Third Party & Independents Archives

17-Year-Old Suing for Global Warming

Global warming has ignited wildfires of controversy all across the world, and you can blame it all on Al Gore. The only people who even think about Global warming either completely believe the world is going to melt, or think it is an utter farce. There really isn’t a middle minded opinion with global warming. It has been reported that the last twelve months have been the warmest in documented history. Global warming naysayers proclaim, “That’s what a farmer’s almanac is for, and we know when it’s happening.”

Then there is 17-year-old climate change activist, Alec Loorz, who founded the iMatter Movement. The high school student travels all over the world to "preach" his passion for putting a stop to global warming. Loorz organized a march of "kids versus global warming" to raise awareness about climate change and protect their generation's future on Earth. More importantly, Loorz is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against the United States government, "for failing to protect the atmosphere as a public trust for future generations." Loorz says he's "Holding them accountable to their responsibility to value air and water as commons that need to be preserved."

According to a portion of a public trust doctrine, the government is legally responsible "to consider the atmosphere as a public trust" such as land and water, but has never been concerned for the atmosphere as a whole. There are fossil-fuel lobbyists fighting against Loorz, arguing they won't allow regulation on pollution and have filed a motion to dismiss the case.

We have lawmakers who are paid by oil interests to ignore the statistical data that the climate is changing. The government should be responsible for implementing the necessary steps to curb climate change, and ensure the next generation has a habitable planet to live on. Loorz and his following group of activists will grow up dealing with the consequences of the decisions that are made now to protect the planet.

Posted by MichaelMears at May 31, 2012 5:24 PM
Comments
Comment #345777

We should advocate a carbon tax. Nothing else has been effective.

This kid and sue, but his lifestyle is also part of the problem.

“The high school student travels all over the world to “preach” his passion for putting a stop to global warming.”

How does he get to those places he goes?

Posted by: C&J at May 31, 2012 6:43 PM
Comment #345782

Michael, little heads are filled with mush in the public school system by socialist teachers.

C&J, for smart people, you sure are being duped by this money scheme, power grab GW cap and trade. It’s all about money, government power, and redistribution of wealth to 3rd world nations. Which goes right in line with the Obama/socialist belief that America has plundered the resources of the world…a complete hoax.

But since real scientist are ignored by the MSM, and pseudo-scientists are about to base conclusions on theory; perhaps the best thing would be for this to be taken to the SCOTUS and real evidence presented. Can’t you just see Al Gore presenting the case for GW and telling the justices in his screaming fanatical voice, “We’re all gonna die in 1 year”. I rest my case.

Posted by: Billinflorida at May 31, 2012 7:34 PM
Comment #345824

“Michael, little heads are filled with mush in the public school system by socialist teachers.”

And some people’s heads are filled with mush by the “dittohead” talk show host’s opinion they take as gospel and quote incessantly.

Speaking about heads full of mush;

North Carolina considers making sea level rise illegal.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/05/30/nc-makes-sea-level-rise-illegal/

No, really, the truth is stranger than fiction.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 1, 2012 10:34 AM
Comment #345837

The idea that there is a worldwide socialist conspiracy to promote man-made Global Warming in order to bring down America has appeared repeatedly. It has been suggested by Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and others, and repeated by those on the right. How does this conspiracy work?

It includes virtually all of the climatologists in all of the countries in the world, thousands and thousands, and not just climatologists, either; the plot must include biologists, chemists, and almost every discipline, since those provide supporting evidence. None of the purveyors of this conspiracy have ever broken ranks, even with companies like Exxon able to offer fabulous inducements to talk. Furthermore, there must be a tremendous temptation for a few scientists to become dissatisfied with mere government grant money. Some would be bound to want to ‘wet their beak,’ or go all Mel from “Scarface” and demand first class tickets for vacations in London. Yet I never see scientists driving around in Porsches, or hear stories about white coats ending up floating face down in the East River.

Even more amazing is the way this scientific conspiracy for man-made Global Warming has penetrated the most tightly controlled defense installations and research facilities. Indeed, those seem to be the most fervent supporters: Lawrence Livermore Labs, the Max Planck institute in Germans, and many others in every country of the world. Even the US DoD has commissioned studies on the strategic implications of man-made Global Warming for the security of the United States.

Is this conspiracy tied to other conspiracies? Are the same people who fixed Obama’s birth announcement in the Hawaiian paper in on man-made Global Warming? Could it be the Trilateral Commission, or the Illuminate?

