False lawsuits over "Global Warming"

[the_professor]

I hope those individuals launching the lawsuit are fined for wasting the court's time on this issue. If this isn't frivolous, I don't know what is. This is the stupidest f'ing thing I've ever heard.

PS: The world has the most snow cover right now since sometime in the 1960s... "Global warming" my ass....


Eskimo village sues over global warming

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) -- A tiny Alaska village eroding into the Arctic Ocean sued two dozen oil, power and coal companies Tuesday, claiming that the large amounts of greenhouse gases they emit contribute to global warming that threatens the community's existence.


Waves crash against the seawall in Kivalana, Alaska, in September.

The city of Kivalina and a federally recognized tribe, the Alaska Native village of Kivalina, sued Exxon Mobil Corporation, eight other oil companies, 14 power companies and one coal company in a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco.

Kivalina is a traditional Inupiat Eskimo village of about 390 people about 625 miles northwest of Anchorage. It's built on an 8-mile barrier reef between the Chukchi Sea and Kivalina River.

Sea ice traditionally protected the community, whose economy is based in part on salmon fishing plus subsistence hunting of whale, seal, walrus, and caribou. But sea ice that forms later and melts sooner because of higher temperatures has left the community unprotected from fall and winter storm waves and surges that lash coastal communities.

"We are seeing accelerated erosion because of the loss of sea ice," City Administrator Janet Mitchell said in a statement. "We normally have ice starting in October, but now we have open water even into December so our island is not protected from the storms."

Relocation costs have been estimated at $400 million or more.

A spokesman for Exxon Mobil, Gantt Walton, said the company was reviewing the lawsuit and had no immediate comment on it.

Don't Miss
Bolivia blames flooding on climate change
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Kivalina by two nonprofit legal organizations -- The Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment and the Native American Rights Fund -- plus six law firms.

Reached by phone in Boston, attorney Matt Pawa said other lawsuits have been filed seeking damages from global warming, but this is the first one that has a "discretely identifiable victim."

Damage to Kivalina from global warming has been documented in official government reports by the Army Corps of Engineers and the General Accounting Office, Pawa said.

The lawsuit invokes the federal common law of public nuisance, and every entity that contributes to the pollution problem harming Kivalina is liable, Pawa said. "You can sue them one at a time or some subset of them," he said.

The lawsuit also accuses some of the defendants of a conspiracy to mislead the public regarding the causes and consequences of global warming. The suit was filed in California because that's where many of the defendants are located or do business, Pawa said.

Without commenting on the lawsuit, Exxon Mobil's Walton said the company takes the issue of climate change seriously.

"Exxon Mobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our operations, supporting research into technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogues on policy options with NGOs, industry and policy makers," he said.

The other oil companies named were BP PLC, BP American, BP Products North America, Chevron, Chevron USA, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Shell Oil.

Also named were Peabody Energy, a major coal producer, and power companies AES, American Electric Power, American Electric Power Services, DTE Energy, Duke Energy, Dynegy Holdings, Edison International, MidAmerican Energy Holdings, Mirant Corp., NRG Energy, Pinnacle West Capital, Reliant Energy, The Southern Co. and Xcel Energy.

[Phaedrus]

Hmmmm - it seems Global Warming has already killed the Loch Ness Monster, so that does kinda establish a precedent.

[Guido]

Speaking of the stupidest fucking thing ever heard:

I hope those individuals launching the lawsuit are fined for wasting the court's time on this issue. If this isn't frivolous, I don't know what is. This is the stupidest f'ing thing I've ever heard.

PS: The world has the most snow cover right now since sometime in the 1960s... "Global warming" my ass....

Have you got proof for that little claim there, smart guy? We already know you don't know a damn thing about climatology, but I'd love to know where you got that gem from.

[Phaedrus]

Perhaps this is the gem of a link you are looking for....
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/col ... 0d0&k=4336

or this, about general climate cooling:
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mo ... e10866.htm

here's the gag about the Loch Ness Monster I referred to.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... -20317853/

[F,D and H]

Reduce, reuse, rrrroll your tongue a little around like I like it will you...

