Good News, Everybody!

[Harold Squared]

Harold has seen the light and is now no longer a skeptic regarding AGW.

 

To make up for past misconduct, and to prevent further "spinning of wheels chasing red herrings down rabbit holes"(delightfully memorable phrase), I contribute a suggestion.

 

Sue the carbon emitters, take them to court. Start with the frivolous ones like NASCAR and all those with the deep pockets to sponsor these vehicles. Winning in court will be a piece of cake with all the evidence at our disposal and we can educate a lot of rednecks which will be sure to be paying close attention to the trial. We will win big and use the funds to pay for ever more ambitious targets while those newly educated rednecks glumly drink their beer watching roller derby.

 

Sue the pants off of them, the red blooded American way!

 

Maybe Al Gore knows a guy with a law degree? Oops, sorry, I forgot only deniers bring up his name, well Rome wasn't built in a day.

 

Anyway, the time to panic is now, so we should really pull out all the stops, and clearly motorsports emit greenhouse gas for mere entertainment, probably the most irresponsible use imaginable. When cap and trade comes along they would be the first to go anyhow.

 

Am I missing anything here?

Edited June 30, 2015 by Harold Squared

[dimreepr]

You’re missing the part where the law suit has to be paid for and by whom.

[swansont]

Sue the carbon emitters, take them to court.

 

…

 

Am I missing anything here?

What law are they breaking, that you could sue them?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

. I thought all these subjects were supposed to be in the ' climate change forum ' . Leaving this forum to Earth matters , Rocks, Dinosaurs , rivers and things ?

 

Mike

Edited June 30, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Harold Squared]

What law are they breaking, that you could sue them?

Littering the atmosphere with deadly pollutants, aka methane and carbon dioxide. Presenting a menace to public health. Look, we live in a society where a plaintiff won a judgement because the coffee was too hot. No law, as such, needs to be broken. Harm was incurred and restitution is sought. The trick is to find a favorable court.

 

And I am totally okay with you moving the thread if you agree with the guy who suggests that, mea culpa if applicable.

. I thought all these subjects were supposed to be in the ' climate change forum ' . Leaving this forum to Earth matters and Dinosaurs , rivers and things ?

 

Mike

Good point. Are you a geologist?

Youre missing the part where the law suit has to be paid for and by whom.

Typically the loser pays. This time it is not you. Enjoy! Edited June 30, 2015 by Harold Squared

[dimreepr]

The point is, if you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem, we ALL are, as evinced in our participation in this forum.

 

Do what you can/are comfortable with, to help and you too could be part of a better future.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

And I am totally okay with you moving the thread if you agree with the guy who suggests that, mea culpa if applicable.Good point. Are you a geologist?

Only , as an Amateur Geologist , in my retirement! Thought I better get to know the Earth That I have been walking about on throughout my life. Before I ' Pop my Clogs ' . That does not look right. * . I give up !

 

Mike

 

* " to pop your clogs " appears to mean to take your clogs in old England , to the pawn shop. " to hang up your clogs" to retire . Or to die ....eek !

Edited June 30, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Littering the atmosphere with deadly pollutants, aka methane and carbon dioxide.

 

And I will ask again: what law are they breaking? I mean a real law, not a hypothetical one. What are the statutory limits in place?

 

Is it possible for you to offer up facts for once, rather than hand-wavy blather?

 

http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/fact-sheet-clean-power-plan-overview

"Although there are limits at power plants for other pollutants like arsenic and mercury, there are currently no national limits on carbon."

[TJ McCaustland]

One problem, the aftermath. What would people use then for transportation over long distances if greenhouse gas emissions are declared illegal as you seem to want them to be? Also how would the government react to this near destruction of a profitable and thriving automobile and oil industry when the country needs an economic break? and how exactly would you make this a worldwide law? You certainly seem to lack the resources to pull this one off......

Edited June 30, 2015 by TJ McCaustland

[swansont]

One problem, the aftermath. What would people use then for transportation over long distances if greenhouse gas emissions are declared illegal as you seem to want them to be? Also how would the government react to this near destruction of a profitable and thriving automobile and oil industry when the country needs an economic break? and how exactly would you make this a worldwide law? You certainly seem to lack the resources to pull this one off......

 

How would one propose such a law be adopted without it being a blatantly obvious act of trolling?

