Eroding Alaska town sues oil and power companies over global warming (1 Viewer)

bclemms

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
35,280
Reaction score
48,974
Age
14
Location
Jackson, ms
Online
ANCHORAGE, Alaska: A tiny Alaska village eroding into the Arctic Ocean sued two dozen oil, power and coal companies Tuesday, claiming that the large amounts of greenhouse gases they emit contribute to global warming that threatens the community's existence.

The city of Kivalina and a federally recognized tribe, the Alaska Native village of Kivalina, sued Exxon Mobil Corp. and BP PLC, seven other oil companies, 14 power companies and one coal company in a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco.

Kivalina is a traditional Inupiat Eskimo village of about 390 people about 625 miles northwest of Anchorage. It's built on an 8-mile barrier reef between the Chukchi Sea and Kivalina River.

Sea ice traditionally protected the community, whose economy is based in part on salmon fishing plus subsistence hunting of whale, seal, walrus, and caribou. But sea ice that forms later and melts sooner because of higher temperatures has left the community unprotected from fall and winter storm waves and surges that lash coastal communities.


http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/27/america/Global-Warming-Erosion.php
 

MLU

Joined
Apr 28, 1999
Messages
55,888
Reaction score
22,269
Location
Texas
Offline
Good luck doing that in a court of law, where proof will be required...
 

Capn_Morgan

Smexy
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
253
Reaction score
81
Offline
They need to aim bigger. File a lawsuit against every person on the planet.
 
OP
OP
bclemms

bclemms

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
35,280
Reaction score
48,974
Age
14
Location
Jackson, ms
Online
Good luck doing that in a court of law, where proof will be required...

That is what I thought until reading the suit was filed in San Fransisco. It wouldn't be surprising to see them win in San Fransisco before it gets thrown out by the Supreme Court.
 

MLU

Joined
Apr 28, 1999
Messages
55,888
Reaction score
22,269
Location
Texas
Offline
San Fransisco or not, they're still going to need science to back them up. Global Warming caused by Man is the biggest scam going. It's proof that the GOP/Right doesn't own the rights to Fearmongering.
 

SaintsBrazil

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Jul 16, 2003
Messages
4,819
Reaction score
1,906
Offline
Not only do they have to proove that GW is caused by humans, but that it is caused by those companies in particular. silly
 
OP
OP
bclemms

bclemms

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
35,280
Reaction score
48,974
Age
14
Location
Jackson, ms
Online
San Fransisco or not, they're still going to need science to back them up. Global Warming caused by Man is the biggest scam going. It's proof that the GOP/Right doesn't own the rights to Fearmongering.

I couldn't agree more that Global Warming caused by man is a load of ****. I agree that they should have to prove global warming is caused by man but San Fransisco was targeted to hear the case for a reason.
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
10,707
Reaction score
10,509
Offline
While I think those that have somehow defied all current scientists and have concluded so adamantly that man has had NO role in global warming is one of the most laughable things i've seen in my life, this case is pretty silly itself.
 

staphory

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 21, 1998
Messages
11,746
Reaction score
4,106
Location
Stonewall , MS
Offline
I wonder if they still accept those Permanent Fund dividend checks?
 

MLU

Joined
Apr 28, 1999
Messages
55,888
Reaction score
22,269
Location
Texas
Offline
...or to prove GW in the first place.
There is no denying that Global Warming exists. It is just unproven that man is the cause of it.

While I think those that have somehow defied all current scientists and have concluded so adamantly that man has had NO role in global warming is one of the most laughable things i've seen in my life, this case is pretty silly itself.
I don't know of anyone who says that man has NO role (at least on this thread), but science supports that there is no proof that man contributes to Global Warming. IMO, it's extremely arrogant to think that we can have that kind of effect on the planet. It will be here long after we are gone. We're like a mild case of eczema.
 

staphory

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 21, 1998
Messages
11,746
Reaction score
4,106
Location
Stonewall , MS
Offline
While I think those that have somehow defied all current scientists and have concluded so adamantly that man has had NO role in global warming is one of the most laughable things i've seen in my life, this case is pretty silly itself.

ALL current scientists? You sure about that?
 

Shawn

SR is my life!
Joined
Jul 9, 1998
Messages
13,504
Reaction score
3,603
Age
57
Offline
There is no denying that Global Warming exists. It is just unproven that man is the cause of it.

Science supports that there is no proof that man contributes to Global Warming.

