It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global Warming Lawsuits

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   
.


Our earth's climate is affected - and changed - by forces emanating from our sun, galaxy and even beyond - but corporate industrial activities muck up our weather and climate too.

We can't do anything about solar flares or black holes, but we CAN stop doing things that we know hurt our planet, and threaten life on earth.

Regulations and controls designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions never were good enough. Now, many have been dismantled, and most that are left are not being enforced by government.

Civil lawsuits against corporate perpetrators are the only venue available to concerned citizens for taking action.

At least 16 cases pending in federal or state court represent "what is becoming an ambitious legal war on oil, electric power, auto, and other companies whose emissions are linked to global warming."



Global warming: Here come the lawyers

Two days after hurricane Katrina smashed into the Gulf Coast, F. Gerald Maples returned to his hometown of Pass Christian, Miss., to utter devastation. Most of his neighbors' houses were totally destroyed. His was in ruins. "It broke our hearts and absolutely changed our lives," he says. It also made Maples, a veteran asbestos plaintiffs' attorney in New Orleans, determined to fight back. "I couldn't stand by when my entire cultural history was destroyed by an event that could become more frequent because of global warming," he says.

So when friend and fellow trial lawyer Timothy W. Porter showed up to help with food and water, the two plotted a legal assault. Since Katrina's fury was powered by unusually warm Gulf water, and since such warmth could result from global warming, companies that have pumped the atmosphere full of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide should be liable for damages, they figured. "To me, Katrina was a clear result of irresponsible behavior by the carbon-emissions corporate economy," says Maples. He recruited suddenly homeless neighbors like Ned Comer and filed a class action on their behalf in federal court in Gulfport, Miss. The defendants? Dozens of oil companies, utilities, and coal producers, from Chevron and Exxon Mobil to American Electric Power and Xcel Energy. "This is a heartfelt effort," Maples says. "I don't want to leave this global warming mess to my children."

Neither, apparently, do a host of other lawyers, in what is becoming an ambitious legal war on oil, electric power, auto, and other companies whose emissions are linked to global warming. At least 16 cases, drawing on a variety of legal strategies, are pending in federal or state court. It may seem like an unconnected hodgepodge of initiatives, but whether it's a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to force the Environmental Protection Agency to crack down on greenhouse gases or the effort by a coalition of Texas cities to require cleaner plants than 17 now proposed by utilities, the challenges spring from a common concern: the lack of action in Washington. "This boomlet in global warming litigation represents frustration with the White House's and Congress' failure to come to grips with the issue," says John Echeverria, executive director of Georgetown University's Environmental Law & Policy Institute. "So the courts, for better or worse, are taking the lead."




I say go for it.

Regulations are being taken off the books - and the controls left are not being enforced.

The only thing we can DO - is SUE.


.




posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Lawsuits are counterproductive in mostly every single instance they are used in the Civil Court system(in the USA at least, Judges in Canada have a fair bit more leeway then their American counterparts). Give me one good reason why this will be effective where so many others have only succeeded in enriching the lawyers? Just think for a second, if say Dow Chemical were to lose a Global Warming lawsuit for Billions of dollars. Where will that money go? Will it go towards cleaning up that company or will it go to those "effected" by Global Warming? Sure, those being effected the most will benefit slightly, but only at the cost of pushing a company onto Corporate Wealth fare which would take even more from the tax payers(aside from the actual costs of holding a trial). A company on Corporate Wealth fare cannot exactly clean up it's act correct? And how many families will be harmed in this roulette game of "who's got the better lawyer"?


I say let the insurance industry handle them, they've already entered the "fight".

New combatant against Global Warming: The Insurance Industry

They have real clout as they are the second largest industry on the planet.

