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.
Craig Loehle’s post above would make a great subject for a Josh Cartoon.
“Don’t the AGW people have to prove they are correct before anyone can be tried?”
In our Brave New World, asking that question will be a crime punishable by death.
All very well reasoned out. The problem lies in that the suit or charge would not be brought in a United States Federal or State Court. It would be brought before the World Court and we can all be sure that the charge or suit would have plenty of proponents to the charge/suit being brought and the outcome and that the trial itself would not have the logical and legal foundations and precedents to prevent a finding of guilty by those members (in the majority) that have an ideological bias towards those charged/sued.
In other words; they’d go court shopping for the verdict they want. Nothing they’ve done has been logical or reasonable so far (except their pursuit of their own reputations/glory/research funding and prestige) so why would they stop now and become reasonable and logical when trying to find anyone, anyone at all responsible for breaking their rice bowl?
Can people be legally liable for something that may happen in the future?
Can you be arrested and convicted for future crimes you’re deemed likely to commit? According to the Gulag Archipelago, tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) were in the old Soviet Union. How far away from that are we?
I would think, that you would need a corpse, to establish that some individual living person, had actually died from severe climate change syndrome (see death certificate from the coroner’s office), and then you would have to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that that person died primarily as a result of some climate change event that was a direct result of a specific action or lack thereof, by the defendant.
Given that climate change is only logarithmically related to CO2, it would be difficult to show that CO2 emitted by the defendant, was the cause of the person’s demise; rather than actions taken by others.
The ultimate question would be, ‘which scientists caused you to doubt climate science? Was it Lindzen, Christy, Singer, Currie?’
No, it was Mann, Hansen, Jones, Trenberth, Gleick, Lewandowsky, Steig, Marcott, the IPCC and any scientist who decided I needed my science with extra spin.
dbstealey says:
March 31, 2014 at 11:11 am
No. The Italian scientists were not convicted for “failing to predict an earthquake”. They were convicted of under-estimating the risk of an earthquake to the townspeople.
The defense argued that you cannot be held responsible for something that cannot be predicted.
The prosecution argued that the scientists gave “incomplete, imprecise and contradictory information” on the risk of an earthquake, just a few days before the tragedy, making it impossible for the residents to judge the risk for themselves. Instead of highlighting the danger as revealed by a series of smaller quakes preceding the earthquake, the scientists downplayed the risks saying the shocks were a “normal geologic phenomenon”. The prosecution asked for a 4 year sentence. The judge sentenced the scientists and one politician to 6 years.
I saw this case as hopeful that government scientists should be held to some accountability for their behaviour. If you tell people it is very dangerous to live in a region that has suffered several large magnitude earthquakes for all of recorded history, you look pretty smart when the next one happens. But if you keep telling people not to worry, well, it will take 6 years off of your life.
RE: hp says:
March 31, 2014 at 11:20 am
“…this could get confusing, what if the earth doesn’t warm over the next 15 years, are you then having to pay skeptics reparations for prosecuting them under bogus terms?…”
I’ve taken my fair share of abuse for asking Alarmists simple questions, but, before I see a nickle for my poor, hurt feelings, I’d like to see the Alarmists shell out a couple trillion for the child abuse they have committed, by doling out nightmarish scenarios to little kids.
A great deal of the worlds population believes abortion is murder. At the very least, an ultrasound reveals a solid linkage of life in the womb, more so than linkage to co2 and temperature. One can look at Dr Vincent Grays chart here and see there is no provable linkage:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carbon-dioxide-levels/
What I personally believe on the matter is not the point. The point is that far more people believe that life starts in the womb, including the 2.2 Billion Muslims,
http://www.roseod.f2s.com/_pdf_leaflets/islam_and_abortion.PDF
than believe I am causing the deaths of future millions, and want me put away for it.
Odd since there is a large segment of the worlds population as mentioned above that believe abortion is killing people now. Question: No matter what you or I believe about abortion, is it right to call for the arrest and jailing of people supporting the pro choice side? There is no more vivid example of the double standard than this. It would be interesting to poll the people demanding the jailing of skeptics on these high moral grounds of theirs on their feelings on a matter than alot of people believe is a a visible case of outright murder. A sociologist can have a field day on this subject.
Yet here we stand dealing with people with a selective tolerance. So who is the bigger danger, the skeptic, or pro lifer, who seeks to change peoples hearts by showing them facts that their mind can get a hold of, or these people with their irrational intolerance to a matter that can clearly be shown to run counter to their beliefs. Perhaps they should be jailed for the misery they are causing so many now!
Given an agenda of population control is also high on their list, the idea that we are killing millions of people that they would deem a threat to Gaia is rich , to say the least.
Let me be clear… what I believe about abortion is not the issue here. The issue is that there are many more people that think that is killing NOW, than these people in their fantasy world of future events that can never be measured, and if they had their druthers, would have less people anyway. So how are they allowed to get away with this nonsense, without someone shoving their hypocrisy and intolerance back in their face. Why do they not get a double dose, using this as an example and then demanding they account for the misery their hysteria is causing now!
