Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Suing over Global Warming

By

This lawsuit should be thrown out of court due to lack of evidence.  There is no known direct correlation between the green house gases emitted and the erosion the island is experience.  Here is a shocker, islands, and all coastal land for that matter, erode.  That is why you have beaches.  They are the deposited sediments from that erosion.

I can see what is coming next.  All of the people with the McMansions on the Cape, that are built in areas that never should have been developed in the first place, are going to start a class action suite for the erosion that threatens their homes.

This really bothers me and I wish I had more time to put into this post but I wanted to get this article out there.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Funny thing how when one keeps a paper bag over their head they find no evidence. If and when you pull that paper bag off your head you may choose to read the IPCC report that is the random musings and agreement by thousands of the world’s leading scientists.

    • First, as I stated above, erosion of coastal lands is a natural, continuous process.  Hell the photo shown with the article was taken in September and shows the waves crashing on the sand bags they put on the shoreline.  This is an ongoing issue in all coastal areas, people build where they don’t belong.  Take a look.  
      This fishing village is built on a barrier island that is formed and continuously shaped by erosion.  

      <

      p>The Army Corps of Engineers did a study of the impact from constructing erosion control for the village.  Here is one nugget from that report:

      <

      p>

      The barrier island on which Kivalina is located has long been subject to the coastal and riverine processes of accretion and erosion.

      <

      p>Here is another:

      <

      p>

      The community has recognized the need to relocate from the present location and has been pursuing this action for over 25 years.

      <

      p>25 years ago we were in a cooling trend.

      <

      p>Second, again I stated this above, there is no correlation between the burning of fossil fuels and the erosion of this island.  Just like there is no correlation between the burning of fossil fuels and Hurricane Katrina or any other natural event you can name.  Sorry but science on this level simply just does not work like that.

      <

      p>Thrid, the IPCC report needs to be more thoroughly read and understood by people who continually cite it.  Also the process of generating the report is very important.  Specifically look at the IPCC AR4 summary for policy makers. In the summary is Figure SPM-2 in which a basic analysis of radiative forcing is compared.  There are two key things in this figure that are often ignored.  The first is the far right column that is assessed level of scientific understanding (LOSU).  If you examine this column you would see that there is an admitted “low” level of scientific understanding of solar irradiance, which is one of the most widely accepted competing theories to man induced global climate change by paleoclimatologists.  They tend to favor this theory because it offers a more complete explanation of climate change that has been observed in the geologic record going back hundreds of millions of years if not longer.

      <

      p>In addition, this statement is included in the text below the figure:

      <

      p>

      Additional forcing factors not included here are considered to have a very low LOSU. Volcanic aerosols contribute an additional natural forcing but are not included in this figure due to their episodic nature.

      <

      p>And this statement in the IPCC report:

      <

      p>

      The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.

      <

      p>Originally read “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic causes.”  But this was changed by the policy makers involved in the IPCC report process.

      <

      p>If the IPCC was composed of only scientist and politicians did not have a say in how the reports read, the reports produced would likely have a very different tone.  

      <

      p>In my opinion this tribe is being opportunistic and trying to make someone else pay for their poor decisions.  Also they are being extremely hypocritical since they use oil to generate electricity, heat their houses, cook their food, in their fishing boats, etc.

      • Just like there is no correlation between the burning of fossil fuels and Hurricane Katrina or any other natural event you can name

        One does not “correlate” one specific event, like Hurricane Katrina, against conditions like the burning of fossil fuels.

        • but if you are trying to blame one on the other you need to.  And your statement goes to my point that this lawsuit should be thrown out by the first judge that sees it.

  2. The cold truth about climate change

    <

    p>Here’s a teaser:

    <

    p>

    The science isn’t settled — it’s unsettling, and getting more so every year as the scientific community learns more about the catastrophic consequences of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.

    The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact.

    But I do think the scientific community, the progressive community, environmentalists and media are making a serious mistake by using the word “consensus” to describe the shared understanding scientists have about the ever-worsening impacts that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are having on this planet.

Archives