[edit on 1-11-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 1-11-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I think people are getting way too "sue happy" and the only reason lawyers want a piece of this is because it makes them rich. It doesn't help with global warming. Who does the money go to in a case like this? The public? Do you know that in most civil lawsuits, most of the money goes to the lawyers while the balance is distributed among thousands or millions of people. I seem to remember receiving a 53 cent credit on my phone bill due to a civil lawsuit. Yup, that's all I got. Big help.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   
The courts are for protecting constitutions not a venue for environmental policy debates. You can show your outrage with your vote, your money, your expression of thought, and many other ways, but the courts are over-loaded. Too many among us, especially in the US use the courts for profit and for politics. I have to say that I totally disapprove of abusing the legal system for politics.

The damage we are doing to the environment is finally becoming apparent to all, we can't hurt the cause of conservation by adopting tactics that make us the same as a greedy corporation.

Another problem with this viewpoint............... what happens when the courts fail to see your point of view? Do you fire bomb the coal burning power plants or hummer dealerships?

Logic and reason, alerting the public and finding ways to combat pollution without disrupting progress or the current quality of life, thats the only way to succeed here.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Thanks for your comments sardion, closettrekkie and looking4truth.



Originally posted by looking4truth

...finding ways to combat pollution without disrupting progress or the current quality of life, thats the only way to succeed here.




What exactlyi do you mean by "progress" and "quality of life" ??? Given that so-called progress and the resultant pollution are totally destroying our health and quality of life.




posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   
How about someone suing the "professional" hurricane forecasters?

Everyone saw what their predictions did to the gas prices. Once everyone saw hurricane season was going to be a dud, the gas prices plummetted. Shouldn't these people be liable for their outlandish predictions?



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   


What exactlyi do you mean by "progress" and "quality of life" ??? Given that so-called progress and the resultant pollution are totally destroying our health and quality of life.

Progress can be measured in many ways.

For me, the primary measures of progress are like this in order of importance in my world view: Efficiency Increases(Technological Progress), More Collaboration(Social Progress), Sustainability(Ecological Progress), Open Source Methodologies applied to new and exciting areas(Economic Progress),and Original Idea's(?Scientific Progress?).

Technological progress is needed in order to solve the problems of today, mixed in with a dose of efficiency increases in various areas and conservation(which is covered in the catchall phrase of "Sustainability".

All the answers are out there, we just need to fit the pieces of this huge, scattered puzzle together.

Complaining about it, whether it's on ATS or the Courts, solves no problems. It just entrenches the sides and causes a whole lot of hurt in the end by distracting most of us about the solutions developing right under our noses.

The North American economies have gone through revolutions before that completely changed the landscape in a short decade. Just look at the difference of 1939 and 1950. I feel we are on the cusp of another economic revolution. For instance, my neighborhood has finally convinced the parks and rec dept to allow them to hold a farmers market in the Local Park 4 times a summer. Next year the permit will allow for 10 such markets to occur. It's growing at an incredibly fast rate, even considering that we have Organic food stores galore in our area.

This is employing many more people and combined with some of the local Urban Organic Farming initiatives, can save a great many tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere.

Quality of life is simply the number of people who are not destitute and starving. The lower the number compared to the overall majority the better the Quality of Life.

[edit on 2-11-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 2-11-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Thanks for your response sardion - some good ideas there, and a healthy take imo.



Originally posted by sardion2000

Quality of life is simply the number of people who are not destitute and starving. The lower the number compared to the overall majority the better the Quality of Life.




I have a problem with this definition. ...By (lowered/lessened) quality of life I am referring to the current pandemic of chronic disease - and the fact that younger and younger people are suffering so-called "age-related" diseases.

This pandemic results from contamination of the macro-environment, causing contamination of micro-environment - and disease.

...We are talking synthetic chemicals, unpredictable compounds, and dynamic interractions - never mind the effects of unregulated nanotech.

So what do we do to fix it? Add more crud to the mix, and complicate the matter further? Wait for evolution to solve the problem?





posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Thanks for your comments sardion, closettrekkie and looking4truth.



Originally posted by looking4truth

...finding ways to combat pollution without disrupting progress or the current quality of life, thats the only way to succeed here.




What exactlyi do you mean by "progress" and "quality of life" ??? Given that so-called progress and the resultant pollution are totally destroying our health and quality of life.





