Friday, November 21, 2008

Putting Climate Laggards on Trial



MITCHELL ANDERSON'S BLOG, [DESMOGBLOG] - November 21, 2008

PUTTING CLIMATE LAGGARDS ON TRIAL

by Mitchell Anderson, [published originally on DeSmogBlog]

------------------------------------------

Ballsy.

That is perhaps best word to describe a class action lawsuit filed this week in the International Criminal Court in The Hague in Holland against national governments refusing to act on reducing carbon emissions.

The suit was filed by climate activist Danny Bloom who is asking for "US$1 billion dollars in damages on behalf of future generations of human beings on Earth - if there are any".

No Joke.

The lawsuit is specifically seeking damages from ""all world leaders for intent to commit manslaughter against future generations of human beings by allowing murderous amounts of fossil fuels to be harvested, burned and sent into the atmosphere as CO2, causing possible apocalyptic harm to the Earth's ecosystem and the very future of the human species."

The point of the suit of course is not to wring money out of carbon emitters, but to embarrass the legions of laggard governments in advance of upcoming international climate negotiations next month in Poland.

According to Bloom, the legal action "is about trying to protect future generations of mankind, humankind, and a positive judgment in this case will help prod more people to take the issues of climate change and global warming more seriously. We fully intend to make all world leaders of today responsible for their actions in the present day and age."

This case is a legal long shot no doubt, but Bloom's team said ""it's up to the court to decide whether this case has any merit. We fully expect the court to agree to at least hear the case and make a responsible and measured decision later."

It would also be the first case of its kind to seek to act on behalf of future generations for the irresponsibility of their ancestors.

The need to put world leaders on the hot seat is very real. International climate talks like the one happening next month in Poland have happening for over a decade yet global emissions just keep climbing. A recent report showed that in spite of international commitments, carbon emissions of 40 industrialized countries rose by 2.3 percent between 2000 and 2006.

That said, those countries that signed Kyoto saw their overall emissions fall by 17% below 1990. The disgraceful outlier among those nations is Canada, whose emissions ballooned by over 20% in spite of having ratifying Kyoto.

Canada's Prime Minister Harper has called Kyoto a "mistake" and he seems openly contemptuous of such international efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. Mr. Harper is of course not alone in the responsibility for Canada' terrible climate change record. The Canadian public recently handed him another mandate in a general election.

Back to Mr. Bloom. His lawsuit seems directly targeted towards such irresponsible nations like Canada that have refused to take this issue seriously.

If he wins, Bloom is planning to donate the $1 billion in damages to the Nobel winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Godspeed Mr. Bloom.

------------------
Source: DeSmogBlog
http://www.desmogblog.com

The DeSmogBlog team is led by Jim Hoggan, founder of one of Canada's leading public relations firms. He is also a board member of the David Suzuki Foundation. The DeSmogBlog team is especially grateful to our benefactor John Lefebvre, a lawyer, internet entrepreneur and past-president of NETeller. Editorial assistance on the blog is provided by renowned author Ross Gelbspan and by Richard Littlemore, an award-winning science and magazine writer. Kevin Grandia oversees the project as a whole.

Tags: Mitchell Anderson, Environment, George W. Bush, Government Policy, climate change, global warming, U.S. Senate Committee On The Environment And Public Works,

Mitchell Anderson's blog [Login or register at DeSmogBlog to post comments]

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

The United Nations Climate Change Conference, Poznań, Poland - COP 14
1-12 December 2008

December 6, 2008

The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznań will be a milestone on the road to success for the processes which were launched under the Bali Road Map. The meeting comes midway between COP 13 in Bali, which saw the launch of negotiations on strengthened international action on climate change, and COP 15 Copenhagen, at which the negotiations are set to conclude.

The conference will include the 29th sessions of the Convention’s subsidiary bodies - SBSTA and SBI – as well as the 4th session of the AWG-LCA and the 2nd part of the 6th session of the AWG-KP. The Poznań meeting, which is expected to draw around eight thousand participants, will both advance international cooperation on a future climate change regime and ensure progress on key issues.
Provisional agendas and further information

dan said...

The temperature is rising and emissions playing the tune

November 22, 3008

by robertkyriakides
in UK

Kyoto is not working. The industrial nations of the world were supposed to reduce their carbon emissions; all of them signed up to it except the United States of America. It came into force in 2005 when the requisite number of countries signed up to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2% by 2012, which would have brought them in the main to emissions to 1990 levels. That was a very modest aim, and not one which would have reversed or significantly slowly the rate of global warming, but it was a start and would have bought the planet a few valuable years.

Now, in 2008, we find emissions from industrialised nations have actually risen by 2.3%. The largest rises have taken place in the former soviet bloc nations and Canada. In Canada alone emissions rose by 21.3% from the 1990 base, and I wonder what it is that Canadians are doing to be so careless of the future generations.

In 2006 emissions fell by 0.1%, but this is within the statistical margin of error, and the fall was simply from the 2005 figure, which was higher than the 2004 figure and so forth. The United Kingdom claims some success in being on target, but its figures do not take into account its share from aviation and shipping emissions which have been significantly rising since the turn of the century.

In the United States of America the position seems that in some places emissions are falling but in other places they are rising. The Washington Post measures emissions by simply counting energy from utility bills and traffic records. These indicated a 13.4% increase between 2001 and 2005 compared with an overall national increase of 5.3%. Again the figures are not terribly accurate because they do not count aviation emissions.

No country’s emission figures count emissions created by the purchase of goods manufactured outside the country but used or consumed in the country. If you buy goods that made in China, the emissions are not attributed to you or your nation, but to China, not party to any agreement to reduce its emissions.

What has caused these emission rises? Clearly the growth in prosperity is one important factor. More prosperity means more consumption of goods and services and more consumption requires energy which is the principle source of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition the population has grow, which creates the need for more consumption in itself. Finally and most importantly no major developed industrialised nation has taken any meaningful step to decarbonise its energy. They have all been pussyfooting around.

If you take together the developing nations and the undeveloped nations (they comprise 80% of the people living on our planet) they produce only 41% of global emissions. 59% of the greenhouse gases are produced by the developed nations that comprise only 20% of the world population.

If you look at overall emissions since the industrial revolution the developed countries with their 20% of the population have created 77% of the greenhouse gas emissions.

Of course the developing nations, such as China, are now growing their emissions at the highest rate. Is that fair or does the safety of everyone take precedence over concepts of permitting the developing nations to do as much damage as we in the developed world have already done?

I do not know the answer, but I do know that the temperature is rising and emissions are playing the tune.

dan said...

Climate Change Conferences and difficulties of creating climate change measures

Posted on November 21, 3008

by robertkyriakides
in UK

In December, before Mr Obama takes office, the leaders from United Nations meets in Poland to discuss climate change. We all must hope that the leaders will create a new version of the Kyoto Treaty (which expires in four years time), a more modern one without the compromises and faults that are embedded in Kyoto and a Treaty to which America will place its mark.

Mr Obama will not be President when this summit takes place so it would be inappropriate for him to attend but he promises to help lead the world in global co-operation on climate change when he becomes President.

In Europe leadership on climate change is remarkable only by its absence. Poland and Italy are threatening to block a European Union package of climate change measures, including measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Italy and Poland are arguing that in the present financial crisis their industries cannot afford to adhere to tough emissions regulations. They are likely to be joined by other European nations who feel that it is important to keep people in jobs rather than address the long term problems of the whole world.

So we could end up with a complete role reversal on climate change; the United States could agree to tough measures but many European countries may opt out of enforcing tough measures, just like the United States did and received much criticism from the European nations for opting out.

It strikes me that it might be worthwhile postponing the UN summit until it is appropriate for the world’s largest polluter, consumer and wealthiest nation to attend properly briefed with advisors who have had a few months experience in their jobs. Postponement will also give Italy and Poland some time for thought and the ability to calculate more precisely how the economic crisis and emission regulation will affect them. It will not be as bad as they fear. So far the economic recession has been bad, but no one knows how quickly recovery will come and my feeling is that recovery will come quicker than expected.

People tend to be overly depressed in bad times and overly optimistic in prosperous times. We have seen the overly optimistic mode for many years and now it is time to be depressed; we are all too deeply depressed.

But climate change is far more depressing than economic recession, because an recession means that things will sometime get better. Climate change will take us past the point of no return unless we urgently act upon it. Nothing, as Kyoto shows, can be achieved on climate change without the active participation of the United States.

At Kyoto and at Bali the United States did not lead the world on climate change but argued that (a) it may not be caused by humans at all and (b) it was wrong in principle to put all the expense oand obligation to restrict emissions on the developed nations while we let the undeveloped nations and the developing nations have a whole series of exemptions, because they are poor.

The first argument is wrong and does not fit well into sensible concepts of risk management and insurance. The second argument – in effect the immorality of giving anyone a free pass to pollute -has some force and the position of Italy and Poland in the forthcoming EU discussions is a variation on that argument.

The United Kingdom has emitted huge amounts carbon dioxide for hundreds of years on an industrial scale and is the largest aggregate emitter in historical terms. That does not make it right for another country to emit in an uncontrolled fashion for another future historical period, simply to catch up and put itself on a par with the United Kingdom.

I do not know the answer to this conundrum but I suspect that if people no longer have to waste time trying to persuade everyone that climate change at its present frightening rate is caused by humans, we might be able to focus on a fair way to share the burden of the sacrifices and tough measures that have to be taken if we are to leave the planet in a fit state for our grandchildren.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm... how did you even accomplish this?! Good luck...great idea...it needs more press!

from Alaska -- MK

dan said...

"Danny - Big time congrats for putting in this energy. That's an absolutely great
statement.

Please do me the favor and let me know as things develop.

I suspect it'll be primarily a symbolic effort. But that alone deserves
a huge round of applause.

Thanks so much for doing this!"

- R

Anonymous said...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/11/21/climate.danger.zone/index.html



Carbon dioxide levels already a danger


Story Highlights
* Team of international scientists say carbon dioxide levels are already in danger zone
* Report says that we risk the disappearance of mountain glaciers that supply water
* Authors propose phasing out coal power and reforestation programs to reduce CO2

By Matthew Knight
For CNN

LONDON, England (CNN) -- A team of international scientists led by Dr James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, say that carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are already in the danger zone.

Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere currently stand at 385 parts per million (ppm) and are rising at a rate of two ppm per year. This is enough, say the scientists, to encourage dangerous changes to the Earth's climate.


As a result we risk expanding desertification, food shortages, increased storm intensities, loss of coral reefs and the disappearance of mountain glaciers that supply water to hundreds of millions of people.



The Aletsch glacier in the Alps. Melting of mountain glaciers is accelerating worldwide.


The report, "Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?" appears in the latest edition of the Open Atmosphere Science Journal and brings together the expertise of ten scientists from the United States, the UK and France.

It is a departure from the previous climate estimates which predict that perilous CO2 levels will be reached later in the century.

Drawing on improved paleoclimate records and current global observations has prompted the authors to reach new conclusions about what constitutes a safe level of CO2.

Dr Hansen told CNN: "In the paleoclimate data, the Cenozoic data is the most alarming -- burning all the fossil fuels clearly would send the planet back to the ice-free state with sea level about 250 feet higher."

Hansen thinks these sorts of changes would take several centuries, but he said we would have to deal with a "holy mess...as ice sheet disintegration unfolded out of our control".

As far as current global observations are concerned, Hansen cites both the decline of Arctic sea ice and the worldwide retreat of mountain glaciers as causes for major concern.

"Once they are gone," he said, "the fresh water supplies for hundreds [of millions] of people dependent on rivers originating in the Himalayas, Andes and Rocky mountains will be severely reduced in summer and fall."

In light of the new data the authors believe that merely stabilizing CO2 emissions might not be enough to avoid catastrophic changes. "Humanity must aim for an even lower level of greenhouse gases", the report concludes.

To achieve these reductions they propose phasing out coal-fired power stations by 2030 and scaling down the use of unconventional fossil fuels like tar sands.

Reforestation programs on degraded land and instigating the widespread use of natural fertilizers could also help to draw down CO2 by around 50 ppm.

Dr Hansen says it's impossible to say when we will reach the point of no return.

"It's like the economy, it's a non-linear problem," he said. "You knew, given the continued input of big deficit spending that things would go to pot, but nobody could predict the time of collapse with any confidence. We had better start reducing emissions soon and get back below 350 ppm within several decades -- otherwise I doubt that the ice sheets can stand such a long strong pressure."

All AboutNature and the Environment * NASA





Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/11/21/climate.danger.zone/index.html



SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close
Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.


2008 Cable News Network

Anonymous said...

Anthony at WUWT writes

"Litigious Lunacy"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/22/litigious-lunacy

This is quite something. Darn those Canucks. As we saw with his defense of eco-vandals in England, I wonder if Dr. James Hansen will rush to The Hague to testify for this one? And if by some furthest stretch of the imagination, this lawsuit is successful, what then? Will Pachauri use the spoils to whittle down the number of lifetimes if will take to erase his own carbon footprint? I wonder if Danny Bloom is related to omnipresent blog commenter, and Sierra Club representative, Steve Bloom? BTW Steve, we are still waiting, over a year now for your answer.

dan said...

Lubos in Czeck says:

"A propagandistic blog about the climate funded by John Lefebvre, a criminal arrested for money laundering, informs us about a lawsuit filed by Danny Bloom, a radical environmentalist activist.

In this lawsuit, Bloom claims to represent the "future generations of human beings on Earth - if there are any" and he wants to be personally paid USD 1 billion from those world leaders who are skeptical about the catastrophic climate change. This list is supposed to include politicians as undecided as Stephen Harper of Canada.

Bloom claims that he will donate the money to the IPCC. Of course, unless the capital will be needed to repay some money to John Lefevbre and others.

Now, I think that the probability that Bloom could win this absurd case is infinitesimally tiny. Still, it may be a useful exercise to imagine that he will. Just imagine that these internationally organized criminals - John Lefevbre, Danny Bloom, RealClimate.ORG, and many others - will also be able to take over the International Criminal Court and steal billions of dollars from any innocent individuals they dislike, according to their own choice. After the next lawsuit, climate skeptics could perhaps be executed, too.

Climate skeptics would become as threatened by these organized fanatics as the German Jews were around 1938: it became legitimate to steal their ski or furcoats and to break their windows but not to steal billions of dollars from them.

Sane and human countries should leave the International Criminal Court, outlaw the climate activists, and freeze all of their assets. Yes, I am afraid that if things like Bloom's victory in the lawsuit would occur, a world war against the climate alarmists, analogous to the war on terror, would be my preferred next step."

Climate Realist said...

What nonsense.
A case of "Vexatious Litigation" if there ever was one.
The world's been cooling for the past 10 years, despite huge amounts of CO2 being put into the atmosphere.
"The temperature is rising and emissions playing the tune"

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx
Doesn't seem to fit with that view.
Arctic ice is back with a vengeance, http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
those pillocks who tried to kayak to the North Pole, fell 60+ miles short compared to an expedition mounted in 1922.
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
Our intrepid paddlers have reached ice exactly where 1981 limits were.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/19800903.png
We've got some glaciers melting, some advancing, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/23/do2310b.xml
and the melting appears to have more to do with smog than atmsopheric temperature.
Part of this smog is caused by burning forests in Asia, to clear ground to plant Palm Oil trees, for biofuel!
Other glaciers growing?
"Mount Shasta’s seven glaciers are on the grow. The largest, Whitney Glacier, has averaged a 60-foot-a-year growth spree for the past 50 years, according to Dr. Slawek Tulaczyk, a professor of earth sciences at the University of California"
10.09.08. Chico News and Review
Also, will we be seeing the Chinese Gerontocracy in the dock?
The Indian Government?
Now, let's look at a bit of history.
http://www.zeeburgnieuws.nl/nieuws/images/paleocene_eocene_optimum.jpg
How does AGW explain the Medieval Warm Period?
The Holocene Climatic Optimum?
Both times when global temperatures were at, or above current levels.
Nice to see that the World's leaders will be off to Poland in December, they'd better pack their winter woolies, butit does make a change from jaunts at great (tax payer) expense to Rio & Bali.

Anonymous said...

With temperatures not rising, the seas not rising, and storm strength not increasing, one can only hope that this case goes forward and its plaintiff confronted with the facts, and not the politics, of the issue.
And for the IPCC, a political body, to receive even more money with which to push propaganda, is rather obscene.
Please do note how the alarmists have moved on from their failed hype about Arctic ice, and are still clinging to the glacier melt.
What will they cling to after it becomes clear that soot, not CO2, is the problem for ice melt in general?
The good that might come out of this is that the green movement will once again focus on actually cleaning up the environment.

Anonymous said...

108 responses to

“Litigious Lunacy”


kim (22:08:05) :

Oh, goodie, can I depose Bloom?
=====================

22

11

2008
evanjones (22:37:42) :

O! Canada!

22

11

2008
sillybooks (22:55:47) :

Godspeed Mr. Bloom.
I willingly second that based on the assumption that no human body will remain whole at such a velocity…

22

11

2008
Bishop Hill (23:05:43) :

Perhaps someone should file an amicus curiae brief and tell them what’s really happening.

22

11

2008
wes george (23:18:57) :

This could be the opportunity of the decade. At long last, the Hollywood AGW hype-pothesis can come under the detailed scrutiny of litigation. Perhaps, Nobel Laureate Al Gore should be called upon as an expert witness…by the defense!

One would hope that the defendants would have the courage to vigorously and aggressively take full advantage of this foolhardy challenge as the modern day equivalent of the Scopes Trial.

Handled properly this is a no-win situation for the AGW hypothesis, which relies on the opacity of the “science” to conceal the vacuity of its claims.

The defendants only need prove that the AGW hypothesis is speculative at best, fraudulent in part and utterly genocidal as a limiting parameter policy in regards to global gross production.

Once the AGW hypothesis has been shown to be more faith and politically motivated intrigue than rational scientific inquiry, the stage will be set for a counter-suit worth the trillions of dollars in damages that the AGW lobby seeks to perpetuate upon economies of the free world and the following quite literal holocaust of lives carbon dioxide suppression would have on the developing world, ie Africa, the sub-continent and Sur de America.

22

11

2008
Mike (23:21:38) :

I take it that Bloom has few scientific credentials, little understanding of cause and effect, and a desire to make a little bread on the side.
Mike

22

11

2008
Rick Sharp (23:34:49) :

I’m a Canadian and I resemble that.

22

11

2008
P Folkens (23:52:41) :

“intent to commit manslaughter against future generations . . . murderous amounts . . . causing possible apocalyptic harm . . .”

Is there any legal precedent for an uninjured party to bring suit against multiple governments for “intent” with no basis to commit “possible” harm to unspecified unborn from a by-product of a common commodity used by regular citizens in a legal manner?

The level of stupid exercised by some of these fanatics continues to amaze and impress. It remains that the worst case scenario postulated by the IPCC will almost reach the average condition (as measured by sea level) during the past 6,000 years.

23

11

2008
MG (00:01:57) :

Unlucky for him, CO2 is plant food and does humans no harm. We exhale over 40,000 ppm CO2, so just how exactly is this going to exterminate us? By making plants grow faster, with more efficient water and nitrogen use? By extending the growing season in the large, northern continental areas of the northern hemisphere? If we want to do something good for the world, we can start with the real problems - land degradation and population growth. Furthermore, most of the warming seems to have been due to solar activity one way or the other, and temperatures seem to have peaked a few years ago. It’s a publicity stunt.

23

11

2008
Brian Johnson (00:11:07) :

Taking the yearly worldwide output of greenhouse gases, including water vapour, methane, CO2 etc., how does the 0.27% of the man made contribution to the total have any measurable effect whatsoever?

What happen to logic and reason and Occam’s Razor???

Carbon footprint? Bloom-ing madness!

23

11

2008
Danny Bloom (01:17:29) :

Mike said: “I take it that Mr. Bloom has few scientific credentials, little understanding of cause and effect, and a desire to make a little bread on the side.”

Mike,
Hi. Danny Bloom here. I am almost a Canadian, I don’t resemble that, re Rick Sharpe, above. Re your comment: Yes, Mike, I have zero scientific cred, very little understand of C & E,. but hey, man, Mike, why does everything have to be about money? There is zero desire to make a little bread on the side. Come on! This is a guerilla theater PR mock lawsuit to try prod people and wake up people who are still sleeping walking toward the Apoca. You don’t have to agree with everything I say, or anything, but please, pay attention to the Earth’s atmosphere. If you don’t believe we as a species are in big trouble, then that’s okay, I respect your POV, and you might be right, yes, but let’s see how things play out in the next few years. We are in this together, all of us, pro and con, so let’s try to understand each other. There’s a method to me madness. Read the language of the lawsuit again. NOT about money. Jeez. It’s about the FUTURE. Maybe there’s nothing to worry about? If so, then I drop my case.

Cheers

Danny

23

11

2008
Danny Bloom (01:20:22) :

P Folkens (23:52:41) : , you are right, there is no legal precedent for this. Now there is. — Danny

RE:

“intent to commit manslaughter against future generations . . . murderous amounts . . . causing possible apocalyptic harm . . .”

