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 > Climate change litigation - a two-edged sword > Comments

Climate change litigation - a two-edged sword : Comments

By Anthony Cox and David Stockwell, published 28/2/2012

No-one knows which way the courts will jump on global warming cases; that is if they don't jump in both directions.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
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.
Posted by Prompete, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 9:13:12 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
>> 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?
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 10:02:38 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
I think it's time alchemy made a comeback. Apparently mercury will disappear if you heat it up a bit more.
Posted by Taswegian, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 10:15:26 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
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..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 10:32:35 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
Co2 as a greenhouse gas is not in dispute.
Posted by 579, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 10:55:06 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
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..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 12:42:37 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
Class action should be taken against the high priests and false prophets including Bom and CSIRO that have trashed science in order to promote this religion.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 1:44:47 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
To all of you who doubt 'climate change' or 'AGW' or whatever guise our changing climate needs to be called, I would suggest you read 'Merchants of Doubt' by Naomia Oreskes and Erik Conway, released in 2010.

In this powerful book, the authors, two historians of science, show how big tobacco’s disreputable and self-serving tactics were adapted for later use in a number of debates about the environment. Their story takes in nuclear winter, missile defence, acid rain and the ozone layer and now climate change. In all these debates a relatively small cadre of right-wing scientists, some of them eminent, worked through organisations created specially for the purpose to take on a scientific establishment that they perceived to be dangerously unsympathetic to the interests of capital and national security.

I would also suggest to promoters and dissenters that they perhaps read and digest peer reviewed scientific information to really gain a good understanding of this issue.

Emotive comments do little to address real issues facing our world and we all have a responsibility to work through the information from all sides and work on the precautionary approach to issues as they arise.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 2:07:19 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
Co2 is measurable and is currently at its highest level in the atmosphere for the last 650,000 years.
Posted by 579, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 2:52:56 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
It would be quite amusing to see AGW alarmists trying to prove their contentions in the High Court, but given that it's far easier for them to simply root around in the money trough provided by governments and 'environmental' groups, I can't see it happening. Shame, though. Perhaps Peter Gleick could be brought in to advise them on situational ethics?
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 2:54:09 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
Sorry Geoff, but when ever warmists start talking about tobacco companies when they try to make a global warming case, you know immediately, that they have no scientific case to put. If they had any sort of scientific case, they would put it, & not a pill of emotive bull.

These emotive arguments only work with the true believers, who don't have enough science to see through the garbage.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 3:49:34 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
"true believers" being code for scientists.

"...who don't have enough science to see through the garbage."

As opposed to whom - lawyers and engineers....sailors...florists....trapeze artists?
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 3:55:34 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
The one degree C increase in ocean temp; is enough for polar ice melt, and for the sea to give up its carbon stores.
Posted by 579, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 4:12:04 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
Radical ratbag greenies, & academics who suck at the fools teat, if you like Poirot.

No one who has read any of the climate gate E mails, particularly the latest lot could possibly believe the IPCC, & the East Anglia lot are genuine. It is not conjecture, but from their own key boards that they are proven contriving liars. I think most of them did believe, & some of them still probably do, or at least want to believe, but they have no proof, & use every trick in the book to keep the thing going.

Much like most lefties, the end justifies the means. Once you can't prove your point, any cheating will do.

Then if you keep up with even some of the new peer reviewed literature, the truth becomes obvious.

There are a hell of a lot of us who simply believed what we were told, until some little thing started us asking questions.

If you think a woman scorned is likely to get nasty, she has nothing on a graduate who discovers his trusted school has been taking him for a fool for some years, & just like our disgust with Julia, we are now after those lying academics, & be assured, we will get them in their own tangled web of lies.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 4:19:20 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
NASA has the only reputable climate change site, all others are only make believe. And there are others that make conspiracies an art form.
Posted by 579, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 4:41:02 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
No
No
Yes
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 5:10:27 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
"Co2 as a greenhouse gas is not in dispute."

But the extent of its greenhouse effect most certainly is in dispute.

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

How about some constructive comments instead of the usual snark?

Mercury is no doubt the most persistent of the real pollutants of coal and gas energy sources. However the higher temperature of the Ultra-Supercritical [USC] furnaces reduces the mercury gas droplet size which can assist oxidisation and capture in pure form. The ideal temperature for this process of mercury removal is about 1000C which is still in excess of the 600C which the current USC plants operate at; but there are plans to increase that temperature in future plants.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 28 February 2012 5:16:15 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
579 - NASA the only reputable web site.. total nonsense.. you can't have been that out of the debate. The NASA site is the one most likely to exaggerate but Hadley is the most used.. the AGW-crowd hate the satellite sites, although the results are audited, because it doesn't show what they want.
The bit about carbon concentrations being the highest in 600k years or whatever is also hotly disputed. Look up the stuff on isotopic measuresments and ask if anyone has estimated the propotion of industrial to natural CO2 (not the trend but the actual, current mix). You'll be horrified.

