• 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!

Judge dismisses climate-change lawsuit against 5 oil giants

Here's the text of the ruling:

https://www.eenews.net/assets/2018/06/26/document_cw_02.pdf

The analysis begins:

"The issue is not over science. All parties agree that fossil fuels have led to global warming and ocean rise and will continue to do so, and that eventually the navigable waters of the United States will intrude upon Oakland and San Francisco. The issue is a legal one — whether these producers of fossil fuels should pay for anticipated harm that will eventually flow from a rise in sea level."

And yet we know with pretty good certainty that the globe is about as warm as it was 5000 years ago and about a degree cooler than it was 8000 years ago.

Go figure. Everyone in the law suit on both sides is ill informed.
 
And yet we know with pretty good certainty that the globe is about as warm as it was 5000 years ago and about a degree cooler than it was 8000 years ago.

Go figure. Everyone in the law suit on both sides is ill informed.

I don't think that's correct. What is your source for this information?
 
I don't think that's correct. What is your source for this information?

Something else that's true is that in all of the previous interglacials, CO2 has been lower and the temperatures have been higher.

Also true is that the next Ice Age always starts when CO2 is at it's peak for any Interglacial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ötzi

climate4you welcome

The last four glacial periods and interglacial periods are shown in the diagram below (Fig.2), covering the last 420,000 years in Earth's climatic history.


VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif

Fig.2. Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature. The red square to the right indicates the time interval shown in greater detail in the following figure.

The last 11,000 years (red square in diagram above) of this climatic development is shown in greater detail in the diagram below (Fig.3), representing the main part of the present interglacial period.


GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

Fig.3. The upper panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, reconstructed by Alley (2000) from GISP2 ice core data. The time scale shows years before modern time. The rapid temperature rise to the left indicate the final part of the even more pronounced temperature increase following the last ice age. The temperature scale at the right hand side of the upper panel suggests a very approximate comparison with the global average temperature (see comment below). The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore ends here. There has since been an temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period and to about 395 ppm for CO[SUB]2[/SUB]. The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3). The lower panel shows the past atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] content, as found from the EPICA Dome C Ice Core in the Antarctic (Monnin et al. 2004). The Dome C atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] record ends in the year 1777.
 
Something else that's true is that in all of the previous interglacials, CO2 has been lower and the temperatures have been higher.

Also true is that the next Ice Age always starts when CO2 is at it's peak for any Interglacial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ötzi

climate4you welcome

The last four glacial periods and interglacial periods are shown in the diagram below (Fig.2), covering the last 420,000 years in Earth's climatic history.


VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif

Fig.2. Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature. The red square to the right indicates the time interval shown in greater detail in the following figure.

The last 11,000 years (red square in diagram above) of this climatic development is shown in greater detail in the diagram below (Fig.3), representing the main part of the present interglacial period.


GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

Fig.3. The upper panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, reconstructed by Alley (2000) from GISP2 ice core data. The time scale shows years before modern time. The rapid temperature rise to the left indicate the final part of the even more pronounced temperature increase following the last ice age. The temperature scale at the right hand side of the upper panel suggests a very approximate comparison with the global average temperature (see comment below). The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore ends here. There has since been an temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period and to about 395 ppm for CO[SUB]2[/SUB]. The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3). The lower panel shows the past atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] content, as found from the EPICA Dome C Ice Core in the Antarctic (Monnin et al. 2004). The Dome C atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] record ends in the year 1777.

Just to allow the thread to move on quickly I'll put in the alarmists objections to that;

It's just one place not the whole globe! You need a load of automatic temperature gauges in car parks comparing a few temperature measurements by humans using old thermometers to say that the world was warmer not some unbiased data from a source which cannot be fixed!!!
 
The last 11,000 years (red square in diagram above) of this climatic development is shown in greater detail in the diagram below (Fig.3), representing the main part of the present interglacial period.


GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

Fig.3. The upper panel shows the air temperature at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, reconstructed by Alley (2000) from GISP2 ice core data. The time scale shows years before modern time. The rapid temperature rise to the left indicate the final part of the even more pronounced temperature increase following the last ice age. The temperature scale at the right hand side of the upper panel suggests a very approximate comparison with the global average temperature (see comment below). The GISP2 record ends around 1854, and the two graphs therefore ends here. There has since been an temperature increase to about the same level as during the Medieval Warm Period and to about 395 ppm for CO[SUB]2[/SUB]. The small reddish bar in the lower right indicate the extension of the longest global temperature record (since 1850), based on meteorological observations (HadCRUT3). The lower panel shows the past atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] content, as found from the EPICA Dome C Ice Core in the Antarctic (Monnin et al. 2004). The Dome C atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] record ends in the year 1777.

See the text that I have highlighted. The temperature graph finishes long before modern warming started, so there is no way that this graph can be indicative of modern temperatures. It's also worth noting that this graph reflects just the temperature of Greenland, not the global temperature.

It would appear that it is you who has been ill-informed.
 