Is there any legal precedent for an uninjured party to bring suit against multiple governments for “intent” with no basis to commit “possible” harm to unspecified unborn from a by-product of a common commodity used by regular citizens in a legal manner?

23

11

2008
Danny Bloom (01:27:35) :

Dear WUWT blogger above, sir.

Thanks for giving your readers a good chuckle and something to smile about. For the record, Steve Bloom is not related to me, although I know of him and we have corresponded by email over the past year. A good man.

And yes, I do hope Dr Hansen will testify for this lawsuit, and also Dr Lovelock and Fred Pearce and Tim Flannery and George Monbiot and Mark Lynas.

Calling this “Litigous Lunacy” is a good headline and a good start. I like it. But all this is really more like “litigous guerilla theatre” — it’s all a symbolic action to make a point. I doubt Dr Pauchuri will get anything from it other than another headache.

Cheers,

– Danny

And THANKS for picking the story up. Reuters contaced me today and they are planning a wire story on their international wire soon. Get ready.

23

11

2008
Pierre Gosselin (01:28:35) :

Brian Johnson,
0.27% sounds small, but it accumulates over the years. Indeed CO2 concentrations have gone up from 280 ppm to about 387 ppm over the last 100 years or so. A good part is probably due to human emissions, but also due to CO2 released by oceans from natural warming. Almost all scientists agree that manmade CO2 causes warming. The dispute is how much of the warming over the last 100 years is manmade, and what part is natural?
Looking at the La Ninas (El Nino effects, PDO oscillations, etc., many scientists are now saying the bulk of the warming is due to natural causes.
The challenge will be to argue this in Court before possibly unscientific and activist judges and jurors.
IMHO opinion, I think it’s just a question of time before these zealots go to far and really tee off the public. Then there will be a major backlash, and in such case, I’m not for reconciliation, moreover in favour of running these quacks out of town (to a foreign country like Canada, Venezuela or Russia).

23

11

2008
Pierre Gosselin (01:36:16) :

A nation cutting CO2 emissions is a STUPID STANDARD.
Canada has and ill have a strongly growing population due to open immigration. Of course it is very difficult to cut CO2 emissions when people are piling into your contry.
Europe on the other hand has a dying population. Europe’s population is expected to go from approx. 500 million today to about 450 million by 2050. So how tough is it to cut CO2 emissions with such bleak population growth? Clearly Kyoto is designed to punish growth.

23

11

2008
Michael (01:40:04) :

Could we lodge a suit against so called environmentalists who have deliberately removed the focus from genuine environmental issues such as habitat destruction and plastic in the ocean to the insignificant issue of anthropogenic global warming? Millions of animals dying and destined to die because these frauds are ideological people haters and use the environmental movement to promote their GAIA cult?

23

11

2008
Pierre Gosselin (01:51:51) :

Lubos Motl
characterises it precisely:
“(Desmogblog) propagandistic blog about the climate funded by JOHN LEFEBVRE, A CRMINAL ARRESTED FOR MONEY LAUNDERING, informs us about a lawsuit filed by Danny Bloom, a radical environmentalist activist.”

Send that to The Hague.

23

11

2008
Aileni Noyle (02:52:48) :

This makes me feel physically sick. I never thought I would live to witness a new Inquisition (they would,you know) and the development of a new religion of intolerance based yet again on a lie.
It truly has me feeling I should apologise for ever being Green.

23

11

2008
Tallbloke (03:01:32) :

“If you don’t believe we as a species are in big trouble, then that’s okay, I respect your POV, and you might be right, yes…… Maybe there’s nothing to worry about? If so, then I drop my case.”

And pick up the tab for the legal expenses?

23

11

2008
Brooklyn Red Leg (03:16:48) :

If I believed in Divine Retribution, I would think Dr. Hansen’s plane would go down in a remote, frosty part of the world and his supporters on the trip would be forced to eat him to stay alive. Same with the other Blood Sucking Vampires and assorted Vultures that prey on us.

23

11

2008
Harold Ambler (03:23:01) :

Hi Danny. If I were a mother of young children in a remote part of an African nation whose government sold pollution credits to the United States as part of a cap-and-trade scheme espoused by Al Gore, and my children were thereby sentenced to a lifetime of heating their home and food with charcoal and having no light in our home after dark because of this sale, I might not consider your “guerrilla theater” to be lighthearted in the least.

I have another, slightly different cap-and-trade plan for you: How about if you go live the life of one of the poor villagers whose governments sell their pollution credits, forbidding the nation to develop a modern electric grid and generally modernize?

Something tells me that, even if we run the experiment for only a year or two, that you won’t be doing your hilarious “guerrilla theater” when you get back.

23

11

2008
JimB (03:31:18) :

On the surface, this appears to be one of the venues many of us has been waiting for, that being an open, unfettered scientific debate on C02/ACC.

But I think we need some understanding of the workings of this particular court before we start opening the bubbly in anticipation of a fair, honest, open debate.

JimB

23

11

2008
kim (04:05:05) :

If the CO2=AGW paradigm can’t be successfully defended in open public debate, how does Bloom expect it to stand up in court?
===============================================

23

11

2008
Robert (04:11:47) :

So this would be something like an pedestrian claiming money from me for damages i might cause in the future because i recently recived a ticket for a slight speed violation? But if kept to the speedlimit there would no cause to claim those possible future damages?

That would be the day.

23

11

2008
Martin Meenagh (04:35:37) :

Canada seems to be becoming a centre of silly lawsuits–last week, it was a ‘wal-mart brain scanning’ case, and before that cases attempting to censor journalists via the human rights tribunal whilst putting the CIA on trial were advancing. What is happening? Fairly soon, the destiny of Alaska will be revealed–to make Canada look less mad.

I blame tar sands and shale oil. They must be leaking something into the water….

23

11

2008
PeteS (04:40:54) :

wes george, thanks, you are absolutely right.

23

11

2008
kim (04:48:12) :

You know, Danny, in an normal court, upfront admission of the frivolous nature of your suit would get you a lecture from the judge and assignment of costs. Are you testing how normal this court and this judge is?
======================================

23

11

2008
Paul Shanahan (04:52:09) :

It sounds like a scene from the film Minority Report…

Maybe we will see some real science being put forwards now by the defence.

23

11

2008
Don Keiller (04:59:06) :

Bring it on Danny. I’m just gagging to see this whole AGW fraud tested in Court.
Last time that happened, with “An Inconvenient Truth”, AGW was found wanting.
Unlike you, Danny Boy, I do have a scientific training and it doesn’t take much reading of the peer-reviewed literature to demonstrate a lack of “consensus”, or indeed, any definitive proof of AGW.
Just remember, politicised science is not science.

23

11

2008
Ric Werme (05:06:59) :

“intent to commit manslaughter” - is there such a thing? Manslaughter is a spur-of-the moment sort of crime, this sounds more like murder. Perhaps premeditation requires identifying a target. I’m no expert on international law.

23

11

2008
Tom in slightly warmer Florida (05:17:27) :

Danny,
I am sorry, I must have missed the part where you were appointed guardian of future generations. If you really believe that humans are destroying the planet perhaps you should show real leadership and remove yourself from the planet as an example to all.

23

11

2008
cedarhill (05:19:56) :

Michael wrote:
Could we lodge a suit against so called environmentalists …

If Bloom’s lawsuit is allowed to proceed, then we could and should file suit against the environmentalists and others. However, I would pick something that is provable and that has real facts. The tort would be wrongful death and the suit would start with one person that died of malaria due (arguably) to the ban on DDT. Then expand it to a class action. Since most deaths are African, establishing the base compensation amount would be difficult but if one used about 1,000 dollars as the life time valuation you would get enormous numbers. Say 20 million have died due to Rachael Carson, et al, then you have at least 20 billion dollars. Apply punitive damages of, say 1 trillion dollars.

I’d name as defendants all that promoted the DDT ban: the UN, each government on Earth, the Sierra Club, all newspapers and media outlets along with Al Gore (just for fun).

I think the suit will be tossed anyway, but there is hope. A trial attorneys cut would be what, 500 billion or so? As Obama says, there is Hope in the world.

23

11

2008
Lucy Skywalker (05:23:20) :

Good thread again.

(1) When the issue of showing An Inconvenient Truth in schools was taken to court, the judge upheld all the challenges to the science. Likewise when Swindle went before Ofcom. Kingsnorth failed. Two up, one down in the UK.

(2) when deSmogBlog Littleton took on Monckton in public debate, guess who won, and what grounds? and when Crichton et al debated Schmidt et al, again, before debate the majority believed AGW, after debate the majority had changed sides. So roll on public debate. Let’s get our best speakers if this materializes!

(3) it’s possible that Danny will now be so busy he will not see our replies here any more - some might like to post on his thread perhaps? and I do respect him saying “we are all in this together” - only I want the truth about the parlous state into which all environmental science has fallen - flagrant, serial denial of basic facts… oh, read my primer if you want details of the science and the real denial… and the need for courtesy and integrity.

23

11

2008
Bruce Cobb (05:30:50) :

Mr. Bloom. Your “lawsuit” is a fraud based on nothing but fraudulent pseudo-scientific quackery. Do not even try to pretend that this is about protecting the environment, or the earths’ atmosphere which all of us here care about. If you cared in the slightest about the science, you would know that C02 is an entirely beneficial gas which has pretty much reached the limits to its’ “greenhouse effect”. Ice ages have occurred at C02 levels far greater than todays’.
Perhaps a counter-suit is in order.

23

11

2008
Reid (05:32:43) :

The International Criminal Court is already a laughingstock. It is not recognized by the US, Russia, China, India and Israel to name a few. If they agree to hear the case it will only further marginalize the court. To date their big success is preventing Israeli military leaders from traveling to Europe to avoid arrest and kangaroo court prosecution.

Good luck Danny Bloom. I hope they hear your case so we can have another good laugh.

23

11

2008
Patrick Henry (05:41:33) :

Danny Bloom wrote this over on dotearth
“The ICC will never accept the suit, it’s Don Quixote tilting at windmills”

Danny frequently makes comments that we are all going to have to move to Portland or Alaska in the next 12 years to escape the heat, but it is unlikely that Reuters will do any research into the huge footprint of nonsense which Danny leaves all over the Internet.

Danny, have you ever considered the consequences of what would happen if governments didn’t have enough energy to take care of the 7 billion people on earth? Don Quixote you are not - your thought process is more along the lines of the misguided leaders of China who starved tens of millions of people to death in the 1960s. Governments have to take care of their own, and live in the here and now.

23

11

2008
Mike M. (05:50:25) :

I’m surprised, Danny. Where is the relentless pitching of your polar cities? In fact, considering your previous behavior, can we just assume that the purpose of your lawsuit is to bring more attention to your bizarre survivalist fantasies?

