Some time before, I really needed to buy a car for my business but I didn't have enough money and could not order something. Thank God my dude suggested to get the personal loans at creditors. So, I did that and was satisfied with my student loan.
A couple of links in case anyone wants to know more or look for some more breathless hints like 'very dependent on the type of sea surface temperature (SST) patterns that we input into our model'.
Another idea: if power companies can be sued for their fictitious contribution to global warming, it should be possible to sue Al Gore, the IPCC, Stern, et al, to recover any additional taxation or other costs incurred as a result of their disinformation campaigns.
Welcome to the 21st century's Spanish Inquisition.
I've tried a number of posts on climate liability issues here in the States. My guess for the best shots at finding liability is in any damage related to sea level rise, and in any increase in the need or expense of preparing for conditions made worse by AGW (e.g. a larger evacuation area, higher hurricane liability insurance). In both cases, the causation hurdle is already overcome (pretty much). Last speculation on it here:
No complants from me. In fact, I believe I said "bring it on".
Absent brainwashed juries - and another couple of years of declining temps will fix that - the case for catastrophic human-induced global warming would be crucified in any decent courtroom.
Some time before, I really needed to buy a car for my business but I didn't have enough money and could not order something. Thank God my dude suggested to get the personal loans at creditors. So, I did that and was satisfied with my student loan.
But is this just a recycled story from four years ago?
Myles Allen & Richard Lord, The Blame Game - who will pay for the damaging consequences of climate change?, Nature, 432, pp.551-552, December 2004.
http://www.climateprediction.net/science/pubs/Allen&Lord.pdf
[Sounds very much like a retread, though there are breathless hints of some new publication -W]
Or something totally new in that you are plugging climateprediction.net and the seasonal attribution project part of it? ;)
A couple of links in case anyone wants to know more or look for some more breathless hints like 'very dependent on the type of sea surface temperature (SST) patterns that we input into our model'.
http://attribution.cpdn.org/about.php
http://attribution.cpdn.org/extension.php
Scientists giving advise on legal issues?
Lawyers get criticized for their treatment of science all the time, so now its time for lawyers to strike back. Maybe a lawsuit... ;)
I say bring it on.
These dishonest, mediocre alarmist "scientists" would be crucified. under cross-examination.
Exhibit 1, Your Honour: the hockeystick.
Oh dear, Mugwump...
Another idea: if power companies can be sued for their fictitious contribution to global warming, it should be possible to sue Al Gore, the IPCC, Stern, et al, to recover any additional taxation or other costs incurred as a result of their disinformation campaigns.
Welcome to the 21st century's Spanish Inquisition.
I've tried a number of posts on climate liability issues here in the States. My guess for the best shots at finding liability is in any damage related to sea level rise, and in any increase in the need or expense of preparing for conditions made worse by AGW (e.g. a larger evacuation area, higher hurricane liability insurance). In both cases, the causation hurdle is already overcome (pretty much). Last speculation on it here:
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2008/04/tort-liability-of-climate-p…
mugwump doth complain too much, methinks.
No complants from me. In fact, I believe I said "bring it on".
Absent brainwashed juries - and another couple of years of declining temps will fix that - the case for catastrophic human-induced global warming would be crucified in any decent courtroom.