- RSS Channel Showcase 1318939
- RSS Channel Showcase 6347620
- RSS Channel Showcase 9291648
- RSS Channel Showcase 9238375
Articles on this Page
- 08/15/17--11:00: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--11:03: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--11:06: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--11:06: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--11:07: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--11:09: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--11:14: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--11:23: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--11:34: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--11:41: _Comment on Nature U...
- 08/15/17--12:03: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--12:06: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--12:07: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--12:09: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--12:22: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--12:25: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--13:01: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--13:07: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--13:08: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--13:12: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--13:15: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--13:20: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--13:21: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--13:38: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--14:05: _Comment on National...
- 08/15/17--14:10: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--14:26: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--14:27: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--14:36: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--14:41: _Comment on National...
- 08/15/17--14:46: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--15:47: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--15:53: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--15:55: _Comment on Nature U...
- 08/15/17--16:08: _Comment on National...
- 08/15/17--16:57: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--16:58: _Comment on Nature U...
- 08/15/17--17:01: _Comment on Nature U...
- 08/15/17--17:05: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--17:07: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--18:31: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--19:05: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--19:35: _Comment on Electric...
- 08/15/17--22:42: _Comment on Nature U...
- 08/15/17--22:47: _Comment on Nature U...
- 08/15/17--22:56: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--23:48: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--23:52: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--23:55: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/16/17--00:05: _Comment on The blam...
- 08/15/17--11:00: Comment on The blame game by David L. Hagen
- 08/15/17--11:03: Comment on The blame game by Wagathon
- 08/15/17--11:06: Comment on The blame game by David L. Hagen
- 08/15/17--11:06: Comment on The blame game by jacksmith4tx
- 08/15/17--11:07: Comment on The blame game by Wagathon
- 08/15/17--11:09: Comment on The blame game by CMS
- 08/15/17--11:14: Comment on The blame game by Wagathon
- 08/15/17--11:23: Comment on The blame game by David L. Hagen
- 08/15/17--11:34: Comment on The blame game by David L. Hagen
- 08/15/17--12:03: Comment on The blame game by matthewrmarler
- 08/15/17--12:06: Comment on The blame game by Don Monfort
- 08/15/17--12:07: Comment on The blame game by Robin Guenier
- 08/15/17--12:09: Comment on The blame game by matthewrmarler
- 08/15/17--12:22: Comment on The blame game by Canman
- 08/15/17--12:25: Comment on The blame game by Curious George
- 08/15/17--13:01: Comment on The blame game by Herman Alexander Pope
- 08/15/17--13:07: Comment on The blame game by Herman Alexander Pope
- 08/15/17--13:08: Comment on The blame game by Herman Alexander Pope
- 08/15/17--13:12: Comment on The blame game by charles the moderator
- 08/15/17--13:15: Comment on The blame game by Herman Alexander Pope
- 08/15/17--13:20: Comment on The blame game by jacksmith4tx
- 08/15/17--13:21: Comment on The blame game by Herman Alexander Pope
- 08/15/17--13:38: Comment on The blame game by jacksmith4tx
- 08/15/17--14:10: Comment on The blame game by ristvan
- 08/15/17--14:26: Comment on The blame game by Curious George
- 08/15/17--14:27: Comment on The blame game by Robin Guenier
- 08/15/17--14:36: Comment on The blame game by Robert I. Ellison
- 08/15/17--14:46: Comment on The blame game by jacksmith4tx
- 08/15/17--15:47: Comment on The blame game by afonzarelli
- 08/15/17--15:53: Comment on The blame game by aporiac1960
- 08/15/17--16:57: Comment on The blame game by Jim D
- 08/15/17--16:58: Comment on Nature Unbound IV – The 2400 Bray cycle. Part C by Jim D
- 08/15/17--17:01: Comment on Nature Unbound IV – The 2400 Bray cycle. Part C by Jim D
- 08/15/17--17:05: Comment on The blame game by Derek Colman
- 08/15/17--17:07: Comment on The blame game by Jim D
- 08/15/17--18:31: Comment on The blame game by Jim D
- 08/15/17--19:05: Comment on The blame game by Robert I. Ellison
