The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Can we sue our government over 'climate change'? > Comments

Can we sue our government over 'climate change'? : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 15/9/2015

The court decided that the IPCC's AR5 was, as it were, the scientific Bible, and based its resort to science on what it found there.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
Peter Lang: It depends on whether or not the court does what the Dutch court did — regarded the latest IPCC Report os revealed truth. I agree with you that our more adversarial court system probably couldn't easily do that. But it might.

Shadow Minister: Well, it was a striking victory that mightn't last long. But it is the first time that a court anywhere has decided in such a way. That makes it striking. And it as a victory. You imply that it will be overturned, and I hope you're right!
Posted by Don Aitkin, Wednesday, 16 September 2015 3:49:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear. Two typos, and I thought I'd checked.

So 'regard the latest IPCC Report ...' and '... was a victory...'
Posted by Don Aitkin, Wednesday, 16 September 2015 7:29:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Has been,
Not a sports car,
And wearing a cap and a big silver necklace with his unbuttoned shirt.

I always laugh when I see one of those coming.

I say look, here comes a mid-life crisis. The cap is to hide the bald head.

Marriage is a bad deal for women. It's a form of patriarchal control of women.

Women don't need it.
Posted by CHERFUL, Thursday, 17 September 2015 10:38:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would have thought that it would be very difficult to sue the Australian government for failing to act on climate change, until such time as someone is able to prove in law that you had had a loss which was directly linked to anthropogenic climate change.

A more interesting question is who exactly one would sue, if you could establish the link between your loss and AGW. The obvious candidates are the fossil fuel companies, and the countries that have burnt the most fossil fuels, but then how about all the people and companies downstream, such as the coal fired power stations.
Posted by warmair, Friday, 18 September 2015 10:06:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Don,

You wrote;

“It makes you think, too, that if such a case were successful, why couldn't the sceptical in our community try for a counter ruling, using much the same arguments but using other science to support their case?”

Because my dear chap there is something quite inconvenient that would get in the way, a warming planet.

The year-to-date temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.51°F (0.84°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest for January–August in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.18°F (0.10°C).

The year-to-date globally-averaged land surface temperature was the highest for January–August in the 1880–2015 record at 2.32°F (1.29°C) above the 20th century average. This value exceeded the previous record of 2007 by 0.29°F (0.16°C).

The year-to-date globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.22°F (0.68°C) above the 20th century average and the highest for January–August in the 1880–2015 record. This value surpassed the previous record of 2014 by +0.13°F (+0.07°C).

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201508

And check out the graph in the Guardians article;

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/17/2015-hottest-year-on-record-noaa

That my friend is the science, but not the kind that would help your case.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 18 September 2015 12:03:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SteeleRedux,

Clearly you haven't been following very closely for the past 25 years.

Temperature is not a measure of damage or benefit. It's a measure of temperature. At the moment we don't whether GHG emissions are likely to do more good or more harm. For the past 200 years they've very clearly been massively net good. Economic cost-benefit analyses using defensible assumptions demonstrate that GHG emissions will probably do more good than harm this century. The CAGW cultists should start doing some objective research. It's the CAGW Cult followers that are the real deniers of relevant science, the modern-day 'flat earthers', and all the other derogatory terms most CAGW Alarmist resort to when they cannot provide a rational argument.
Posted by Peter Lang, Friday, 18 September 2015 2:02:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy