An excellent article addressing litigarion issues that will increasingly attract the interests and concerns of many.

I really had to feel for the poor blokes operating the Wivenhoe dam.

For the past decade they have looked at the startling headlines in the paper assuring us that the dams will never fill again, (they appear to be unaware of the PDO LaNinacycle) that drinking water in our cities will have to be supplemented with multi millions of dollars worth of (now mothballed) desalination plants and coastal inundation maps, in glorious color, devaluing properties around the nation. Headlines detailing how our children will never see the likes of snow again.

For over a decade now, the likes of Flannery, Steffen, Garnaut etc etc have been spruiking their model projections as 'settled science' to the point of convincing dam operators, local councils and political decision makers that the sea will inundate our coastal cities, droughts were the new normal (CSIRO), bushfires are more frequent and of greater intensity, tropical storms are more frequent and intense etc.etc. and the host of other 'impacts' dreamed up by this crowd was 'settled science!'

The application of the 'precautionary principal' (Rio earth summit 1) without an accompanying independent cost benefite analysis (for example, cost of carbon tax against reduction in global average temperature decline) Is an incorrect application of the principal and defies reason.

In seeking someone to litigate, invite the high profile scare mongering public commentators before the courts and hold them accountable!, have Tim account for the raft of 'predictions' he has prognosticated that have fallen over.

>> These are contentions that should make for lively banter at the next meeting of the Entrepreneurial Litigation Association. <<

Of course it should, particularly when statements are prefaced with "may", "could" and "if".

Anthony/cohenite doesn't claim to be a "climatologist" in 'About the Author' like he usually does - good, stick to your day job.

.

Prompete, you must have missed it:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13287#229893

Denied where, by whom, and in what context?

I think it's time alchemy made a comeback. Apparently mercury will disappear if you heat it up a bit more.

Class actions involving climate haven't worked even in the US, where the courts will consider almost any nonsense, so I don't see how they will work here..

In any case, as the writer notes, there is simply too much doubt about causes and responses particularly in the short term, and with those emitting the alleged "pollutants" complying with the law as it stands..

As for AGW forecasting extreme floods as well as exteme drought, all I can remember is the drought part.. but in any case, the turning of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation meant that Brissie was going to get flooded at some point, whether AGW has some credence or not..

But the emphasis on AGW meant that the much more important (in the short term) climate cycle forecasting was ignored in favour of hand wringing over long term projections.. and for that the pro-greenhouse guys must bear a large slice of blame..

Co2 as a greenhouse gas is not in dispute.

579

quite right, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But the real question has always been is are we producing enough of it to actually have an effect on climate? Almost all aspects of the AGW proposition/hypothesis has been questioned, including whether the increase in CO2 we have seen is due to industrial gases. After all industrial emissions are supposed to be around 2 per cent of annual natural flows (no one questions that stat).. so to make industrial gases the villain scientists have to "prove" that CO2 hangs around for quite a while in the atmosphere. If you have something to add to that debate, let's hear it..