If all the world’s anthropogenic GHG emissions came from a single corporation...?
... and there was an international law prohibiting anyone from catastrophically changing the world’s climate.
Would a suit taken against this corporation, claiming that they had catastrophically changed the world’s climate by emitting greenhouse gasses, be successful or not?
Given all the evidence that we have available; measurements, observations, projections models etc. Would the Prosecution convince the jury that the corporation was indeed responsible for catastrophically changing the climate?
The judge will instruct the jury that they must reach a decision ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ and that their decision must be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
Who wins this case, and how?
2011-04-15T17:24:02Z
Hey Dook. It would only be polite if you didn’t respond to my questions as you currently deny me the opportunity to respond to yours. On this occasion however, you have provided me with an opportunity to reply.
“It's winter here at the moment. I'm using renewable energy to heat the house”. Here in New Zealand we burn wood to warm our houses in winter. Quaint, isn’t it?
“I found the scientific substance behind the AGW hypothesis sadly lacking... particularly in relation to exactly how much change we’re actually causing.” Here’s an invitation to you. Name a significant adverse weather (weather is an increment of climate) or climate event and demonstrate that it was caused by anthropogenic GHG’s. Not ‘might be’ caused, ‘could be’ caused or ‘probably caused by’ but ‘actually’ caused by.
You may be right. The climate ‘might’ be adversely affected by anthropogenic GHG’s. Similarly the world ‘might’ end in 2012, and the Vatican ‘might’ be destroyed by the previously undiscovered magma ch
2011-04-15T17:29:45Z
amber underneath it.
You need to be able to unequivocally demonstrate causation before you set about telling governments how to run their countries, industries how to run their businesses and individuals how to run their lives. You are wanting to change the world on a ‘maybe’, and for some of us, that’s not quite enough.
While causation remains un-demonstrable, there will, and should, be skeptics.
2011-04-18T03:22:54Z
Edit: Oh Dookie, you called me a liar. That's not nice!
CrazyConservative2011-04-15T05:57:30Z
Favorite Answer
Company wins case hands down as there is NO scientific evidence implicating man. Sure the models show CO2 as the culprit, but they are programmed that way (GIGO). The climate is warming. It has been for about 18,000 years, except for brief periods of cooling. The idea that we are seeing catastrophic warming is a joke. Look at the temp variations we face simply by choosing to live nearer or farther from the equator.
The climate has always moved up or down. It is extreme hubris to think we can change the climate. Since when is the current global temp the "optimal"? People say that only because it happens to be the very small slice of time we live in. If we had lived 20,000 years ago, we would all be worrying about the glaciers melting then.
Sorry Charlie, this is a trick question, I know where you re going with it.
The fact is theres not enough evidence for a jury to give with a 100% certainty that the corporation was guilty in a criminal case. Now a civil case is a different story because you dont need a unanimous jury. It would be very easy to get environmentalists on the jury who could convince enough of their fellow jurors to get a win. Notice I used the word "win" for the jury. This would be much more political the anything else... but an appeal would be in the works.
It would be very easy for a defense attorney to give evidence that would not allow a jury to give a reasonable doubt. Both sides would bring experts, and both sides would discredit the experts. The fact is, the may not be able to decide the Corporation is innocent, but they in no way would be able to convict him. Any conviction would be appealed to the Supreme Court, which would in turn overturn the conviction.
Sure a suit could be instigated but compliance and appearance is voluntary on the international court level. The UN or the WTO would be more effective imposing and enforcing sanctions. Being a single corporation traceability is simplified...maybe? There's more precedence concerning Foreign Sovereign immunity then large scale tort actions. The only ones I know about have been going on for over ten years without resolution.
>> Public healthcare already be in place << No. reason being is that scholars in many majors (especially those with a "company" orientation, and it incredibly is extremely lots a company-run society) are brainwashed with fairly some dehumanizing workouts, with the intention to purge them of their innate experience of compassion and fairness. the example which in the present day is composed of innovations is "Boat difficulty," the purpose of that's to situation scholars to be keen to discard the "least extra wholesome" human beings. >> Marijuana possession be criminal << maximum probable, even with the undeniable fact that I fail to work out how this could be a reliable ingredient. finished societies have been destroyed by way of medicine; perchance in case you have been knowledgeable, incredibly than only schooled, you are able to understand that. >> Handguns be unlawful << returned, maximum probable. And returned, i do no longer think of stripping persons of their inalienable spectacular to self-protection could be a reliable ingredient. >> The reformatory inhabitants be substantially decrease << uncertain, for a similar motives as why does no longer have public healthcare. certainly, i'm very lots vulnerable to think of that the MBA degenerates could have us even extra on the line to neo-feudalism with a lots extra effective degree of reformatory privatization. the indoors maximum reformatory racketeers could then foyer government to bypass much extra draconian sentencing rules, ensuing in an ever-increasing reformatory inhabitants. >> GHG emission be declining spectacular now << perchance, perchance no longer. yet whilst they have been, it may distinctly much unquestionably be taken out of the residing standards of the blue collar 2d-classification electorate/serfs. the only thank you to have declining GHG emissions with out an identical decline in residing standards for the decrease ninety% or so of kin earnings-earners is thru progression of nuclear capability, and many campuses are hotbeds of anti-nuclear interest. >> The Iraq conflict V2.0 have got here approximately << No reason in any respect to think of so.