

A Messy Loss for Climate Lawsuit Plaintiffs - grellas
http://blogs.forbes.com/docket/2010/05/28/climate-lawsuit-plaintiffs-lose-another-district/?boxes=Homepagechannels

======
anamax
> > The plaintiffs, property owners on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, accused the
> industrial companies of spewing greenhouse gases into the air and helping to
> cause global warming, rising waters, hurricanes and all manner of other
> natural disasters.

Suppose that the plaintiffs' allegations are true but the effect of
defendants' actions is to counter-balance cooling caused by volcanos, the
solar cycle, and/or othe factors. In other words, there's no change because
the of the defendants' actions. (This is the background to Niven's Fallen
Angels.)

In that circumstance, should the plaintiffs pay the defendants for the
benefits that they provided?

If not, why not?

------
tbrownaw
> The plaintiffs, property owners on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, accused the
> industrial companies of spewing greenhouse gases into the air and helping to
> cause global warming, rising waters, hurricanes and all manner of other
> natural disasters.

I thought the latest guess was that the warming mostly happens near the poles,
thus reducing temperature differentials, thus leading to _milder_ weather?