I meant that we can't go back to the stone age to save the evironment. People want to drive cars, fly on planes, have non-stick cookware, and TV dinners, disposable single use products, etc.. We can have all the modern convienences and still reduce our footprint. We just haven't been very good at it yet.

BTW, it's not "so-called progress", it is progress. Average world life expectancy has risen nearly everywhere. Major diseases have been completely eliminated and we are working towards understanding our bodies in ways that were unimaginable a century ago.

Progress isn't perfect, I'll give you that, but what is it you propose as the alternative? The world population is far to huge to go back to a pre-industrial revolution type lifestyle for us all.


I have a problem with this definition. ...By (lowered/lessened) quality of life I am referring to the current pandemic of chronic disease - and the fact that younger and younger people are suffering so-called "age-related" diseases.

This pandemic results from contamination of the macro-environment, causing contamination of micro-environment - and disease.

...We are talking synthetic chemicals, unpredictable compounds, and dynamic interractions - never mind the effects of unregulated nanotech.

So what do we do to fix it? Add more crud to the mix, and complicate the matter further? Wait for evolution to solve the problem?


Yes, part of this is true. But it's only recently that we have been aware of this in a major way. Steps can certainly be made to begin reversing this. Recognizing the problems are crucial to fixing them. By making these things more important to the public debate we could all benefit. It's bad but not hopeless.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by looking4truth

...Average world life expectancy has risen nearly everywhere. Major diseases have been completely eliminated and we are working towards understanding our bodies in ways that were unimaginable a century ago.




You are misinformed.



Evolution and the environment, not just gluttony, has led to a global obesity pandemic, with an estimated 1.5 billion people overweight -- more than the number of undernourished people -- an obesity conference was told on Monday. ...The mounting epidemic of obesity in children would see many die before their parents, said Kate Steinbeck, co-chair of the 10th International Congress on Obesity in Sydney. ..."This is the first generation in history where children may die before their parents," Steinbeck told the conference.

Steinbeck said fighting obesity was not simply a matter of people eating less and exercising more, but discovering environmental and genetic contributors to obesity. ..."We know this is not about gluttony - it is the interaction of heredity and environment," said Steinbeck. ...New obesity research has found that too little sleep and fats from fast food can alter a person's biology, making them more susceptible to overeating and less active, said the International Association for the Study of Obesity. ...Vernon said millions of obese people were being discriminated against and stigmatised, and often denied access to medical services.

Dietary supplements and alternative treatments promising weight loss have minimal or no effect because they cannot match evolutionary influences that cause the body to conserve energy in times of famine, Dr Anne-Thea McGill told the conference. ..."Early humans sought energy-dense food with high levels of fats, starches and sugars. We are genetically programmed to find foods with these qualities appealing," said McGill. ..."However, highly energy-dense Western diets have had many of the flavour and micronutrients processed out of them. The artificial replacements in starchy, fatty and sugary foods make them over-palatable and easy to eat quickly." ...But too much processed food results in an excess energy intake deficient in micronutrients, producing a state of "malnutrition", which in turn sees the body react to a "famine stress" by storing fat around the upper body, said McGill. ..."Many over-the-counter remedies such as concentrated herbal preparations, food extracts, minerals and vitamins are promoted as helping to decrease body weight," she said. ..."However, they do not redress the nutrient imbalance from poor diets that produce obesity."








Originally posted by looking4truth

Progress isn't perfect, I'll give you that, but what is it you propose as the alternative? The world population is far to huge to go back to a pre-industrial revolution type lifestyle for us all.




Sorry - don't have a well-developed alternative yet, still working on sorting through the mis/disinformation to understand the problems.

IMO tho - sardion is on the right track with Gaviotas.







I have a problem with this definition. ...By (lowered/lessened) quality of life I am referring to the current pandemic of chronic disease - and the fact that younger and younger people are suffering so-called "age-related" diseases.

This pandemic results from contamination of the macro-environment, causing contamination of micro-environment - and disease.