- 08/15/17--22:56: Comment on The blame game by Peter Lang
- 08/15/17--23:48: Comment on The blame game by Roger Knights
- 08/15/17--23:52: Comment on The blame game by Robin Guenier
- 08/15/17--23:55: Comment on The blame game by Roger Knights
- 08/16/17--00:05: Comment on The blame game by Robin Guenier
<a href="http://www.newsmax.com/ToddGYoung/ninth-circuit-our-childrens-trust-activist-judge-sue-and-settle/2017/03/22/id/780200/" / rel="nofollow">Federal Court in Oregon Legislates Against Fossil Fuels From Bench</a>
<blockquote>There’s a newly discovered fundamental right, rendered out of thin air by a federal district court in Oregon (yes, the Ninth Circuit, again!), and it threatens to undermine the entire architecture of the U.S. Constitution. . . .In short, strict scrutiny means the burden of proof shifts from the plaintiffs to the defendants. The Executive branch has to prove it did not infringe on this new constitutional right — the equivalent of a bank manager having to prove she did not encourage the armed robber to wave a gun at bank patrons. . . . The stakes couldn’t be higher — a federal court creating a new fundamental right, and legal claims that call on the Executive branch to violate the Constitution. . . .But the new litigation strategy is to bring sweeping claims against the government (in the kids’ lawsuit case, eight federal agencies and the president himself are named as defendants), filed in the most liberal jurisdictions that can be found, with the hope that an activist judge will "discover" new rights and acknowledge outrageous and novel claims. </blockquote>
Based on the logic underlying these lawsuits, butter and eggs would have been outlawed many years ago and since then we've all learned that "eggs got a bad rap" and saturated fats are necessary in a healthy diet. The government 'Food Chart' which has been revised many times with complete reversals of prior views, is emblematic of the reasons why the legal weight of supposed 'expert opinions' has undergone a <i>sea change</i> in the federal courts, as codified in the Daubert standard regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony.
9th Circuit temporarily stayed Juliana v. US <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571d109b04426270152febe0/t/5977ce5a03596ef82ce1f724/1501023835689/Doc+7+Order+on+Stay.pdf" rel="nofollow">The Court stays district court proceedings, temporarily, pending further
order from this court. See Ninth Circuit Gen. Ord. 6.8(a).</a>
I think Kyoto turned out to be a failure because the ozone hole didn't shrink. I saw a story recently that pointed out that for every ton of ozone destroying chlorofluorocarbons gas we stopped producing chemist developed substitutes that were just as bad but were not covered by the original treaty. It's like the drug patent game. Every time Merck, Bayer etc. start to loose patent protection their chemist just tack on a few new molecules and presto!, another patent and the money just keep flowing.
Seem to have cooled below freezing in the Arctic early this year. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php Though of course it may warm up.
Anyone want to join me in a lawsuit against the government for its failure to invest in perpetual motion research and development?
<a href="https://www.eenews.net/assets/2017/06/12/document_gw_02.pdf" rel="nofollow">PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON AND REQUEST FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS IN DISTRICT COURT </a> Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 177-1 Filed 06/09/17 Page 1 of 53
<a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571d109b04426270152febe0/t/597b9d2b3a0411d79b05684f/1501273388322/Doc+8+Order+to+file+answer.pdf" rel="nofollow">Ninth circuit granted US petition</a>
<blockquote>Petitioners’ motion to file an over length petition for writ of mandamus (Docket Entry No. 2) is granted. This petition for a writ of mandamus raises issues that warrant an answer. See Fed. R. App. P. 21(b). Accordingly, within 30 days after the date of this order, <b>the real parties in interest shall file an answer.</b> . . .
Additionally, the parties shall address <b>whether the real parties in interest's constitutional challenge to Section 201 of the Energy Policy Act is within the district court's jurisdiction</b>. </blockquote> Case: 17-71692, 07/28/2017, ID: 10525423, DktEntry: 8, Page 1 of 2
Analysis by <a href="http://bit.ly/2tEtvdv" rel="nofollow">Marina Cassio</a> of Juliana v. US, the climate rights constitutional lawsuit by young people. http://bit.ly/2tEtvdv
[…]  https://judithcurry.com/2017/07/11/nature-unbound-iv-the-2400-year-bray-cycle-part-a/ […]
To elaborate, I think of it as an <i>alternate</i> red-team vs blue team exercise. The blue team being the witnesses for the plaintiffs, the red team being the technical experts hired by the defendants. Instead of testifying, however, the red team members will guide the cross-examination of the blue team witnesses: introducing contradictory scientific publications (e.g model vs data comparisons) and requiring that they respond; introducing contradictions in the witnesses' prior statements; being alert to contradictions within the witnesses' current testimonies, and between witnesses.
The Shenandoah Valley was settled way before 1720. Your folks were not settlers. They were invaders. Yet you seem to speak of them with pride. Don't let it get around in your antifa crowd. Your comrades will call you a white supremacist and come after you with bricks, flagpoles and pepper spray.
Whether a dispute regarding climate science might be adjudicated by the courts came up in the UK in 2015. And it did so at a very senior level when Professor Phillippe Sands QC, professor of law at King’s College London and a leading international lawyer, was invited to deliver a lecture in the UK Supreme Court. The text of his lecture can be accessed here: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/law/newsevents/climate-courts/assets/CLIMATE-CHANGE-INT-COURTS-17-Sept.pdf And my notes on the lecture here: https://ipccreport.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/notes-on-sands-lecture_ty.pdf.
Essentially Professor Sands’s proposal was that the International Court of Justice could “<i>could play a role in finally scotching</I>" claims by scientists that are contrary to the “<i>broad emerging consensus</i>”. I commented: <blockquote>... for the courts to purport to settle a legitimate scientific disagreement, would strike at the essence of the Scientific Method – the basis of scientific practice for over 150 years. It would risk bringing international law into disrepute.</blockquote>
I suggest a similar sentiment might apply to any US court taking upon itself the resolution of a scientific matter.
Jim D: <i> I don’t see these cases going anywhere. You have to be able to draw a straight line between a cause and an effect. Not easy, especially when the effect is still in the future, and the causes are multiple and aggregated. </i>
What do you mean by "anywhere" -- do you envision the possibility of acquittals?
The line between CO2 increase as cause and harm as effect is indeed hard to establish: that is the "skeptical" view.
I agree with Marcel Crok's assessment of sea level rise:
Nice to know that activist judges are not limited to America. Clearly your courts have very little to do and no backlog. Regarding a timely resolution of a dispute, look at Mann vs Steyn:
"In a couple of months, Michael E Mann's defamation suit against me will enter its sixth year in the constipated bowels of DC justice."
Their complaint asserts that, through the government’s affirmative actions that cause climate change, it has violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect Their complaint asserts that, through the government’s affirmative actions that cause climate change, it has violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources.
Counter lawsuit: Prove that warming, like that which occurred many times, over the past ten thousand years, was caused by CO2 and not by the same thing that caused past warmings. Prove that whatever caused past warmings has stopped. Identify what caused past warming and identify what stopped. Prove this warming is not a continuing natural cycle. Occam would have said, whatever caused past cycles has not stopped and the future cycles will look like past cycles and we are well inside the bounds of past cycles.
I posted something and it did not show up. this is a test
that worked, i will try again
Mixing up the Kyoto agreement with the Montreal Protocols does not make you appear informed.
Their complaint asserts that, through the government’s affirmative actions that cause climate change, it has violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources.
File a lawsuit or counter lawsuit in a different court that is not so extremely liberal. The reason for a different court is clear. They picked a court biased for their cause. That is cause for change, or, should be.
Sue them to prove that whatever caused climate cycles of the past is not causing the current cycle. Sue them to prove what caused cycles of the past and prove it stopped. Sue them to prove we are outside the bounds of past cycles. Occam would say that whatever caused past cycles is most likely to cause future, similar, cycles.
This is going to be almost as good as "Buck v. Bell" (Supreme Court 1927). We should build a A.I. system to decide the issue. We humans trust our machines more than we do each other.
This is very clearly a case of "The King Has No Clothes On" They say if we did not burn fossil fuels, climate would achieve an equilibrium temperature and never deviate from that, That has never happened. Past temperature had repeating cycles of warm to cold to warm to cold. Now they say that if we quit burning fossil fuels, temperature will stop doing what it has always done and reach a temperature and hold it. I can't write here what I think of that.
Ouch! Wrong treaty.
