By: Completely Cynical

Completely Cynical — Thu, 18 Jan 2018 22:31:30 +0000

gasman, you are not nearly cynical enough. All DeBlasio needs is (1) a judge who will let his case pass the motion to dismiss stage (and these exist in spades), and (2) experts who will say “industry” “caused” Super Storm Sandy (and these exist in spades). And even though any rational analysis would say that those “experts” are full of hooey, “full of hooey” becomes nothing more than defense experts’ opinion, which differ from plaintiff’s experts, so we have an issue of fact, which defeats summary judgment and requires a trial.

In other words, the legal system is broken, because the failed “gatekeeper” function of judges for scientifically idiotic theories can’t be corrected until on appeal (and even not then if it’s in the 9th Circuit), and this will be years later.

Come up with a theory, find the right judge, and voila, our legal system is broken.

By: gasman

gasman — Wed, 17 Jan 2018 18:03:48 +0000

Re: climate change suit for specific events. (Sandy storm damage)

Individual weather events happen, or don’t happen for myriad reasons. It’s going to be difficult to assign blame to any particular puff of CO2 for causing a cyclonic rotation of a giant air mass originating in Africa, and crossing the atlantic.

It is the epitome of bias to attempt to find causality for outlying data, while accepting that median data (really nice weather) somehow has no causality. If the number of growing days should increase in an agricultural area, does the energy sector get to demand a percentage?

Comments on: Climate change suit roundup

By: Completely Cynical

By: gasman