[the_professor]

Have you got proof for that little claim there, smart guy? We already know you don't know a damn thing about climatology, but I'd love to know where you got that gem from.

Was reported on CBC radio Feb 27/08. I should not have referred to "the world" though, as they were talking the amount of snow cover in the northern hemisphere only. They reported that it is at its highest amount since 1967.

[Guido]

Phaedrus, as the dude says in the first article:

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

Don't let facts get in your way, though, that's ok.

Look, I'd love it if you guys were right and there was nothing wrong with the planet. Truly, nothing would make me happier.

I don't want to have to give up the conveniences in my life. I like being able to buy gas whenever, and to drive for fun. I enjoy taking my car out into the country and driving around for no other reason than because I want to get out of the house.
I like cold weather, I loathe summer as it is. If we were entering a new ice age, I would be the last person to complain about the cold.

Look, I don't know why it is that you feel the need to deny facts that 98% of the world's experts can confirm. Science is never fully accurate, and they're always refining the current theory. That's how science works. It's supposed to work that way. Don't be shocked every time the theory changes. Scientists are quite willing to adjust to new evidence.

Maybe you would feel incredible guilt if you found that your livelihood, your way of living is doing significant damage to the environment, so you suppress it, you deny the facts. The level of your denial is truly frightening. I'm always willing to give leeway to persons who have not had the opportunity to learn facts. That kind of ignorance is fine, but when you willfully DISREGARD PROVEN FACT, you're an idiot. Willful ignorance is unacceptable. There is no grand conspiracy happening here. The climate is changing. Accept it, and move on.

[corporate joe]

You'll be happy to know that those weather climate models you speak of predicted more snow for the northern hemisphere. Actually all climate models of the last 5 years have been chillingly accurate. Global warming means the world's average mean temperature increases but the term is misleading especially to some of us in north america. The correct term is global climate destabilization. The amount of snow fall received this year, an anomaly not encountered since 1966, is but one of those destabilization. Contrary to the uneducated opinion found on these boards that thinks global warming = warmer climate, up here in the northern hemipshere we're in for some heavy rain and snow fall, heavy shorter storms and greater temperature extremes. The ocean currents who are directly responsible for our climate have already begun shifting (according to over a 1000 different independent observation stations each confirming each other's results).

Global climate destabilizing is happening whether anyone here believes it or not.

[corporate joe]

I will however add that the lawsuit is pointless, and even though justification could be made for it, it will be in fact a waste of time and resources that could be better used somewhere else.

[Phaedrus]

Guido, I decided to rearrange your comments into a poem to highlight the artful way in which you decided to smear my plebeian understanding of all matters scientific.
It is entitled simply:

(“Don't let facts get in your way, though,) that's ok.”

“deny facts,”
“The level of your denial is truly frightening,”
“you deny the facts,”
“…persons who have not had the opportunity to learn facts. That kind of ignorance…”
“you willfully DISREGARD PROVEN FACT,”
“you're an idiot”


All that invective from 3 tiny links…the first of which, you requested. Imagine if you knew the first thing about me, or bothered to skim through the many other threads on this topic and find out where I stand on this issue before pouncing on me with foam around the mouth?
FYI: I’m not a climate change denier. In fact, I’ve read Al Gore’s books, and watched his movie and like you, I’m worried that 500 years from now the sea level will rise as much as 20’, drowning many of the world’s poorest people who will watch the tide slowly rise and swallow them up, and they, like the rest of humanity, will be powerless to do anything about it. I mean, if it can get Nessie, who among us is safe? I wish things would go back to the way they used to be when all of Canada was covered with ice, before the white man came with his evil SUV’s.

We should try to get some more laws passed outlawing the thought-crimes of: ignorance; expressing of opinions harmful to the state; disagreeing with 98% of the world’s experts; and free verse poetry. Then anyone who’s not 100% sure whether the future will be hotter or colder, but is positive it our fault, can sue whichever designated fall guy they want to.

