Wednesday, June 8, 2011

The journal Nature suggests billions of people could be sued for legal breach of duty to care for the climate

This just in: the June 2011 edition of the journal Nature Climate Change entertains the wonderful notion that billions of people worldwide could be sued for "legal breach of their duty of care to the climate" by individually exceeding the worldwide average carbon dioxide footprint. The apparently frustrated journal laments that "only if a case came to be judged on its merits [pity the thought], would the 'science' of climate change be called upon to help make the case: even then, there are difficulties."
Definitely not Grandma, but how about the biggest hypocrite of all, Al Gore?

11 comments:

  1. " ... billions of people could be sued for legal breach of duty to care for the climate ... "

    Well, I guess all of us who inhale 0.03% CO2 and exhale 4 - 5% could be a target as well ...

    Looks like some of these people have gone completely loopy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Assuming a normal distribution of "carbon footprints" then half the population would be culpable.

    Athletes and sports men and women would be at risk of litigation, since they breathe much more than the average. Beans, Guiness and eggs would have to be banned. Vegetarians and vegans and those with high-protein diets are also liable. Are Greenies shooting themselves in the foot (or backside)?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Aye that'd be something - have been known to say a Looooongg time ago in Fuel Crisis Times ( First one ) that people shouldn't be driving around in Autos that consume fewer MPG than HGVs - - maybe litigate against against Manugrs too for providing them AND Governments for NOT Banning them like their approach to Ciggys etc ( altho am non-smoker I have nothing against them )........ When I see this........ Grrrr! makes ye olde scots Blood B O I L !

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Nature article author David Adam in your piece here is the very same author of another Nature article in which he regurgitated a 15-year old talking point about "‘balance’ in the media gives too much coverage to the small minority of climate-change sceptics". The problems with that were detailed in this article, "‘Media Too Fair to Climate Skeptics’, say reporters who've been unfair to skeptics" http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/06/02/media-too-fair-to-climate-skeptics-say-reporters-whove-been-unfair-to-skeptics/

    Global warming lawsuits themselves are awash in the same set of old anti-skeptic scientist talking points, as was shown in this article: "Global Warming Nuisance Lawsuits Are Based on a Fatal Flaw" http://biggovernment.com/rcook/2010/11/27/global-warming-nuisance-lawsuits-are-based-on-a-fatal-flaw/

    There's a good possibility that Nature magazine has a bit of explaining to do about their anti-skeptic climate scientist stance......

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just filled my spa, about to warm her up. Bollo*** to the lot of them. Come and get some buckshot!

    ReplyDelete
  6. One assumes this shrill warning comes from a group that is already practicing this and so a photograph of the company parking lot what we may all count the rows of Chevy Volt cars would be a good test.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In that case the skeptics should now bring suit against all the warmist/alarmists for promoting unemployment in the many countries, not to mention deprivation and starvation in the 3rd world countries.

    It'll all end up with two tribes, all lawyers, suing each other, zero productivity.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Who will accept responsibility for the millions unfortunate enough to live in climates where the cold necessitates home heating who will undoubtedly die from hypothermia when they are restricted to 2.7 tons CO2 emissions ?

    I guess they'll all die ignorant 'cause they won't have enough electricity to run any media.

    We hardly ever use any form of heating/air condiditiong and 2.7 would last us about 6 months.

    Thank god I don't live in a cold climate and thank god I never read Nature.

    ReplyDelete
  9. First they tell you even after the head of the Royal Statistical Society said no Climate Math is even MATH at ALL, that they believe Mannian Statistics and the Jones-Briffa 'extensions' to it, are real math.

    Then they tell you, they think gravity's polarity is reversing and photonic energy that's dragging air molecules UP, are going to emit DOWN..

    Then they tell you they think it's been warming since the mid 1990s after Jones and others are seen discussing how they know it stopped warming in the 90's but "the scientific world would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled since 1998. Ok it has but it's only seven years of data," (every year SINCE '98 till 2005 when he said that)

    and the exact temp Jones said he thought was "it's only seven years of data and IT ISN'T STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT."

    Of course warmers are SHOCKED that the ONLY GROUP of INSTRUMENT READINGS ON EARTH at that time were the RAW INSTRUMENTS' DATA PLACED ONLINE BY LAW TO STOP - you guessed it: WEATHER SCAMS like JONES, MANN, AND SCHNEIDER, & TRENBERTH's

    then they want you to believe that there is not ONE INSTRUMENT ON EARTH that can DISPROVE the Greenhouse Gas Theory, with EVERY SINGLE OPTICAL and INFRA RED TELESCOPE on EARTH,

    UTTERLY SILENT ALL THESE YEARS when, if there WERE a G.H.G. Effect they'd BOTH be SCREAMING about all the NEW HEAT DISTORTION in the ATMOSPHERE making OPTICAL TELESCOPY nearly IMPOSSIBLE and the RISING INFRA-RED POLLUTION making I.R. telescopy so much more difficult..

    it's just like Lindzen says, this isn't a theory or anything it's simply on-the-spot concocted VOODOO.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Remember, Nature published the scientific proof of Homeopathy, The Memory of Water Nature Vol. 333 on 30 June 1988. They have always been sloppy when it comes to weeding out ridiculous articles.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Such rubbish can only be written by a lawyer short of work.
    Asylum run by the inmates.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.