And kiss your ass goodbye. Politicians have found a way to bring lawyers into the carbon offset pyramid;
Specifically, the House government Reform Committee under “Hollywood” Henry Waxman (D-CA) agreed to create a new litigation pathway where plaintiffs can sue to make the government buy these indulgences in a mandatory drive to be “carbon neutral”. (The amendment also exposes the taxpayer to liability for paying plaintiffs — “aggrieved parties” in the bills’ parlance, and their lawyers, of course — who the federal government has “harmed” by causing global warming. Investment advice: Go long on environmental ambulance chasers in the 9th circuit, whose judges love such claims.)
That's right - giving Americans the right to sue the government for failing to change the weather.
For those who don't believe that carbon credits are not a big scam should google The Tulip Bubble and the South Sea Bubble.
It is time for a second American revolution or because of the clear split between Americans who can still think (mostly on the right) and those who are idiots of the Left) perhaps an American civil war would be more likley.
And please hurry before our educational systems dumb down so many the no one will be left to know right from wrong.
Old and Grouchy,
The offsets scam is so incredibly obvious that I doubt your reference is even necessary to make that point. Those who don't already get it, won't get the Tulip bulb scam either.
Q: How can you tell if a lawyer is well hung?
A: You can't get a finger between the rope and his neck!
>-------------
Q: What's the difference between a dead dog in the road and a dead lawyer in the road?
A: There are skid marks in front of the dog.
>-------------
Q: Why is going to a meeting of the Bar Association like going into a bait shop?
A: Because of the abundance of suckers, leeches, maggots and nightcrawlers
-----------------
Q: Where can you find a good lawyer?
A: In the cemetery.
--------------------
Q: How was copper wire invented?
A: Two lawyers were arguing over a penny.
-----------------
The silence on the part of the legal community is quite telling.
ROTFLMAO.....thanks WLMR...you made a dreary,rainy Sunday AM in Edmonchuck much more enjoyable.
I like the idea. Then the plaintiffs would have to PROVE US emissions are causing global warming. Concensus won't cut here, they will have to show a preponderance of evidence.
You mean the lawyers win? NO WAY!!!
Similar to the proposed immigration act which Bush is desperately trying to ram through, which allows illegals to hire lawyers who will be paid for by the government.
Government of the people, by the people, for the people, my A$$.
And speak of the devil, Lincoln was also a rich lawyer-lobbyist who specialized in squeezing money out of taxpayers and into the pockets of powerful interest groups.
That's why anyone who thinks they're a conservative should spend a lot more time trying to dismantle government and a lot less time trying to think of new ways for government to expand. Like, expanding big government into the Middle East, expanding government into the private lives of its citizens for bogus "security" reasons, and so on ad nauseum ...
Shamrock, I wish you were right. However, proof in court means that a jury wants to believe, or, more likely, wants the outcome enough to pretend to believe.
There are plenty of examples. The most egregious are probably malpractice lawsuits. John Edwards specialized in OB cases, and statistics just don't back up the claims. When there is a damaged baby, there is a tendency to find someone or something at fault, particularly if that someone or something has money.
Things that will not stand up to scientific scrutiny will often pass for proof in court.
I guess I'll have to play the Devil's advocate and represent the sun!!
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
This is one more example of the Lawyers Full Employment Act, which the federal government expands every year.
["And please hurry before our educational systems dumb down" ]
The 'Dumb Down' has been taking place in other sectors for a few years already.
The Media in general has become 'Tabloid-like'. (A fifty dollar watch is the front page story in the globe -- not the people of Albania being over-joyed with democracy.)
Hollywood has dumbed-down to such an extent that fiction is presented as a documentary. (An Inconvenient Truth, Fahrenheit 911)
Canadian's have been helping to dumb-down the United Nations for years. (The organization fell for the fraud called the 'hockey stick graph' and promoted it for a decade.)
Many faculties at our Universities are purposely dumbed-down by Profs that are otherwise not employable. Tenure protects them from disgracefully turning out damaged goods.
Our public school 'system' is definitely starting to 'dumb down'. I would imagine that many worthy teachers are in agony over what is happening. (Showing a clearly fraudulent film such as AIT in class.) Sad.
Next up ?? Congress.
To all you yahoos who think this is a joke there are enough of us around who do not like this type of government stupidity so watch out. We had enough of this commie style crap.
"The silence on the part of the legal community is quite telling."
Hey John, this is Sunday. You expect a lawyer to work on Sunday?
Point taken texas canuck. I stand corrected.
Mind I really don't EXPECT a lawyer to WORK at all.
Law school is for those who are too dumb & lazy to study science or business.
Good idea Ugh. Lets start by de-funding the Canada Council and the SOWS, shut down the gun registry, maybe dismantle Indian Affairs, slash the budget for Environment Canada too.
Or we could just have a mega tax cut for everybody and git 'er done all at once. Its hard for lawyers to drink the government milk when you stop feeding the cow. She dries up, y'know.
shamrock - I agree with you. I think that suing the gov't for climate change would open the discussion to real debate - not the unilinear authoritarianism of the UN; not the unilinear evangelism of Al Gore and Suzuki - but, a requirement for real proof.
