Kerching!

More like this

Via Prometheus, I find a review of Stern by Nordhaus. First an aside: N is the first mainstream commentator I've seen to point out that the Great War on Terror was undertaken "with no discernible economic analysis"... as I've pointed out, both Lomborgs "Consensus" and Pielkes recent re-run have…
Stoat, the blog that has abandoned science in favour of economics, about which I know little. But wait for the musing post on model skill scores... Anyway, the last post got lots of interesting comments - thank you - dear reader, go take a look if you don't normally read post comments. I shall pick…
Says the Economist. THIS is an unusually busy moment in the unhappy history of efforts to curb climate change. In two weeks at the end of June the world’s three biggest polluters unveiled carbon-reducing measures. In China and America these are more ambitious than previous policies. But they fall…
Well, of course, this is trivially true, in the sense that $0 is "up to $1bn" and the report doesn't suggest that it could be more than $1bn. I got this from the Graun which continues to irritate by pointlessly and stupidly failing to link to the original study. I assume they do this because,…

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? ;)

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... ;)

By Joseph O'Sullivan (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

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…

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.