This issue has nothing to do with science. Its mans inhumanity to man on full display when you peal away their pretense of moral superiority. They are exposed for the naked fools they are
Oh good grief.
Now we have lawyers feeding at the trough…they’ve done such a good job elsewhere.
I mean at feeding…
So of the comments seem to operate from the basis that there is popular support for such action. Those of us that work in the scientific community are well aware of many scientists who keep quiet because of mob rule. However in the general community the vast majority do not believe the AGW meme, hence there is no popular support and hence the politicians are unable to arrive at a suitable compromise. Long may it last.
Steve from Rockwood says:
The Italian scientists were not convicted for “failing to predict an earthquake”. They were convicted of under-estimating the risk of an earthquake to the townspeople.
As I wrote: I know that is a simplistic explanation, but that is essentially what happened
And that is essentially what happened. Scientists were convicted for not being able to predict the future. There was a lot more to that case than I want to discuss here, but the scientists were essentially made into scapegoats for not predicting a future earthquake. There have been numerous, repeated quakes in that area for all of recorded history. But when a scapegoat is required, you had better hope you are not in the government’s sights.
It almost seems you agree with the Italian verdict. You wrote: The prosecution argued that the scientists gave “incomplete, imprecise and contradictory information” on the risk of an earthquake, just a few days before the tragedy, making it impossible for the residents to judge the risk for themselves.
“Incomplete, imprecise, and contradictory information”?? That sounds mighty like being criticized for not being able to predict the future. And you know what? NO Italian scientist is going to stick his neck out now. Any benefit from earthquake research will be couched in such vague, mealymouthed language that it is completely useless for anything.
That is exactly what the result would be, if an American scientist was ever convicted of anything mentioned in the article or comments here. And that is exactly what some folks want: to silence opposing views.
That is the danger. One conviction would be worth hundreds of $millions annually in catastrophic AGW propaganda. Probably more. If there was a conviction, then no scientist would dare to take the position that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere — without first stating that “carbon” is gonna getcha, and pretty soon, too.
Can you not see the danger?
Well, ya know— I’m gonna jump in here, and perhaps someone’s mentioned this (and if so, please ‘scuse….), but isn’t it funny that it’s always the OTHER guy who’s to blame?
For example, for those “philosophy” types who cry for my arrest and sentencing for killing people for supporting research along skeptical lines…Just what is it they claim is killing people? What is the PROXIMATE CAUSE? Is it the research? No: it’s the warming. Ok, is the research creating the warming? No, per them, it’s the CO2. Does the research create the CO2? No: people who burn things do. Like oil, coal, gasoline, wood, etc. So creation of CO2 is really the crime, under their brand of “logic”, and not the research. The researchers would, under this construction, be the equivalent of someone standing off to the side saying, “I dare you!” to someone about to commit an act with reckless or depraved disregard for life or limb. That old advice our moms gave us about our friends jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge…? “I only killed that guy ’cause HE TOLD ME TO!! Honest!” Not a very good defense in court.
Given this, anyone who uses electricity, or drives a car, or burns a campfire, or heats their home via the burning of hydrocarbon fuels, is guilty of manslaughter. In the case of cAGW believers, the crime is WORSE: you see, I don’t believe that man-made CO2 has a measureable effect right now, so if I turn on a light or drive my car, I’m behaving morally. But cAGW alarmists, who believe CO2 is the gas of all evil, who STILL heat their houses, who STILL eat cooked meals, who are not all frutarian-fruitcakes and the like, are KNOWINGLY being immoral.
Funny that we didn’t hear about how Larry Torcello, or Andrew Wienstein, or any of those other charitable, understanding and tolerant alarmists, so dedicated to their truths, their green ethos, were going to move into the wilderness with the wolves and the bunnies to tough it out without having to create any more CO2, lest they share responsibility for untold number of deaths due to global warming they themselves helped create!
Imagine that: a bunch of climate alarmists with one standard for them and another for everyone else…
Is there theory, a “Dunning-Kruger Effect” sort of mechanism, to explain how the morally bankrupt can feel so holier-than-thou?
Just wonderin’…
Problem is… Under the auspices of “National Security”, the legal dynamics change dramatically. We know that global warming and energy fall within that specific area and has been manipulated for NATSEC and other purposes. It’s a really messy (and large) web to untangle.
I am fairly confident that many of these cases may be dealt with fairly in the lower courts, but, moving along the legal food chain, there are political and economic interests that seem to have an ear in the higher courts (and congress).
So far as I can see, the voice of reason seems to be moving forward but much more needs to be done.
You all have done great work here and elsewhere, I hope it will continue as I will try to do the same.
In a court i would ask the warmist this : Do you have a refrigerator ? Do you have air conditioning or heating in your abode ? Do you travel by a means that uses hydrocarbons ? Do you eat ?
If the answer to any are yes , then you are also a contributor to supposed problem you are accusing others of denying . The case is closed ,bailiff clear the court !!
dbstealey says:
If the Italian scientists (with the help of the local politician) did not appear to reassure the town that everything was alright 3 days before a quake killed 309 people they wouldn’t have been charged. I don’t want to agree/disagree with the verdict because (as you say) there is more happening there than we could hope to discuss. But I do feel that if scientists step out into the public they should be held accountable for their actions.