I hear the idea of this conspiracy thrown around a lot as the underlying motivation for man-made Global Warming. Please explain.

Posted by: phx8 at June 1, 2012 12:17 PM
Comment #345865

Climatology is a relatively new area of science. It would not surprise me at all if some or many of its theories turn out to be inadequate or even outright wrong.

However, it would be surprising to me if climatologists are wrong on some very basic facts and analysis, i.e., global warming trends, the contribution of CO2 to that warming and the fact that human burning of fossil contributes significantly to CO2 production. The Bush administration released it’s scientific assessment of global warming in 2008 that agreed with the above basic analysis and the facts supporting that analysis.

It would seem to me, that a prudent person would think those facts sufficient to seek alternatives to fossil fuel. However, for some reason, there is this conservative opposition. Is it just that Al Gore took up this issue to revive his flagging career?

The weird thing about this argument, though, is that regardless of global warming there are many sufficient reasons to find alternatives to current fossil fuels: energy independence, general pollution, smog, health effects, etc. and long term cost of reliance on a finite energy source.

Posted by: Rich at June 1, 2012 8:51 PM
Comment #345870

Well since Obama and the theorists are doing all they can to shut down production of fossil fuel; please tell me, which of these alternatives are up and running to supply the needs of an industrialized nation? Don’t give me research into alternative fuels; Obama spent $500 million on Solyndra alone and lost the taxpayer’s money, not counting all the other tax dollars spent on green energy that failed.

GW is like voting for the first black man as president; everyone wants to say they did it and no one wants to say they didn’t. Any scientist who deny GW are ignored or claimed to be nuts. What you have done, is tell me it is the consensus of all important scientists that there is such a thing as GW. I am not a scientist, but since when is scientific fact based on consensus?

Posted by: Billinflorida at June 1, 2012 9:28 PM
Comment #345879

Iceland, a peaceful, rational democracy, has a huge volcanic source of energy which can be harnessed to manufacture hydrogen. A hydrogen pipeline to the US would power completely non polluting fuel cells to power our country. No more global warming, no more asthma cancer etc from pollution, no more enriching megalomaniacal middle-eastern monarchies. Millions of jobs would be created by this and a public transportation system like they have everywhere else in the industrialized world. Think of the money we’d save on wars alone!

Posted by: Daniel at June 2, 2012 12:32 AM
Comment #345920

“Well since Obama and the theorists are doing all they can to shut down production of fossil fuel;”

Billinflorida,

That is simply not true. Everybody recognizes that we will need substantial amounts of fossil fuels in the future under the most optimistic forecasts for development of alternative and renewal sources.

Everybody further recognizes that exploitation of our own fossil fuel reserves is in the best interests of the nation in meeting that fossil fuel need.

But, that doesn’t mean:

a) That we don’t need to invest heavily in alternative fuel and renewable energy R&D. The current private energy sector is distinguished by its paltry R&D investment when compared to other major sectors of the economy. When you have control over a finite resource, why would you invest in alternatives?

b) That we don’t need to be concerned about the environmental impact of drilling and other methods of exploitation of our reserves. The BP Gulf spill was a red flag for the catastrophic danger to the environment and our economy for unsafe drilling practices. Sure, lets exploit our reserves, but lets remember the old Reagan philosophy, trust but verify.

c) That we don’t need to be concerned about efficient use of energy (conservation, i.e., CAFE standards for cars, light bulb efficiency, smart grids, etc.).

d) That we don’t need to be concerned about controlling pollution from fossil fuel use.

The way I see it, it is not an either or situation.

Posted by: Rich at June 2, 2012 8:28 PM
Comment #345928

Well, what a wild coincidence. It seems progressives and liberals are now able to predict natural climate cycles. They warn of Warming, and warming occurs. Just a lucky guess, I suppose. And despite scientific consensus about human-induced Global Warming- which apparently means the consensus cannot be based in reality or scientific fact- heat records continue to fall. Go figure.

In 2011, OK experienced the hottest summer on record of any state. It narrowly beat out TX (also last summer), and easily beat the previous OK record of 1934, during the Dust Bowl.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/us/oklahoma-2011-brought-hottest-summer-on-record.html?_r=1

Once again, reality has a liberal bias.

Posted by: phx8 at June 3, 2012 1:01 AM
Post a comment