The war against CO2 has turned into a war against humanity by conservationist catastrophists, radical environmentalists and fundamentalist global warming alarmists, all facilitated by socialist Western academia.
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Wagathon
↧
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by stevefitzpatrick
Let’s see, the population of the Netherlands is about 16.8 million. The population of the State of Florida is 19.9 million. The Netherlands represents somewhere under 0.3% of the world’s population. The suggestion that those 16.8 million have the right to impose their policy choices, regardless of subject, on a larger population in Florida, not to mention upon the rest of the world, is risible on its face. Nobody much cares what Dutch Courts say about global warming. Their rulings will be (and should be!) ignored outside the Netherlands. Much ado about nothing.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Vaughan Pratt
Someone should seek an injunction to prohibit [climate scientists] from emitting any carbon
Fat chance of that if they hadn’t previously agreed to limit their carbon emissions.
It seems to me that people are seriously ignorant about what the Dutch court actually ruled. As a side effect of my aging addled brain I’m finding it really hard to distinguish between those who merely lack insight into law in typical Western countries (understandable, only 2% of the population are born lawyers) or are mentally challenged in some more fundamental way. Very sorry about that, I feel I could have done better drawing that distinction 30 years ago.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by stevefitzpatrick
That may be the funniest comment I have ever read at this blog. Thanks.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Vaughan Pratt
<i>The suggestion that those 16.8 million have the right to impose their policy choices, regardless of subject, on a larger population in Florida, not to mention upon the rest of the world, is risible on its face.</i>
Only cowards conceive of suggestions they find themselves unable to put in the suggestion box. Go for it. :)
↧
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by omanuel
The real tragedy is the public’s loss of control of government.
Government of the people, by the people and for the people has been replaced by government-induced fear in the people:.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/scientists-built-most-powerful-physics-182927605.html
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Vaughan Pratt
I rather doubt that it would be legally enforceable as there seems no binding contract in place and any court would therefore seem incapable of enforcing anything.
Peter, the court judged that the Dutch government had made a commitment it was obligated to keep (to within 5% anyway). Based on your understanding of the Dutch constitution, whose responsibility would you say it was to enforce the court’s judgment?
If your point is that the Netherlands’ judicial arm has no enforcement powers then it’s certainly a good one. If true. Is it in fact true? How do these things work in a democracy? Could Nixon have governed for three more terms on the basis of his statement “I am not a crook”? I’m sure he could have in certain countries. But in the US, or the Netherlands?
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by maksimovich1
I’m finding it really hard to distinguish between those who merely lack insight into law in typical Western countries (understandable, only 2% of the population are born lawyers) or are mentally challenged in some more fundamental way.
Fundamentalist regimes such as the US subscribe to the rule of lawyers and not the rule of law, a significant difference.
Exhibit 1
http://www.niallferguson.com/journalism/journalism/how-america-lost-its-way
Exhibit 2
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Vaughan Pratt
Actually my “clairvoyance” comment was before you were released from moderation, jim2, which allowed it to juxtapose two occurrences of “moderation”. But now that I see what was moderated I’m fine with it.
I bet Peter Lang isn’t going to touch Brian Merchant’s article with a ten-foot pool. So far Lang been taking refuge in William Nordhaus’s impenetrably dense jungle of discount-dependent economic theory in the (quite reasonable) expectation that nobody will be able to pin him down there. Brian Merchant’s article by contrast is a masterpiece of clarity that the Peter Langs of this world will find much harder to hide in.
Merchant analyzes who owes what to whom in sufficiently simple terms as to allow those who disagree to respond in equally simple terms that everyone can understand.
This is a much better way to play climateball, if that’s what we’re playing here (Willard?).
↧
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Peter Davies
In Australia the bailiff is responsible to enforce civil court judgments. So the bailiff needs to serve a notice to the PM in our jurisdiction. Dunno about the Dutch but reckon they would have similar laws. The problem here is a perceived lack of separation of the powers of the legislature from that of the judiciary.
↧
Comment on Managing uncertainty in predictions of climate change and impacts by aaron
Speaking of dust storms, see the satellite photos of the Mid East dust storm Roy Spencer posted?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/09/satellite-reveals-biblical-mideast-duststorm/
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Vaughan Pratt
@maksimovich1: Fundamentalist regimes such as the US subscribe to the rule of lawyers and not the rule of law, a significant difference.
I’m very sorry, m, but the x-axis of your graph consists not of degrees of fundamentalism of regimes but of calendar years. It therefore distinguishes not between regimes but between years. For all we know know the number of lines in the ISIS dhimmi (infidel compensation) tax code has grown at the same or faster rate over the same period, in proportion.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Joshua
Hey John Carpenter –
I don’t think that it’s “kooky” to argue (ala Francis Fukuyama) that mature democracies with entrenched power elites have certain inadequacies when facing highly complex and highly polarized problems that require flexibility, adaptability, and forceful action on relatively quick time scales.
