The suit was brought by landowners in Mississippi, who claim that oil and coal companies emitted greenhouse gasses that contributed to global warming that, in turn, caused a rise in sea levels, adding to Hurricane Katrina’s ferocity.
For a nice overview of the ruling, and its significance in the climate change battle, check out this blog post by J. Russell Jackson, a Skadden Arps partner who specializes in mass tort litigation. The post likens the Katrina plaintiffs’ claims, which set out a chain of causation, to the litigation equivalent of “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.”
The central question before the Fifth Circuit was whether the plaintiffs had standing, or whether they could demonstrate that their injuries were “fairly traceable” to the defendant’s actions. The defendants predictably assert that the link is “too attenuated.”
But the Fifth Circuit held that at this preliminary stage in the litigation, the plaintiffs had sufficiently detailed their claims to earn a day in court. (WSJ)
This is all the information you need to realize that the world has gone nuts. I'm not an attorney, but it seems there is no way to present facts to prove that global warming, which the majority of scientists do not believe even exists, directly caused the hurricane that destroyed much of the Gulf coast.
What this will do is invite untold numbers of similar suits and thus clogging our courts eve more than they already are. Now every time there is a flood, hurricane, tornado, ... will we see the courts full of folks trying to get some money out of somebody. All of this for a hoax:
The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960's and 70's were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people's lives and for financial gain. (WNHO)
See endless links and references to the hoax here.
They have to set a precedent so that there will be something to sue when malpractice occurs under government health "care." No one that I've seen has addressed the issue of sovereign immunity with respect to the pending health insurance legislation. Won't providers be employees of the almighty State?
Posted by: Betsy Wuebker | October 21, 2009 at 11:39 AM
My question is what took them so long? Four years? One would think any class action ambulance chasing lawyer like a John Edwards would have been all over this a long time ago. Maybe not exactly this but another strategy for a lawsuit of equal stupidity.
BTW, other states in the gulf region seem to deal with natural disasters without all the angst.
Posted by: Stanford Matthews | October 21, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Can we sue filers of frivilous lawsuits for damaging the environment by destroying trees used in their reams of legal documents?
Posted by: R.J. Godlewski | October 21, 2009 at 01:19 PM
Dittos!
I'm spending Christman in Connecticut this year and I hear that it's going to be a bitter cold one! Can anyone spare any Co2 emissions to warm up thinga up a bit. Oh no....global cooling is next........;-)
Love your blog!
James
Posted by: dittosrush.blogspot.com | October 21, 2009 at 02:13 PM
dittosrush: We have had the coolest summer I can remember here, no global warming. Thanks for the kind words and come back often.
Betsy: Interesting point. Unfortunately nobody knows, we don't actually have a bill yet. Getting this congress to agree on one will be questionable.
Stanford: They have been trying to do this for some time, but they couldn't get the courts to agree they had a basis to file suit ... until now.
R.J.: Excellent, I'm wondering how many trees will have to die for these suits to be filed???
Posted by: Debbie | October 21, 2009 at 02:42 PM
This is what leftism gets us. Stupidity, ignorance and destruction on a scale we thought is unimaginable.
Posted by: MK | October 21, 2009 at 04:52 PM
I am surprised, because of the foolishness of this suit, that some group of national taxpayers doesn't offer a counter-suit against the state, city, and complainants regarding the ill advised (and known to be ill advised) placement and then maintenance of the location of the city. An investigation into the graft and other illegal means of maintaining the location in discovery would be... interesting, as Spock might say. *eyebrows raised* *blink* *blink*
Just a thought.
Posted by: Doom | October 21, 2009 at 05:13 PM
Gah!
We really do live in the Age of Surrealism.
Posted by: Always On Watch | October 22, 2009 at 09:16 AM
Well, as a foolish idea it is ok, and even fun but does anyone think they got at least 1% chances of winning that suit? I think they don’t. It is just a suit for the sake of it and for the sake of “remembering” the Katrina holocaust. If this suit serves to mind people about the problem it is ok, but no way they are going to get 1c in compensation damage.
Posted by: microgaming | October 22, 2009 at 12:59 PM
There's just some things the left never gets over:
Katrina
George Bush 2000 election
Ronald Reagan
Posted by: The Grouch at Right Truth | October 23, 2009 at 07:13 PM