Show of hands, please. Is Mr. Bloom a scammer, a nutbar, or “envisionary futurist” ? I vote “scammer.”

23

11

2008
TerryBixler (06:37:21) :

Money usually wins in court. Who can bring the biggest bank account to the table. It would be nice to think that Bloom is not well funded, but that would probably be very wrong. Remember big Al has hundreds of millions for advertising and what better place to advertise.

23

11

2008
Mike Bryant (06:39:07) :

Mr. Bloom,
Since you represent future generations, perhaps you can share your credentials. I know, or at least hope, that those issues will be revealed in a court of law, however, perhaps you can give us some idea of your studies or professional accomplishments. Maybe you could also give us a list of books that will help us understand how you will help future generations. I am looking forward to your response.
Mike the Plumber

23

11

2008
Danny Bloom (06:47:06) :

YEs, my good friend Lubos in the Czeck Republic did a good reax to all this on his blog:

Not that I agree with everthing he said. — Danny

PS: [to Harold Ambler, above, I never said my lawsuit is lighthearted, sir. Or frivilous. I am very serious about what I am doing. What I don't understand is why you people here get so angry and riled up about all this. We all live on this planet together. Can't we just agree to disagree and then learn to get along with each other? -- Danny]]

“A propagandistic blog about the climate funded by John Lefebvre, a criminal arrested for money laundering, informs us about a lawsuit filed by Danny Bloom, a radical environmentalist activist.

In this lawsuit, Bloom claims to represent the “future generations of human beings on Earth - if there are any” and he wants to be personally paid USD 1 billion from those world leaders who are skeptical about the catastrophic climate change. This list is supposed to include politicians as undecided as Stephen Harper of Canada.

Bloom claims that he will donate the money to the IPCC. Of course, unless the capital will be needed to repay some money to John Lefevbre and others.

Now, I think that the probability that Bloom could win this absurd case is infinitesimally tiny. Still, it may be a useful exercise to imagine that he will. Just imagine that these internationally organized criminals - John Lefevbre, Danny Bloom, RealClimate.ORG, and many others - will also be able to take over the International Criminal Court and steal billions of dollars from any innocent individuals they dislike, according to their own choice. After the next lawsuit, climate skeptics could perhaps be executed, too.

Climate skeptics would become as threatened by these organized fanatics as the German Jews were around 1938: it became legitimate to steal their ski or furcoats and to break their windows but not to steal billions of dollars from them.

Sane and human countries should leave the International Criminal Court, outlaw the climate activists, and freeze all of their assets. Yes, I am afraid that if things like Bloom’s victory in the lawsuit would occur, a world war against the climate alarmists, analogous to the war on terror, would be my preferred next step.”

23

11

2008
Roger (06:53:26) :

Far be it for me to pour cold water over the enthusiasm for this case on the part of those who believe that truth will prevail over the smoke and mirrors of the AGW brigade, but we must remember that we are dealing here with m’learned friends of the legal profession, where truth and right are almost always subservient to financial, and often to political considerations, and justice as understood by the silent majority rarely results. The Law confirms that it is an ass on a daily basis.

23

11

2008
Old Coach (06:54:59) :

Jim B is correct, we should take a look at the record of this court. Why go to this court? Must be a reason (see: 9th circuit court of appeals in California…).

23

11

2008
Danny Bloom (06:59:08) :

Robert K in the UK just wrote this on his blog. — DANNY

“Carbon emissions - a crime against humanity”

Posted on November 23, 3008 by robert kyriakides in the UK

“I have never met Dan Bloom, but I feel I know him. His concern over climate change led him to devise a concept of polar cities, which phrase makes the global warming point in two words. Mr Bloom has now decided that national governments, who are not doing anything near enough to prevent climate change, should be made to pay in the traditional way – a lawsuit for damages.

Mr Bloom has filed a claim in the International Court at The Hague for one billion dollars (United States currency will do) on behalf of the future generations of this planet (if any). His cause of action is that he regards the world leaders as committing criminal manslaughter – a crime against humanity - in view of their refusal to act to reduce carbon emissions by “allowing murderous amounts of fossil fuel to be …burned and sent into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide”.

Of course Dan Bloom is making a point rather than hoping to win a billion dollars. The legal team he has employed will no doubt try very hard but the likelihood is that the lawsuit will be thrown out very promptly, almost as soon as the pages of the legal claim fall into the laser printer’s tray. Mr Bloom will have created some useful publicity for the climate change cause and made many people smile. That is a good thing.

However, with some adjustments, he may get a longer running more successful lawsuit.

First, instead of firing a shot gun he could target a particular leader. The largest target right now is Mr Stephen Harper, Canada’s Prime Minister, who has been Prime Minister of Canada since January 2006.

Now Canada, you may recall signed a solemn and legally binding pledge to reduce its emissions by 6%. In fact its emissions have risen by over 24%. The Canadian government have permitted much industrial pollution, instead of a viable a climate change policy they have a policy that permits emissions to rise and is devastating the taiga and tundra by exploiting the oil tars and very heavy environmental cost to many of its own people as well as everyone else in the world.

If Mr Bloom’s writ at The Hague fails, he may want to consider one against Mr Harper and the Canadian Government. The other leaders can wait and it might be a useful legal precedent because it would be much simpler and require less evidence to prove his case.

But what should the case be about?

Well, Canada has signed a legally binding treaty, which it now ignores. A writ claiming a breach of its own laws might be a useful starting point –under English law the process is known as a Judicial Review.

Mr Bloom can choose to either claim damages or allege crime. If he decides to claim damages then most jurisdictions will require him to prove his loss and hold that he has no loqus standii to sue on behalf of future generations. He might not be able to prove much of a personal loss, so he should group with like-minded people to up the ante. A class action lawsuit becomes much more promising.

He then has to find a legal jurisdiction in which to sue. If his target is Mr Harper the Canadian Courts might be suitable but Mr Harper has immunity except for war crimes, in all courts under international law, and this would include immunity against a civil claim for damages. Unfortunately, the claim for damages looks unpromising but a judicial review process might work.

Under a Judicial Review process in England you can complain to the court that the government has not obeyed its own laws or has acted irrationally or perversely. I imagine that there is a similar process available in Canada. You do not get damages if yu succeed but you do get the Government to change its laws or its policy.

Finally I have mentioned war crimes and I am sure that Mr Harper has not been guilty of any war crime, but actually the immunity from legal action afforded to leaders of nations also does not extend to crimes against humanity, and it is worth considering whether Mr Bloom could bring some claim on this ground.

Under Public International Law crimes against humanity constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government.

This seems closer to the mark. Of course I do not believe that world leaders are embarking on a deliberate policy to destroy our planet, but they do seem very careless about greenhouse gas emissions, criminally so.”

23

11

2008
robertkyriakides (07:04:53) :

What’s all the fuss about? Dan’s case will be tested in the courts and they will decide. He makes a point with which virtually everyone with high level scintific training (like 90% of Nobel Prize wnners for science, 99% of metereologists would agree.
This is an issue of complex science and a series of one liners doesn’t take the debate very far.
Robert Kyriakides

23

11

2008
Danny Bloom (07:06:01) :

Robert Kriakides in the UK re your blog post,

A very well reasoned and cogent post, your post, thanks a lot. I like all the points you made, and I hope many people get a chance to read your ideas here. That make a lot of sense. Some denialists blogs have already heard about the ICC lawsuit and are falling over themselves in denialist lingo. It’s funny! It’s also sad. Will the world ever come together on this? I fear not…

Danny

23

11

2008
Danny Bloom (07:20:21) :

CASE IN POINT

”Mr Bloom has filed a claim in the International Court at The Hague for one billion dollars on behalf of the future generations of this planet (if any). His cause of action is that he regards the world leaders as committing criminal manslaughter – a crime against humanity - in view of their refusal to act to reduce carbon emissions by “allowing murderous amounts of fossil fuel to be …burned and sent into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide”.

Of course Dan Bloom is making a point rather than hoping to win a billion dollars. The legal team he has employed will no doubt try very hard but the likelihood is that the lawsuit will be thrown out very promptly, almost as soon as the pages of the legal claim fall into the laser printer’s tray. Mr Bloom will have created some useful publicity for the climate change cause and made many people smile. That is a good thing.”

23

11

2008
JimB (07:23:17) :

Don keiller:

“Last time that happened, with “An Inconvenient Truth”, AGW was found wanting.”

Don,
In Massachusetts?…not so much. In fact, it’s very widely accepted around me that Al went off to devote himself to this cause at great personal sacrifice because he’s absolutely driven to contribute to our society and the world at large.
In fact, what he’s working on is SOOOO important, he couldn’t even begin to consider a cabinet position…it would have taken away from his ability to work on much more far reaching issues.

Remember…we get 30 seconds. 30 seconds to explain to John/Joanne Q Public that the “science” is flawed.

This court case will be very interesting, because those 30 second sound bites will be authored by hopefully a wide variety of reporters/agencies that are looking for something sensational to report, and maybe, just maybe, this time, they’ll find enough sensation in reporting what the truth is.

Don’t get me wrong. You science folks are great at what you do. Really.
But you have no credibility in certain circles because you’ve been out marketed.

JimB

23

11

2008
Christian Bultmann (07:24:31) :

Proud to be Canadian, perhaps the lawsuit opens some peoples eyes as the outcome should be based on factual evidence in the court of law what Mr Bloom can’t provide as AGW is only based on computer models and as of yet has to provide physical evidence that increased CO2 levels do indeed threatening man kind.

23

11

2008
EJ (07:25:33) :

This will be interesting. To defend the suit on the merits, the governments will have to say global warming is not a threat. This will not happen.

They will have to take another route like standing or some other legal point.

23

11

2008
JimB (07:25:52) :

Now if you could package up some Ginzu knives… ;*)…that would be a different story…

Can’t you see Steve, on TV, saying “…but WAIT…there’s MORE…”

JimB

23

11

2008
redneck (07:27:06) :

OT but has anyone seen this:
http://news.smh.com.au/world/over-200-whales-trapped-in-canadian-ice-20081122-6eas.html
Bring on AGW and save the narwhal.

23

11

2008
Jeff Id (07:30:10) :

The only way any of this makes sense is if AGW is a mechanism for imposing increased control. It has nothing to do with science or reality, even if the AGW guys were 100% right and we are going to drown in saltwater in 20 years they don’t have the scientific goods to demonstrate it. This makes it a bunch of over hyped nonsense.

If the future climate is unknown from a science standpoint then we need to look elsewhere for the explanation of the reaction. The world governments all deep down have the same motives - control. They have systematically funded weak science and marketing to create an impression of doom. If you think about it, it doesn’t take a big planned out conspiracy for that statement to be true.