I think you find the core of my comment is has some merit.
Setback for EPA in Regulating Gases with High Global Warming Potential
June 8, 2017
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a 2015 EPA rule targeting the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a class of potent greenhouse gases that are used as refrigerants and propellants for a variety of purposes as a substitute for ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). CO2 accounts for the majority of human-caused greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But other GHGs are still significant drivers of climate change, and an increasing proportion of GHG emissions now comes from “high global warming potential” fluorinated gases (high-GWPs) such as HFCs, CFCs, HCFCs, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These gases, on a per-molecule basis, trap heat thousands of times more than CO2. The trick is that chlorine-containing gases in this group–CFCs and HCFCs–can react with ozone in the stratosphere and significantly damage the ozone layer.
Better living through chemistry.
[…] a blog post in late June, Patrick J. Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute, a think tank that […]
Been doing several hours of reading on the underlying legal issues independent of red/blue team climate facts. There are two separate sets: standing, and constitutional rights.
Standing generally requires three things: 1. actual or imminent personal harm, 2. causality, and 3. redressability by the court. As a rule, there is no standing for a generlized grievance (being a taxpayer does not enable you to sue to invalidate some law entailing spending unless you are personally affected).
1. There is pretty clearly no present actual climate harm. Weather extremes would fail the causation test. There is also no imminent harm. Climate is weather expectation changes over 30 years by WMO definition. Stuff in 2050 (Hansen speculated SLR) or 2100 (2C) simply isnt imminent.
2. The only causation is in climate models, and those fail in two ways. A. Christy's congressional testimony 29 March show the CMIP5 discrepancy between model and observation for tropical troposphere. Another example is the discrepancy between observational and model sensitivity. B. The warming ~1920-1945 is essentially indistinguishable from ~1975-2000. But AR4 WG1 SPM figSPM.4 said the former period was not attributable to GHG; not enough of an increase. It follows that the warming 1975-2000 cannot be attributed to GHG because natural variation did not stop in 1975. No firm causal link can be established. This lack of causality is further shown by the lack of warming this century despite it comprising ~35% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1958.
3. Redressability. The US is reducing emissions. The court has no jurisdiction over China. So any speculative future harm is not redressable.
Second is the legal theory about constitutional rights. The Oregon judge relied on two colorable constitutional rights theories in allowing the suit to proceed.
1. The public trust doctrine applies to things like navigable waterways (which must remain public--Commodore Vandererbilt's famous 1834 lawsuit against New York concerning monopolizing the Hudson River and excluding his New Jersey based ferries was the basis of his fortune). It has never been applied to the atmosphere, let alone climate. And it has never been applied to the federal government. Colorable? Not.
2. The substantive due process doctrine is anchored in broad interpretations of 5th and 14th Amendments. Favored by progressives, anathema to Thomas and Gorsuch. Was implicit in Brown v. Board of Education, the context being entitled to 'life, liberty, and property' (14th Amendment section 1) with good education being 'property'. Has never been applied to something speculative in the future. Deprived of life? Nope. Liberty? Nope. Property? The claim would have to be that the right to a stable climate is a personal property right. But this fails since the climate demonstrably isn't stable. See standing point 2, causation.
No wonder even the ridiculous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a writ of Mandamus concerning the District Court judge's decision against dismissal of Juliana v. U.S.
Do courts bear any responsibility?
In any case, there seems to be a fundamental weakness underlying these actions. The US emits only about 14% of global GHG emissions - so, even if an action might prevail in theory on the science, how could the US be held responsible to the plaintiffs when other countries are emitting 86% of GHGs?
Blogspot science will not have any bearing on the cases - and I wonder if a red team report would make much difference. It seems unlikely that they would find - despite blogspot science -
that greenhouse gases do not influence the radiative properties of the atmosphere.
It is not so much adjudicating science as accepting the AR5 as the definitive source. Blogspot science notwithstanding - the US government has already accepted the 'facts' in one of these cases. My personal opinion is that not 1 in many millions -
and no one currently posting or commenting here - understand the underlying dynamics of a spatio-temporal chaotic climate. I may not either - but being in the right ballpark there is at least a fruitful line of inquiry possible.