Not sure where you’re from but here in Canada government scientists want the right to talk directly to the public about their research (mostly in the area of environmental and climate science). I welcome this but with the caveat that they must be held responsible for their actions. Scientists are often under the misconception that only good can from their actions.
If Michael Mann produces a graph that shows temperatures have fallen for a thousand years only to rise dramatically as human fossil fuel also dramatically rose and he is unwilling to share his data and code then it should be yanked from him by government. If subsequent analysis of his work shows he was fraudulent then he should go to jail. If he is found only to be incompetent then he should just lose his position at Penn State.
You’re probably going to counter-argue that Mann wouldn’t be the target and that the government would be focused on the skeptics, after all, we’re downplaying the alarmism. But this is where I have hope. In Italy the courts did not side with the government scientists or the government official. It saw that the best interests of the people had not been met by people who had been hired by the government for that very reason. The court made the government responsible for its actions.
I should add that if Mann’s work is vindicated he should be made a saint. And I’ll buy his stupid book.
There is a flip side that Climastrologists and the church of Global Warming should consider:
Italian Scientists Sentenced to 6 Years for Earthquake Statements – Scientific American
Six Italian scientists and a government official have been sentenced to six years in prison over statements they made prior to a 2009 earthquake that killed 309 in the town of L’Aquila. A year-long trial came to a close today (Oct. 22) with the verdict, which alarmed earth scientists worldwide.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/italian-scientists-get/
Re: Joe Bastardi says: (March 31, 2014 at 3:13 pm)
A most excellent point Joe. It is indeed a double standard, especially as those who propose treating abortion as murder are liable to be prosecuted for “hate speech”. The figures on deaths by abortion are reasonably hard (although there are discrepancies between the state-reported totals and those of the Guttmacher Institute, who get otherwise unrecorded figures from Planned Parenthood), and in the US amount to slightly over 1 million per year, as of 2011. The figures on deaths to date attributable to climate change are pure speculation, if you are being charitable. Any claim on probable future climate change deaths is statistical masturbation.
You just forbid climate sceptic views on the internet. Problem solved.
@ur momisugly R. de Haan at March 31, 2014 at 7:22 am
“Roger, thank you very much for your excellent article.”
Thank you, Ron!
“At te same time I would like to ask you if there is a case to take on the UN and all in support for abuse of science and scare mongering promoting punishing caps, taxes and restrictions of fossil fuel use and social behavior manipulations to execute their UN Agenda 21 which in principle is a centralist take over (coup) of the entire world, it’s economies, it’s financial system, it’s resources, you name it.”
I am not versed in the law on seeking redress against the United Nations, so I really cannot answer. However, it would probably be a futile case because the UN can defend itself by saying “we used the consensus of peer-reviewed science from the IPCC in making our policies.”
Science and technology law is an area in which I practice in California, and here the standard for making laws and policies based on science is to use peer-reviewed science. Essentially, any agency that makes a science-based law must submit the scientific portions used to develop that law to external peer review such as the National Academy of Sciences, University of California, California State University, or an equivalent body of reviewers. This is an area in which I try to make improvements, since clearly peer review alone allows some very bad science to be used.
This is a very old situation, in fact, Gulliver’s Travels mentions this in the land where the king could not hear until a servant swatted him on the ear with a mallet (a soft one, it is hoped). The premise is that the person who holds the ear of the king, has great influence at court. The warmists currently have the ear of the king. My personal view is that soon, very soon, the cold will arrive with a vengeance and the warmists will be booted from the court.
@ur momisugly paddylol on March 31, 2014 at 9:03 am
“model scenarios used to support the hypothesis are hypothetical and therefor inadmissible as evidence”.
Actually, in most US jurisdictions, expert witnesses are allowed to testify using hypotheticals. I agree with you that establishing a causal link between deaths by severe weather events, and increase in the global average temperature is difficult, as I wrote in my article. The portion that begins with “no credible scientist” contains the idea.
@ur momisugly Gary March 31, 2014 at 9:22 am
“It would be informative to see a similar review of “hate speech” laws. Are those persons referenced in the first paragraph in violation of such laws when they call for jailing, or worse, of skeptics?”
Gary, hate crime laws typically require the defendant to commit a crime against a person because of that person’s special characteristic such as gender, race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, nationality, or religion. At this time, at least, one’s views on climate change is not on the list. WUWT had an article recently by Lord Monckton in which free speech was discussed in the article and comments.
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/14/moncktons-letter-to-rochester-institute-of-technology-regarding-assistant-professor-lawrence-torcello/
@ur momisugly stonehenge at March 31, 2014 at 9:44 am
Bingo.
@ur momisugly TimC at March 31, 2014 at 9:46 am
“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.”
The California law I gave above shows that actus reas for Involuntary Manslaughter is a lawful act carried out recklessly, and so on as put forth above. Similarly for Voluntary Manslaughter. The key here, as I tried to convey, is that there is no causal link between the research and any deaths.