 

Even with my cynicism turned up, I don't see "greenhouse gases declared illegal" as part of the OP. Rather, I am assuming the idea is a limit on emissions.

[TJ McCaustland]

True I cannot dodge that, but it would be practically declaring it illegal as with "suing the pants off them" to quote Harold, it might as well be because then there would be no way to obtain fuel or vehicles if all carbon emitting entities and related companies are terminated immediately. I fully support the termination of the use of petrochemicals and carbon emitting companies, I believe they are incredibly inefficient and generally a waste of energy but we must rid ourselves of them gradually, as rapid change would only compound the problem, as people would seek transportation any way they could, using both the now practically illegal gasoline or whats left of it, or other, more carbon emissive fuels such as coal without air scrubbers on antiquidated trains and other methods of travel until the development of hydrogen burning cars and the refinement of existing electric cars, as well as a creation of new ways to produce carbon free electricity. with no oil products all of a sudden there would be major problems, so we need to do this slowly and carefully.

[Ten oz]

This thread reads bit like a pro gun advocate proclaiming they seeing the light about gun violence and then suggesting governments start collecting all guns. It is a sarcastic exaggeration of what Gun Control advocates call for at worst or mischaracterization on their views at best.

There is not a law against releasing methane or carbon dioxide into the atomesohere. Nor is it the goal of any environmental group that I am familiar with to get such a law created and past.

[Phi for All]

This thread reads bit like a pro gun advocate proclaiming they seeing the light about gun violence and then suggesting governments start collecting all guns. It is a sarcastic exaggeration of what Gun Control advocates call for at worst or mischaracterization on their views at best.

There is not a law against releasing methane or carbon dioxide into the atomesohere. Nor is it the goal of any environmental group that I am familiar with to get such a law created and past.

 

It looks funny because the OP was obviously trying to make an Argument to Absurdity that ended up making his real stance seem absurd. This is like the second or third that's backfired this way.

 

Most of the arguments deniers have left are fallacious. They work though, because the money people backing these arguments are just trying to stall efforts to regulate, for profit. They know something will HAVE to be done, eventually, they just don't want it to be now.

 

"And if it be not now, yet, it will come. The readiness is all." --William Shakespeare

[Harold Squared]

This thread reads bit like a pro gun advocate proclaiming they seeing the light about gun violence and then suggesting governments start collecting all guns. It is a sarcastic exaggeration of what Gun Control advocates call for at worst or mischaracterization on their views at best.

There is not a law against releasing methane or carbon dioxide into the atomesohere. Nor is it the goal of any environmental group that I am familiar with to get such a law created and past.

You mean "passed".

 

No law was broken by the asbestos industry, but harm was done, albeit without malicious intent. A class action lawsuit was filed.

 

The situation is exactly similar. We put, oooh, say, iNow on the stand to present the voluminous evidence of harm done, past, present, and future, and BANG, we're in the money.

 

It is a civil suit, there are more of them than a dog has fleas here in the USA. Foreign people may doubt it but it is true. No law need be broken, get it through your heads, guys, we are all supposed to be smart here.

 

It looks funny because the OP was obviously trying to make an Argument to Absurdity that ended up making his real stance seem absurd. This is like the second or third that's backfired this way.

 

Most of the arguments deniers have left are fallacious. They work though, because the money people backing these arguments are just trying to stall efforts to regulate, for profit. They know something will HAVE to be done, eventually, they just don't want it to be now.

 

"And if it be not now, yet, it will come. The readiness is all." --William Shakespeare

You find tort law absurd? It happens all the time, even so. One day the idiot box is full of commercial ads for drug X, next day it is full of ads soliciting people harmed by drug X to jump on the legal bandwagon and get their cut of a settlement. Nothing illegal about the manufacture, sale, or prescription of drug X, either.

 

What is weird to me is that ALCOHOL has never been so named in a class action lawsuit.

 

Welcome to America.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Harold Squared

[CharonY]

AFAIK asbestos litigation started with workers being exposed to asbestos and suing their employer for compensation. I.e. harm was done by specific companies to specific targets. For litigation to environmental toxins (say, a leak in some production line), typically a causal link between the source (and hence the responsible) and the victim has to be found.

I cannot see a possible way to do so for CO2, otherwise people would have been able to sue everyone else for air pollution in major US cities (before the clean air act and other measures).