After all, if a gov't is going to be spending the taxpayers' money in a lawsuit called by some individual - then, shouldn't proof be a prerequisite?
Admittedly - in our own situation of Arar vs Canada, no proof was required of his allegations of torture in a Syrian prison. Just his own words. Hmmm.
But, maybe the US isn't so easily swayed.
One more for WLMR.
Did you know that 99% of all lawyers give the rest a bad name?
I agree with those who argue courts of law can be subject to emotionalism. I just think it's still better than the "it's decided" crap we see.
Additionally, see how taxpayers will like footing the bill for some of the idiotic arguments out there such as Darfur caused by drought, which is caused by global warming.
I still believe this type of action would be another nail in the Kyotocultists coffin, another case of jumping the shark.
Yes- shamrock - I'm agreeing with you. I think it's a very good move - to attempt to hold the state responsible for the weather, or, to hold industrialism responsible for the weather.
It would be impossible, scientifically, to prove it.
That's why the evangelist cults, such as those of Gore and Suzuki and the UN, manage to hold such propagandic sway; there is no need to provide proof. It's a matter of faith. We must accept their word, as preachers, or - we reveal that we are people of 'little faith' (the deniers).
But, a court of law, beholden to the wallets of the taxpayer, had better operate on principles quite separate from emotional hysteria. The lawsuit would have to show, 'beyond a reasonable doubt', that humans have indeed caused climate change. And that - is absolutely impossible to show.
Yanni said:
"... because of the clear split between Americans who can still think (mostly on the right) and those who are idiots of the Left) perhaps an American civil war would be more likley."
That might be a problem for those liberals, far left crusaders, and their followers. Because of their dislike for all things that go bang and boom, guess which side has all the guns and ammo, the knowledge of which end the projectile exits, and the will to defend their freedom.
"Gun Control is Knowing How to Hit Your Target"
;-)
ET said:
"... The lawsuit would have to show, 'beyond a reasonable doubt', that humans have indeed caused climate change. And that - is absolutely impossible to show."
That would be great, if that were the case. But really what you will probably be looking at is "beyond a reasonable doubt" for that selected jury. Most jurys that would be seated today would understand that CO2 is [that stuff] that makes their beer and soda fizz, and makes the earth warmer. They have been *predisposed* to that level of thinking.
Then their decision becomes precedence to be used in following trials.
ET, the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' defense works only for criminal trials, not civil, i.e. law suits. Take OJ Simpson for example: he was acquitted for murder yet was still held financially liable. The bar is set much lower. So in civil cases 'probable' or 'likely' are good enough. Notice that in the UN's IPCC reports lately they tend to use those words more, or at the very least words like 'plausible' get interpreted that way.
Is it any wonder that bills like this come out with Democratic sponsorship when the largest single contributor to the Democratic party in the US year after year is the American Trial Lawyers' Association?
jdn- good point, thanks, about the 'reasonable doubt'.
But, I think that with the state being viewed as 'defender of the weather', it is also viewed as 'defender of the taxpayers' money' and can't fling that money around within a basis of causality defined as only 'probable' or 'likely'.
I can't see such a case ever coming to court. Can you, for example, take evolutionary theory to court? I think you can take simple causal relations to court, ie, that heating water to a certain temperate causes that water to evaporate into its gaseous form, but, anything more complex - I can't see a court daring to 'try' such a theory...
For those that think it's a good move read:
http://www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=986&id=1845
Finding idiots in the legal system doesn't seem to be a challenging task.
Did you know that there are only three lawyer jokes? All the rest are true stories. tadadadada...boom.
You've all been a wonderful audience and good night.
ET said:
"... it is also viewed as 'defender of the taxpayers' money' and can't fling that money around within a basis of causality defined as only 'probable' or 'likely'."
All you have to do is look at some of the list of earmarks that congressional members are tring to attach to presently-pending bills, while limiting the public's prior access to the list, to know just how much "flinging" actually goes on with much lower thresholds than 'probable' or 'likely'.
"I can't see such a case ever coming to court. Can you, for example, take evolutionary theory to court?"
Yes, apparently you can. Put these words into Google and peruse just some of the 2,700,000 hits; evolution, theory, court, case. Truck loads of $$$ went to attorneys involved in these cases, while the taxpayers footed the bills for the time, judges and staff involvement.
Court cases involving challenges to the teaching of evolution and/or creationism in public schools is a growth industry.
"I think you can take simple causal relations to court, ie, that heating water to a certain temperate causes that water to evaporate into its gaseous form, but, anything more complex - I can't see a court daring to 'try' such a theory..."
I suggest you look up John Edwards (personal injury trial attorney/one-term US Senator/vice-presidential hopeful, 2004/presidential,2008) and his court case (1985)involving cerebral palsy. In that case Edwards, in his closing remarks to the jury, *channeled* the victims presence, won the case, and changed the practice of obstetrics in North Carolina forever. The judge noted that jury's decision was "with little scientific fact". I suggest that you check out this case in detail to see what havoc a slick attorney and a willing jury can do to 'scientific facts'.
yoop - you can take the TEACHING of evolutionary theory to court, but you can't take the THEORY of evolution to court.
Courts, the judiciary, operate within the law of the excluded middle. A situation either IS or IS NOT. The defendant is either Guilty or Not Guilty.
Science does not and cannot operate that way; science is a probabalistic way of thinking, and the agenda of science is to correlate a set of variables as 'probably' correlated. Good science seeks a reasonably high percentage of 'probability'. But, it's bad science to move into a 'necessary correlation' (100%). So, Y-disease is 'probably' with a certainty of 90% caused by X-variables. That's reasonable.
Can a court operate that way? Can a court conclude with a probability of 90% that climate change is caused by man? I don't think so. It's too complex. You can only reach high ratios with simple relations.
Edward's reliance on emotion rather than scientific fact, in his cerebral policy scams (and I use that word with intent)was not an argument about scientific causality but an argument about the unfair reality of life - and an insistence that 'someone should pay for life's being unfair'. It wasn't about the scientific basis of cerebral palsy.
Equally, no court can decide a scientific theory; it has no capacity to do so - for a court operates strictly in that 'law of excluded middle' framework.
I'm with ET. Anyone taking the US government to court over Global Warming would be doing all of us a favor, unless the US government purposefully lost the case.
First of, the Government, being the defendant, could choose between a judge or jury; so those of you arguing about the fallibility of juries need to recognize that a jury might never see the case. And, no matter the outcome, it would have to survive appeals. The standard of proof increases as you go through the appeal process and very often much more than just errors in law are considered.
Nobody could ever prove to a great enough degree that GW is human caused. Simply trotting out the standard counter-science; which is growing by the way; would likely destroy the case for the plaintiff. Putting GW through the riggers of a trial would likely blunt it for ever. It’d be a case made in heaven for any legal firm wishing to disprove the IPCC cow-poo parade.
Et and Paul:
I agree fully with your analysis, from the rational and scientific POV.
But, given that these *scientific* arguments have been moved into the political realm, and given the *liberal* leanings and motives of many judges, I'm not sure I'd bet on any outcome at this time.
Wacky waxman the buddy to all those greedy trial lawyers oh yes he is putting out bait for the vultures when soon can we deport this scoundrel?
Q.Why do vultues hate alwyers? A they dont like the competition. Q.what do you call a lawyer buired up to his neck in sand? A. Not enough sand Q.What do you call alawyer living on hoth? A.Still too close Q.how did the lawyer arive? A.He had to walk the stork refused to take him Q.Whats the difference between a lawyer and a catfish. A. One is a slimey bottom dwelling mud sucker the other is a fish
ET and Paul,
Dig around at http://www.numberwatch.co.uk if you think that science has anything to do with the legal system ... he has lots of real life examples where the Venn diagrams don't come to intersecting.
The devil visited a lawyer's office and made him an offer. "I can arrange some things for you, " the devil said. "I'll increase your income five-fold. Your partners will love you; your clients will respect you; you'll have four months of vacation each year and live to be a hundred. All I require in return is that your wife's soul, your children's souls, and their children's souls rot in hell for eternity."
The lawyer thought for a moment. "What's the catch?" he asked.
Et ..Paul and Loop
Name one definitive medical or legal document that proves second hand smoke causes lung cancer.
There isn't one, and there is no legal proof.
Yet, according to just about everyone IT DOES!
What was that about faith again.
"come to intersecting"
come close to intersecting
... I had the word in there ... honest ... I need to apply for a lost word gov't grant.
ET - thanks for the Peirce
"On the other hand, all the followers of science are animated by a cheerful hope that the processes of investigation, if only pushed far enough, will give one certain solution to each question to which they apply it. One man may investigate the velocity of light by studying the transits of Venus and the aberration of the stars; another by the oppositions of Mars and the eclipses of Jupiter's satellites; a third by the method of Fizeau; a fourth by that of Foucault; a fifth by the motions of the curves of Lissajoux; a sixth, a seventh, an eighth, and a ninth, may follow the different methods of comparing the measures of statical and dynamical electricity. They may at first obtain different results, but, as each perfects his method and his processes, the results are found to move steadily together toward a destined centre. So with all scientific research. Different minds may set out with the most antagonistic views, but the progress of investigation carries them by a force outside of themselves to one and the same conclusion. This activity of thought by which we are carried, not where we wish, but to a fore-ordained goal, is like the operation of destiny. No modification of the point of view taken, no selection of other facts for study, no natural bent of mind even, can enable a man to escape the predestinate opinion. This great hope is embodied in the conception of truth and reality. The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality."
http://www.peirce.org/writings/p119.html
Is socialism still a viable political alternative for the major industrial nations?
Globe and mail poll.
Olde Spice said: "One more for WLMR.
Did you know that 99% of all lawyers give the rest a bad name?"
Ummmm I dunno that figure seems a tad low ;-)