Open thread March 23, 2018 Dan Crawford | March 23, 2018 8:59 am Comments (11) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
It’s Time to Panic Now
By Fred Kaplan
March 22, 2018
“John Bolton’s appointment as national security adviser—a post that requires no Senate confirmation—puts the United States on a path to war. And it’s fair to say President Donald Trump wants us on that path.”
Why it’s time to buy an ultra-high definition TV—and for cheap.
By Fred Kaplan
March 23, 2018
Wait and see if Mattis brings in Wolfowitz and Feith to shove it down the JCS.
Also if Pompeo bring back the Clinton neocons Kagan connection to DoS.
Gotta love the energy companies running away from the deniers, and the deniers trying to keep their income sources in place.
“While Chevron’s lawyers avoided the more ridiculous denier talking points, several high-profile climate science skeptics submitted a friend-of-the-court brief that argued there is no scientific consensus that human-caused emissions contribute to climate change and that, in fact, a warming climate is good for people and the planet. The brief was signed by a half dozen vocal skeptics (and promoted by the conservative Heartland Institute, which funds much of their work), including former British Independence Party politician Viscount Christopher Monckton, former Delaware state climatologist David Legates (who was asked to resign from the position and then was fired when he refused) and Harvard astrophysicist Willie Soon, who has claimed that “too much ice is really bad for polar bears.”
Alsup almost immediately asked the brief’s authors who had funded their research, and the responses included Peabody Coal and ExxonMobil. But the brief only served to highlight the tightrope that fossil fuel companies need to walk between the positions they promoted not too long ago and those they embrace now.
“I was surprised to see that amicus brief get filed and would have liked to know if the fossil fuel companies knew that was coming or not,” Ages said. “It doesn’t really help them at this point.”
But for decades it did. Skepticism of climate science helped to minimize concern about climate change both in the general public and among politicians. It’s not clear whether shifting their talking points now will help fossil fuel companies in court.
“It’s too late. They don’t get credit for suddenly saying that IPCC science is good and real and they accept it,” Ages said. “We’re still in a position where we have no federal regulation, and we have an entire administration full of climate deniers. They sowed the doubt that created an environment in which that could happen.”
The reason Chevron was snuggling up to the IPCC is not because they now believe in it. Chevron was willing to stipulate that CO2 causes warming, because their defense was they only extracted the oil, they didn’t combust it. And the act of combustion is what frees the CO2 into the air.
This is at least a clever argument that separates the question of “what causes climate change” from “who should be responsible for whatever harms climate change brings.”
I only made the bullets, bump stock, and 17 round magazines? I only made the matches? etc. I only made the lawn mower which cut his toes off when the blades did not stop. It is the other person using what I made. You are responsible for the product and the safety of it in common use. You can not deny the use of a manufactured product causing its damage through the intentional use of it by the end user. You have provided a means and are still responsible for it. The damage is done, continuing, and they own it. Denying the causing and then accepting the beliefs does not relieve liability.
EM, as Sammy pointed out this is a law suit asking for large damages, and asking the singular question who is eventually causing the problem: ““who should be responsible for whatever harms climate change brings.” The oil companies point out they are further up the supply chain not at the bottom where the pollution enters the environment.
The oil companies’ lawyers used the existing IPCC science to show the uncertainties associated with the science and included in the IPCC Report. In so doing they made a case for the hypocrisy of the IPCC claims especially in the Summary for Policy Makers.
Failing to even marginally support their claim of a “Conspiracy” between the oil companies is why that charge was thrown out, not because of any doubt of the core science by ?deniers?.
This trial is showing that ?deniers? are in denial of much less than claimed by the alarmist/believer folks. In a public trial the two sides are being asked to show cause and support their claims.
It appears “Science Denier” is and was always an exaggerated and wrong claim.
You guys both managed to totally miss the point at the same time.
You are spending too much time together George and Lennie.
What did you expect?
“Then the coal company came with the world’s largest shovel
And they tortured the timber and stripped all the land
Well, they dug for their coal till the land was forsaken
Then they wrote it all down as the progress of man”
Paradise John Prine
They can deny and embrace all they want to, which is laughable. They still own it. Now all they did was write their own report on climate change. Ironic???
Your use of the term “use” in your response should have been “misuse”.
“What defenses are available in products liability lawsuits?
Various defenses are available to manufacturers or sellers in products liability lawsuits. These defenses include contributory negligence (the consumer’s own actions caused the injury), comparative negligence (the consumer’s damages are reduced in proportion to the percentage of his or her fault), assumption of risk (the consumer knew about the defect but continued to use the product anyway), and product misuse”
It goes on to define: “What constitutes product misuse?
To be considered product misuse, some courts hold that the consumer’s use has to be one that the manufacturer could not have intended, expected or anticipated. In other words, the use of a product will not bar recovery if the use was reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer. Foreseeability depends upon the intended and actual uses of the product, which are well known to the manufacturer and the general public….”
And also this: “What is the effect of a product misuse defense?
Some courts have held that the consumer’s misuse or improper use of a product frees the manufacturer or seller of any liability. For example, the misuse of a product is a complete defense in Indiana, which bars a products liability claim. Other courts have held that the consumer’s misuse or improper use of a product reduces the amount of damages the consumer can recover.”
One approach I can foresee is by accepting the IPCC science 1) either users KNOWINGLY were misusing the product, or 2) in using the product they knowingly accepted the damages in light of the benefits the derived. Thereby lowering their damages.
The final conclusion is if they knowingly continue to use the products they are fully responsible for all damages.
Its a rock and a hard place for the plaintiffs without the conspiracy.
Run, to confirm the final conclusion above, this case law explains the possible result. https://www.blmlaw.com/news/manufacturer-not-liable-where-claimant-knowingly-uses-unsafe-product
Manufacturer not liable where claimant knowingly uses unsafe product
Home Insights News Manufacturer not liable where claimant knowingly …
01 Sep 2016
A Court of Appeal judgment handed down this week provides useful assistance to product liability insurers and manufacturers in defending product liability claims. The case of Howmet Limited v Economy Devices Limited confirms that if someone continues to use a product despite knowing it is defective, it is done so at the user’s own risk and the manufacturer of the product cannot be found to be at fault in the event of damage caused by the defect….”