[Harold Squared]

True I cannot dodge that, but it would be practically declaring it illegal as with "suing the pants off them" to quote Harold, it might as well be because then there would be no way to obtain fuel or vehicles if all carbon emitting entities and related companies are terminated immediately. I fully support the termination of the use of petrochemicals and carbon emitting companies, I believe they are incredibly inefficient and generally a waste of energy but we must rid ourselves of them gradually, as rapid change would only compound the problem, as people would seek transportation any way they could, using both the now practically illegal gasoline or whats left of it, or other, more carbon emissive fuels such as coal without air scrubbers on antiquidated trains and other methods of travel until the development of hydrogen burning cars and the refinement of existing electric cars, as well as a creation of new ways to produce carbon free electricity. with no oil products all of a sudden there would be major problems, so we need to do this slowly and carefully.

EXACTLY. NASCAR is a soft target, everyone knows the fans are only watching for a crash, Jesus, the races themselves are as boring as watching GOLF. But golf uses electric vehicles, so it is a green but boring elitist waste of time.

 

Start with motorsports, drag racing, demolition derby, Formula One, they all have to go anyway.

AFAIK asbestos litigation started with workers being exposed to asbestos and suing their employer for compensation. I.e. harm was done by specific companies to specific targets. For litigation to environmental toxins (say, a leak in some production line), typically a causal link between the source (and hence the responsible) and the victim has to be found.

I cannot see a possible way to do so for CO2, otherwise people would have been able to sue everyone else for air pollution in major US cities (before the clean air act and other measures).

iNow would know more about who has been harmed and how much, I defer to his voluminous experience in such matters. Once they smell blood in the water they will come a running, if experience is any guide.

 

I screwed up, said "methane" above instead of "nitromethane", a race car fuel. I am just assuming it is a greenhouse gas too, can anyone confirm it one way or another? My bad, thanks in advance.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Harold Squared

[Ten oz]

You mean "passed".

No law was broken by the asbestos industry, but harm was done, albeit without malicious intent. A class action lawsuit was filed.

The situation is exactly similar. We put, oooh, say, iNow on the stand to present the voluminous evidence of harm done, past, present, and future, and BANG, we're in the money.

It is a civil suit, there are more of them than a dog has fleas here in the USA. Foreign people may doubt it but it is true. No law need be broken, get it through your heads, guys, we are all supposed to be smart here.

So in your hypothetical civil suit whom specifically would you sue and for what exactly?

[Harold Squared]

The point is, if youre not part of the solution youre part of the problem, we ALL are, as evinced in our participation in this forum.

 

Do what you can/are comfortable with, to help and you too could be part of a better future.

Exactly! Those who are not with us are against us and must be hunted down one by one. Today the race car teams, tomorrow the race car sponsors and builders! Eventually we shall triumph and rule all with an iron fist, hail victory!

So in your hypothetical civil suit whom specifically would you sue and for what exactly?

Motorsports in general and NASCAR in particular. Interestingly, NASCAR has its roots in moonshine trafficking, an illegal activity. And for what?

 

BIG BUCKS, that's what. With the precedent set and as much $$$ as we can get awarded we can get ever better legal talent until the future is as green as we want it to be.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Harold Squared

[TJ McCaustland]

EXACTLY. NASCAR is a soft target, everyone knows the fans are only watching for a crash, Jesus, the races themselves are as boring as watching GOLF. But golf uses electric vehicles, so it is a green but boring elitist waste of time.

 

Start with motorsports, drag racing, demolition derby, Formula One, they all have to go anyway.

iNow would know more about who has been harmed and how much, I defer to his voluminous experience in such matters. Once they smell blood in the water they will come a running, if experience is any guide.

 

I screwed up, said "methane" above instead of "nitromethane", a race car fuel. I am just assuming it is a greenhouse gas too, can anyone confirm it one way or another? My bad, thanks in advance.

OK Before you jump to any conclusions think, How would this affect you? Because without yourself in consideration how can you see the common person's view on this?

Edited July 1, 2015 by TJ McCaustland

[Ten oz]

Motorsports in general and NASCAR in particular. Interestingly, NASCAR has its roots in moonshine trafficking, an illegal activity. And for what?

BIG BUCKS, that's what. With the precedent set and as much $$$ as we can get awarded we can get ever better legal talent until the future is as green as we want it to be.