...We are talking synthetic chemicals, unpredictable compounds, and dynamic interractions - never mind the effects of unregulated nanotech.

So what do we do to fix it? Add more crud to the mix, and complicate the matter further? Wait for evolution to solve the problem?


Yes, part of this is true. But it's only recently that we have been aware of this in a major way. Steps can certainly be made to begin reversing this. Recognizing the problems are crucial to fixing them. By making these things more important to the public debate we could all benefit. It's bad but not hopeless.




Scientists, molecular biologists, biologists - have been sounding the alarm for half a century. They were silenced to allow "progress," and their work was belittled and dismissed.

I agree - Recognizing the problems are crucial to fixing them.

...and I hope you recognize that there IS a chronic disease epidemic, it HAS spread from "developed" nations to undeveloped ones, it IS caused by environmental contaminations - and it is affecting younger and younger people each year, disabling them, and now, causing early death.



But yes - while it is bad, it is NOT hopeless. And informed public debate is always good.





[edit on 3-11-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

You are misinformed.


Actually no, no I'm not misinformed at all.

en.wikipedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Wikipedia

Life expectancy increased dramatically in the 20th century, especially in developed nations. Life expectancy at birth in the United States in 1901 was 49 years. At the end of the century it was 77 years, an increase of 57%. Similar gains have been enjoyed throughout the world. Life expectancy in India and the People's Republic of China was around 40 years at midcentury. At century's close it had risen to around 63 years. These gains were due largely to the eradication and control of numerous infectious diseases and to non-sustainable advances in agricultural technology (such as chemical fertilizers).



DEPweb

Did You Know?
Life expectancy worldwide has risen on average by 4 months each year since 1970.
Infant mortality rates fell from 80 per 1000 live births in 1980, to 54 per 1000 in 1998.
Women tend to outlive men by 5 to 8 years in the countries with the highest life expectancies, but by only 0 to 3 years in countries where life expectancy is low.



As for the article about obiesity and the rise of wieght loss supplements........ That speaks volumes more about our attitudes towards foods than it does about the contents. I'll concede that most of the crap stuffed in our food supply is horrible for us, the real issue is that there are much healthier alternatives yet we choose TV dinners over the better foods. The chemicals are horrible, the choices we make when deciding what to put in our mouths is probably the real tragedy. If the bottom fell out of the market for the chemically treated foods, they'd dissapear from the shelves.

It's not like McDonalds forces you to pull up to their drive thru........... We don't need the law suits you seemed to suggest we do in the start of this thread. We have to teach ourselves to recognize the better alternatives, we can change the content of our food supply with our wallets over night, I'm not sure a lawyer could guarantee that.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by looking4truth

Originally posted by soficrow

You are misinformed.


Actually no, no I'm not misinformed at all.

...As for the article about obiesity and the rise of wieght loss supplements........




Erm. The article reported on the 10th International Congress on Obesity.

The key statement is This is the first generation in history where children may die before their parents

The main point is that evolution and the environment led to the global obesity pandemic - many obese people are in fact malnourished and starving.

Scientists say research should be directed to discovering environmental and genetic contributors to obesity. ..."We know this is not about gluttony - it is the interaction of heredity and environment,"




Evolution and the environment, not just gluttony, has led to a global obesity pandemic, with an estimated 1.5 billion people overweight -- more than the number of undernourished people -- an obesity conference was told on Monday. ...The mounting epidemic of obesity in children would see many die before their parents, said Kate Steinbeck, co-chair of the 10th International Congress on Obesity in Sydney. ..."This is the first generation in history where children may die before their parents," Steinbeck told the conference.

Steinbeck said fighting obesity was not simply a matter of people eating less and exercising more, but discovering environmental and genetic contributors to obesity. ..."We know this is not about gluttony - it is the interaction of heredity and environment,"





.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
I have a problem with this definition. ...By (lowered/lessened) quality of life I am referring to the current pandemic of chronic disease - and the fact that younger and younger people are suffering so-called "age-related" diseases.


