I read this headline yesterday and quickly posted it to Twitter because it riled me up so much.  Apparently, there is a provision in a House bill currently being considered that would allow “victims” of global warming to actually sue the government.

This headline hasn’t gotten a lot of traction in the mainstream press (gee, I wonder why…), but some of us are starting to take notice.  I personally saw the headline on the All American Blogger site.  They said they saw it mentioned on Tom Nelson’s blog and he mentions that it was talked about on Fox News’ ‘Fox and Friends’ TV show which, in turn, says it was originally reported in The Washington Times!

The Washington Times report says:

Self-proclaimed victims of global warming or those who “expect to suffer” from it – from beachfront property owners to asthmatics – for the first time would be able to sue the federal government or private businesses over greenhouse gas emissions under a little-noticed provision slipped into the House climate bill.

And if you think they’re overstating it you would be mistaken.  As the report goes on to say:

The measure sets grounds for anyone “who has suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable, in whole or in part,” to government inaction to file a “citizen suit.” The term “harm” is broadly defined as “any effect of air pollution (including climate change), currently occurring or at risk of occurring.”

Can you imagine what kind of lunacy would ensue of this were to pass?  Nevermind the idiocy of the concept in general, the provision itself is so vague that almost anyone would have legal grounds to sue if they could make any kind of semi-coherent argument at all.  Just imagine what would happen to the court systems once the trial lawyers got their hands on this…

Like I said, I posted this headline to Twitter (and my Facebook page).  Well, it wasn’t long before someone brought up the idea that people might have a valid argument for suing the government.  After all, they said, if the government had regulated carbon emissions better perhaps there wouldn’t have been so much pollution in the atmosphere and global warming wouldn’t be happening…

My response to that is this: First of all, we don’t even know that global warming is actually happening!  Yes, I know that the teachers in the classrooms are telling our children that global warming is melting the ice caps and killing the polar bears and I know the news media is showing us maps of all the cities that will be flooded in like ten years and I know that Al Gore is touring the world like a rock star and preaching the gospel of global warming.  I know this.

The problem is that the science behind global warming HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN!  It hasn’t!  If you don’t believe me, read the reports.  Check out the Senate Committee report that has a listing of over 700 International scientists who are ON RECORD with their dissent over the global warming claims.  The 700 scientists who disagree with the claims is 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers that got a lot of this started in the first place.

So if you were to take the government to court you would first have to prove that global warming is actually happening, which isn’t exactly a given.

Assuming you could somehow prove that much, you would then have to prove that our government actually caused the global warming – that the global warming is man-made and not a natural cyclical phenomenon and that the government caused it or allowed it to be caused through gross or intentional negligence and is thus responsible for global warming.  Of course, it wouldn’t be enough to prove that our government is responsible, you would have to prove that they are solely responsible or more responsible for the global warming that affected you more than any other government is responsible.  This would be necessary in order to hold the government accountable for the harm that has befallen you.

If you can prove that you must then prove that you were adversely affected by said global warming MORE than anyone else was affected by the same global warming in order to argue that you deserve to be compensated for it while others or not.  Or you must argue that EVERYONE affected similarly to yourself should be compensated the same as yourself which would undoubtedly lower any compensation you might attain from a jury. 

If you could prove that then you would still have to make a case as to why you think the government (that is, other citizens who paid taxes) should have to pay you some form of compensation simply because the environment that was once hospitable to you is no longer so.  After all, history is full of climate changes and natural disasters that forced people for health reasons or to move or change jobs or careers in order to survive financially.  Why should you be compensated for a climate change that forced something similar for you when all these other people throughout history just sucked it up and moved on?

The sheer lunacy of such a measure boggles the imagination.