Climate change denier culpablity and class action

[barts]

A report in Canada's Globe & Mail newspaper, Scientists warn it’s the ‘new norm’ after worst drought in 800 years, leads me to wonder if the major corporations that organized and funded campaigns to prevent timely action on climate change ought to named in a class action and/or government law suits for the damages they are and will continue to cause.

The precedent for this, of course, is the legal action taken by governments against tobacco companies. The monies won in the suits are being used to offset increased health care costs caused by tobacco.

The corporations behind climate change denial are as culpable, in my view, for the harm, damage, and loss of life now being endured because of climate change, and the corporations should pay.

[ruksak]

Fair is fair.....so long as the alarmists are held accountable for the countless billions they have cost all of us when it is discovered that they are wrong.

[Chris the Chees]

Fair is fair.....so long as the alarmists are held accountable for the countless billions they have cost all of us when it is discovered that they are wrong.

They are wrong? I take it you know something that virtually the entire (97%+) community of climate scientists do not know?

Tell me, where did you get your PhD in climatology from? Because unless you have one, your opinion doesn't really add up to much - does it?

[iolo]

A report in Canada's Globe & Mail newspaper, Scientists warn it’s the ‘new norm’ after worst drought in 800 years, leads me to wonder if the major corporations that organized and funded campaigns to prevent timely action on climate change ought to named in a class action and/or government law suits for the damages they are and will continue to cause.

The precedent for this, of course, is the legal action taken by governments against tobacco companies. The monies won in the suits are being used to offset increased health care costs caused by tobacco.

The corporations behind climate change denial are as culpable, in my view, for the harm, damage, and loss of life now being endured because of climate change, and the corporations should pay.

The trouble is that these scoundrels have brainwashed so many that it is almost certainly to late to save the world, so the money would just be used to pay for deep hiding-places for the profiteers.

[Dodds]

A report in Canada's Globe & Mail newspaper, Scientists warn it’s the ‘new norm’ after worst drought in 800 years, leads me to wonder if the major corporations that organized and funded campaigns to prevent timely action on climate change ought to named in a class action and/or government law suits for the damages they are and will continue to cause.

The precedent for this, of course, is the legal action taken by governments against tobacco companies. The monies won in the suits are being used to offset increased health care costs caused by tobacco.

The corporations behind climate change denial are as culpable, in my view, for the harm, damage, and loss of life now being endured because of climate change, and the corporations should pay.

Another precedent would be the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

[barts]

Fair is fair.....so long as the alarmists are held accountable for the countless billions they have cost all of us when it is discovered that they are wrong.

A guiding principle in law is the notion of motive. The corporations that have been funding climate change denial are doing it to serve their own immediate financial interests all the while knowing that their position is scientifically wrong, and that their campaigns are causing extensive harm. They've been promoting climate change denial maliciously and with, I suggest, culpable disregard for the consequences. They need to be held accountable as corporations, as do their executives as individuals. Massive fines and jail terms are in order. Those who have raised the warning about climate change have not been doing it maliciously, in the legal sense. This is exactly the situation we saw with tobacco companies.

There is no equivalence in law or in motive between the corporations and their executives promoting climate change denial and those who have been advocating for responsible use of energy and raising the alarm about climate change--the evidence for which is as strong or stronger as that which links tobacco use to a range of diseases.

[ruksak]

They are wrong? I take it you know something that virtually the entire (97%+) community of climate scientists do not know?

Tell me, where did you get your PhD in climatology from? Because unless you have one, your opinion doesn't really add up to much - does it?

I'm not having a faggy debate about this witchcraft nonsense. I'm just sayin.....if y'all think the "deniers" should be held liable, why not the alarmists if it is shown they're wrong?

That's how liberals roll, ain't it?

A guiding principle in law is the notion of motive. The corporations that have been funding climate change denial are doing it to serve their own immediate financial interests all the while knowing that their position is scientifically wrong, and that their campaigns are causing extensive harm. They've been promoting climate change denial maliciously

...and you don't see motive behind the multi-billion dollar industry of green technology? You seriously that biased or is this just more liberal stubbornness? Get you some of those poison light bulbs that are good for the earth yet terrible for your infant. It's just poison gas....it's not gonna hurt you....much.

[barts]

...and you don't see motive behind the multi-billion dollar industry of green technology? You seriously that thick or is this just more liberal stubbornness? Get you some of those poison light bulbs that are good for the earth yet terrible for your infant. It's just poison gas....it's not gonna hurt you....much.

Green technologies are intended to earn a profit and benefit people and protect the environment.

Corporations involved in climate change denial are knowingly harming people and the ecosystems they depend on for their very survival in order to profit.

Corporations involved in climate change denial actively try to suppress green technologies in order to continue profiting with enterprises that harm people and the environment.

The two are not equivalent, and your example of "those poison light bulbs" is specious. Are you seriously suggesting that one example of a green technology that may not produce the benefits hoped for is equivalent to preventing action that would prevent the globe warming by 2.0C?

[grandpa]

Green technologies are intended to earn a profit and
benefit people and protect the environment.
Corporations involved in climate change denial are knowingly harming people
and the ecosystems they depend on for their very survival
in order to profit.

To continue ruksak's narrative:
Environmentalism goes well beyond limiting toilet paper to one sheet per session. Just as a hunter can kill the deer without enjoying it, the environmentalist can do so to the economy. To thwart the green menace, we must sit back and let the market do its job. A man need not mind the ecosystems in which he participates, unless to mine them -- he may mind, but only to mine.

Only the strong survive!

Grandpa h.

[ruksak]

Green technologies are intended to earn a profit and benefit people and protect the environment.

Corporations involved in climate change denial are knowingly harming people and the ecosystems they depend on for their very survival in order to profit.

Green technologies profit from fear under the guise of greener pastures.

Corporations involved in climate change denial actively try to suppress green technologies in order to continue profiting with enterprises that harm people and the environment.

You wanna talk about harming people, look what they've done to diesel fuel. Once a cheap, alternative industrial fuel, it is now more expensive than standard fuel because of all the enviromental lobbyists that successfully bribed.......oh wait, did I say "bribed"? I meant "lobbied"...yea....anyway....they successfully "lobbied" to have diesel fuel reformulated.....and I god damn bet the same people bribing politicians.....oh no...."lobbying" politicians made a lot of "green" in doing so, aye?

I don't suppose you care about the private interstate trucker, the farmer or the small businessman, do you?

It hasn't been proven why the climate is changing. That is all guesswork and jumbled facts that swing the pendulum of truth to-n-fro.

[barts]

Green technologies profit from fear under the guise of greener pastures.

Really? Green technology is necessary if we're to have planet with a climate that will allow us and others to have some semblance of a modern civilization. Your notion is nonsense.

You wanna talk about harming people, look what they've done to diesel fuel. Once a cheap, alternative industrial fuel, it is now more expensive than standard fuel because of all the enviromental lobbyists that successfully bribed.......oh wait, did I say "bribed"? I meant "lobbied"...yea....anyway....they successfully "lobbied" to have diesel fuel reformulated.....and I god damn bet the same people bribing politicians.....oh no...."lobbying" politicians made a lot of "green" in doing so, aye?

How could you possibly believe such nonsense? The environmental lobby is chump change compared to industries that benefit from dirty energy. What facts, if any, are you relying on?

I don't suppose you care about the private interstate trucker, the farmer or the small businessman, do you?

None of these groups have any hope of continuing in business if the climate continues to degrade. It seems you haven't noticed the drought which is currently destroying the livelihood of farmers.

It hasn't been proven why the climate is changing. That is all guesswork and jumbled facts that swing the pendulum of truth to-n-fro.

You clearly haven't been keeping up.

[LetThereBe]

Really? Green technology is necessary if we're to have planet with a climate that will allow us and others to have some semblance of a modern civilization.

Of this I am skeptical.