What do you do when you can’t prove your “science”? Sue!
Environmentalists, unable to squeeze “cap and trade” rules through the U.S. Senate, have a new strategy for combating what they believe is man-made global warming:
They’re going to sue.
They’re revving up their briefs and getting ready to shop for judges who will be sympathetic to their novel claim that the companies they believe contribute to global warming are a “public nuisance.”
Actually, I love this idea, though it will cost companies lots of money to defend themselves from these unhinged tools. Once they start losing, and their climate change religion is exposed for all to see, perhaps we can get back to dealing with real environmental issues.
“People have a right to sue for redress of grievances,” said Lee A. DeHihns III, a partner with law firm Alston & Bird‘s environmental and land development group and a former associate general counsel with the EPA. He said global warming is a “public nuisance,” just like a neighbor with a loud stereo. “You can sue for an intentional infliction of harm, a nuisance,” said DeHihns, whose firm is consulting with plaintiffs pursuing these cases.
Don’t tell Obama and the Dems that first part. They really hate when people express their Constitutional right to redress of grievance.
Meanwhile, James Lovelock brings da cwazy, a story I never got around to yesterday
Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change from radically impacting on our lives over the coming decades. This is the stark conclusion of James Lovelock, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory.
Some people are too stupid to realize they have fallen for a bogus issue.
One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”
Got that? Democracy is in the way of the alarmists. The sad part is that the alarmists probably agree. Remember, these same folks freaked out over listening to terrorists on international calls, and whine about the harsh discourse in today’s politics.
- John Hawkins: Newsflash, buddy: The primary reason the Founding Fathers stuck the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights was because there’s always some budding tyrant who has some wonderful reason or another for wanting to “put democracy on hold for a while.”
- Ace: You know what’s not like a war which would require some adjustments to normal democratic practice? Actual war. I certainly don’t endorse repealing the Constitution because of war, but look at the left’s reaction to Gitmo, or the idea of ethnic profiling.
- Sister Toldjah: He’s not alone. NYT columnist and fellow alarmist Tom Friedman suggested last year that “one-party autocracy” was more preferable than “one-party democracy”
- Allahpundit: but if leading greens want to push this talking point, I’m happy to call it to the attention of the stupid, unevolved, voting public.
- Q&O: Hmmm … you know, now that I think of it, I have to ask: what is the ideal temperature for humans and “Gaia”, Dr. Lovelock? Seriously – what is the perfect temperature?