Well, you know what my recommendation is: Warmists should give up their own fossil fuels usage if they’re so upset. Of course, that would interfere with their lifestyles, and do things like driving and flying to “climate change” protests, like all the ones they held Tuesday, which was Earth Day. Typical climahypocrisy. Anyhow
Want to Stop Climate Change? Take the Fossil Fuel Industry to Court
Big Carbon is where Big Tobacco was, before it started losing.
Funny thing is, Warmists would be some of the first to complain when the price of everything, not just fuel, spikes.
In November 2013, American climate scientist Richard Heede, of the Colorado-based Climate Accountability Institute, published a paper with a revolutionary thesis. After nine years of researching the energy industry in dozens of countries, he concluded that nearly two-thirds of the world’s carbon dioxide and methane emissions dating back to the dawn of the industrial era were the responsibility of just ninety companies. Heede called them the “carbon majors.†(snip)
One well-established environmental lawyer is in the preliminary stages of putting together a lawsuit employing Heede’s statistics. Other attorneys were quick to praise the study, but cautioned that no one has yet hit upon a legal theory that can use Heede’s work to force the carbon majors to cough up some of the astronomical sums that experts believe must be spent worldwide to adapt to rising seas, heat waves, droughts and other extreme-weather events caused by climate change—not to mention help pay for the damage already caused.
In other words, they really, really want to sue, but have no legal basis other than climahysteria. In reality, the majority of lawsuits involving “climate change” have lost in court. The climaplaintiffs always prefer that these get settled before going to trial, because the actual facts needed in a court of law are not available.
“The anti-tobacco guys lost and lost and lost in court for decades—until they won,†says Kert Davies, who worked on the breakthrough case on behalf of Oakland, Boulder and other cities while a researcher at Greenpeace. “That’s point number one. Plus, advocates like me can say that we don’t care if we win as long as we make a point.
“We want to influence the court of public opinion,†Davies continues. “We have to educate people about the truth after all this industry disinformation. So let the lawsuits produce documents and testimony and all sorts of information for the public. That’s one of their functions. That’s where the tobacco wars were won. Even [Representative Henry] Waxman’s famous tobacco hearings in Congress—the tobacco execs never admitted anything. You didn’t need to get to that. By the time they left the hearing room, they were already pariahs. We’d seen through them.â€
The flip side is that Warmists have to produce their own documents and testimony, and Warmists tend to get beaten like Walter Mondale in 1984 when they have to argue their facts and positions (hence the reason most do not like to debate). It’s not enough to prove warming: most of us will stipulate 1.4F increase since 1850. Having to prove that it is mostly/solely mankind’s fault is the rub. Which Warmists can only do with skewed and falsified data, failed computer models, reading crystal balls, and hysteria.
Greenhouse gas levels in USA are dropping we are back yo 2004 levels thanks teach for using those CFCs
I doubt there is much of a case against fossil fuel companies, since the hazard of dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere was not as well appreciated as the hazards of cigarette smoking. In addition, cigarette companies actively suppressed data on the harm of smoking. But the energy companies are rightly terrified at the prospect of being found liable for the damages caused by global warming.
“Which Warmists can only do with skewed and falsified data, failed computer models, reading crystal balls, and hysteria.”
There may be some hysteria, but no skewed or falsified data, no failed computer models and no reading crystal balls. Data from thermometers show the Earth is clearly warming (even some deniers admit a 1.4F increase – which is greater than the entire range of temperatures during the Holocene, until now).
Your “failed computer models” claim appears to be based on the flawed analysis by Roy Spencer where he either accidentally or intentionally falsified data and distributed it broadly (and not the first time – look up the history of his UAH satellite database). Similarly to Lord Mungton, Mr. Spencer cooked the books and misplotted his own dataset and dishonestly compared it to the output of the CMIP5 modeling runs. The reality is that the datasets diverge from CMIP5 after about 2005.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html
And where is the skewed and falsified data you reference?
“1.4f, which is greater than the entire range of temps during the Holocene.” Which, if true, might matter if the earth’s existence began at the Holocene. I think there were a couple of years in there before the Holocene, J.