[Spokes]

Here we go again.

Using one cold winter to say that Global Warming is not happening is about as invalid as saying that one bad summer of hurricanes is proof that Global Warming is real. Any Gore lovers here?

Someone is not up on their scientific method. Statements like this:

...but when you willfully DISREGARD PROVEN FACT, you're an idiot

really should be thought over before being posted. In science, nothing is proven to be a fact. Theories are proven to be false. This BTW kills another common anti-GW argument, the fact that Global Warming is only a theory, and therefore not really true.

Scientific theories are an explanantion of observations made of the natural world. In the same way as Global Warming is a theory, so too is Reletivity, Quantum Mechanics, Plate Techtonics, and Natural Selection. These "theories" though, have made possible many of the technologies we take for common place. GPS, microchips, and space exploration to name a few things, would not be possible but for the predictions made by these theories. This still does not make them "PROVEN FACTS".

A good theory will make predictions that can be tested by experiement with results that can be duplicated. If the results are consistant with what the theory predicts, then we have greater faith in that theory, but it does not make it a "PROVEN FACT". If the results of the experiment is not what the theory predicted, then the theory is proven to be wrong. This even if many other experiments have supported the theory. A new theory is required, or at a minimum, the original one must be modified.

An example of this can be found by looking at Newtons laws, something all pilots should be familliar with. Using these laws, and the math discipline of Calculus also created by Newton, it is possible to very accurately predict the position of celestial objects in space at some future time. In fact, Newtons calculations are still at the core of all space travel today. The problem was, that some observations were at odds with what Newton predicted. Mercury travels very quickly around the sun. Although Newtons math could accurately predict the orbit of Mercury, there was always a small discrepency between these calculations, and the observations. Initially it was assumed that this was due to observervational inaccuracies. As it turns out, Einsteins theory of Reletivity made certain nessecary modifications to Newtons errors that closed the gap between scientific prediction and observation. In fact, small corrections are made to the clocks on GPS satelites every day to account for the effects of Reletivity. But note, it is still the THEORY of Reletivity, not the PROVEN FACT of Reletivity. Similar examples exist to the quantum world as well.

I used that example because it is the easiest for an explanation. Some theories are very difficult to test experimentally. Natural Selection, and Plate Techtonics I would think fall into this catagory. So too I suppose does Global Warming. In these cases, the theories also would make some predictions on what we should find, or see in the natural world. Natural Selection predicts we should find evidence of interim species. the so called missing links. There have been many examples of the interim species found, and so we have greater trust in this theory. It still does not make it the "Fact of Natural Selection".

Eugenics is a good example of a popular mainstream theory that was proven wrong, and has been abandoned. Not because of the obvious disgusting implications, but because experiment, and observation showed it to be wrong - proved it false, if you will.

Global Warming, should also make predictions. If one of them is that we should get the occaisional freakish cold winter, and then we get one, well this does not prove the theory true. It simply lets us put greater faith in the theory. If we get a string of several, each colder than the one before, then this would make a case for abandoning GW or at least modifying it.

One of the predictions made by Global Warming is that the oceans levels should rise. This would be catastrofic for many island nations, and they have said so. The problem is, that this is not happening on all oceans. A documentary I saw, gave pretty strong evidence that in the Maldives the oceans levels are decreasing. The explanation put forward was that the warmer air was causing more of the ocean to evaporate. This moisture was circulating to the poles, and dropping as snow, creating the increase thickness of ice seen to be at the south pole. The question becomes, if this is so, what are the implications towards global climate. Is this predicted in the theory? (I do not know). Is this some kind of global self regulating process that has developed and kept life on earth for so many billion years. At the very least, it deserves examination.

The main point is, can we please stop referring to "PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT" as there really is no such thing. In the same way, we must not try to settle the debate with a simple "Its only a theory" argument. In addition, I do not think over the top doomsday predictions like the ones Al Gore made in his film are helpful.

