Alaskan Village Sues Over Global Warming 670
hightower_40 writes to mention that a small Alaskan village has sued two dozen oil, power, and coal companies, blaming them for contributing to global warming. "Sea ice traditionally protected the community, whose economy is based in part on salmon fishing plus subsistence hunting of whale, seal, walrus, and caribou. But sea ice that forms later and melts sooner because of higher temperatures has left the community unprotected from fall and winter storm waves and surges that lash coastal areas."
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:4, Interesting)
Attention whoring, in a way.
So they've already won what they wanted: to get attention for the difficulties that they and their neighbors have been having.
IANAL myself, so take this comment cum grano salis.
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:1, Interesting)
It's not "mis-targetted" (Score:5, Interesting)
They're looking to cash in on the "environmental windfall lottery",
Just follow the money.
A million bucks each and they'll go away happy. It doesn't cost a million bucks a head to relocate people, unless you're relocating them to the ISS.
Re:The funny thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
If so I would say... If you are part the problem then why should you sue?
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:4, Interesting)
He said "always follow the money". If someone doesn't have money, or at least insurance, don't waste your time and lawyers' fees suing them. Instead look for the richest parties who can be held responsible for the damage and sue them.
I cannot comment myself on how valid my teacher's comments were, but he at least was a lawyer.
Re:It's not "mis-targetted" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:4, Interesting)
In other news... Exxon trying to nor pay damages (Score:4, Interesting)
At least in the oil spill, one defendant is involved, Exxon. In global warming, who is culpable, and to what extent? Who suffered, and what dollar amounts? And what is an appropriate punitive damages number? Adn think of the endless appeals.
Re:that is ridiculous (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's not "mis-targetted" (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no place similar to relocate these people and some of them won't be able to function in a city.
So you have relocation, retraining, integration, etc . . .
ONOH I'm sure you think you can just pick someone up, plop them anywhere and that's the end of.
If you took money from the APF, you're out (Score:2, Interesting)
I suggest we use the APF to pay this lawsuit, then watch how fast it gets forgotten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund [wikipedia.org]
"The Fund grew from an initial investment of $734,000 in 1977 to the current sum of approximately forty billion dollars as of July 13, 2007. "
I find it more than a little distasteful that these greedy s.o.b's think they can collect on both ends.
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Erm (Score:3, Interesting)
However, the linked article says that the GLOBAL temperature (presumably mean) has dropped precipitously in the past year. There are some graphs here [wordpress.com] that at least apparently back this up. According to the article in the Daily Tech, this is enough to offset all the increase in the last 100 years.
I have no way of testing the data, indeed, no way of knowing if they are talking about mean or median temperature in the articles, but just to be clear: the article that is linked is not saying "some places are colder, global warming is wrong", but "the whole planet is colder, global warming is wrong". That's an entirely different animal.
Re:Yes but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Wikipedia: "According to a PBS Frontline report, "Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review [of] Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen is a also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute."
Climate Change. (Score:5, Interesting)
On now that evidence is arising that discredits the notion of global warming the terms get switched around on us. So now it's climate change. The nice thing about this term is that it's so all-encompassing. Any time we get weather a bit out of the ordinary it's chalked up to be due to climate change, specifically man-made climate change.
Last month is snowed lightly in Baghdad for the first time anyone can recall. You'd think so impressive an event would be covered more than it was. I eventually found a brief Agence France-Presse story about it. Predictably they stick a bit in there about how this was due to climate change. Like there's a set temperature for any spot on Earth.
I guess the implication is that the Earth's climate has always been static. I can't help but think that Creationists should be the most ardent believers of man-made climate change given that they're convinced the Earth is only 6000 years old.
Forecasters can barely predict the weather into next week and I'm supposed to accept has fact incomplete computer models that predict the weather in the next 50 or 100 years. More importantly, I'm supposed to subscribe to the belief that a global temperature increase is inherently a bad thing.
A while ago I was reading about the history of Japan, specifically the Jomon period. It turns out that between 4000BC and 2000BC temperatures tended to be several degrees Celsius higher then they are today and the seas are believed to have been 5m higher. The fascinating part was that the people living in Japan at the time thrived during this era, having developed rice-paddy farming and government control. When the climate cooled the population of these people declined dramatically. This trend is reflected around the world. Europe endured famines in the 1300s during periods of cooling and glacial expansion.
Unfortunately, it seems to be taboo to argue against man-made climate change. Any evidence critics put forward is dismissed off-hand. The double-standards are laughable. A believer will use a localized event as evidence of climate change. A critic does the same and their argument is discredited for being based on local weather.
So now we have these eskimo pulling what is essentially a publicity stunt. Well, it's worse than that. Behind them are a pack of scumbag lawyers looking to line their pockets.
Re:Yes but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Does Exxon fund wikipedia now? Most of those looked like US Federal Agencies or universities. I know Exxon's a tax payer, but I seriously doubt that they pay for that much climate research. Damn, that's really impressive. I didn't realize Exxon funded
Joint science academies' statement 2007
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
American Meteorological Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science.
That actually makes Exxon look like the greenest company around.
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:4, Interesting)
All this, and NO TOXIC WASTE.
Go, propaganda.
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Mistargeted law suit? (Score:3, Interesting)
- off-shore
- on ridges
- in plains with heavy prevailing winds
- in deserts
- on rooftops
In short, no place that actually needs to be cleared of anything. Not to mention that building ANYTHING requires the use of fossil fuels. ESPECIALLY your precious nuclear plants, whose fuel has to be dug out of mines with giant excavation equipment.
Seriously. There are plenty of reasons to rail against Gore and environmentalists, but your reasons are not part of it. Not to mention that they make absolutely no sense.
Re:It's not "mis-targetted" (Score:3, Interesting)
Go back far enough in history, and your ancestors can make the same claim to someone elses' ancestors. AND vice versa.
At some point, the statute of limitations has to come into effect.
We cannot turn back the clock. Time to move on.
For example, the descendents of the Irish and Scots and French who were forcibly settled in N. American aren't going back to the "mother countries" and kick out the descendents who are still living there ...
Really, its time to move on. If you didn't make a claim before the end of the last century, forget it.
WHy do prpoents of wind power (Score:4, Interesting)
TYhere are uisually put where there are strong winds; which are often migratory paths for birds. The Wind farm in califormia kill 1000's of birds a year.
The wind slows down, so what efect does taking energy from the wind have? does it change rain fall patterns? certianly, does it change bird migration? wetlands? inland rainfall?
I'm not saying we should try it, just thet we should remember that we don't get something for nothing. Also,'renewable energy' is a marketing phrase.
Re:Yes but... (Score:3, Interesting)
To support which part of it? That people's concern over plant emissions can be targetted to known issues in that respect such as the toxic byproducts they introduce into the atmosphere?
That since there is an endless debate whether we are causing global warming or not, why not realize that the other concerns (increased CO, CO2, sulfur emissions) are still an issue. That they are still an issue even if global warming is just a fantasy?
What data do you want to support things I am sure you know? Burning oil or coal releases CO, and a bunch of other pollutants into the atmosphere - as well as of course CO2 - which the SMART thing to do (regardless of the validity of global warming) is to try to live in balance with the way the earth was before industry grew to the point it is at now.
Do you really want data that says breathing CO or sulfur emissions or such is harmful and a bad thing? Do you really want data saying that burning coal or oil produces such emissions? Give me a break.