Who’s using whom. Are the scientists using the government or is the government using the scientists? — Some of both I think.

23

11

2008
Pete (07:30:44) :

Scenario #1: Judge kicks it out of court on a technicality, but because the science is not addressed, the advocates spin the story and the headlines to their advantage, perhaps along the lines of; “There is no doubt that the science is settled but this action by the Court was a simple technicality. We’re preparing to resubmit after the Polish Climate conference. If the countries of the world take the needed extraordinary actions then, we were certainly reconsdier our lawsuit.”

Scenario #2: Court decides to hear the case. This is where the projections get interesting.

Does each of the defendant ‘world leaders” mount a defense individually or somehow, collectively? What if Russia and China don’t show up? Do the U.S, U.K, and Australia show up together? Does Canada say ‘”take a hike”? What about the EU countries that are facing huge Kyoto fines and are trying to back off curbs due to economics?

The fact (??) that the world leaders are defendants introduces a huge uncertainty, since they would probably bring in their hand picked experts and they may defend themselves by explaining their massive new programs. Would Obama bring in Hansen and Trenberth and Gore and say; “Yes we’re trying. The U.S. will lead the way. Look to the messiah for redemption?”.

A good outcome in the long run is if the science is presented and the catastrophic AGW crock is finally lowered to the level of being a highly speculative theory that feeds off the nugget of scientific evidence that CO2 causes some warming (is that even that solid?)

23

11

2008
Ed Scott (07:31:36) :

Startling news from NASA.
Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change
November 17, 2008
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=35952

23

11

2008
tarpon (07:32:37) :

Is it necessary to prove the case, or is arm waving hysterics OK.

23

11

2008
Rhys Jaggar (07:38:53) :

1. Do these guys have sufficient insurance to pay for ‘the costs of the trial’, if it is thrown out as ‘wilful misuse of the legal process for political ends’?
2. If not, should they be required to deposit a bond to ensure that they are not simply wasting time and EU taxpayers’ money in erroneous litigation?
3. What evidence will they be presenting?
4. Who will be opposing them?
5. Have they already bought the judge?
6. Can you BE an ICC judge if you are not buyable?

23

11

2008
Leon Brozyna (07:40:11) :

Another silly publicity stunt masking as a call for justice.

Putting aside such silly pettiness, what I found most interesting in this post was the link to Grilling the Data along with its own link to Raising Walhalla. This got me to thinking of that volunteer data entry project aka Anthony’s Army. Haven’t heard anything since early August. Is it still a go and you’ve just been overwhelmed with other things and it has been set aside for now or has it been canceled?

23

11

2008
manbearpig (08:07:30) :

“Though the Court is affiliated with the United Nations, George Soros largely directed the lobbying campaign that led to the Court’s creation in 2002-2003.”
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2008/080715soros_owns_icc.html

“George Soros: Economic Hit-man for the British Oligarchy”:
http://www.larouchepac.com/files/pdfs/080618_soros_dossier.pdf

The “Best” Of Al Gore 1992-2007:
http://www.larouchepub.com/eirtoc/site_packages/2007/al_gore.html

23

11

2008
Brian Johnson (08:11:12) :

Pierre Gosselin said….

“Brian Johnson,
0.27% sounds small, but it accumulates over the years. Indeed CO2 concentrations have gone up from 280 ppm to about 387 ppm over the last 100 years or so.”

BJ wonders
If the manmade 0.27% accumulates over the years what does the other 99.73% do? How do you separate [Not using the anthro word] man made CO2 from the natural version?
When 5000 ppm CO2 was the norm how did the earth, climate and the creatures thereon survive? And why was in some of that period, the Earth frozen stiff?
My greenhouse has CO2 at 1300 ppm approx and the plants love it!

Sorry PG but computer guesses do not do it for me. Predictions are not facts. And so far, predictions are laughably, hysterically, very wide of the mark. Hansen, GISS, Gore et al.

23

11

2008
GP (08:17:54) :

From the content pof the article posted above.

“That said, those countries that signed Kyoto saw their overall emissions fall by 17% below 1990.”

From the Article linked to by the wird ‘fall’ iin the above sentence.

“For the smaller group of industrialized countries that ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol setting reduction targets, emissions in 2006 were about 17 percent below the Protocol’s 1990 base line, but they still grew after 2000.

The pre-2000 decrease stemmed from the economic decline of transition countries in Eastern and Central Europe in the 1990s. ”

Which countires, iirc, made some useful cash by selling their unused carbon credits (unused because the western parts of Europe and elsewhere bought in, shut down and then funded the re-development of the infrastruture and industrial complexes) to countries like Denmark (yep, that Denmark, the one with all the windmills) who were worried about being ‘fined’ for missing their emissions targets.

So the quoted article is really about lying with statistics as much as publicising ‘theatre’. I wonder how many other lies might be presented in court should it get that far? But then will this court care? One sometimes wonders with these ‘International’ courts, given the decisions they arrive at.

Still, at least Danny has the decency to admit that his ‘action’, and presumably everything and everyone who supports it, is merely ‘theatre’ and so should be of little or no consequence in the scheme of things.

Trivialising life - that would make a good subject for Reuters to follow-up on.

23

11

2008
David Ball (08:21:11) :

Another waste of precious time and money to draw attention to something that is not based in reality. That being said, bring on the debate in open court. Hopefully , the judge will see to it that both sides are given equal time, and both sides allowed the best representation possible. BTW, have you heard Gordon Lightfoot’s new song, ” The Wreck of the Stephane Dion” ?

23

11

2008
Ed Scott (08:31:27) :

Narwhal whales trapped in Arctic ice after being led astray by Algore’s global warming hoax.
At least 200 narwhal whales in Canada’s Arctic, trapped by winter ice and facing starvation or suffocation.
http://news.smh.com.au/world/over-200-whales-trapped-in-canadian-ice-20081122-6eas.html

23

11

2008
Alex Llewelyn (08:34:21) :

Hi, I’ve been trying to get this wikipedia (Effects of Global Warming) to be a little less biased: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
These are the edits I made: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Effects_of_global_warming&diff=prev&oldid=251291938
As you can see, none of my edits were controversial, but were reverted because they removed some of the alarmism from the article. If we work together, we can get this article to more accurately represent the truth. Remember, there is strength in numbers.
The article is horribly biased in places and in others downright wrong.

23

11

2008
hunter (08:34:34) :

Michael Crichton is smiling at this.

23

11

2008
John McDonald (08:45:13) :

Traveling to Mauna Loa next week. I want to take some CO2 measurements with the family, while on vacation.

23

11

2008
tetris (08:47:30) :

Before we all go off the deep end and good ol’ Danny Boy counts his chicks before they’ve hatched, does anyone know whether this court has actually pronounced itself competent and to have jurisdiction to rule in the matter? It is quite possible the court will simply dismiss the case as frivolous.

Should the case proceed, it seems likely to me that the court would have to consider all relevant information brought before it, which no doubt would include last year’s ruling by the High Court in the United Kingdom to the effect that Al Gore’s propaganda movie, The Inconvenient Truth, contained 9 outright falsehoods and 3 gross misrepresentations. The “defendants” will no doubt also remind the court of tabulations compiled by respected scientists such as Roger Pielke Sr which demonstrate beyond any discussion how the IPCC systematically refused to consider any peer reviewed study that did not fit it’s AGW “working hypothesis. And the list goes on.

Frivolous and sensation seeking it certainly is.

23

11

2008
J.Hansford. (08:50:16) :

I don’t trust international bodies to do the right thing in these situations. The Hague will find a finding that benefits the Hague by giving it more international clout…. It will be interesting…. But it wont be a debate on the science of climate… It will be an exercise in socialism.

23

11

2008
Niels A Nielsen (08:50:54) :

“Danny Bloom is related to omnipresent blog commenter, and Sierra Club representative, Steve Bloom? BTW Steve, we are still waiting, over a year now for your answer.”

While we are talking about the Blooms. I didn’t get an answer from mr Bloom to my questions here either ;-)
http://forums.accuweather.com/index.php?s=10b220b697c4fed82f126a3a4bb0e6cf&showtopic=6854&view=findpost&p=176979

23

11

2008
Mike C (08:55:54) :

If Danny doesn’t get his billion dollars I can give him a job shoveling snow.

23

11

2008
CodeTech (09:06:51) :

This is backwards.

It should be OUR SIDE bringing the “lawsuit”, for the incredible harm these AGW fanatics are attempting to bring to future generations, dooming them to a world without proper heat or transportation, a world where you can only have power when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. A world where the financial well-being of first-world countries has been undermined and damaged by rumors and ridiculous assumptions. The recent insane oil-price spike was influenced by these people, and cheered by them.

Hansen and Gore should be on the DEFENSE, explaining why they think it’s okay to fudge numbers, fabricate trends, alter scientifically recorded records, panic young children and keep them awake with nightmares, defend vandals, and all the other horrific things they have been encouraging.

At least when I was a kid and having nightmares about nuclear war, there was a REASON for it: thousands of manmade nuclear ICBMs pointed back and forth across the NH is a much more tangible threat than the output from faulty and incomplete computer models.

In Canada, the ridiculous goof that signed into kyoto (chretien) thought it was about cleaning up polluted water and preventing acid rain. Current Prime Minister Stephen Harper has done what all governments should be doing: shoved it far into the background, and done his best to tame the previous government’s panic-mongering misinformation campaign.

23

11

2008
P Folkens (09:09:48) :

Danny, Danny, Danny . . . murderous amounts . . . CO2.
Last week there was a symposium in Monterey on gray whales. Over the past couple of years, the gray whale count has plummeted with a distinct reduction in calf counts in San Ignacio Lagoon. The symposium was convened to explore the possibility of a climate change influence on those numbers. The conveners were both NMFS scientists with PhDs, one from the National Marine Mammal Lab and the other from the NOAA home office in Silver Spring, who invited all sorts of other scientists from paleontologists to climatologists among the cetologists. The essence of the matter became apparent from the Alaskan and Canadian biologists — the reduced ice from 2005 - 2007 increased the prime foraging grounds in the High Arctic such that the whales spent more time feeding. The results was a distinctly higher calf count for those years. The birth timing remained the same, but because so much extra time was spent feeding in the north, the calves were born north of the traditional calving/breeding grounds and counted up there.

We who presented on the historical climate pointed out the hundred year and thousand year spans when the Arctic was ice free for at lease part of the year, giving the grays a vector for crossing populations in the North Atlantic and North Pacific. A genetic study indicated that the peak population of gray whales occurred at a time when the Arctic was ice free (during the Eemian Interglacial).

Danny Boy, have you noticed the human population explosion that occurred during the late 20th Century warming? Do ya think warmer might mean facilitating life rather than murdering?

23

11

2008
Timo van Druten (09:19:07) :

I am wondering whether is not just a joke.

I have quickly reviewed the Rome Statute. In my opinion the ICC only has jurisdiction on persons and not governments. The ICC might try to prosecute government officials, but ….

Who are the victims? Unborn are not individuals and in principle do not have any rights.

The Court’s jurisdiction is further limited to events taking place since 1 July 2002. Furthermore, IMHO the Court can only rule on events which already have happened and not which may happen in the future.

In principle, the Court is only complementary. A case may be admissible if the investigating or prosecuting State is unwilling or unable to genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution. I am not aware that any of the 106 States have even started considering to prosecute individuals.

I believe it is just a publicy stunt, like we will see more of these kind coming months.

23

11

2008
J. Peden (09:33:45) :

That said, those countries that signed Kyoto saw their overall emissions fall by 17% below 1990.

Is it really a lot of fun to lie?

23

11

2008
Retired Engineer (09:36:48) :

What’s with “those countries that signed Kyoto saw their overall emissions fall by 17% below 1990″ ? (I assume he means ‘ratified’)

I thought Europe was over the 1990 level along with everyone else.

Filing a lawsuit for what ‘might’ happen? I ‘might’ run over Al Gore’s foot. Probably not, but it could happen. Can he sue me? In advance? The Python crew couldn’t have thought of anything this far out.

23

11

2008
Sean (09:39:08) :

I think a counter suit is in order, one that is actually serious. Climate alarmism has prompted governments to foster a bio-fuels policy that has lead to starvation of 30 million people and pushed hundreds of millions more into poverty. Real people, real suffering, real time. Suits ought to be filed on behalf of the real victims as opposed to possible victims if a computer models is correct. How about suits about loss in habitat for the orangatang in Indonesia as the forest where they live are converted to orchards for palm oil production. What about the loss of fishing grounds in the Gulf of Mexico due to increased dead zones from fertilizer run off from making bio-fuels. There is a long list of real consequences from climate change “solutions” and its about time the alarmists are held accountable.

23

11

2008
Smokey (09:47:33) :

Retired Engineer is correct. Since Kyoto was ratified:

Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%
Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%
Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%
Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%

[source]

23

11

2008
Mike (10:03:14) :

Danny:
Cause and effect relationships are crucial.
The working hypothesis is: “man-made CO2 is causing global warming”. Strictly speaking I only need to find one data point (or temp. station) where the temp is cooling to falsify this hypothesis. There are many such stations which have been cooling for decades (from Spokane WA to the Amundsen base in Antarctica). The hypothesis must be modified or abandoned since it is proved false. The hypothesis doesn’t hold everywhere.

From about 1940 to 1975 the Earth went through a cooling period during which time the use of fossil fuels increased more than 6 fold, again falsifying the hypothesis. The lack of warming over the past 10 years while CO2 increases also tells us again, that this cause and effect is very weak, if it exists at all. There is little correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures.

It gets more interesting. Only 1% of the atmospheric gases are greenhouse gases. 95% or so of this 1% is water vapor a powerful greenhouse gas. Up to this time it has been ignored or assumed to be inconsequential. It is very consequential. 3% of the remaining 1% is CO2, and of this less than 3% is man-made. So how is 3% of the CO2 causing the warming, if 97% of the CO2 is not involved. BTW we don’t know very well all of the natural CO2 sources either, but there are a lot of them. Mitigating man-made CO2 would clearly be foolish, costly, and a monumental waste of resources. Crippling our economy by crippling our energy sources (fossil, nuclear, hydro, even some NG) as is wished by some, would be suicidal.

This would be especially true since China, India, and Brazil are more interested in improving their energy base, their economies, and prosperity. China now is the No. 1 producer of man-made CO2 and consumes more coal than the US and the EU combined. They plan to double all of this by 2025. There is a helluva lot more info which threatens the hypothesis as well, but this should give you a whiff.

23

11

2008
Olimpus Mons (10:18:10) :

WOW , Weird. Cnn is reporting this?!

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/11/20/black.carbon/index.html?iref=intlOnlyonCNN

23

11

2008
Harold Ambler (10:21:00) :

Hi Danny. Let’s line up a few of your comments and see how well they cohere:

Danny Bloom: PS: [to Harold Ambler, above, I never said my lawsuit is lighthearted, sir. Or frivilous. I am very serious about what I am doing. What I don’t understand is why you people here get so angry and riled up about all this….

Thanks for giving your readers a good chuckle and something to smile about….

this is really more like “litigous guerilla theatre”

I believe the word you’re looking for is litigious. Another word that could be of use to you: frivolous. To revisit my first point, that’s quite an argument you’ve got going with yourself!

Another point: Why are you “sorry,” I wonder? If you believe in what you are doing, then you are more likely “proud,” “hopeful,” or maybe even “stoked.”

You have not addressed the specific concern in my earlier remarks, i.e. that anthropogenic global warming hysteria getting whipped up to justify a cap-and-trade global economic system leads to shortened life spans and lower quality of life in the Third World and the poisoning of the patient in the First World.

Could this be what makes you “sad”?

A few other questions:

1. Is Ocean Heat Content increasing?
2. Are sea surface temperatures increasing?
3. Is sea level rising?
4. Has the Pacific Decadal Oscillation done anything new and different in the past 18 months?
5. Has the Earth’s climate changed dozens and dozens of times in the past as rapidly as it has since the end of the Little Ice Age?
6. Is there any case in the geologic record when a spike in C02 has come before a spike in temperature?
7. Are we in the midst of a solar minimum that many of our best scientists anticipate being similar to the Dalton Minimum or even the Maunder Minimum?
8. Can solar minima be seen to have affected climate in the past?
9. Have temperatures risen or declined in the last 10 years?

Once you learn the answers to all of those questions, you will be in a better position to understand why some people would find it mildly frustrating for you to use scare tactics to manipulate public opinion, thereby delaying the day when appropriate action can be taken on the actual problems facing humanity.

23

11

2008
Slamdunk (10:24:39) :

Michael (01:40:04) :

“… these frauds are ideological people haters and use the environmental movement to promote their GAIA cult?”

Aileni Noyle (02:52:48) :

“…. a new religion of intolerance based yet again on a lie.”

I don’t know if it’s more anti-western capitalism or enviro-spirits that drive AGW, but no doubt both. For GAIA, see http://green-agenda.com/gaia.html

23

11

2008
Lucy Skywalker (10:40:17) :

John Macdonald
Looking forward to those Mauna Loa measurements. We’ve been trying to work out on our forum if the CO2 rise is starting to tail off. It certainly doesn’t match the steepening human CO2 output.

23

11

2008
paminator (10:49:14) :

re Hunter- “Michael Crichton is smiling at this.”

My thoughts exactly. If Bloom follows the State of Fear storyline, we should see the whole mess create huge publicity (complete with riots by strangely-clad protestors looking for something to be angry at) just in time for the next international climate boondoggle conference. Then it will fizzle away, having performed its intended task of raising awareness of humanity’s carbon skidmark.

23

11

2008
Paddy (10:51:32) :

A promising strategy would be for representatives of 3d world nations to intervene in the case and assert counter-claims for damages against the UN IPCC, EU, AL Gore, George Soros, Danny Bloom, James Hansen, et al, and all climate alarmist government institutions and NGOs. Liability would be based upon unlawful conspiracies and wrongful actions, including criminal enterprises, to gain control of global energy sources and production by maliciously promulgating false, fraudulent, and erroneous scientific research that projects climate calamities allegedly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

The damage claim should be for a 100 trillion Euros to compensate for present and future deaths of their citizens due to famine, epidemics and pestilence, and for present and future harm to the counter-claimants’ economies.

I leave the details of this strategy to the imagination of the learned readers of this Blog.

However, since the International court of Justice is a creature of the UN, it will have to disqualify itself from adjudicating the case due to conflicts of interest. Never the less, the PR fallout from this case should focus everyone of the scope of the fraud being perpetrated on the public in the name of environmentalism.

23

11

2008
David Ball (10:54:30) :

Danny Bloom states we should agree to disagree and move on. Then stop the litigation. Stop people from your camp making death threats. Stop them telling lies about people to marginalize them when their science threatens your viewpoint. Stop using the media to skew the facts to highlight your viewpoint. If you are solid in your beliefs, you wouldn’t have to resort to these tactics, as the truth would be self evident. I don’t know of any “radical skeptics” that would stoop to this type of grandstanding, but I can name quite a few “radical environmentalists”. “Methinks he doth protest to much”, as the Bard said.

23

11

2008
Tim L (10:59:59) :

the stage will be set for a counter-suit worth the trillions of dollars in damages that the AGW lobby seeks to perpetuate upon economies of the free world and the following quite literal holocaust of lives carbon dioxide suppression would cause
I agree
Tim

23

11

2008
David Ball (11:03:09) :

robertkyriakides, 78.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot, ….

23

11

2008
Aviator (11:04:09) :

Let’s not hammer those ‘Darn Canucks as if we’re all guilty! We clearly understood what the ‘Green Shift” was and battered the Liberal Party at the polls. In my opinion, Stephen Harper is the most honest, straightforward politician we have put in charge of the country in living memory - and an economist, not a lawyer. He certainly has a better understanding of numbers that most of the world leaders and vastly more than Mr. Bloom (either of them). End of political comment…

Incidentally, the rise from 280ppm to 385ppm over the industrialized era is not scientifically defensible. The error margins at the time of the 280ppm measurement were, IIRC, plus or minus 100 ppm. If it was 180 ppm, we wouldn’t be here since all the plants would have died and us with them. If it was really 380 ppm, then nothing has changed.

This whole lawsuit nonsense is a publicity stunt, as admitted by the perpetrator, and should be ignored by the MSM - but it won’t be of course.

23

11

2008
Jeff Id (11:09:16) :

Danny,

This technique of coercion you are employing is not based on reasonable negotiation but rather a manipulation of the system to enforce what now appears to be a false belief on the rest of society. Reacting falsely to global warming destroys peoples lives. So when you say…

“I am very serious about what I am doing. What I don’t understand is why you people here get so angry and riled up about all this….”

People get riled up because your actions are not peaceful or innocent but are in fact manipulative and highly destructive of peoples lives. You should be ashamed to feel such superiority over us that you would find corrosive methods to shove your beliefs down our throats. We are intelligent, informed (perhaps more than yourself) and without denying the possibility of AGW, I for one strongly disagree with you.

Shame on you sir.

