• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Deblasio to sue oil companies for climate change

The plaintiff will have the burden to prove damages are a direct results of the oil companies actions,
and even with the lower burden in civil law, that could be difficult.
 
NYC vehicles travel over 100 million miles/year. The good mayor might want to consider suing himself.
 
This is where the real $$$$$$$$$$$$ are from Algore's FRAUD = lawsuits.

The Marshall Islands are suing us because their islands are sinking.... never mind those islands are right on the "lip" of the Pacific Ring of Fire, on the subduction side...
 
LaDexter said:
This is where the real $$$$$$$$$$$$ are from Algore's FRAUD = lawsuits.

The Marshall Islands are suing us because their islands are sinking.... never mind those islands are right on the "lip" of the Pacific Ring of Fire, on the subduction side...
Click to expand...
I think they will have difficulty proving the rate of sea level rise is accelerating.
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70052/IDO70052SLI.pdf
 
There is no sea level rise.

That is why the "warmers" have to lie about the Marshall Islands....


You're making this island disappear



which are right on the "lip" of the Pacific Ring of Fire, on the subduction side...
 
LaDexter said:
There is no sea level rise.

That is why the "warmers" have to lie about the Marshall Islands....


You're making this island disappear



which are right on the "lip" of the Pacific Ring of Fire, on the subduction side...
Click to expand...

The long term gauges show that sea levels have generally been raising at a steady pace for the roughly
200 years of records we have, to show a human contribution, they would need to show a change in the rate at those long term sites.
Sea levels will rise, until they don't, we will adapt like we always have.
 
"The long term gauges show that sea levels have generally been raising at a steady pace for the roughly
200 years of records we have"



You are free to parrot fudge and fraud all you want.

Your side has three AND ONLY THREE land masses "sinking," and all three are on the "lip" of the PROF....


If you can't figure that one out, it is no wonder you fall for the whole fraud and never question the fudge you get to parrot as "data..."
 
LaDexter said:
"The long term gauges show that sea levels have generally been raising at a steady pace for the roughly
200 years of records we have"



You are free to parrot fudge and fraud all you want.

Your side has three AND ONLY THREE land masses "sinking," and all three are on the "lip" of the PROF....


If you can't figure that one out, it is no wonder you fall for the whole fraud and never question the fudge you get to parrot as "data..."
Click to expand...

Not my side! I think we are observing natural sea level rise.
If there is a human contribution, it is hiding in the noise.
For reference the PSMSL has good sea level records from tide gauges (where is matters).
PSMSL Catalogue Viewer
The oldest site is Breast, France from 1807, it shows an average rise of about 1mm/yr,
this may sound like a lot until you compare it to the outrageous predictions of 1 meter by 2100.
(It would take a sustained average rate of raise of over 10 mm/yr to bet to 1000 mm by 2100.
 
longview said:
Not my side! I think we are observing natural sea level rise.
If there is a human contribution, it is hiding in the noise.
For reference the PSMSL has good sea level records from tide gauges (where is matters).
PSMSL Catalogue Viewer
The oldest site is Breast, France from 1807, it shows an average rise of about 1mm/yr,
this may sound like a lot until you compare it to the outrageous predictions of 1 meter by 2100.
(It would take a sustained average rate of raise of over 10 mm/yr to bet to 1000 mm by 2100.
Click to expand...



90% of Earth ice is on land mass Antarctica....

What does THE DATA say...???


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses


"the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."



OK... but what about OCEAN RISE with 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica adding at least 80 billion tons of new ice every year???


"“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”"



or, the IPCC fudged that data, and that is why, when pressed for evidence of ocean rise, the "warmers" resort to lying about the Pacific Ring of Fire....
 
LaDexter said:
90% of Earth ice is on land mass Antarctica....

What does THE DATA say...???


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses


"the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."



OK... but what about OCEAN RISE with 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica adding at least 80 billion tons of new ice every year???


"“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”"



or, the IPCC fudged that data, and that is why, when pressed for evidence of ocean rise, the "warmers" resort to lying about the Pacific Ring of Fire....
Click to expand...

The data is very noisy, and therefore subjective.
I suspect other than the century plus tide gauges, speculation about actual average sea level changes are exactly that, speculation.
They are not actually lying, as the claimed movement is within the noise.
 
Climate News
[h=1]New York’s Silly Climate Suit[/h]By Steve Goreham Republished with permission of The Washington Times. On January 10, the city of New York filed suit against BP, Chevron, Conoco-Phillips, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell. The suit accuses oil companies of causing dangerous climate change and damage to New York City, seeking monetary compensation. But history will rank this action high…
 

[h=1]Law Prof: Climate Lawsuits are Losers: “Cross Examination Is Going To Be Brutal”[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall New York University Law Professor Richard Epstein thinks political attempts to sue oil companies like Exxon are doomed, thanks to the fossil fuel hypocrisy of the plaintiffs. ‘Cross Examination Is Going To Be Brutal’: NYU Law Prof Says Climate Change Litigation Is A Loser POST WRITTEN BY Karen Kidd California…
 
These lawsuits are becoming delicious.

[h=2]The climate litigation of California councils appears to be caught in a hypocritical death spiral[/h]
[h=3]California councils sue Exxon but Exxon fights back: Will that be Fake Fear or Fake Bonds?[/h][h=3]‘Cross Examination Is Going To Be Brutal’: NYU Law Prof Says Climate Change Litigation Is A Loser[/h]Some Californian councils launched climate litigation against Exxon because they will be wiped out by floods. But at the same time the same councils issued bonds and forgot to mention that the local area was going to be washed away.
Since 1990 or so, the bonds are worth in the order of $8 billion according to a petition from Exxon. The Competitive Enterprize Institute is calling on the SEC to investigate regarding potential fraud.
The councils have painted themselves in to a terminally awkward corner: Are they money grubbers using false propheses to scare up some money, or are they deceptive bond dealers?
For example, San Mateo County claimed in its complaint to be “particularly vulnerable to sea level rise” with a 93 percent the county will experience a “devastating” flood before 2050.
“If sea levels were to raise that high, it most certainly would be catastrophic,” Epstein said.
However, bond offerings in the last few years by those counties and cities weren’t so forthcoming about those predictions, Exxon said in a verified petition filed last month with the District Court in Tarrant County, Texas.
San Mateo’s 2014 and 2016 bond offerings told would-be investors that the county “is unable to predict whether sea-level rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a major storm will occur,” Exxon’s petition said.
The councils accused fossil fuel companies of causing their losses, but the counties and cities consume and produces a lot of fossil fuels itself.
[NYU Prof] Epstein’s comments are among a number of voices claiming the counties’ and municipalities’ lawsuits against the energy companies are inherently flawed. Epstein and those other voices point out that California, which includes the counties and cities that filed the lawsuits, is both a great consumer and producer of the same fossil fuels the litigation claims are sowing the seeds of imminent climate change disaster.
Those same fossil fuels also help drive the state’s economy, the sixth-largest in the world, Epstein and others say.
“These counties and cities are huge consumers of energy,” Epstein said.
Looks like someone didn’t think this through.
It’s never a good idea to launch litigation as a fashion statement or as a form of tribal warfare.
 
longview said:
I think they will have difficulty proving the rate of sea level rise is accelerating.
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70052/IDO70052SLI.pdf
Click to expand...

You posted that before Dr. R. Steve Nerem finally published the long overdue release 1 for 2018 for sea level data from satellites. In the latest release Dr. Nerem and his Colorado University Sea Level Group adjusted/corrected the data in such a way that they “now” can demonstrate acceleration.

So you see that it won’t be so difficult after all. Just a stroke of the pen so to speak (-:
 
Last edited:
Steve Case said:
You posted that before Dr. R. Steve Nerem finally published the long overdue release 1 for 2018 for sea level data from satellites. In the latest release Dr. Nerem and his Colorado University Sea Level Group adjusted/corrected the data in such a way that they “now” can demonstrate acceleration.

So you see that it won’t be so difficult after all. Just a stroke of the pen so to speak (-:
Click to expand...
I can imagine all the wonders science could have created if it worked that way.
You simply adjust the data until the result matches the preconceived ideas!:mrgreen:
 
Opinion
[h=1]About those fraudulent climate litigation shakedowns[/h]Foreword: One of the craziest – and potentially far-reaching and harmful – lawsuits in recent memory is wending its way through our legal system. Filed by several California and New York cities and counties, the legal action asserts that major oil companies are causing rising seas, floods, repeated climate and weather disruptions, and an “existential…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom