Making America Great Again? USA leads the way in frivolous climate lawsuits
From the “next, let’s sue because the weather was bad for my picnic today” department comes this study that shows just how crazy it’s become. I mean really, what’s next? Sue Exxon because a hailstorm damaged the roof of your house? Or sue the feds the because the Red River in North Dakota flooded in the springtime yet again, because that’s what it does? I would not be surprised if we see something like that this year. The idea that people can litigate action for a “stable climate” is as ludicrous as expecting the universe to revolve around the Earth, something egotistical yet ignorant humans once believed. Stable climate is nothing more than a fable. And, just where in the US Constitution does is say we have a right to stable weather or climate? Nowhere.
Via Columbia University Earth Institute: A new global study has found that the number of lawsuits involving climate change has tripled since 2014, with the United States leading the way. Researchers identified 654 U.S. lawsuits—three times more than the rest of the world combined. Many of the suits, which are usually filed by individuals or nongovernmental organizations, seek to hold governments accountable for existing climate-related legal commitments. The study was done by the United Nations Environment Program and Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
Around 177 countries recognize the right of citizens to a clean and healthy environment, and courts are increasingly being asked to define the implications of this right in relation to climate change.
“Judicial decisions around the world show that many courts have the authority, and the willingness, to hold governments to account for climate change,” said Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Burger said that in the United States, litigation has been “absolutely essential” to advancing solutions to climate change, from the first, successful, lawsuit demanding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulate greenhouse gas emissions, to a recent lawsuit claiming that citizens have a constitutional right to a stable climate system. “Similar litigation all over the world will continue to push governments and corporations to address the most pressing environmental challenge of our times,” he said.
“The science can stand up in a court of law, and governments need to make sure their responses to the problem do too,” said Erik Solheim, head of UN Environment. As litigation has grown, it has addressed a widening scope of activities, ranging from coastal development and infrastructure planning to resource extraction. The scope of individual suits is also growing in ambition, says the report.
Some suits outside the United States have already had results. Among other things, the report describes how, in September 2015, a Pakistani lawyer’s case against the government for failure to carry out the National Climate Change Policy of 2012 resulted in the government designating action points within several ministries, and the creation of a commission to monitor progress.
The report predicts that more litigation will originate in developing countries, where people are expected to suffer many of the worst effects of shifting climate. The report also predicts more human-rights cases filed by “climate refugees,” coming as a direct result of climate-driven migration, resettlement and disaster recovery. By 2050 climate change could, according to some estimates, displace up to 1 billion people. That number could soar higher later in the century if global warming is not kept under 2 degrees Celsius, relative to pre-industrial levels, say some.
International organizations including the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees have already acknowledged the need to address the plights of people displaced by changing climate. But there is yet no international agreement on the rights of such displaced persons, nor on the obligations of countries to respect them.
Technology will not suffice to address coming problems, say the authors; laws and policies must be part of any strategy. They say that because of the Paris Agreement, plaintiffs can now argue in some jurisdictions that their governments’ political statements must be backed up by concrete measures to mitigate climate change.
The paper: The Status of Climate Change Litigation: A Global Review: columbiaclimatelaw.com/files/2017/05/Burger-Gundlach-2017-05-UN-Envt-CC-Litigation.pdf
h/t to Marc Morano
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Will they be refunded when AGW is finally acknowledged as a crock?
I prefer an immediate defunding.
Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law
With a name like that it is obviously a totally objective , non political academic institution. /sarc
This is a “center” in a publicly funded state university? Hell it should be shut down , not just defunded.
Absolutely. Just like all the “recovered memory” suits were refunded when that was shown to be bunk.
Nope, with court-enforced junk science all sales are final; no one is responsible and no one has to make good on damages caused. Why do you think the left loves the courts so much?
If they want a stable climate system, tell them to pick up after themselves, put their trash in the trash bins, and stop talking. They’re producing high volumes of carbon dioxide every time they open their pieholes.