If Methane and Carbon Dioxide is what you are suing over NASCAR is far from being the worse. It would be like going after home beer brewers in an attempt to limit the availiblity of consumable alcohol while ignoring the Anheuser Busch and Jim Bean.

[Wolfhnd]

When it comes to AGW there is plenty to be skeptical about. The models and the background temperature AGW is plotted on to name two.

 

Ocean acidification and sea level rise are less contentious for me personally but they too need additional study.

 

Assuming that all the issues are settled is giving climatology too much credit and seems a bit like faith not evidence.

[iNow]

Uhuh. - https://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

[Ten oz]

It looks funny because the OP was obviously trying to make an Argument to Absurdity that ended up making his real stance seem absurd. This is like the second or third that's backfired this way.

 

Most of the arguments deniers have left are fallacious. They work though, because the money people backing these arguments are just trying to stall efforts to regulate, for profit. They know something will HAVE to be done, eventually, they just don't want it to be now.

 

"And if it be not now, yet, it will come. The readiness is all." --William Shakespeare

I fear the day will never come when we (humans) act. I think there is a couple of strong ideas that are too ingrained. The first being that everyone can not be limited or turned green at once equally so it isn't fair to press for action at all. Like when deniers insist something is done about China unless action in United States is useless. The everyone else in doing it argument is a primitive one we all adopt as small children.The second is a religious like belief that humanity can simply endure whatever happens and find opportunity in it. Things like the Northern Passage opening year round are viewed as potentially good things. Will open up more exploration for the oil & gas industry while shortening travel time to and from Asian markets.The logistics of managing the effects of climate change will make some people very rich. That capitolism can adapt and resolve everthing without government interference. The loss of islands the average person has never heard of or the retreat of ocean front property in Florida doesn't read as all that bad to people who do not fully understand how an ecosystem works. While millions of lives may be threatened by drought, starvation, or displacement there persists an attitude that it is on them and their governments to figure that stuff out. People have been dying in Africa for centuries and most people aren't that interested. Humans can be extremely apathetic.

[TJ McCaustland]

I fear the day will never come when we (humans) act. I think there is a couple of strong ideas that are too ingrained. The first being that everyone can not be limited or turned green at once equally so it isn't fair to press for action at all. Like when deniers insist something is done about China unless action in United States is useless. The everyone else in doing it argument is a primitive one we all adopt as small children.The second is a religious like belief that humanity can simply endure whatever happens and find opportunity in it. Things like the Northern Passage opening year round are viewed as potentially good things. Will open up more exploration for the oil & gas industry while shortening travel time to and from Asian markets.The logistics of managing the effects of climate change will make some people very rich. That capitolism can adapt and resolve everthing without government interference. The loss of islands the average person has never heard of or the retreat of ocean front property in Florida doesn't read as all that bad to people who do not fully understand how an ecosystem works. While millions of lives may be threatened by drought, starvation, or displacement there persists an attitude that it is on them and their governments to figure that stuff out. People have been dying in Africa for centuries and most people aren't that interested. Humans can be extremely apathetic.

It is sad indeed, but what are we after all? A few billion cells that are made of simple atoms, carbon, iron, and other small, insignificant elements. We have an instinct to survive, to reproduce, and to better ourselves and those who affect us directly, most couldn't care that a man in Africa is dying, because it does not directly affect them. We are a selfish race, but at the same time we are the most caring and inquisitive people we know, it is not so much the bad qualities of others that people focus on, rather the good qualities that benefit our race so much, because we value them, and that valuing of others is exactly what has kept us alive so long, and if we can all learn to value and respect each other for their various qualities, I daresay that we can overcome this crisis and all others that beset our race, because with 7 billion minds, that's 7 billion thoughts at once, and each one of those thoughts can build upon another.

 

The point of life after all, is to do as much as we can for the next life, not heaven, but the next human life, to better it, and to give it the best chance for survival possible, and to enrich ourselves as much as we can, this is where the greed of humanity stems from, and we must find a way to curb it. If we can after all, curb it, it is unbeknownst to us what benefits may indeed come of it, and what ails will come from it. But we must try.

Edited July 1, 2015 by TJ McCaustland

[StringJunky]

..The point of life after all, is to do as much as we can for the next life, not heaven, but the next human life, to better it, and to give it the best chance for survival possible,...

This is why we must care about AGW now.