"Yet even in the general case it appears completely clearly that the system doesn’t follow any dynamics of the kind “trend + noise” but on the contrary presents sharp breaks , pseudoperiodic oscillations and shifts at all time scales." https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/10/spatio-temporal-chaos/
The empirical manifestations of this have been evident for decades - from Harold Hurst to Wally Broecker and Anastasios Tsonis. There are moreover physical links in important components of the system such as UV/ozone chemistry - surface pressure at the poles - ocean gyres - ENSO - clouds that are promising mechanistic explanations for natural climate variability.
This provides no comfort - however -for skeptics. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases will perturb the flow in Tomas' mountain river. How many quasi standing waves will this influence? It depends.
But I digress onto my favourite topic. I'd turn the court cases back on to the extreme limits of natural variability for which the solution is building prosperous and resilient communities - and contend that fossil fuels are critical - at this time - to fulfill this duty of government. Equally - that the provision of cheap energy to industrializing economies is a humanitarian necessity.
"Climate Pragmatism is the third paper released by the Hartwell group, an informal international network of scholars and analysts dedicated to innovative strategies that uplift human dignity through mitigation of climate risk, enhancement of disaster resilience, improvement of public health, and the provision of universal energy access. Previous publications include The Hartwell Paper (May 2010) and How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course (July 2009)," http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation
"More than one billion people globally lack access to electricity, and billions more still burn wood and dung for their basic energy needs. Our High-Energy Planet, a new report from an international group of energy and environment scholars, outlines a radically new framework for meeting the energy needs of the global poor.
According to the authors, the massive expansion of energy systems, mainly carried out in the rapidly urbanizing global South, is the only robust, coherent, and ethical response to the global challenges we face, climate change among them. The time has come to embrace a high-energy planet, they say.
“Climate change can’t be solved on the backs of the world’s poorest people,” said Daniel Sarewitz, coauthor and director of ASU’s Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes. “The key to solving for both climate and poverty is helping nations build innovative energy systems that can deliver cheap, clean, and reliable power.”" https://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/our-high-energy-planet
Be a little bit imaginative and enter some new facts. I'd also take a broader perspective on greenhouse gases and point the limited utility of too narrow a focus on certain sectors.
As opposed to the many successes of multi-sectoral approaches. The progress on carbon intensity over decades, the net negative impact in the agriculture, forestry and land use sector in the US and the growth of gas generation for instance. Progress will accelerate.
The US is making major investments in future energy technology, it is moving rapidly to new 'negative emissions' methods in agriculture. Moreover the US is a global leader in climate monitoring in both space and the ocean depths. We call it - in a criketing metaphor - going onto the front foot.
[…] a blog post in late June, Patrick J. Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute, a think tank that […]
How about a 'Carbon Content' tax on all the stuff the US imports from those other countries? We didn't emit the GHG when those 3rd world countries manufactured the products our consumer driven economy consumes but it was a major factor when some of our most polluting industries decided to outsource production to China, Mexico, Philippines etc..
(yeah, we may have to stop calling him 'jimmie' & 'jimbo', and start opting for 'James' instead)...
No disrespect to the host (because I'm talking averages here), but this nonsense is a consequence of the feminisation of society (which includes mourning the advent of the industrial revolution - and indeed, all human progress).
As Camille Paglia pointed out, "If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts."
For some that is the ideal (along with the romance of dysentery, death in childbirth, etc, etc).
A very interesting addition to the debate. Does the annual very slight rise in CO2 correspond to the greening phenomenon on Earth? Has this event repeated itself at the peak of every interstadial period? It seems it might. When something causes the jagged stair-stepped fall to a stadial period, CO2 lags by quite a bit, remaining high for a good portion of the initial slide. Is that because the "un-greening" of the Earth takes a bit of time? Which would explain the continued presence of additional CO2 in the atmosphere until the plants and animals that are forcing this, succumb to the cold.
[…] a blog post in late June, Patrick J. Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute, a think tank that […]
There are legal arguments and scientific arguments. I prefer to stay out of this legal one. I have also said before I think Steyn could win his case against Mann, not because he is right, but because he has the satire defense, being a non-expert whom reasonable people would not take seriously on his accusation. You only have to listen to him to see that he is a showman, not a scientist.
If the government benefits, that goes towards revenues and you get less tax. Sounds good to me.
They can do business and US consumers end up paying the tariff that Trump slaps on imports. Not going to be popular.
The people causing CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are not the government or the fossil fuel companies, but the end users, which is all of us, including the little darlings bringing this law suit. We the public are the ones who burn the fuel or pay someone to burn it on our behalf. Do the plaintiffs not have home heating, air conditioning, tablets, phones, motorised transport, game consoles, toys, nice clothes, and all that goes with American middle class life? Each one of them is probably responsible for the burning of more fossil fuel than a whole African village.
The line in this case is between a specific perpetrator and specific victims. Many dump CO2 into the air and many suffer from that aggregate effect. I am not denying that. Who do you blame for which part of the effect? If you are apportioning damages and reparations, that is one way a carbon tax can be used. It generates revenues to pay for mitigation and adaptation or disaster relief costs. If you had a class action for all the future victims, we should all pay them according to our proportion of the CO2 emissions. That would be the fairest way.
Yes, that is the thinking behind a carbon tax. Hansen is a big proponent of a carbon tax. Maybe his case is a way of leading the defense to blame everyone else for emissions, i.e. us, and that logically then leads to a carbon tax as a source of payment instead of the defense. Let them make that case.
I thought Hansen was a showman and not a scientist?
<blockquote>Extracting CO2 from air is cheap when you can custom design self-reproducing bacteria for your workforce. </blockquote>
A baseless assertion. Just as silly as the standard dogma from the climate alarmists and renewable energy advocates.
What is the actual demonstrated cost per Gt CO2 extracted from air?
There is around 10 times more C tied up in the biosphere and less continental aridity now than at the last LGM (IPCC AR4 WG1, Ch 6).
“Lower continental aridity during the Mid-Pliocene” https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-3-2.html
“10% – 33% less terrestrial carbon storage at the LGM compared to today (300-1000 GtC less C in biosphere at GCM compared with preindustrial 300 GtC)” https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-4-1-4.html
This demonstrates life thrives during warm times and struggles during cold times. It also seems inconsistent with the meme that 2C global warming would be dangerous and must be avoided at all costs.
“10% – 33% less terrestrial carbon storage at the LGM compared to today (300-1000 GtC less C in biosphere at GCM compared with preindustrial <i>3000 GtC<i>)”
<blockquote>Mass balance calculations based on 13C measurements on shells of benthic foraminifera yield a reduction in the terrestrial biosphere carbon inventory (soil and living vegetation) of about 300 to 700 GtC (Shackleton, 1977; Bird et al., 1994) compared to the pre-industrial inventory of about 3,000 GtC. Estimates of terrestrial carbon storage based on ecosystem reconstructions suggest an even larger difference (e.g., Crowley, 1995). Simulations with carbon cycle models yield a reduction in global terrestrial carbon stocks of 600 to 1,000 GtC at the LGM compared to pre-industrial time (Francois et al., 1998; Beerling, 1999; Francois et al., 1999; Kaplan et al., 2002; Liu et al., 2002; Kaplan et al., 2003; Joos et al., 2004).</blockquote>
What's the problem with producing CO2 emissions. That is the question that is continually dodged, or answered by innuendo and presumptions, but not with valid evidence.
Note, in case anyone is confused, temperature change is neither good not bad. Only the impacts of the change might be good or bad.The assessment of total benefit or damage must be for the world economy in either percent GDP change, or net economic benefits minus costs, caused by global temperature change.
This almost amounts to a roundabout "science court."
Jack: there was a time when the ‘embodied emissions’ claim was powerful. No longer. The 2014 consumption-based figures can be found here: http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/16/files/GCP_CarbonBudget_2016.pdf Note how, even from that perspective, China is still responsible for by far the highest percentage of global emissions. In any case, these figures include goods etc. the developing countries export to each other. The reality is that the world has changed radically over recent years: today China is a massive consumer-led economy.
"how could the US be held responsible to the plaintiffs when other countries are emitting 86% of GHGs?"
Probably they'll say the U.S. is at fault indirectly, for withdrawing from the Paris accord.
They might try. But it wouldn’t affect the argument that the US emits (and will continue to emit) only a small proportion of global emissions – especially as the Paris Agreement lets the developing countries, responsible for over 65% of emissions, entirely off the emission reduction hook.