One does not have to be “kook” or an anti-capitalist-communist-eco-nazi-poor-children-starving-energy-access-denying-one-world-government-advocate to note that if we’re going to prevent certain high damage function, low probability outcomes from BAU, then something beyond our “usual” policy implementation processes would be needed. Jumping to equate someone noting that problem to accusing them of advocating for no choice or say from “the people” seems a touch melodramatic to me.
Perhaps rather than arguing from incredulity as to what Uncle Robot’s comment must have meant, you should ask for a bit more explanation before you start branding him with polemics. Not to say that your assumptions are necessarily wrong – just that you should beware of drawing facile conclusions.
↧
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Vaughan Pratt
The x-axis of your Exhibit 2 is years, maksimovich. What dependency would you wish us to infer from this?
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)
Stupidity annoys me, Uncle Robot. You want to know why not the courts. That immediately tells me that you think there is merit to the laughable action brought by an illegitimate organization into court that is ignorant of science. You yourself are obviously not a scientist either so let me explain the science involved in eighth grade language. We are talking of atmospheric carbon dioxide here, a greenhouse gas that is alleged to cause anthropogenic greenhouse warming. At least that is what the Urgenda folks say. Their case rests on the experts of IPCC, a UN organization. And their case in turn rests on James Hansen’s claim to the US SEnate in 1988 that he had observed the greenhouse effect. What he saw was a 100 year old forest that he thought had only a half a percent chance of developing by chance alone. This to him proved that it was not a chance because “…the earth is warming by an amount which is too large to be a chance fluctuation …the similarity of the warming to that expected from the greenhouse effect represents a very strong case.” In other words, take my word for it, and the IPCC sure did. Fortunately today there is a way to check if it is true. Undoubtedly you know that there is no warming now and there has been none for the last 18 years. How do you explain this? At rgw same timke, atmospheric carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is steadily increasing but there is no parallel warming we are told to expect. And this matters because according to the Arrhenius greenhouse theory, the one used by the IPCC, atmospheric carbon dioxide should cause greenhouse warming. Since there is none the greenhouse theory has made a false prediction and must be considered invalid. There is another greenhouse theory, however, called MGT, which does not suffer from this fault. It correctly predicts our present climate and explains why carbon dioxide in the air does not cause warming. That is exactly what the climate is doing today. And guess what? This proves that the court case we are talking of now is simply invalid because it introduces the false notion that anthropogenic addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is capable of warming the atmosphere. That warming does not exist and the Urgenda people who brought it to court are guilty of lieing about the state of the climate in front of the court. Starting a lawsuit with a criminal assertion about a non-existent warming is a crime and should be prosecuted,
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Science or Fiction
Vaughan Pratt
So the defendant actually accepted the premises, as evident from the sentence:
“The court – and also the Parties – therefore considers these findings as facts.”
Seems like the defendant wanted to loose the case.
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Danny Thomas
Dr. Pratt,
Is there currently a commitment to reduce by 30% (I have been unable to find confirmation of that commitment but did find this: http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:7196&keyword=urgenda)? Everything I find states differently, such as: “To cheers and hoots from climate campaigners in court, three judges ruled that government plans to cut emissions by just 14-17% compared to 1990 levels by 2020 were unlawful, given the scale of the threat posed by climate change.” http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/24/dutch-government-ordered-cut-carbon-emissions-landmark-ruling
and
“The Dutch government’s current approach, expected to cut emissions by only 17 percent of 1990 levels by 2020, was seen by the court as falling short of the necessary effort. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/24/netherlands_emissions_ruling_court_orders_dutch_government_to_reduce_carbon.html
So it almost appears that the court is making law not interpreting. Admittedly not familiar with Dutch law in the least, but I find the approach interesting. Especially this, sort of, disclaimer:”With this order, the court has not entered the domain of politics. The court must provide legal protection, also in cases against the government, while respecting the government’s scope for policymaking. For these reasons, the court should exercise restraint and has limited therefore the reduction order to 25%, the lower limit of the 25%-40% norm.” (from the first link above).
Wondering who decides ‘norm’, and on what basis.
↧
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Danny Thomas
As a follow up I find this: “Netherlands, 6% below 1990, 16% below 2005 level.
From here: http://www.c2es.org/international/history-international-negotiations/2020-targets
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Danny Thomas
How to achieve emissions reductions of 25%?
1) Define emissions.
2) Apply to: industry, personal, civil
3) Provide proof of level of emissions at time point A vs. time point B.
4) Implement punishment for missed targets of collective(?) vs. industry vs. individual companies vs. individuals vs. governmental entities. Must decide to punish base on goal achieved vs. goal missed, or sliding scale depending on size of miss.
Hmmm. Here, can I get someone to take a hold of this bag of cats?
↧
Comment on The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands by Vaughan Pratt
Of the 196 countries of the world, how many of them have government of the people, by the people, and for the people?
There’s one that’s well known. How many others?
And who enforces the laws of physics?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