The simplest definition is usually the most accurate. We cannot have two separate definitions applied as that would complicate matters. I think a new definition under the catchall phrase of "Quality of Health" should be defined and kept separate from the current definition of "Quality of Life". You can have a High QoL while having a low QoH. In some situations excessively higher QoL standards can lead to lower QoH standards in certain regions.

How is this for a QoH definition?

The QoH is simply the average number of people who are chronically ill compared to the number who are considered Healthy.



This pandemic results from contamination of the macro-environment, causing contamination of micro-environment - and disease.


This is a problem that can be re mediated. Mycoremediation is a growing field in Biology and it's already been shown to clean up Mercury and Lead infested dump sites in a fraction of the time it normally would take Nature to clean up our mess. Chemiluminescent Detectors(like say sterile bioengineered Daiseys or something) can be used to detect in very minute quantities, the toxic substances in the soil. Mycoremediation can also work in aqueous environments. As for toxic streams and rivers, artificially managed wetlands have proven to be extremely effective in increasing water quality.



...We are talking synthetic chemicals, unpredictable compounds, and dynamic interractions - never mind the effects of unregulated nanotech.


If I were you, I'd fear over regulation more. The more you tighten your grip, the more slips through your fingers. The current regime of sue first, ask questions later, has not had the desired effect in getting these companies to clean up their act. A general amnesty from lawsuits is needed, and in return, the industry will open up it's doors to outside inspectors and will be allowed to apply for low interest loans to start to clean up their act. We gotta give them incentives to clean up their act, not give them incentives to move more and more of their operations offshore where the regulations is lacking.

I propose the LEEDs program should be introduced to the Industrial sector, though with an emphasis on toxic waste reduction(in all aspects of a products life cycle) rather then emissions reduction(though that will still be a high point total when the final score is tallied up). The government in turn should reward companies that achieve a Silver rating or above by giving them Tax Refunds.



So what do we do to fix it? Add more crud to the mix, and complicate the matter further? Wait for evolution to solve the problem?


I propose that all of us concerned, start "gaming" the Free Market to our own advantage.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000

The current regime of sue first, ask questions later, has not had the desired effect in getting these companies to clean up their act.

A general amnesty from lawsuits is needed, and in return, the industry will open up it's doors to outside inspectors and will be allowed to apply for low interest loans to start to clean up their act. We gotta give them incentives to clean up their act, not give them incentives to move more and more of their operations offshore where the regulations is lacking.




As I understand the history, lawsuits are the fall-back position - the only avenue left - because industry did NOT act responsibly, or clean up their act or messes.






I propose that all of us concerned, start "gaming" the Free Market to our own advantage.




imo - that's exactly how we got in this mess. International corporations convinced us we could have a piece of the pie too - and we bought into it. But our piece will never be very big - or clean.


.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   


As I understand the history, lawsuits are the fall-back position - the only avenue left - because industry did NOT act responsibly, or clean up their act or messes.


What's stopping these companies from moving offshore again?

You sue a company for dumping stuff in your backyard, and they'll pay as little as they possibly can(by declaring bankruptcy) then move and reform their company elsewhere where they can do whatever they want.

You think China's gonna give up their 10 % yearly growth rate just to appease Litigious happy Environmentalists on the other side of the planet? I don't think so...



imo - that's exactly how we got in this mess. International corporations convinced us we could have a piece of the pie too - and we bought into it. But our piece will never be very big - or clean.


Intent is what counts. The Primary intent of most people involved in the free market is to simply put a roof over their heads, gas in their furnace/car and food on their tables.

We need more Entrepreneurs and Innovators, not more sue happy Doomers, Fear mongers, and Pompous Self Righteous Lecturers.

We need people who are willing to take risks in trying to compete with the big boys. Look to Silicon Valley for inspiration or look to Gaviotas for inspiration, both those communities have a culture of Garage-based engineering using only whats available on hand. THAT is whats going to save us, not Government regulations or Class Action Lawsuits.

[edit on 5-11-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000



imo - that's exactly how we got in this mess. International corporations convinced us we could have a piece of the pie too - and we bought into it. But our piece will never be very big - or clean.