It’s Memorial Day Weekend, you know. #FAMILY PICNICS MATTER! 🙂
Name one religion where its believers just walked away.
mid 20th century liberal Christianity.
Lysenkoism?
Two priests are out driving one day when they get pulled over by a police officer.
He approaches the priests vehicle and says to the driver “Sorry to pull you over father, but we’re looking for a couple of child molesters”
The two priests look at each other for a few moments and exchange a few quiet words. The driver turns to the cop and says —
“OK officer, we’ll do it”
18th century Anglican?
18th Century free thinkers (which include number of the US Founding Fathers)
Will the cuddly polar bear please take the stand?
What’s needed is a class action suit against climate scientists and politicians who have bought in to climate alarmism. It’s too bad that the misappropriation of science is not a crime, but there are a lot of other potential charges …
…fraud being one of them.
stupidity should be another one!!!
RockyRoad,
Is it malicious fraud or an accidental one? The answer may be whether you look at it from the point of view the IPCC or from it’s contrived consensus.
Class action against the education establishment as well. The youth in that protest march (featured on the home page) is a snapshot of the product of systemic alarmism corrupting education system at all levels. Certainly that’s true here in Australia at least.
To paraphrase the Jesuits:
“Give me a child from K1 through K12 and I will give you an Environ Mental Retard/”.
May I submit, as evidence, “The ever-present absence of Climate Conformity”?
Lawyers, and therefore judges, have a reputation for not knowing much science. Therefore, a plausible “expert witness” can spin absolute fantasy on the witness stand and get away with it. Somewhat off topic, but relevant to theories used in US courts, a theory that cerebral palsy was caused by birth distress resulted in a liability lawyer making enough money to finance a political career, including a run for President.
Although a lawyer who understands the true science would rip them apart on cross and object to all the inevitable hearsay in the ‘expert’ testimony.
What part of “lawyers have a reputation for no knowing science” did you miss? As another off-topic subject , the cases of “recovered memory” some years ago were patently bogus, as were the interviewing of young children to “reveal” abuse. Neither technique had ever been properly tested as a forensic technique to find just how much false positives were emerging.
Agreed! And this: “Technology will not suffice to address coming problems, say the authors; laws and policies must be part of any strategy.” What the heck would laws and policies evolve from or rely on if not technology?? Oh yea, sorry, silly question………….
Only matters if the judge is impartial. If the judge is pro-AGW or buys into the rabid environmentalist crap, it does not matter what is true. I know of a government case (involving logging) where the judge informed the lawyers that her definition of “irreparable harm” was cutting down a tree. The government lawyers looked at each other and said, “We just lost our case.” Did not matter that the scientists said that the trees in question needed to be thinned in order to reduce the risk of massive fires, did not matter that trees can be replanted.
Not all cases go before juries. Wrong judge, you may well get almost irreparable harm. Look at the idiot who tortured/made up law to “justify” those kids (parents) who are suing out in Oregon or wherever. Feds are now stuck spending millions just on discovery. At least one lawyer per agency has to spend thousands of hours going through documents for a “case” that has no legal basis. This alone will take several months, if not longer. Our tax dollars at work.
And, OJ was found innocent.
Witches were found guilty.
Expert witness – not quite.
In the U.S., we have “Daubert” standards regarding expert witnesses..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
Perhaps, if enforced. There is a series of solicitation ads by lawyers on cable TV recruiting for plaintiffs on the theory that talcum powder causes ovarian cancer.
“citizens have a constitutional right to a stable climate system”
Hasn’t it been somewhat stable, fluctuating between a few degrees, over millennia?
My suspicion is that this is all a charade to put pressure on elected officials. The very last thing the warmists want is for this to actually go to trial. Consider how hard they have fought to hide Mann’s files and communications from the public. Litigation of this nature would open up tons of documents to discovery. Loose one high profile case and their party would be over…
But look at the appointments of ‘activist’ judges by Obama.
There’s the problem.
Doesn’t make any difference. The Judge decides what is admissible. I here it all the time… “If I were on the witness stand in that trial, I would say Bla-Bla-Bla.” No you wouldn’t! You would say exactly what the Judge allows you to say or you would find you ass in jail. The US justice system is a sick joke. I’m surprised everyone doesn’t already know this.
That depends on what the definition of “stable” is.
Calling King Canute, calling …
Fred,
I think you know already, but Canute [Cnut = Knut] was a pretty shrewd cookie.
King of England, Denmark and Norway (IIRC) – partly by right of conquest Canute the Great was continually being praised by his courtiers [hangers-on, . Perhaps a few spoke truth to power. Maybe!].
One day, he took them at their word – probably it was something like ‘Our Great King, Canute the Awesome, the Virile, will halt the tides in their path, still the vasty waters, and calm the deeps’ [paraphrase].
Canute was aware of his – considerable – powers in the human realm, but had doubtless journeyed enough on sailing vessels [Viking longboats, for sure, but possibly also other northern craft] to know that Man may propose, but the Sea will dispose.
So off they trot to the nearby seaside [nowhere in England is more than 75 miles [120 km] from the sea].
Canute had no doubt carefully checked high tide times [this was before the Admiralty referred everything to High Water at Dover or at London Bridge (which I cross every working day – I must be mad!!!)].
Carefully positioning his throne on a hummock, and his courtiers seawards of him, the great king began ordering the tide to be still.
Requesting.
Beseeching and imploring.
The tide came in. As tides do.
The tide came in some more. As tides do.
Courtiers, at this point are thinking about wet feet.
The tide came in more – again.
Well, you know how it ended, and Canute proved his wisdom, humility and realism.
[Why do those nouns remind me of Doc Mann?
Does anyone know if he has certificates for dancing competence [Latin American, say, or Modern, or Waltz]?
He seems to have certificates and medals for pretty much everything else, we hear.]
Auto
Mods
About Canute – made up (dramatized) , but not /Sarc.
About Another – Doc (emphatically not an anagram for Cnut) – a mere request for information from a joint Nobellist [a subject/serf of the EU when it won a Nobel for asking its citizens not to run holding scissors (IIRC)].
Auto, emphatically Easing Explanations
I have a copy of the Bill of Rights.
That is not in it.
😎
The Bill of Rights was intended to limit the power of Government.
These last 50 years or more declaring something to be a “right” is intended to expand the power of Government.
“citizens have a constitutional right to a stable climate”
Since there is no such thing as a stable climate, it should make an interesting law suit:
People vs Mother Nature
Stable climate is very apropos. Put the horses out and hand out the mucking-out forks.
Has anyone promised a stable climate, defined what it is, and not delivered?
With the rise of CO2 levels, there have been few hurricanes, fewer extreme weather events, in SH, total cyclone energy 2016 was half what it was a few decades ago.
Seriously, by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, we are doing everything we can to create a nice stable climate for everybody.
Why are they fighting this ?
I wish they would make up their minds !
If CO2 does the things they claim it does….then it acts as a buffer
….when something is low in buffer it is unstable
add enough buffer and it will stabilize
Remember that song from Camelot?
Evan Jones did (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/26/crazy-litigious-climate-citizens-have-a-constitutional-right-to-a-stable-climate-system/#comment-2511919 )
Great minds 🙂
Nice point by you both. The lyrics show that from 1923 (when Jay Lerner was old enough at age 5 to notice) to 1959/60, i.e., the main context for his writing, there was “wild weather” and “climate weirding” “the year without a summer”, et -ceterah! et-ceterah! et ——- CET–ER–AH! (to quote another 50’s (ish) musical 🙂 ).
It’s good that Mr. Lerner lived mostly back before the founding of the Holy Cult of AGW (and all its progeny, “{Name of Religious or Philosophical Group} and AGW,” e.g., Presbyterianism and AGW — makes your particular group EXTRA holy!)…. or we would never have had that delightful song!
4th verse:
Summer in the case of Scotland any two days in August.
Sounds like Colorado. Denver use to brag that the earliest snow on record was July 7th , the latest July 4th.
The global climate is a very complex system with both internal and external variables. So, physicists would probably say its future states, include any stability, cannot be predicted. .. Or, as the character Data in ‘Star Trek – TNG’ says: “Complex systems can sometimes behave in ways that are entirely unpredictable.” .. https://youtu.be/gQx07iKX3NA
You have a constitutional right not to get hurt while base jumping. Repeal that stupid law of gravity! Sue Newton!
You have the constitutional right not to be burned by hot coffee—millions awarded. You have the constitutional right to not be burned by a lighted Bic lighter you stuff into your pocket—millions awarded. The list goes on and on. As long as judges and juries are handing out other people’s money, there will never be any concern over truth or justice. Money just screams so much louder.
The cat’s been away far too long! Students in the pic seem to have a vacuous empty look. The new core subjectless propaganda indoctrination maybe? “Sabin center for climate change law” wouldn’t have anything to with this trend, would it? Or organizations looking into climate refugees? It’s going to take a lot of brass to weather this ugly marxbrothers storm. Trump is used to serial lawsuits and endless harassing audits, so he should be up to the task. But half the world seems to be employed in meaningless jobs that would evaporate if the Parasite Agreement collapses. There will be a lot of ky-yiying for a while but we better get started.
‘marxbrothers’ – did Karl have a brother?
Friedrich Engels was not a brother to Karl [he may have been a leech.
Not a mass murderer like Stalin [50 millions, maybe] and Mao [arm-waving, about a hundred million victims; probably nobody will ever know to within ten million . . . .].
Auto
Very concerned about Communist camouflage and creepy crypto-commie confluences.
NB – Avoid alliteration absolutely. Always.
And this is why the US MUST get out of the Paris Agreement. The green blob will use any and all US statements and obligations in a court of law in an attempt to impose their agenda. Any conservative/Republican that isn’t concerned about this is either ignorant or a liar.
+10. Yes. Thank you. You pegged it The Paris Agreement invites courts to impose climate extremist policies on the United States. This is an incredible insight on your part. How can this be brought to the attention of decision makers who are seeking to make America Great again?
What cannot be done by law can still be done by using the courts. (Should be a Rule for Radicals.)
Punch back twice as hard. (Reynolds’ Rules for Sane People)
I declare that I have the right to crispy fries. Soggy fries are a violation of my constitutional rights! It’s just as valid.
Exactly, EC.
There is no “right” without a corresponding duty.
It is only a religious belief that “people have a right to healthcare” and the like.
Those who so LOUDLY jump all over displays of religion in the public square (e.g., Nativity scenes in private yards visible from a public street), seek to shove their own religion down the throats of the rest of us.
Yes. I believe in the Jewish (and later, also Christian) tenet: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Leviticus 19:18) I believe that makes me morally obligated to help poor people with their needs. That is part of my religion.
AGW, based solely on conjecture and “it just seems likely,” is not science. It is a religious belief.
Rights without duty are pure license. Duty without rights is slavery
An integral part of a true civil right is the freedom not to exercise it. The right to vote is also the right to not vote. Universal healthcare is a phoney right because there’s no corresponding right to not participate. You’re mandated to support it from your taxes.
And a right to a “stable climate” is a whole other level of loony. Unless they mean universal access to heating and air conditioning? But we know they don’t.
It’s the old case of positive rights vs negative rights.
Negative rights are things that people cannot take away from you. That is, I have a right to not be abused by agents of the government. Or anyone else.
Positive rights are those that others must provide for you. Such as health care.
Declaring the existence of positive rights is the equivalent to bringing back slavery, since you are declaring that you have a right to force people to do stuff for you, without compensation.
Janice Moore – I have no doubt that you mean well when you bring up religion. And by religion you mean present-day, humanistic Christianity. First, Christianity is not the only religion today, nor was it ev.er Religion in various forms existed before there was civilization. Some remnants of ancient beliefs may be found among native s in the remaining wild places of the world. Of present day religions, Moslem faith is an off-shoot of early Christianity with whom they share several Biblical stories and beliefs. Yet they differ and even its relatively advanced form in Saudi Arabia they have restrictions on women who are not even allowed to drive. Not to speak of more doctrinaire forms of Mohammedanism where women are not allowed to go to school. Or where citizens lose their heads if they don’t properly honor Allah. You have a right to think that Christianity is free of such persecution but if you do you forget that it was not always so. Christian doctrine in the middle ages believed in the reality of witchcraft and thousands of women were burnt to death as witches. We know it was totally bogus evidence but this will not bring them back. The witch-hunters were well organized and believed that God wanted yhem to kill witches. They even published textbooks on how to get witches to confess that have survived to this day. I have no idea how they finally got rid of this junk. Just remember to thank your lucky stars (!) that you were born today and not in the middle ages. Luckily, we all were born after the witchcraft trials were over. The authority to kill witches was of course divine – directly from God himself. This is not the only religious atrocity, there were many more. One of the most widespread was practiced by the Aztec empire in pre-conquest Mexico. Their religious structures were pyramids on top of which sat a temple. In the temple w3as a large sacrificial stone. The victim was spread-eagled on his back and held down by three priests while the fourth on took a stone knife and cut the heart out of the victim. The victim’s blood was then drunk by all prists present. The victims were usually war prisoners, and that included some of nHernan Cortez’s nen as they battled back and forth. Christianity wiped out the Aztec system and Mexico is now Christian but here is the problem: all religions, Christianity included, claim to derive their legitimacy from a divine ruler or rulers whose will must obeyed, no matter what he says. Some environmentalists have made use of it by instigating native Americans to say that there should be no telescope on their sacred mountain or that a 8000 year old human remains are their ancestors and must be buried. In ancient Mexico if the priest tells you that according to the deity you must sacrifice your daughter to bring rain to the country you better go and take her to the pyramid keepers who execute such orders from above. It is a remnant belief from pre-historic peoples. We are lucky that science has proven the absence of such intervention by divine personages. But for reasons unknown the clear majority of mankind will not accept this fact. Christians. Moslems and Hindus are the largest groups of believers but there are hundreds of others, all bound by irrational beliefs of various kinds. Human societies have ethics but these religionists have insinuated themselves into their midst to direct ethics according to what their superstitions desires. There is a group of people interested in ethics free o divine intervention. They are the humanists but they are not very popular, probably because they have no divine overlord to obey and are free to reason about it.
Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak) May 26, 2017 at 3:51 pm
Thank you for that post.
I am glad that this blog allows you to write what you did.
Arno,
That all sounds so very enlightened, but If that Book is Legit, as I believe it is, it’s just you demonstrating your belief that no supernatural entities exist, over and over again. You have no actual way of knowing there are no supernatural entities, including evil supernatural entities that were actually attacking and corrupting any or all of those people’s societies (including some Christian ones).
You can pretend you time-traveled and mind-read all sorts of people throughout history, throughout the world, rendering you the perfect judge of all humans, but I say it’s arrogant closed-minded bullshit.
Please consider, readers, just a couple things;
“First, Christianity is not the only religion today, nor was it ev.er.”
If that were not so, the Book would have to be total fiction . . it’s a major recurring theme throughout, that there were and will be, false religions galore . . Yet this man feels Janice needs some lecturing on the matter?
“Religion in various forms existed before there was civilization. Some remnants of ancient beliefs may be found among native s in the remaining wild places of the world.”
Well, sure and if we apply ‘Occum’s razor’, we get? . . uh oh; Supernatural entities exist . . Yet, this man feels Janice is in need of some lecturing about the matter?
This one is so weird, I feel compelled to respond;
“We are lucky that science has proven the absence of such intervention by divine personages.”
It’s utterly impossible for science to ever “prove” any such negative, obviously I feel, but the “We are lucky” part is the real clunker here, to my mind. Janice believes there’s a very good chance she will be resurrected and spend eternity with a loving Creator God, and this man actually believes she’s going to see the possibility she and millions of others won’t, as a lucky thing? Amazing . .
If you throw in ‘cold stale fries’, I’ll join your lawsuit and we can make it a class action. :))
Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for bad fries!
I demand my constitutional right to be free of the nouning of verbs!
You mean, like you just did 😉
No, he verbed a noun 🙂
It’s actually very simple. If it forces money or service from someone, it’s not a right.
If somebody else must provide it for you then it is NOT A “RIGHT”.
You do not have the “right” to the benefits from another’s efforts.
…you have the right to consult with an attorney and/or have an attorney present during questioning; if you cannot afford and attorney one will be provided (and paid for by others).
Don M. …not quite the same, probably due to semantics. Your cited example is not a right as much as it is a responsibility of the prosecuting authority to assure that your personal freedoms (rights) are not being infringed by improper application of the laws.. Without going too far down the rabbit hole regarding ceded rights and social contracts, many of what people call “rights” are actually responsibilities provided by the society they have joined.
No, it can’t.
1) The “science” presented is mere conjecture; and
2) The observation-based science which would soundly and easily refute the plaintiff’s conjectured injury is excluded — for it does not support these lawsuits. Not one whit. (See, e.g., Climate Models Fail by Bob Tisdale).
One example (not a lawsuit, but, the exclusion of best science is exactly the same) —
Re: the EPA CO2 “endangerment” finding:
(http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/GW-Amicus-2013-05-23-Br-of-Amici-Curiae-Scientists-ISO-Petitions-fo….pdf )
(from my memorandum about this topic)
Ms Moore,
Here in the US, regrettably, the Courts defer to Government agencies on defining the science. Therefore, we need to get the Government agencies on the right track before these lawsuits increase. However, with the Endangerment finding, and the “hottest year evah” agency positions, the results of the lawsuits are a foregone conclusion. It is no wonder that the US is “leading the way”.
And the agencies have to get some backbone and start fighting, hard, the NGO sue-and-settle strategy.
FIGHTING the NGO sue and settle strategy?! They are part of it – simply by not defending the government’s position in the courts in many cases.
I hope the Trump administration will put an end to that nonsense.
In my dreams, the government would charge with treason the people who refused to defend against this abuse.
There is only so much the agencies can do, even if they are reasonable. So much depends on the judge in the case. Sue-and-settle works in part because there is rarely risk to the NGO. There is at least one law that requires the NGO to pay the other side’s costs in certain situations (IIRC, if the suit is found frivolous or maybe even if they lose, I really need to look up the exact reasons), but many judges routinely ignore this. If these laws were enforced, we would probably see sue-and-settle usage plummet.
Regardless, sue-and-settle raises other problems. Settling often results in poor policies and the like, but not settling means risking losing (and getting worse policies, etc.) and/or spending massive amounts of time and money on these cases. Do we want agencies spending millions of tax dollars on each lawsuit? The national deficit is already stratospheric. Are people willing to have a huge increase in taxes to pay for defending these cases? On an ideological/moral level, I am all for playing hardball. On a practical level, I am not convinced the hardline is always worth it.
I agree that something needs to change, particularly with the agencies that are pushing the dishonest and unethical policies/ideas/actions. As usual, if existing laws were being followed, a lot of these problems would not exist. Perhaps the first step should be getting those laws enforced. I can think of a few NGOs that I would not mind seeing bankrupted by their own self-righteous hubris.
We’re no stranger to the litigiousness of the religious climate “scientist” at CliScep. Here’s climate geoanthropopaleoclimatologist and all-round panic profiteer, Prof. Mark Maslin:
https://twitter.com/profmarkmaslin/status/865882023826780161
The “science will stand up in a court if law” assertion is only valid in courts run by kangaroos.
Hunter,
isn’t it funny though that the scientific world *en bloc* failed to distance itself from the profitable, and convenient, lies of An Inconvenient Truth, and that the first “establishment” voice raised against it was that of a judge in the High Court of England and Wales, who had to venture far outside his comfort zone to get to the facts obvious to any scientist? Why did the science world leave it up to Justice Burton to do what was (morally, if not officially) their responsibility, and how will their [snip]ped grandchildren ever forgive them?
It’s funny in the way that watching a train wreck is funny. The climate fear industry is very very lucrative.
I was going to protest the abuse of kangaroos but then I read this. Explosive temper, stubborn, life is a battle that must be won at all costs, out of touch with reality … that reminds me of someone.
Climate alarmism doesn’t have a lot of load-bearing arguments.
It has exactly: 0 load-bearing points. Only by the suspension of logic and critical thinking can one go far along that bridge of bristle cone twigs.
I’s called lawfare.
“Lawfare is a form of asymmetric warfare, consisting of using the legal system against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, tying up their time or winning a public relations victory”
The use of lawsuits is an Alinsky type of action. Even if they don’t win, they win.
People have a right to a *stable* chaotic, non-linear system, and every child should know how to square the circle and shoe a unicorn before they leave high school.
👍
Brad,
In the UK, solar managed – at lunchtime today, 26th May ’17 – to provide 24.3% of total generation across the UK.
For an hour or two (an hour or so?).
See
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40058074
BBC.
Cheerleader for watermelons.
No mention of 17th of May, when solar peaked [reached its zenith] at about (by eye) 2GW (perhaps a centi-tad less) – or about 5 or 6 percent. Note ‘peaked’.
Every night it goes to zero.
Zilch. Nada. Nowt. Nothing at all. Zero.
As solar does at night.
Funny that. It’s nighttime and all.
All very variable, and the good soul from Greenpeace [Greenpieces of Eight?] Hannah Martin, “head of energy” for Greenpeace in the UK, is reported as saying: –
“Today’s new record is a reminder of what the UK could achieve if our government reversed its cuts to support for solar. All around the world, solar power keeps beating new records as costs come down and power generation goes up.”
And there are protests about minor reduction in solar subsidies . . . .
If it was that good, it doesn’t need subsidy.
Surely?
.In the real world.
But do our Citrullus friends want that?
Or simply the death of ninety-plus percent of all humans living today [now >7.5 billion, per http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#top20%5D.
With subsidy, growing beans, to feed to unicorns, would be a viable power source, by harvesting the methane from unicorn farts.
Please sent serious spondulix!!!
Seriously!
Auto.
Solar is good for isolated stations.
Interconnecting technologies help a bit to smooth small variations. But 24% in and out again over 16 hours or so???
It helps – a bit – but stops at night. That is blindingly obvious.
If the wind drops, as it sometimes does, the lights go out if there is no back-up, warm, spinning, source.
We all know that is the truth.
Except in South Australia, it seems. And California. And parts of the EU. Including [Sir (!! blimey!) Ed Davey’s UK . . .]
Archimedes actually DID square the circle, in propositon 19 of his book, “On Spirals”. In doing so, he didn’t restrict his methods to straight edge and compass.
Archimedes schmarchimedes. My kids can achieve it armed with nothing but a MacBook Pro, gay edge and compassion. Think different yo
This is the type of thinking from these individuals:
* Citizens have a constitutional right to a stable climate system
* Citizens do not have a constitutional right to own firearms
* Citizens do not have a constitutional right to say mean, hurtful things
* Citizens do not have a constitutional right to refuse to do something that violates their religious beliefs
The fact that the last 3 are codified in the US Constitution but the first one is not is irrelevant to them. It is always “do it my way, OR ELSE YOU WILL REGRET IT!”
….illegal immigrants have a constitutional right to be illegal
Apparently the have a constitutional right to vote as well.
MarkW
That looks, from the other side of the Atlantic, to be a geographically variable statement.
