. Clearly your Freudian sub-conscious agrees.
But you are correct; members of Congress have immunity for any actions or failures to act in their official duties, even if they would otherwise be criminally liable for the results (as do the courts; they have no liability civil or criminal no matter how much damage their orders cause). Note that my speculation was when the neo-totalitarians would call for their prosecution, in which question my understanding of the law is irrelevant. Given Roger Sowell’s admirable summary of why you and I could not be prosecuted given long established statutory and case law on manslaughter, it is clear the Khemer Verte mobs demanding prosecution regardless lack both respect and knowledge of the law. Which is why my speculation is probably not completely idle.
Let’s put their evidence before a jury and see. We might actually get to see a real debate on climate, if this were presented in a court of law.
It’s complicated:
falsely shouting fire …
Schenck
“Holmes dissented, reiterating his view that expressions of honest opinion were entitled to near absolute protection under the First Amendment, but that expressions made with the intent to cause a criminal harm, or that threatened clear and present danger of such harm, could be punished.” (from Schenck wiki cited above)
It isn’t necessary that anyone has to die before there can be criminal charges. It isn’t even necessary to prove intent. it is only necessary for a court to conclude that a “reasonable person” would have known that there existed a ‘clear and present danger’.
Translation: It’s complicated.
Nice posting but you perhaps miss the lynch mob mentality. these losers are calling for government force to impose their vision upon all.
Any who doubt their divine truth is the devil incarnate, what we are hearing is powerless morons ranting”Burn the Witch”, as their cult implodes.
They have been unable to impose their utopia by stampeding the masses, failed to convince the voters via democracy and now they clamour for naked force to silence those who mock them.
If it was not for the complicity of the fools and bandits who infest our bureaus, I would be merely amused, however there is a tiny chance that some of their demented behaviour will be imposed by regulators.
Time to cull the inhabitants of our watchdog agencies.
When the watchdogs are rabid, strange activities flourish.
I say this because I see the entire CAGW meme as a creation of our bureaus, with the intent to permanently impose a benefit to the parasitic class of citizens.(The govt functionary)
How better for unelected, unaccountable minions to satisfy their lust for money and power, than through a tax in air, administered by the United Nations.(AKA Useless Nutjobs)
ferberple says:
“Certainly people in third world countries … could make that case right now.
============
They are. Led by China the third world is demanding hundreds of billions of dollars in reparations for the climate damage done by the West as a condition of any climate treaty.
The Law of Unintended Consequences. Prove that Global Warming is caused by industrialization and that this has harmed the Third World and the Industrialized World becomes liable for the damages.”
**************
Isn’t there another side to this argument?
Since CO2 is food or fertilizer for plant life, isn’t our contribution to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere contributing to crop yields worldwide, including the Third World? Doesn’t that increase in the world’s crop yield from our CO2 contribution add to the monetary value of that crop yield? And the country’s GDP? Didn’t it cost us to produce the energy that yielded our CO2 contribution to the atmosphere?
It seems to me that if the answer to any or all of those questions above is ‘yes’, then we are perhaps even steven with the Third World…. or perhaps THEY owe US? Or am I barking up a dead tree here (pardon the pun)?
I am surprised at the complex comments and nobody mentions that the warmistas think that every function and freedom afforded by their existence in a free society are at ther whim and disposal to inflict whatever form of persecution they imagine their elevated self importance and narcissistic point of view warrants on those who are lesser beings.
As numerous commenters have pointed out, their proposed actions are “pari passu” with skeptics.