Intent is what counts.




Hmmm.

I was taught that the effects of one's actions are important.






We need more Entrepreneurs and Innovators, not more sue happy Doomers, Fear mongers, and Pompous Self Righteous Lecturers.




I have been an entrepreneur most of my life.


Defining problems clearly and facing reality is not doomsaying or fear-mongering - except perhaps to some people with other pre-conceptions or agendas.

...We are back to the old Luddite thing here. You know I am not a Luddite - but you fear my observations and arguments will be used to support Luddite (re)action.

What can I say? I see the world and its issues as more complicated than simplistic, and don't buy into Luddite v/s technology polarization.






We need people who are willing to take risks in trying to compete with the big boys. Look to Silicon Valley for inspiration or look to Gaviotas for inspiration, both those communities have a culture of Garage-based engineering using only whats available on hand. THAT is whats going to save us, not Government regulations or Class Action Lawsuits.




I agree with much of what you say and post here and elsewhere. BUT.

I also strongly support the notion of accountability. And one of the chief problems with corporate law is that no one is accountable. I see the lawsuits as possibly the only way to circumvent such protections.

I also find it incredibly amusing that the "x-argument" pushes "Personal Responsibility" everywhere - especially in health - and very often, in areas over which the individual has little or NO personal control. The "Personal Responsibility" mantra is everywhere - we're looking at "3 strikes you're out," 12 year-olds being tried as adults, medical incompetents being imprisoned and put to death.

But at the same time, the same "x-argument" finds it completely rational to argue that corporations are not "Personally Responsible" for their actions or the effects of their actions - even though their legal protections are derived from the fact that they are legally defined as "persons."

Talk about a double standard.




.



[edit on 5-11-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Thank you for this thread. I'm wondering, though, if a major factor that might work against the lawsuit strategy (unfortunately) would be the inadequacy of climate models to explain recent findings in climate research. For example, glaciologists published a number of new findings (2005, 2006) on changes in Greenland glaciers:


www.realclimate.org...


The authors discuss a number of important factors in ice sheet melting that are poorly represented at best in current ice sheet models, and they hasten to add that glacier findings so far do not make a case for or against global warming. The biggest acceleration in climate change lawsuits may thus not come earlier than February 2007, after the United Nations IPCC publishes its updated (finally) assessment of global warming:

ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu...


I heard of another example of the fragile link between incoming data and climate models at the 2006 Open House at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. (...Sorry if this thread is not the best place to put this story; can you advise me on whether I should move it to a new thread? Thanks) At one of the display tables, I asked one of the JPL scientists about the following story I had read in the BBC news online:


news.bbc.co.uk...


(See especially the helpful illustration of the "A-train" group of climate satellites at the end of that article.) There's a problem, however, with downloading the satellite info to JPL on Earth: As this scientist explained it, because the satellites have been in orbit varying periods of time, some of the older satellites can only transmit a little information at a time due to their very limited information storage capabilities. So the matching of different data streams from the different satellites thus becomes a major headache. ...Ergo, I suspect another rate-limiting factor to lawsuits on climate change is the limited ability to accumulate comparable data on what climate damage is being done.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
You're welcome uphill.



IMO - the lawsuit strategy's success can be measured by how well it brings the issue - and accurate information - to public awareness.

Also, most controversy is synthetic - generated by the Denial Industry.


Granted, we don't know enough to know all the factors that come into play, or which way it will tip in the short and mid-term - but we DO know enough to know that CO2 emissions, for example, absolutely do contribute to global warming.

The rest of the chatter is just marketing.


.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Uhmmm, it SNOWED it Florida yesterday! Who should I sue?


www.wftv.com...

Global Warming is nothing but a $$$ generator for scientists looking for grants...nothing more.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
If you would do any research on the subject you wouldn't think like that. Snow in Florida is just the type of weird weather many climatologists have predicted for years now. Too bad this thread isn't about Global Warming, it's about Global Warming Lawsuits. If you want to question the validity of the Theory then start your own thread.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join