I'm only passing through, because this issue has been beaten to death, but you've never made a remotely compelling case on your side. This statement here is just silly, because again, there are plenty of things we can't prove with 100% certainty, but which still allow us to build reliable and predictable models.

I know that your argument at it's base is that it's arrogant to think that man can change the weather/climate in any dramatic way. You would probably be right to say that the earth is flexible, adjustable, and can rebound from almost anything man throws at it. However, that completely ignores the fact that the environmental conditions which humans need to live in, are relatively narrow. So it wouldn't take a major change to affect human beings. The earth will go on, but that doesn't mean it will go on in a way conducive to human beings.

The evidence for human induced change crosses so many fields of study now, fields that are completely unrelated, areas of study that have nothing to gain or lose from findings of global warming or findings that it doesn't exist--to claim it's all just some sort of left-wing conspiracy is, without trying to be rude, just silly.

There may well be exaggeration or fearmongering where there is a buck to be made. There are many more bucks to be made by asserting that there is no climate change.

I've been around the block on this, and most people who post on these threads have almost no background in science, and reference their arguments to web sites with dubious financial support.

EDIT: I see you clarified your point that there is climate change, but it just can't be proven to be man made. I still stick by my arguments, with the qualification that while it's possible some of it is cyclical, there is in fact evidence that human behavior is a contributing factor.
 
Last edited:

buzd

party lamp
Staff member
Tech-Admin
Joined
Jan 11, 2002
Messages
35,461
Reaction score
32,450
Location
Duncan Plaza
Offline
That is what I thought until reading the suit was filed in San Fransisco. It wouldn't be surprising to see them win in San Fransisco before it gets thrown out by the Supreme Court.

It was filed in San Francisco because that's where the ninth (?!) circuit court is located, which would cover Alaska.

That said, I agree with you - they're known for making all sorts of wacky rulings that are later tossed out.
 

MLU

Joined
Apr 28, 1999
Messages
55,888
Reaction score
22,269
Location
Texas
Offline
I was wondering when you might show up after I posted that, Shawn. :)

I have never really had the time or desire to go into depth about it. It's just incredibly silly to think that we're going to have that much impact on something so large. Most people can't even grasp how large the atmosphere is and how minute of a percentage is carbon dioxide to begin with. This idea that we're causing the planet to heat up is nothing more than rhetoric that's pounded into our heads every time you turn the TV on. It's fearmongering and nothing more. It has nothing to do with politics.

For example, look at how the Chernobyl incident was portrayed and the estimated impact it would have on the environment. It was predicted that eventually millions would die from the environmental effects and years later than number is less than 100. We clearly do not understand environmental impact like we think we do.

Over 30 years ago, scientists (some of which are behind the Global Warming movement) predicted a "Global Cooling" that would lead to an ice age. Not only did that not come true, but it reversed course and we're in a warming trend again.

We can't even [predict ocean currents a week or two in advance, but we have science that can predict or explain the cause of Global Warming and the impacts years from now?

Really?

Why do I have to make the case? Why do supporters of man-made Global Warming not have to prove theirs first? Opinions in greater numbers is consensus, not science.

Technically, we're still warming from the "little Ice Age" of the Middle Ages. The warming trend is estimated to have begun in the early 1800's. (I say estimated because how can we really trust historical weather data from the 1800's?) Most of this century's global warming occurred before WWII (1942-ish), yet that is left out of these discussions. So if man is the cause (or has a significant impact) we release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere long before every family had two Suburbans in the garage. Global warming has not kept up with man's advances in industrialization this century, lending one to doubt the impact that we have.

It has been deduced that carbon dioxide emissions are "self-limiting" meaning that when it warms in one areas, the planet cools in another. The planet as a whole does not warm it's entire surface entirely. Just these past few months there has been indication that many glaciers not only are not shrinking, but growing. Further indication that we do not know what we're talking about when it comes to environmental science as it relates to our impact on it.

Speaking in absolutes is dangerous. There is evidence to support both sides, but people talk of global warming caused by man as fact and it's not. There is far more evidence to support that this is a natural cycle than caused by man. I certainly favor limitations and management of the environment, but I am going to need some solid evidence and not speculation before I start my 'Save the Planet' campaign.

My knowledge isn't extensive. It's limited to documentaries and articles. It's not based on CNN, NBC, FOX, etc. All I ask for is some scientific consistency before I start accepting something as absolute and factual.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom