Skip to comments.'Bring It on,' Climatologist Says of Global Warming Litigation
Posted on 07/18/2003 3:17:54 AM PDT by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - A well-known climatologist is so confident science does not support the claims in a new legal effort against fossil fuel-emitting businesses that he has a message for the coalition of international environmental groups filing the lawsuit: "Bring it on."
The litigation effort is seeking to penalize companies for contributing to climate change because of their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses.
Patrick J. Michaels said businesses should not be concerned about the new litigation efforts.
"I say, 'Bring it on.' If we ever get into a court of law, the holes in the arguments about disastrous climate change will be self-evident," Michaels told CNSNews.com.
"When confronted with facts, these cases by and large will fall apart," he added.
Michaels, author of the book Satanic Gasses: Clearing the Air About Global Warming and an environmental sciences professor at the University of Virginia, believes that "alarmist" claims of human-caused global warming are unfounded. He is also a senior fellow in environmental studies with the libertarian Cato Institute.
Michaels believes any climate change that may occur would not impact the Earth or its inhabitants in any significant way.
"The [climate] science is settled in a very non-alarmist way," he added.
Michaels does not see any parallel with tobacco lawsuits and the upcoming climate change lawsuits.
"Once this gets into the judicial process, you are going to see it is, in fact, the opposite of tobacco. With tobacco, we had a large number of people dying correlated with smoking, and with global warming, we have a large number of people living a longer and longer life, correlated with the use of [greenhouse gas-emitting] fossil fuels," he said.
"[Corporations] should welcome [the lawsuits]; it will finally place the scientific flaw in the public record, and hopefully, in front of a court of law. It is a huge mistake for the other side to do this," Michaels added.
The recently formed coalition of 70 international environmental organizations called the Climate Justice Programme (CJP) announced its intention to follow the lead of lawsuits against tobacco and fast food companies and begin litigating against companies it considers contributors to climate change.
Roda Verheyen, co-director of the CJP, believes that the prospect of human-caused global warming must be taken very seriously and said the courts are the next logical step to take the climate change debate.
"We now need to take [climate] science to the courts so that greenhouse gas emissions cannot continue with impunity," Verheyen said.
"We will try to enforce internationally and collaboratively the laws that exist now, to hold perpetrators accountable and liable for the consequences of their actions," Verheyen added.
Peter Roderick, another co-director of the CJP, said the litigation is necessary because of the "serious consequences" of greenhouse gas emissions.
"We cannot stand by and allow governments and the fossil fuel lobby to screw up the planet," Roderick said.
'The environmentalists lost'
Michaels believes the CJP's efforts will fail and pointed to several recent cases regarding carbon dioxide emissions brought by "Greens" because of the alleged negative climate effects and noted the Greens failed to win.
"Whenever the scientists who can demonstrate that warming fears have been greatly exaggerated were allowed to testify, the result was that no significant additional costs were imposed [on industry]. In other words, the environmentalists lost," Michaels explained.
The U.S. coordinator for the CJP, Jon Sohn, said the climate change litigation is necessary to protect future generations.
"Legal action is required to prompt positive action and provide a secure future for our children," Sohn said.
But Michaels believes the only threat to humans would occur if the Greens were somehow successful in court against these companies and drastically reduced the use of fossil fuels.
"If they win, they better produce an alternative [to fossil fuels] because the economic damage [the environmentalists] would cause will produce more morbidity and mortality" than any perceived climate change, Michaels said.
See Earlier Story:
'Alarmist' Global Warming Claims Unfounded Says Climatologist (July 14, 2003)
Listen to audio for this story.
E-mail a news tip to Marc Morano.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
The problem with enviros are they "pick" a certain point in time to suit their fancy and totally disregard a "growing population".
If our founders had their foresight, we'd all be gathering wood for the fire, growing our own crops and there wouldn't be a computer in sight.
Yes, yes...I vote for two buggies in every barn!!!
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.