I can’t wait to hear the plaintiffs argument as to why U.S. CO2 emissions versus Chinese were the proximate cause of the damage..
I can’t wait to hear the plaintiffs argument as to why U.S. CO2 emissions versus Chinese were the proximate cause of the damage..
Global warming and this whole “go green” issue has a lot of people with vested interests blowing things out of proportions. As a result, the layman is left totally confused as to what the ground reality truly is. They don’t know what to believe and whom to believe. While it is good to be cautious with the way we use our resources, it is totally unnecessary to go overboard and become paranoid. At Climatarians, a global sustainability directory, we bring relevant sites together to present a more cohesive picture.
“I can’t wait to hear the plaintiffs argument as to why U.S. CO2 emissions versus Chinese were the proximate cause of the damage..”
I don’t know what they’ll say, but if they win then the rest of U.S. industry can get their “Go Directly to China!” card. And what about us who would be unemployed because of this while they get to live the good life, millions richer? Can we sue THEM for screwing us out of more jobs?
Anyway, I liked the math from the blog post. Indeed… how does one figure 1.57%? Not that that matters, though. Tipping-points, and all that nonsense… So they’d pay for 100% of the storm.
Sue? Sue who? We gave them $87b. They should have been able to dig all the way to China for that amount. What they ought to do is go after Ray Nagin. They already ditched Blanc in favor of Jindal. oh well, I guess as long as the libs are in charge there is no such thing as a frivolous law suit.