See the text that I have highlighted. The temperature graph finishes long before modern warming started, so there is no way that this graph can be indicative of modern temperatures. It's also worth noting that this graph reflects just the temperature of Greenland, not the global temperature.

It would appear that it is you who has been ill-informed.

Given it is about 0.8c warmer than 1854 that would put us almost as warm as the Roman Warm period. Not as warm as the Minoan.

Both perods were times of plenty and civilisation expansion I think.
 
Given it is about 0.8c warmer than 1854 that would put us almost as warm as the Roman Warm period. Not as warm as the Minoan.

Both perods were times of plenty and civilisation expansion I think.

Here is a reconstruction of global temperature that extends to 2013. As you can see, the global temperature is now almost certainly higher than at any other time in the current interglacial period and is still rising rapidly.

Marcott.png
 
Here is a reconstruction of global temperature that extends to 2013. As you can see, the global temperature is now almost certainly higher than at any other time in the current interglacial period and is still rising rapidly.

Yeah, 'cos we really have temperature data to the hundreth of a degree back to 9,000 years ago and putting it next to modern data from car parks has no scientific problems does it?
 

Yeah, 'cos we really have temperature data to the hundreth of a degree back to 9,000 years ago and putting it next to modern data from car parks has no scientific problems does it?

Yet your claim that is it "almost as warm as the Roman Warm period. Not as warm as the Minoan" was based on a single ice core record that ended in 1854 (and the same modern data)! :lamo
 
What costs? And what was the tort? Selling a legal product demanded by the public ?

Just like asbestos used to be. Did those that profited from asbestos help pay the health costs that their product caused?
 
Just like asbestos used to be. Did those that profited from asbestos help pay the health costs that their product caused?

Nowhere near the same thing. For one thing gasoline is safe in its intended use asbestos is not.

Also, damages from Asbestos Are traceable to specific health effects from specific applications, I mean I’m sure the city of San Francisco has a motor pool of gasoline fire vehicles, so to San Francisco owe damages to the city of San Francisco for using gasoline in their own vehicle fleet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Yet your claim that is it "almost as warm as the Roman Warm period. Not as warm as the Minoan" was based on a single ice core record that ended in 1854 (and the same modern data)! :lamo

Lovely, so you are saying that we should not read too much into either data point then?
 
Nowhere near the same thing. For one thing gasoline is safe in its intended use asbestos is not.

Also, damages from Asbestos Are traceable to specific health effects from specific applications, I mean I’m sure the city of San Francisco has a motor pool of gasoline fire vehicles, so to San Francisco owe damages to the city of San Francisco for using gasoline in their own vehicle fleet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Asbestos was thought to be safe just like fossil fuels. It made no difference in the producers responsibility.
Fossil fuels are the same as asbestos only the oil companies are far bigger and more profitable.....and have better lawyers. They need to pay for the damage their product produces.
 
Asbestos was thought to be safe just like fossil fuels. It made no difference in the producers responsibility.
Fossil fuels are the same as asbestos only the oil companies are far bigger and more profitable.....and have better lawyers. They need to pay for the damage their product produces.

That's just silly.
 
Here is a reconstruction of global temperature that extends to 2013. As you can see, the global temperature is now almost certainly higher than at any other time in the current interglacial period and is still rising rapidly.

Marcott.png

Oh please, paleo climate temperature reconstruction of that detail are based on proxy's have already been shown to one part witch's brew and two part politics. One might believe in relentless man-made global warming based on current science and atmospheric physics, but world wide pale temperature based measurements on proxies are far too crude.
 
Asbestos was thought to be safe just like fossil fuels. It made no difference in the producers responsibility.
Fossil fuels are the same as asbestos only the oil companies are far bigger and more profitable.....and have better lawyers. They need to pay for the damage their product produces.

I hope you're joking. People want and need fossil fuels. Asbestos has inexpensive alternatives.
 
I hope you're joking. People want and need fossil fuels. Asbestos has inexpensive alternatives.

Are you saying the asbestos makers did n't need to pay reparations for the damage their product did? You should move to Russia where they are still mining asbestos like crazy. Accordiog to them there is nothing as cheap and useful as asbestos products. They deny the existence of Mesothelioma as a disease too. You got to love those Russian capitalists don't you.? Govt. regulations don't get in their way at all. It's a right wing utopia...:lol:

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/09/30/asbestos-health-risks.aspx
 
Are you saying the asbestos makers did n't need to pay reparations for the damage their product did? You should move to Russia where they are still mining asbestos like crazy. Accordiog to them there is nothing as cheap and useful as asbestos products. They deny the existence of Mesothelioma as a disease too. You got to love those Russian capitalists don't you.? Govt. regulations don't get in their way at all. It's a right wing utopia...:lol:

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/09/30/asbestos-health-risks.aspx

Nice straw man. He was saying the opposite.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]New Analysis: Methane Emissions from Venting and Flaring Lower than Previously Thought[/h][FONT=&quot]Data raise questions about controversial Obama-era methane rule A new review of federal data from Texans for Natural Gas highlights how the Obama Administration may have relied on inflated estimates of methane emissions to justify a controversial regulation, known as the Waste Prevention Rule. The rule was finalized by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Are you saying the asbestos makers did n't need to pay reparations for the damage their product did? You should move to Russia where they are still mining asbestos like crazy. Accordiog to them there is nothing as cheap and useful as asbestos products. They deny the existence of Mesothelioma as a disease too. You got to love those Russian capitalists don't you.? Govt. regulations don't get in their way at all. It's a right wing utopia...:lol:

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/09/30/asbestos-health-risks.aspx

First, claims made against manufacturers are by specific litigants for specific injuries usually attributed to asbestos exposure. For example, a worker's compensation claim against an employer.