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com

23

11

2008
deadwood (11:15:42) :

I suspect, as others have noted, that we are seeing cognitive dissonance in its purest form.

The great AGW theory which appeared to fit so well when CO2 and temperature were both increasing is showing its weakness now that that the sun is silent and the PDO has flipped.

The big question now is whether the people of the US and Europe will figure out they are being had before too much damage has been done. I suspect most of their leaders will follow what appears to be politically expedient.

23

11

2008
Timo van Druten (11:52:40) :

From the webstite of the International Criminal Court:

“Who can initiate (criminal) proceedings?
Proceedings before the ICC may be initiated by a State Party, the Prosecutor or the United Nations Security Council. ”

http://www.icc-cpi.int/about/ataglance/faq.html#faq5

“The Prosecutor may start an investigation upon referral of situations in which there is a reasonable basis to believe that crimes have been or are being committed. Such referrals must be made by a State Party or the Security Council of the United Nations, acting to address a threat to international peace and security. In accordance with the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Prosecutor must evaluate the material submitted to him before making the decision on whether to proceed.

In addition to State Party and Security Council referrals, the Prosecutor may also receive information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court provided by other sources, such as individuals or non-governmental organisations. The Prosecutor conducts a preliminary examination of this information in every case. If the Prosecutor then decides that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, he will request the Pre-Trial Chamber to authorise an investigation.”

Danny Bloom hasn’t filed a lawsuit. He did sent a letter to the Prosecutor of the ICC kindly requesting to initiate criminal proceedings against governments around the world (which is probably not possible). Individuals can not initiate criminal proceedings.

23

11

2008
edcon (12:19:54) :

There is no difference between this shenanigan and the actions taken by pirates recently asking for ransoms for pirated ships except this includes the whole world. The whole AGW mess is politically driven to exercise more control over populations thereby destroying freedoms. The sad reality is that the ignorance of populations of their knowledge of science is pervasive and the charlatans can readily take advantage of this ignorance. The only factor that may cause a wake-up call is the high cost or The Hague is covered with 300 feet of ice.

23

11

2008
Les Johnson (12:54:13) :

The ICC is also a criminal court. I doubt they will take on civil cases, which is what this.

23

11

2008
Stevo (12:55:57) :

Since, at least when in public, both sides in this court case would be AGW believers, I don’t believe we’re going to get any sort of open debate challenging it.

Frankly, for only a billion (each, or shared between all governments?), the world governments might find it easier to plead guilty and pay the money. It’s not as if it’s their personal money anyway - it’s only the taxpayers’. And It’ll only go to the IPCC, which they’ve already shovelled billions of our money into. What’s the difference?

What the case challenges is the governments simultaneously saying they believe in it when they want to introduce a few higher taxes and regulations, but quite obviously not when it comes to doing anything with a real cost. It’s a convenient excuse, no more. The court case would call their bluff.

I don’t know if there’s more to it than that. In any normal court it would be thrown out, although the ICC is often reckoned to be heavily political so who knows. If it went ahead, there would certainly be no sceptical arguments. Whether there would be any arguments at all would depend on whether it potentially opened the door for further litigation, or settled it once and for all. But most likely it would involve a lot of finger-pointing and blame-shifting to show the governments had done all they can, but evil big business was obstructing them, or something. What that would lead on to, who knows…

23

11

2008
Pierre Gosselin (12:56:09) :

brian johnson 8:11
I think you need to READ my post a little more closely.

23

11

2008
Chris D. (14:10:24) :

“The lawsuit is specifically seeking damages from ‘all world leaders for intent to commit manslaughter against future generations of human beings by allowing murderous amounts of fossil fuels to be harvested, burned and sent into the atmosphere as CO2, causing possible apocalyptic harm to the Earth’s ecosystem and the very future of the human species’”

Pressing charges for future murder - kinda reminds me of that Tom Cruise movie where they ran around arresting people for murderers that some psychics said would take place in the future.

Another publicity stunt, I suppose.

23

11

2008
Michael Newton (14:25:31) :

If we can sue government for global warming, can’t we sue them for the recession? I will sue them for withholding taxes.

23

11

2008
Bobby Lane (14:32:34) :

Hmm, I wonder if anyone thought of bringing a case against AGW for economic and environmental wrecklessness leading to the deaths (murders?) of thousands and perhaps millions because of the whole biofuels debacle which had in the past raised the price of grains enormously harming 3rd world countries by making the price of bread enormously expensive and putting many in jeopardy of starving. How about the people who have been pushed out of their jobs due to factory and power plant closures because of the obsession with carbon footprints? I am sure there is much more evidence to support the malign influence of the AGW theory, and in much more than just economic ways, than there is to support the idea that we through negligence are dooming our planet and future generations. Perhaps, like this case, it would not get far in producing any actual results, but it would produce the publicity and perhaps get some of the facts into public view…if any of the media are brave enough to cover it.

23

11

2008
George Bruce (14:40:05) :

Paddy, you beat me to it. Great post. The only thing I would add would be that as Plaintiffs in Intervention, someone should appear to represent the billion or two people now living who would die if the Earth was forced to de-industrialize. I think they have a justiciable interest.

Stevo re: for only a billion….

Please don’t repeat that. You may give some politician an idea to attach to some kind of “stimulus package.”

23

11

2008
steven mosher (14:43:37) :

First a few tidbits on some criminal concepts and then watch where it leads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recklessness_(criminal)

some interesting thoughts on concurrence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrence

But all of this makes me think of this:
A climate model is nothing less than an indictment for a future crime.
Technology is at the heart of all attempts to prosecute thought
crimes and thus enhance thought and behavioral control by the technorati.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_Report_(film)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBaiKsYUdvg

Note the role technology plays in shaping people’s behavior.

Interesting reading here:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=aSfvNuUJNoUC&dq=stanfordd+persuasion+science&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=hJS0SKj_Wn&sig=Sm1E-8S-I5mLdRuH6aoGvuFqn9E&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasion_technology

And in the end the technorati rule.

“What distinguishes a persuasion technology from simple “persuasion” is that the individual being persuaded cannot easily respond by creating an equally effective counter-presentation in real time - a lack of reciprocal equality. ”

hence the importance of this blog and hence the importance of FREEING THE CODE. As long as the AGW side limits access to its code and data, as long as only they have the computer power to excercise a Climate model, the individuals being persuaded cannot easily respond. Witness the struggles of SteveMcIntrye in trying to figure out what Mann is actually doing, or what NOAA is actually doing.

23

11

2008
Pete (14:44:40) :

John McDonald (08:45:13) :

You must need an independent party in Hawaii to check your work, so if you send me some tickets and get me a nice hotel, I’ll help you out. Really. No problem. Just don’t forget about my wife and kids. They need a beach front hotel. I’ll cover my food.

As a side trip, maybe we should go check out Obama’s birth certificate?

23

11

2008
Bobby Lane (14:48:57) :

Pierre,

Yes, Kyoto is indeed designed to punish growth, which is why a lot of 2nd tier nations that did not sign onto it are encouraging 1st tier nations to make it even stricter. If the 2nd tier emissions do not meet the standards of Kyoto, that is to say they are in amount below the minimum to trigger the Kyoto protocols, then they have a leg up on their more handcuffed brethren.

Besides that, is already well known that there is an international effort at bringing nations to a heel under the guise of climate change. I believe it was once said by a (former?) UN official that since industrialized nations will not cut off their nose to spite their face, so to speak, that it will have to be done for them by bringing them down. Interestingly enough on Drudge Report, I saw the IMF Chairman say the worst of the financial crisis is ‘yet to come.’ People continue to say that every few weeks or couple of months. I find it rather odd. If the worst is yet to come, people will be hesitant to lend or buy, and that keeps economies slow and, in theory, emissions down.

It should not be lost on anyone that the main driver of AGW is the IPCC, and that the theory of AGW seems consistently at odds with human prosperity under our current industrial model. Only governments have the necessary capital and power to both fund emerging “environmentally-friendly technologies” and legislate so that markets are forced to accept those technologies as the only acceptable means of production (e.g., Britain’s current power generation crisis). The two conclusions one can draw from this is that the outcomes of AGW theory are statist (socialist, if you like) as well as internationalistic (that is, having no respect for sovereign nations). They do so without conscience because they believe that this emergency is so great that it supersedes all other concerns. And that is the main point of contention of course.

This is just another case of outdated relics of the WW2/Cold War era (e.g., the Hague Court, the UN, the EU, etc.) causing more trouble. Now we get to hear the tedious sermonizing of dried up old men as their unelected and unaccountable majesties deign to tell us mortals how we ought to live. It makes me want to vomit.

23

11

2008
Pete (14:58:41) :

Pierre Gosselin (01:28:35) :

“0.27% sounds small, but it accumulates over the years.”

I don’t think that saying that CO2 accumulates over the years is quite right. What I have read is that Co2 has about a 5 year residence time in response to a perturbation (Szelstag (sp?)). The long term ocean cycles perhaps create the appearance of CO2 accumulating over time.

23

11

2008
Robert Wood (15:10:11) :

That said, those countries that signed Kyoto saw their overall emissions fall by 17% below 1990. The disgraceful outlier among those nations is Canada, whose emissions ballooned by over 20% in spite of having ratifying Kyoto.

This is an outright lie. No country has reduced “emissions”, all signatories have increased “emmisions”.

This law suit was attempted original;ly in Canada, and was laughed out of courst, as it were. Now “Danny Bloom” is going itnernational. Who is financing him?

23

11

2008
John Philip (15:42:13) :

Does anyone know what became of John Coleman’s threat to sue Al Gore for fraud? Seems to have sunk without trace. What can this possibly mean?

Lucy Skywalker says that a judge upheld all challenges to the science in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. This is simply not so, the challenge was to the distribution of the movie to schools by the UK Government on the basis that it breached laws on political partisanship, the Judge explicitly ruled that I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant’s expert, is right when he says that: Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate. Later the Judge writes Mr Downes produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. …in the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters – 9 in all – upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the ‘errors’ in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407.

So the majority of the challenges to the science were actually dismissed, and the judge specifically made clear that he was evaluating the movie in the context of whether it breached the law on being unduly partisan. The challenge failed and the Government’s plans to distribute it to all schools were implemented. You can read the judgement here

A spokesman for Al Gore pointed out Of the thousands of facts in the film, the judge only took issue with just a handful. And of that handful, we have the studies to back those pieces up

23

11

2008
james griffin (15:50:59) :

As there has been no global warming for at least a few years one wonders how Mr.Bloom has got this far.
Clearly some people are so thick it is embarrassing.

Cue CNN in the their “Climate Change Week”.
The jolly weather girl shows us satellite photos of the Arctic and low and behold the ice is 30% thicker this year than last year…and at the end of the warming season was 9% up.
So fine…have your court case.
Go on…and run it like a proper court.

End of AGW “industry” and all the money they are screwing us for.

23

11

2008
George E. Smith (16:24:58) :

Unfortunately, The “International Court” in the Hague actually takes itself seriously, and even though the USA and others don’t acknowledge it as having any legitimacy whatsoever, other countries do, including most of Europe.

So this “Court” which enforces “laws”, that the uSA and others don’t acknowledge as having any legitimacy either; still will issue judjements on nincompoop suits like this one that emperor Danny claims to have filed; and many of these European Nations have plenty of their own nincompoops like Danny who would welcome the publicity they would get by “arresting” some US or other citizen they can get their hands on.
These same European nations all ratified the Kyoto protocol scam; but as for the USA only one person signed, and that was the famous Nobel Laureate Climate expert Albert Gore, former Vice President of the USA.
The US Senate, the only US Government body actually authorised to approve International Treaties, voted by a vote of 95 to zero, to not approve that piece of international mischief garbage; thereby telling Gore just where to go.

Now if you were say President Clinton, or President Bush, or President not yet Elect Barack Obama; would you promote or push for any US heed being paid to any so-called treaty, that the entire US Senate has already rejected Unanimously.

So Danny boy; in your exuberance to name international leaders and in particular any leaders of the United States of America; be advised that the entire legal machinery of the United States Government, acting on behalf of the people of the United Sates of America, and duly authorised to enter into international treaties on behalf of the people of the USA; that we have unanimously rejected your scam.

So if you continue to proceed with this silliness; you better name all the voting citizens of the USA as defendants; individually by name of course; oh leave me out of it of course, since I am a citizen of a different country that already signed that snake oil treaty, but will likely now repudiate it, now that the adults have once again been put in charge of that country.

The town square stocks, and the ancient art of tarring and feathering were specifically developed for busibody inebriates like you.

Don’t forget to also name as defendants, the citizens of any and all countries that signed onto that “treaty”, and promised to meet certain obligations under that “treaty”, but have so far failed to meet ANY of the targets they agreed to.

Once again leave me out of it, because my country; along with the United States of America, are two of the handful of countries on this planet, that actually are net sinks for carbon; so they are not among the polluters that are the target of your frivolous suit; as well as your frivilous suit.

23

11

2008
Ed Scott (16:49:36) :

November 21, 2008
Global Warming? Bring it On!
By Gregory Young

The argument propounded by the dubious United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on Anthropogenic (human-induced) Global Warming (AGW) is willfully fraudulent. The report has been vigorously and critically undermined, scientifically denounced and found wanting from both notable scientists here and abroad.

Meteorologist John Coleman perspicaciously asks:
How can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? How can a trace element possibly be the cause of systemic Global Warming? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t…. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.

Dr. Michael Griffin, the new NASA Administrator, looks at climate change in a refreshingly contrarian fashion. He has stated:
To assume that [climate change] is a problem is to assume that the state of earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change.

Here’s the Petition Statement we dissenters signed in opposition:
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/global_warming_bring_it_on.html

23

11

2008
Smokey (17:11:54) :

John Philip:

A spokesman for Al Gore pointed out Of the thousands of facts in the film, the judge only took issue with just a handful. And of that handful, we have the studies to back those pieces up

Meaningless pap.

Wake me when Al Gore stops hiding out in one of his many mansions, while having one of his sock puppets issue words on vague “studies” that are no doubt found only in the fevered imaginations of his True Believers.

The day that Gore, or Hansen, or Schmidt, or Mann, or Tamino, or Suzuki, or any of these globaloney artists works up the courage to step up to the plate and agree to a moderated debate in a neutral venue, will be the day they start to earn some respect. It’s not pretty seeing them cower from a debate with their tails tucked between their legs.

Hiding out and refusing to debate means only one thing: they can’t back up their phony AGW hypothesis.

If I were them, I’d hide out too.

23

11

2008
Danny Bloom (17:52:19) : Your comment is awaiting moderation

Lucy Skywalker,

YES, i am still here, reading all comments. Good discussion.

RE:

“(3) it’s possible that Danny will now be so busy he will not see our replies here any more - some might like to post on his thread perhaps? — SURE PLEASE DO — http://northwardho.blogspot.com — and I do respect him saying “we are all in this together” - only I want the truth about the parlous state into which all environmental science has fallen - flagrant, serial denial of basic facts… oh, read my primer if you want details of the science and the real denial… and the need for courtesy and integrity.”

And I am reading all these comments in the spirit of courtesy and integrity, yes. Thanks for commenting, Lucy. Reading you loud and clear….

23

11

2008
Danny Bloom (17:55:20) : Your comment is awaiting moderation

Patrick Henry, above, mistakenly and incorrectly wrote that:

“Danny frequently makes comments that we are all going to have to move to Portland or Alaska in the next 12 years to escape the heat,..”

Patrick, I never said 12 YEARS….I said in the year 2500 or so. That’s 500 years from now…..please don’t misrepresent me…Yes, i did talk about polar cities for surviving and I still do, see images here: http://pcillu101.blogspot.com — but I NEVER SAID in 12 years…..I have always framed my statements about polar cities as an AS IF concept in the YEAR 2500 AD. …..Check again.

23

11

2008
Danny Bloom (17:59:36) : Your comment is awaiting moderation

Mike M. (05:50:25) : wrote above:

“I am m surprised, Danny. Where is the relentless pitching of your polar cities? In fact, considering your previous behavior, can we just assume that the purpose of your lawsuit is to bring more attention to your bizarre survivalist fantasies?

Show of hands, please. Is Mr. Bloom a scammer, a nutbar, or “envisionary futurist” ? I vote “scammer.”

NOTE TO MIKE: Polar cities project is a separate matter, feel free to see images here: http://pcillu101.blogspot.com — Dr Lovelock has seen the images and told me “Yes, it may very well happen and soon!” However, I still say not until 500 more years….There’s still time to talk about all this, in other words…..

As for show of hands….SMILE….Mike, I am not a scammer,—- true, some people on the right do call me a nutbar (and worse) ……… but “envisionary futurist” is a bit too far out……How about just “citizen of Earth, concerned about the fate of the Earth, like everyone else here, pro and con the global warming debate”……and leave it like that…..I am on your side too, Mike.

23

11

2008
Danny Bloom (18:07:19) : Your comment is awaiting moderation

Timo Van Drunen, above said : “I believe it is just a publicy stunt, like we will see more of these kind coming months.”

Timo, this is NOT a publicity STUNT…….it is a WAKE UP CALL……. there is no OUR SIDE or THEIR SIDE….we are all in this together……

Danny

23

11

2008
Danny Bloom (18:33:10) : Your comment is awaiting moderation

FYI, the Reuters reporter that I am in touch with at the Hague, told me today:

“Hi Danny,

I’m discussing this with my editors and will be in touch ASAP.
However, I will probably need to speak with your lawyer about the lawsuit if I can go to press….”















Sea Ice

Anonymous said...

Clinton Callahan schrieb am 28.11.2008 07:53
Climate activist Danny Bloom has filed a class action lawsuit at the International Criminal Court in the Hague, Netherlands, against all current world leaders for promoting global warming, and he's asking for US1$billion in damages to be paid to future generations of human beings -- "if there are any".

Bloom is suing "all world leaders for intent to commit manslaughter against future generations of human beings by allowing murderous amounts of fossil fuels to be harvested, burned and sent into the atmosphere as CO2, causing possible apocalyptic harm to the Earth's ecosystem and the very future of the human species."

More info here:

Anonymous said...

Clinton Callahan schrieb am

28.11.2008 07:53 in Germany

Climate activist Danny Bloom has filed a class action lawsuit at the International Criminal Court in the Hague, Netherlands, against all current world leaders for promoting global warming, and he's asking for US1$billion in damages to be paid to future generations of human beings -- "if there are any".

Bloom is suing "all world leaders for intent to commit manslaughter against future generations of human beings by allowing murderous amounts of fossil fuels to be harvested, burned and sent into the atmosphere as CO2, causing possible apocalyptic harm to the Earth's ecosystem and the very future of the human species."

More info here:

Anonymous said...

''Dear Danny,

You are one of my heroes!

Your lawsuit is speaking for 95% of humanity. Thank you so much for doing this and pushing it all the way home!

I announced what you are doing on the

www.just-stop.org

black board at this link:

http://www.possibilica.org/136.0.html?&L=0

Anonymous said...

Lawyers call for international court for the environment

A former chairman of the Bar Council is calling for an international court for the environment to punish states that fail to protect wildlife and prevent climate change.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent

27 Nov 2008

Stephen Hockman QC [Queen's Council, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Counsel ] is proposing a body similar to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to be the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment.

The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.

But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the "right to a healthy environment".

The innovative idea is being presented to an audience of politicians, scientists and public figures for the first time at a symposium at the British Library.

Mr Hockman, a deputy High Court judge, said that the threat of climate change means it is more important than ever for the law to protect the environment.

The UN Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland this month is set to begin negotiations that will lead to a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen next year. Developed countries are expected to commit to cutting emissions drastically, while developing countries agree to halt deforestation.

Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has agreed the concept of an international court will be taken into account when considering how to make these international agreements on climate change binding. The court is also backed by a number of MPs, climate change experts and public figures including the actress Judi Dench.

Mr Hockman said an international court will be needed to enforce and regulate any agreement.

"The time is now ripe to set this up and get it going," he said. "Its remit will be overall climate change and the need for better regulation of carbon emissions but at the same time the implementation and enforcement of international environmental agreements and instruments."

As well as providing resolution between states, the court will also be useful for multinational businesses in ensuring environmental laws are kept to in every country.

The court would include a convention on the right to a healthy environment and provide a higher body for individuals or non-governmental organisations to protest against an environmental injustice.

Mr Hockman said the court may be able to fine businesses or states but its main role will be in making "declaratory rulings" that influence and embarrass countries into upholding the law.

He said: "Of course regulations and sanctions alone cannot deliver a global solution to problems of climate change, but without such components the incentive for individual countries to address those problems - and to achieve solutions that are politically acceptable within their own jurisdictions - will be much reduced."

The court would be led by retired judges, climate change experts and public figures. It would include a scientific body to consider evidence and provide access to any data on the environment.

Most importantly, Mr Hockman said an international court on the environment would influence public opinion which in turn would force Governments to take the environment seriously. He said: "If there are bodies around that can give definitive legal rulings that are accepted as fair and reasonable that has its own impact on public opinion."

Friends of the Earth welcomed the idea.


A spokesman said: "We think any institution that is going to promote and help people enforce their right to a clean and healthy environment is a good thing."