If all the world’s anthropogenic GHG emissions came from a single corporation...?

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.

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/article.asp?art...

All, I know is that the wailing from the leftie-do-gooders would be hilarious when that company stopped doing what it does.

Imagine the crying if oil companies just stopped producing oil....

As no climate prediction ever made by these "scientists" has come true, the company would walk... unless the jury was crammed with morons.

>> 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.

Given that the questioner is on the record as at least flirting considerably with anti-science denial (see below where he flatly denies the world's top scientists), this is a surprisingly intelligent and interesting question. There is even a slight possibility of there being here a case of the now extremely rare (despite being vastly and falsely over-invoked) phenomenon called "skepticism."

Apart from the crass politically-driven and ignorance-based denial of the fundamental science (developed over many decades by thousands of independent apolitical scientists in dozens of different countries, institutions, funding arrangements, etc., see http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm ) there are two key stumbling blocks to effective action to respond to and/or limit the likely negative long term impacts of human-caused climate change:

1) The "commons" effect. Every player (country) has considerable, though not total, economic incentive to do nothing and let the others take measures (e.g. to reduce CO2 emissions).

2) The intergenerational transfer effect. Burning fossil fuels now mainly benefits current populations; the negative climate effects mainly effect the next thirty or forty generations to come. Acting to slow climate change has, in general, essentially a reverse allocation of costs and benefits. We have to pay now so that our grandchildren, and their grandchildrens' great-great-great....etc. grandchildren can suffer less climate disruption.

The questioner's hypothetical case eliminates the first stumbling block. In principle, everyone would share in the cost of action resulting from legally forcing the one world monopoly corporation to use less fossil fuel. Given the counterfactual assumptions of this thought-experiment, the lawsuit would likely succeed, and establish at least a potential basis for a balanced trade-off of consumption now versus a better climate for the next millennium. The key remaining issue, not dealt with by assumption in the hypothetical, would be to establish the numerical value of such a trade-off (time discount, or whatever) between the current and future generations.

Re past denial flirtation of the questioner, see

Answer to question "Now that Global Warming is here, what are you doing to adapt?"

“It's winter here at the moment. I'm using renewable energy to heat the house”.

In answer to a general question about global warming:

“I found the scientific substance behind the AGW hypothesis sadly lacking... particularly in relation to exactly how much change we’re actually causing.”

The science thereby denied:

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&...

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

http://nationalacademies.org/morenews/20100716.htm...

“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=...

“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”

Edit: If you want to comment on my questions, DaveH, stop lying about science. You are clearly too intelligent to actually believe that the world's Nobel Prize winners in science are categorizable with those who think the world will end in 2012. You must be deliberately disinforming here and I have no interest in collecting intentionally false answers to my questions.