We now have an election – thought to be a shoo-in for the Tories.
They have proved to be politically inept – if economically reasonable [correct!].
So it might still be a nail-biter.
I do not see the US-UK Alliance surviving the first [putative] Trump-Corbyn telephone call, never mind summit.
Auto
No great fan of May’s recent pledges. Still, I assume she is a politician and is lying every-time she opens her mouth.
You only don’t have a right to say mean and hurtful things about government protected minorities.
For all other groups, it’s mandatory.
In fact delaying America’s exit from the Paris Agreement risks a Court ruling making the Paris Agreement law by way of a court ruling. It is clear that a disturbingly large number of judges are corrupt enough to use any opportunity to impose law on America by judicial fiat and will also seek opportunities to humiliate the President and put Americans at risk. This actually s very serious situation and the clock is running against Trump and America.
Reminds me of the film “The Man Who Sued God” Starring Billy Connolly.
Advocate Steve Myers (Billy Connolly) is a disillusioned lawyer who becomes fed-up with the perceived corruption within the judicial system. He quits the law business and buys a small fishing boat and takes up fishing for a living. His fishing boat is struck by lightning and explodes into pieces, burns and sinks. He informs his insurance company, which reviews and then subsequently declines his claim on the grounds that it is not liable as his fishing boat was destroyed due to an “Act of God”.
Frustrated that his claim is repeatedly declined, Steve files a claim against God, naming church officials as representatives of God and thereby the respondents. The church leaders, their respective lawyers and their insurance company get together to find a way to settle this dilemma, which catches the fancy of the media. It is in Court that God’s representatives will have to admit that the destruction of Steve’s fishing boat was actually God’s Act, accept and compensate him, or deny it altogether thereby denying God’s existence, leaving the onus on Steve to prove his claim.
Life imitating art.
And most of all we can claim for a better gravity that doesn’t make plans to crash.
Sorry, “planes to crash”.
I’ve had quite a few plans crash and burn.
“citizens have a constitutional right to a stable climate system”
So what is the “proper” global average temperature, and how is it to be measured?!?
United Nations founded a complete mess.
Wow.
What a stunning surprise!
As soon as you get a slew of folk seeking to get their trotters into the swill trough – a complete mess.
Gor’ blimey!
Who would have thought such an outcome even marginally possible???
Mods – believe it or not – /Sarc.
Auto
“as ludicrous as expecting the universe to revolve around the Earth, something egotistical yet ignorant humans once believed.”
I don’t think your statement is fair. The geocentric model was based on available data, not egotistical. Even up to (and after) Copernicus, the available data pointed away from a heliocentric model. It wasn’t until gravity was better understood that many of the problems with the heliocentric model could be rationalized.
Here is a good article about the transition in science from the Geocentric model to the Heliocentric model. (It wasn’t called science at the time, I think it was Natural Philosophy)
https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2017/05/18/perpetuating-the-myths-addendum-the-copernican-shock/
Thank you kindly. Our ancestors weren’t idiots (I do see a lot of modern-centrism, thinking that “now” we Understand At Last). As far as I can tell, the only two pieces of evidence that even hinted that Earth was not the center of the cosmos were:
1) the retrograde motions of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn (the idea that Mercury and Venus might orbit the Sun is fairly old, even if not universally accepted); and
2) the sidereal year being one day longer than the solar year.
That’s it. That’s all ya get. Figuring out heliocentrism was a huge, huge intellectual accomplishment, and yet moderns act as if it “should” have been all but self-evident.
The parallax expected if the Earth orbited the sun does exist, but is too small to have been detected by the ancients; it was first observed in the 1800s. The lack of parallax was in fact used to refute the heliocentric view: a lack of visible parallax implied that the stars were unbelievably far away; why would all that empty space exist in any reasonable cosmos?
(It’s also the case that Earth at the center explained basic phenomena such as why things fall down; moving the Earth out of the center meant having to come up with a whole new concept. How quickly would you embrace an idea that overturned all of physics?)