Comments on: Katrina Victims Have Standing To Sue Over Global Warming

By: Jim Turner

Jim Turner — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:32:28 +0000

Sorry to be a little OT, this is the most relevant thread I could find. I spotted this link on the Google UK home page, and I don’t think anyone on climate blogs I read have picked it up yet. File under ‘you couldn’t make it up’.

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2009/11/03/52837/ex-employee-can-sue-for-unfair-dismissal-over-climate-change-beliefs.html

By: ClimateSkeptic

ClimateSkeptic — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:39:02 +0000

Steve is on the right track here. The facts don’t matter – any jury is going to feel sorry for the ‘victims’ and award damages. This is about using the law to rearrange wealth.

The only thing ‘newsworthy’ here is that it’s (another) creative argument to rape the innocent (Oh surely any big company is evil! sez Polosi, but not until after they have donated.).

By: Dan Pangburn

Dan Pangburn — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:14:55 +0000

Hunter,
All that you say may be true but the combined effect of all of these factors is so small that, as is shown, an excellent correlation with the measured average global temperatures is obtained when they are ignored and the only factors considered are time-integral of sunspots and a temperature oscillation (the oscillation is probably from ocean turnover).

By: hunter

hunter — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:06:54 +0000

Dan P,
The climate, and the atmosphere, are not simple.
CO2 does impact the the energy budget of the climate.
The problem grows from there, with the AGW promotion industry making wild claims about positive feedbacks that have not been shown to eixst in nature.
The physics of CO2 are well established. What AGW theory attempted to prove, and has failed to prove, is that relatively small changes in CO2 lead to huge changes in the energy budget.
Humans have and do cause climatce change-
When foliage and water flows are changed, the climate changes.
When cities are covered in concrete and buildings, the climate changes.
the fallacy of the AGW movement has been to claim that CO2 is *the* driver, and that it alone explains climate of the past ~100 years or so.
The other fallacy is that the climate of the past ~100 years has been extreme, dangerous, and is portending great dangerous changes to come.

By: Dan Pangburn

Dan Pangburn — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:03:52 +0000

It is becoming more and more apparent that climate change is natural. Lawsuits against nature are futile. All of the global average temperatures for the entire 20th century and on into the 21st century are readily calculated with no consideration whatsoever needed of changes to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas. The method is a straight-forward application of the first law of thermodynamics and uses only the time-integral of sunspot count and 32-year long up trends and down trends that have an amplitude of 0.45 C and are probably related to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Data sources, a graph that overlays the measured and calculated temperatures from 1880 to 2008 and a detailed description of the method are in a new paper at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true . The standard deviation of the difference between concurrent calculated and measured average global temperatures is 0.064 C. There is no Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) (and therefore no human caused climate change) from added atmospheric carbon dioxide.

By: Steve Hanson

Steve Hanson — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:21:26 +0000

Wow, I am glad that lawyers were mentioned as I believe they (as a group) are the 2nd most opportunistic group of professionals (2nd to so called pro-global warming climatologists). The layers take advantage of bad situations by making money from them (my reasoning being that if it was out of the kindness of their heart they would limit their rewards to a reasonable compensation (by reasonable I mean 2, 3, or even 500 dollars per hour on cases not a % of a multimillion dollar reward which they are very assured of before they even take a case). Global warming advocates are taking advantage of the fact that grants etc. are currently being given to pro global warming studies etc. as oppossed to non-biassed studies of the same)

By: firefighter

firefighter — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:33:23 +0000

This is great news. I would subpoena Al Gore . He then would forced to Defend his theory
on global warming for the first time in his life.

By: George Edwards

George Edwards — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:21:44 +0000

Before everyone dismisses this with hoots of derision, let me remind all that despite at least two NIH studies showing there to be no adverse health consequences to the use of silicone breast implants, several attorneys got seriously rich – one sterling fellow in a midwestern city known to me banked a reported $600MM. Not bad for an urban myth.

By: ADiff

ADiff — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:14:00 +0000

Sabril,

I was right there with you….right up to the point where you said “a majority white jury”. Wow! What on earth does the ethnicity of the auditors have to do with anything? Do us all a favor here, please desist injecting completely irrelevant positions, especially of such a objectionable character, into what’s otherwise a perfectly rational discussion. Your final comment makes me think your post is nothing other than a cleverly crafted attempt to discredit the entire discussion, and yourself actually a member of the faith-based AGW advocacy community rather than someone honestly pursuing an accurate understanding of the actual reality of the issue at hand.

By: Whaddaya bet?

Whaddaya bet? — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:56:50 +0000

Well, just watch. It’s only a matter of time before a host of people who’ve been laid off in this downturn sue the major Wall Street firms for damages. It’s the American way.