Geoff of Perth

so glad you mentioned 'Merchants of Doubt' by Naomia Oreskes and Erik Conway.

As has been pointed out numerous times now, Oreskes has confused the fight over tobacco with the fight over climate without realising the vast difference between the two.. the tobacco companies were contesting findings that the discretionary good they produced was addictive and harmful.. they had to get involved..

energy companies have not contested the debate because they don't need to. There is no indication that any of ratings about CO2 will even reduce the rate of growth in the market, let alone the market itself.. renewables are largely ineffective.. and energy is hardly a discretionary good.

Every now and then activists will point to the tiny amounts that energy companies give to conservative think tanks ($100,000 here, $200,000) and try to claim its driect funding for sceintific research. It is not. In fact, it is difficult to identify any direct involvement by energy companies in climate research.. All of the money goes to the AGW side. Thus while Oreskes may have a point in big tobacco being involved in research, for all I know, her thesis is provably completely wrong when applied to climate.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 29 February 2012 12:58:21 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
Geoff of Perth. You really are a confused fellow. You give all these references to AGW, then say that you do not support AGW, but climate change.

Do you know what you mean by climate change? It just means change in climate, unless you subscribe to the deceptive IPCC definition which sneaks in the words “caused by human activity”.

Richard Lindzen clarifies the situation which the alarmists have tried so desperately to obfuscate.

Lindzen says: “Claims that the earth has been warming, that there is a Greenhouse Effect, and that man’s activity have contributed to warming are trivially true but essentially meaningless.”

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/02/22/is-catastrophic-global-warming-like-the-millenium-bug-a-mistake/

There is no scientific proof of any measurable effect by human activity on climate.

If the waterfront dwelling Minister for Lies about Sea Levels, Greg Combet were observed urinating in the ocean in front of his waterfront home, the observer could rightly say that the ocean was polluted.

It would not be possible to scientifically prove the pollution of the ocean, any more than it is possible to prove that human emissions have any effect on climate. The effect is not measurable, because it is trivial.

Of course, Geoff may not be confused, but I give him the benefit of the doubt, and concede that he is, because otherwise he is trying to confuse us.

Also, Geoff thinks Oreskes is credible, so he is obviously in a bad way. Click on the above link, Geoff, and read something sensible.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 9 March 2012 5:08:21 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
Geoff of Perth, I'll see your peer reviewed papers and raise Leo's obscure blog comment to one more well known:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/misrepresentation-from-lindzen/

only to put things about that dear old octogenarian into perspective, of course.
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 9 March 2012 5:27:27 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
Btw

Dear Leo, was it Lindzen in that public meeting in the Commons, or Simon Carr that said:

>> Over the last 150 years CO2 (or its equivalents) has doubled. This has been accompanied by a rise in temperature of seven or eight tenths of a degree centigrade. <<

Don't bother Leo, they're both wrong.

Doubling of CO2 has not occurred. If it had, it would be about 560 ppm. It's not.
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 9 March 2012 5:37:02 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
Dearest Leo

Lindzen has apologisedfor his ... um, er, pardon ... "error".

http://tinyurl.com/Lindzen-apologises

Now, will you withdraw your vacuous assertions ... even apologise like Lindzen?

Let me guess ... nope.

You will just change the playing field and repeat your tired-old-guff again and again.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 10 March 2012 8:30:00 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
In March 2008, the extent of year-round perennial sea ice eclipsed the 50-year record low set in March 2007, shrinking by 386,100 square miles (one million square kilometers) -- an area the size of Texas and Arizona combined. Seasonal ice, which forms over the winter when seawater freezes, now occupies the space of the lost perennial ice. This younger ice is much saltier than its older counterpart because it has not had time to undergo processes that drain its sea salts. It also contains more frost flowers -- clumps of ice crystals up to four times saltier than ocean waters -- providing more salt sources to fuel bromine releases.

Nghiem said if sea ice continues to be dominated by younger saltier ice, and Arctic extreme cold spells occur more often, bromine explosions are likely to increase in the future.
Posted by 579, Saturday, 10 March 2012 1:59:22 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. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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