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 15/9/2015The 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.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- ...
- 8
- 9
- 10
-
- All
Posted by Don Aitkin, Wednesday, 16 September 2015 3:49:06 PM
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
|
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!