Second, the basis of the claim is that the employer or manufacturer was knowingly (or should have known) negligent and/or did not perform due diligence in the production, storing and/or distribution a product that caused the specific injury. Alternatively the claim can be made as a breach of warranty.

Third, the net result of such suits has been massive bankruptcy for 1/2 of the industry's 25 largest asbestos producers, which provides the firms a measure of (but not full) legal protection.

Last, the general climate effects of the production and use fossil fuels damage (and benefits) is both disputed and non-specific to a particular claimant. It is impossible to claim that, for example, that a specific manufacturer and a specific person acquired a disease because of climate change. No one can tie their own injury to the fact that CO2 is a greater (but still tiny) proportion of the atmosphere.

The court is right; this is a problem of the commons (not individual product liability) and public choice to allow or withhold permission to use the commons (ocean, air, rivers) as a repository for waste material. If it is okay with the government, then its okay to use the commons property.


PS - Hopefully you don't burn fossil fuels (drive a car) because, in your principle, that also makes you liable for non-specific injury.
 
Are you saying the asbestos makers did n't need to pay reparations for the damage their product did? You should move to Russia where they are still mining asbestos like crazy. Accordiog to them there is nothing as cheap and useful as asbestos products. They deny the existence of Mesothelioma as a disease too. You got to love those Russian capitalists don't you.? Govt. regulations don't get in their way at all. It's a right wing utopia...:lol:

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/09/30/asbestos-health-risks.aspx

I'm not taking the time to open your link. My response to your words is this:

I honestly don't know if it was right for asbestos manufacturers to pay or not. I don't know if it had to do with the understanding of the sciences of the time, or if it was due to apathy of known fact, tempered with the demand by the public. I never researched that aspect of life.

I do know this. Without specifics, your comments are absolutely ignorant. There are two types of asbestos. One is harmful, the other is not!!!!!!!

Care to share any specifics, or are you just being a leftist puppet?
 
I'm not taking the time to open your link. My response to your words is this:

I honestly don't know if it was right for asbestos manufacturers to pay or not. I don't know if it had to do with the understanding of the sciences of the time, or if it was due to apathy of known fact, tempered with the demand by the public. I never researched that aspect of life.

I do know this. Without specifics, your comments are absolutely ignorant. There are two types of asbestos. One is harmful, the other is not!!!!!!!

Care to share any specifics, or are you just being a leftist puppet?

LOL I don't need "specifics". All forms of asbestos are harmful. You must be a fan of RT if you think otherwise. Like I said Russia is the world's largest producer of asbestos and deny any health dangers from it. Sort of like the oil companies that are openly or secretly sponsoring deniers of AGW. It is all about profit and nothing else matters. Unregulated capitalism at its finest and you are an enabler.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/adam-ramsay/greenpeace-investigation-exposes-climate-denier-academics-for-sale

Is All Asbestos Dangerous?
While some types of asbestos may be more hazardous than others, all are dangerous. Leading health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, classify all types of asbestos as cancer-causing substances.

All the identified forms of asbestos can cause asbestosis, malignant mesothelioma, lung cancer, ovarian cancer, laryngeal cancer and other serious diseases.

Some agencies, such as the Health Protection Agency in the U.K., claim amphibole varieties of asbestos are the most dangerous forms. The EPA has abandoned projects aiming to identify which asbestos fiber types are the most toxic, citing the overall regulation of asbestos and asbestiform minerals as a more pressing priority.

https://www.asbestos.com/asbestos/types/
 
Last edited:
I'm not taking the time to open your link. My response to your words is this:

I honestly don't know if it was right for asbestos manufacturers to pay or not. I don't know if it had to do with the understanding of the sciences of the time, or if it was due to apathy of known fact, tempered with the demand by the public. I never researched that aspect of life.

I do know this. Without specifics, your comments are absolutely ignorant. There are two types of asbestos. One is harmful, the other is not!!!!!!!

Care to share any specifics, or are you just being a leftist puppet?

Actually any asbestos is deadly. When you make it into dust and breath it in.

Us plumbers are dying at several a week in the UK. The figure is likely to rise a lot.

And yes they knew. They brided the local doctor of the factory to stop him putting lung disease down as the cause of death for all the factory workers dying of asbestosis.

Other than making it into dust though it is the best building material ever. Grenfel tower would have been fine it it had been in use today.
 
Back
Top Bottom