Lastly, on the topic of stifleing debate. Some of those who support the GW theory would have us beleive "The Science is settled". Such statements are nonsense. By the end of the 19th century, it was widely beleived that all that was important about the natural world was known. Newton, for example provided us with an explanation for the planets orbits that is "correct". Well, in 1905 Einstein and Reletivity showed that this simply was not so. Quantum mechanics again later modified what was "known". I suspect that when Reletivity and Quantum mechanics are unified (they are currently at odds with each other in some cases), we will know something more about the natural world. We proably will get a bunch more questions created. The science is never settled, and debate should never be ended because x% of the experts say it is so.

There are several books that describe the scientific method far better than I have here. I would recomment Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" to start.

[corporate joe]

Good post. Too bad that those who need to read it will skip past it because it's more than 2 lines long.

Nevertheless, there is one thing that that should be added to your description of the scientific method and your critic of the science is settled argument. Maybe what STL was trying to say (and I could be wrong, not trying to put words in his mouth but I've had this same discussion with someone else) is that the term "settled" is used when one looks at the evidence supporting global warming and the cost of ignoring all the evidence, especially when there is so much of it available.

I bring this detail up because you will hear that term brought up often: "settled" or "fact". There are a lot of facts and empirical data in the science of global warming. Facts some people still deny. However that does not mean that the entirety of the science (or any science) is based solely on facts. I think it's just a misuse of the words. What is settled is the debate about action vs inaction when it comes to global warming (and not the science behind it). In other words, action is required because of the amount of evidence gathered and the severity of the risk that comes with inaction. The likelihood is so high that the cost of not acting is so much greater than the cost of acting is (thanks to all the evidence gathered) that only an imbecile in denial (or a self proclaimed professor) can still claim otherwise. That's what settled about global warming: the debate around the amount of evidence required to justify action.

What still needs to be determined is what actions, and how drastic they need to be before the actual problem is solved. The science also needs to improve so we can accurately measure what type of intervention is required. In a perfect world with perfect science, we find the perfect balance allowing us to act in a way that is less costly to us economically. If we act to smoothly, climate destabilization continues, and the cost to our economies remains high. If we act too harshly, we unnecessarily cripple our current economy.

One thing is for sure, the longer we wait to act today, the more costly it will be tomorrow.

[JakeYYZ]

Color me skeptical. Call me a heretic. The only thing that prevents the AGW zealots from burning their detractors at the stake is the large carbon footprint left behind.
Those of us with religious inclinations are at least aware that we have religious inclinations. We know that what we believe is not based on scientific data but is based on emotional bias and faith.

On the other hand, you have the folks who trumpet their sacred cause (i.e. AGW) without fully realizing the emotional investment they've put into the "cause." They'd like to think their actions and feelings are based on fact, but the truth is, AGW has NOT been proven.

[the_professor]

FYI: I’m not a climate change denier. In fact, I’ve read Al Gore’s books, and watched his movie and like you, I’m worried that 500 years from now the sea level will rise as much as 20’, drowning many of the world’s poorest people who will watch the tide slowly rise and swallow them up, and they, like the rest of humanity, will be powerless to do anything about it.

Any human being who does not have the good sense to plan for sea levels that will rise at a glacial pace (no pun intended), most probably deserves to go live with the fish.

None of this will happen overnight, and only a simpleton will sit there and not do anything about it while the water rises over a period of decades (if you believe the theory).

And cj, approx 70% of climate change models have failed miserably.

The existence of La Nina is what is causing the increased snow this year, and we didn't need a climate change model to tell us that.

I'm going back to not caring about a problem that is nothing more than David Suzuki's wet dream.

I simply wonder what the Next Big Crisis will be, once the global warming hysteria has run its course. We'll probably start over again with worrying about a plague, or the earth getting sucked into the sun, or any of 1,000 other things that are just as insignificant and unlikely as the climate change fanatics of today.