mikk, as ever, love your work.

You nailed the problem Mikk.

And if we do manage to clean up our act, (and I know this is uncharitable) but the Graeme Dawsons of the world will still benefit.

Dawson has at least the right aim in getting a balanced view on climate change into the public domain.
The IPCC dominates all and the debate has become so distorted that claims that its forecasts are peer reviewed are not only accepted - in spite of glaring evidence that the panel's process is emphatically not proper peer review - but taken as some sort of authentication or validation of its forecasts.
There is nothing that can be described an an independent check or audit of the IPCC's work, but even if there was you don't peer review forecasts. You make them and hope that they are somewhere close to reality.
However, Dawson's suggestions are unlikely to do anything more than enrich the lawyers and clog up the court rooms. In other words, make more of a mess than the existing legislation. Shame but there it is..

The author gets a gold star for out of the box thinking, which we desperately need in the Climate Change debate - since one side of the debate has decided there is no other side.

People should be encouraged to share their opinions on different perspectives and not denigrated for not complying with one view or another.

Out of many such ideas we might get a mix of alternative directions.

Many in the AGW believe it or burn in hell (you vile Plimerphile, denier!) camp just turn off immediately and reach for the insult and denigration dictionary whenever anything is proposed that is contrary to their beliefs.

I for one welcome all points of view, whether they are agreeable or not, to my reasoning.

I'm not a lawyer, (I don't mean to brag), and while I'm not sure this is workable, or helpful. It does float the idea of forcing the exagerations and claims of all sides of the debate to be brought under closer and more honest inspection, and that I welcome.

Oh yes Mr Dawson “tort law.” That’s the style of litigation that was used by the plaintiffs against Exxon Oil and their ship ahoy, Valdez, with its drunken sailor at the helm, who trashed Prince William Sound’s ecosystems in Alaska. Twenty years of tort law and one appeal after another is petty cash to Exxon though isn’t it?

Twenty years on, the plaintiffs have yet to receive any punitive damages after losing their livelihoods (20% of plaintiffs have carked it) and Prince William Sound remains in recovery mode. Many marine life in recovery mode also but not a herring to be seen yet and the Orcas have looked elsewhere for a feed.

Too bad for the herring or the Orcas but none of this really matters though. Remember, what's important here is the health of Exxon. God forbid they are found responsible for ruining an entire ecosystem. Keep in mind if that happened it would effect shareholder confidence and Exxon's record profits.

May we pause a moment in silence and pray for Exxon. God bless Exxon and all that wonderful pollution they’ve given us plus a lovely heated planet! Sign of the Cross: “Spectacles, testicles, wallet and watch.....and Amen to that!”

Thank you Mr Dawson.

protagoras 1, dawson 0