An example: We Call It Life (new window)

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who expects the impending multi-billion dollar settlement will result in higher as prices so that Big Oil makes up for the money it will lose in the lawsuit.

Oh my goodness. This tent's big enough to hold trial lawyer haters, global warming deniers, AND champions of unfettered capitalism all at once. This should be fantastic.

Pocket Ninja: Oh my goodness. This tent's big enough to hold trial lawyer haters, global warming deniers, AND champions of unfettered capitalism all at once. This should be fantastic.

thank goodness I brought popcorn.

i'm all for doing what we can to help the environment, but i really hope all of this trendy global warming %$#@ goes away soon. so farking annoying.

Pocket Ninja: This tent's big enough to hold trial lawyer haters, global warming deniers, AND champions of unfettered capitalism all at once.

I'm betting on a few Edwards references.

By the way, the editors of the major science journals will love the lawyers for doing this.

I liked how they showed a picture of eroding shorelines in alaska

SO WHAT?
seriously
SO WHAT?

I process that the only people who this effects is tards that live in the shoreline

look at the tards who live underwater in new orleans?
look at the idiots who used to live in the miss flood plain?

sick and tired of people who live on volcanos complaining about volcanos

oh wait
lawsuits
nvm

just line the lawyers up

The Eskimo village of Kivalina sits on the tip of an eight-mile barrier reef on the west coast of Alaska.

Damn hippy ice flow huggers

What do lawyers know about science?
About as much as Erin Brokovich.

Next to nothing.

"The first tobacco suits were filed in the 1950s, but it wasn't until 1988 that lawyers were able to find chinks in the industry's armor."

In like 15 years it's going to be Global Cooling again... At least if the pattern of history repeats itself. Also, wouldn't the victim in this case be The Earth? I'm an accessory to the crime, ignorant or not... Nobody can prove that an increased (or decreased) number of hurricanes is caused by global warming... nobody even agrees on how high the water will rise if it does.

The Greenhouse Effect is why we are all here and it's been a lot worse and a lot better in the Earths history. Some species will die out, some will adapt. That's Evolution Baby! Enjoy the ride and make sure you take all sorts of pictures because it's gonna be great!

ndotseth: What do lawyers know about science?
About as much as Erin Brokovich.

Next to nothing.

Yes, because the people involved in this lawsuit won't bring educated scientists from every field they can find to prove their point. Thanks for playing, hope the door knocks some sense into you on the way out.

How long until the lawyers come after "big alcohol"?

Nobody seems to recognize that the tide has been turned against tobacco and it is losing it's prominence.

Did Loland mention he a balls-out straight hater? Now you got the news, Boing-Boing--Low K is bulldoggin'. My grill up in this, bulldoggin'.

scottbody: Nobody seems to recognize that the tide has been turned against tobacco and it is losing it's prominence.

... in North America. Go to China... Smoking is a growth market there.

Bang goes the economy.

This is why, as a shyster, I don't do torts. Keeping crackheads on the street is far more honorable.

Pocket Ninja: Oh my goodness. This tent's big enough to hold trial lawyer haters, global warming deniers, AND champions of unfettered capitalism all at once. This should be fantastic.

/fap fap fap fap ..
//fap
///oh, was it not that kind of thread?

It isn't like we have any evidence of cylical changes to average temperatures over Earth's history.

Who is representing the Martians?

I mean, they are having the almost identical global warming. Can't we blame Big Oil for that too?

heaven forbid the smokers take the blame themselves. of course, they don't have billions of dollars that lawyers can go after either.

it's like the people who are blaming mcdonald's cause they're fat...not the fact that they never workout or choose to always eat unhealthy.

namatad: I liked how they showed a picture of eroding shorelines in alaska

SO WHAT?
seriously
SO WHAT?

I process that the only people who this effects is tards that live in the shoreline

look at the tards who live underwater in new orleans?
look at the idiots who used to live in the miss flood plain?

sick and tired of people who live on volcanos complaining about volcanos

oh wait
lawsuits
nvm

just line the lawyers up

Just as long as you don't biatch and moan when the breadbasket migrates north into Canada and Chicago ceases to exist.

I think it's funny.

/i do

I hope someone can enlighten me on this, but what are the options for payment of damages in a class action lawsuit? Is the money received necessarily divvied up according to the damaged suffered, or can it end up in a third party entity (ideally a grant for development of BETTER WAYS OF DOING THINGS)?

Oh fark it, I'll just read the article.

I'm interested to know how they figured it would cost $237,500 to relocate a person that lives in a shack. And why someone else should pay.

gterz66: How long until the lawyers come after "big alcohol"?

This.

That hockey stick curve - go look at it a little more closely. CO2 follows temperature rise, it does not lead it (for all you engineers who think you're scientists because you took three chem classes and six physics classes in college, that means that the rising temps likely cause the CO2 to increase, not vice versa as Al Gore would have you believe).

GAT_00: ndotseth: What do lawyers know about science?
About as much as Erin Brokovich.

Next to nothing.

Yes, because the people involved in this lawsuit won't bring educated scientists from every field they can find to prove their point. Thanks for playing, hope the door knocks some sense into you on the way out.

They'll have plenty of experts to establish warming, but there's no way in hell the plaintiffs can sufficiently establish causation.

I work for big oil, so I'm really...eh whatever, honestly guys, if you want to focus attention and money on anything it should be this:

ways to reduce the demand for oil
ways to reward people for reducing their oil usage
alternative means of oil
not just farking suing for the sake of getting their cut of the check.

My $.02...
Seriously, if this does pass through, can we just use the money to pay people to stop driving hummers? Like srsly?
/not that they deserve it
//maybe we could just burn hummer owner body's for oil
///just a suggestion

lawyers suing for something that doesn't exist? say it ain't so!

Don't much give a shiat; I have an electric bicycle. I fully realize this isn't practical for everyone, but why not some sort of expanded version? A lightweight aluminum frame enclosed with water-tight fabrics, driven by an electric motor and high density lithium ion batteries. They'd be cheap, mechanically simple, and provided that the electricity came from geothermal/wind/solar/nuclear it'd be pretty eco-friendly or whatever.

Pretty much the only practical reason we couldn't switch over to such vehicles is the danger of collision with existing fossil fuel vehicles. If nobody can afford the fuel for them, problem solved.

/not an environmentalist
//more of an efficiency fetishist
///I blame the german blood

King Something: I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who expects the impending multi-billion dollar settlement will result in higher as prices so that Big Oil makes up for the money it will lose in the lawsuit.

It's the only way they'll learn.

gterz66: How long until the lawyers come after "big alcohol"?



Bring it.

if they all had billions of dollars they'd file a RICO act suit agin' 'em

/still buys cheaper gas than the rest of the world

So after the lawyers in this suit finish up for the week, climb into their Cadillac SUVs, pick up their kids and head to Aspen for the weekend, can they be convicted as accessories?

Next on the agenda, lawsuits against "Big Heterosexuality" for producing biological entities that are a strain on the environment.

Pocket Ninja: Oh my goodness. This tent's big enough to hold trial lawyer haters, global warming deniers, AND champions of unfettered capitalism all at once. This should be fantastic.

They're just the same people railing against different threats to their worship of the Lord God Mammon, aka The Almighty Dollar.

Two words: ration cards

Each registered vehicle gets an 18 gallons a week ration card.

Government would then subsidized the price of fuel down to $2.00 to $1.75 a gallon.

How is that possible?

Simple, there will be no form of prevention to go over the 18 gallons a week. However, if you do go over the 18 gallons to fill up a boat or a long road trip, you will be forced to pay a 250 percent surcharge of each gallon of gas. So basically, the price of gas goes to like $5.00 for each gallon. The overage charge will cover the subsidy of lower cost of fuel. Trust me, it will, Americans are known for over-consumption.

The side effects of such a plan...

The ration card will act in the same manner as a gas credit card. Each month, the United States Department of Energy could branch off and provide billing for such an endeavor.

You want to go on a trip, and avoid a subsidy, save up. Gallons can rollover. So say if you only use 10 gallons this week, the following week you will have a gallon balance of 26 gallons. This would in turn reward individuals for using public transit, or biking to work.

A card is distributed not to everyone, only individuals with registered vehicles. So miss your car registration payment and have expired tags, good luck driving around with no gas. This also solves the problem of netting uninsured drivers. Most states require that in order to register your vehicle, you must provide proof of insurance. Again, no insurance, no fuel.

..and cigarettes went from $1.50 to $5.00 a pack.

Just sayin'

Putting the price of cigarettes up is the only thing that actually prevents ten-year-olds from smoking. So even if a pack of opportunistic predatory lawyers profit, I have to hate the sinners but love the crime. Darwinism at its best--the lion only has to be faster than the slowest gazelle. You snooze, you're lunch. And there's been some furious snoozing going on since the first capitalist realized he could sell chalk as milk and cut out the dairy man.

Deadhouseplants: Two words: ration cards

Each registered vehicle gets an 18 gallons a week ration card.

Government would then subsidized the price of fuel down to $2.00 to $1.75 a gallon.

How is that possible?

Simple, there will be no form of prevention to go over the 18 gallons a week. However, if you do go over the 18 gallons to fill up a boat or a long road trip, you will be forced to pay a 250 percent surcharge of each gallon of gas. So basically, the price of gas goes to like $5.00 for each gallon. The overage charge will cover the subsidy of lower cost of fuel. Trust me, it will, Americans are known for over-consumption.

The side effects of such a plan...

The ration card will act in the same manner as a gas credit card. Each month, the United States Department of Energy could branch off and provide billing for such an endeavor.

You want to go on a trip, and avoid a subsidy, save up. Gallons can rollover. So say if you only use 10 gallons this week, the following week you will have a gallon balance of 26 gallons. This would in turn reward individuals for using public transit, or biking to work.

A card is distributed not to everyone, only individuals with registered vehicles. So miss your car registration payment and have expired tags, good luck driving around with no gas. This also solves the problem of netting uninsured drivers. Most states require that in order to register your vehicle, you must provide proof of insurance. Again, no insurance, no fuel.

Two words: siphon hose.

Deadhouseplants 2008-05-19 12:19:52 AM
Two words: ration cards

I'm a bleeding heart liberal, and even I see how silly an idea this is. I'm all for government involvement in policies that regulate the types of vehicles and mileage thereof that can run on our roads. That way, enterprises and markets can coalesce around providing fuels and vehicles that meet (or exceed) those specifications.

The problem comes when the government takes over an efficient market function entirely. Fuel and vehicle markets are adapting to rising demand today without any seriously heavy-handed government action (some people are getting rich off of this, and we're paying more collectively, so perhaps some better regulation is in order). However, taking over the reigns entirely seems mighty foolish, and especially dangerous when we don't have much in the way of national energy policy that comes alongside it.

Come back to me once the government's taken over national health care. Now THAT is a market rife with inefficiency and poor distribution of care and services that I'd be happy to see the feds step in on.

brantgoose 2008-05-19 12:14:06 AM


King Something: I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who expects the impending multi-billion dollar settlement will result in higher as prices so that Big Oil makes up for the money it will lose in the lawsuit.

It's the only way they'll learn.


So who learns what, exactly? Consumers learn that trial lawyers deserve the fruits of the 30 cent-a-gallon litigation surtax you get to pay them? That if I say I am doing science on the public's behalf that no weapon should be left unturned for the purpose of eradicating arguments counter to my own, in the pursuit of justice? Scientists learn that if you're working in an area with political overtones, you better make sure that you only accept grants from 'green' corporations and foundations, and stay on the politically correct side of the issue?

I see no benefit from this litigation other than to suppress legitimate inquiry, based upon the left-wing belief that the public is too stupid to understand anything, except what they are spoonfed. To them this necessitates relentless suppression of any point of view contrary to what the left deems correct.

Deadhouseplants: Two words: ration cards....

This is all fine and good, but doesn't stop our dependence on oil or really reduce a lot of consumption. It does however give the government an amazing amount of power.

namatad: I liked how they showed a picture of eroding shorelines in alaska

SO WHAT?
seriously
SO WHAT?

I process that the only people who this effects is tards that live in the shoreline

look at the tards who live underwater in new orleans?
look at the idiots who used to live in the miss flood plain?

sick and tired of people who live on volcanos complaining about volcanos

oh wait
lawsuits
nvm

just line the lawyers up

So what?

You raise the sea level, then you've just dumped lots of fresh water in the ocean. If you increase the amount of fresh water in the ocean, the salinity gets all farked up. You fark up the salinity, and the global oceanic conveyors that keep warm water circulating around the planet will shut down. The oceanic conveyors keep us from freezing to death (the atmosphere alone won't do the job), and keep life in the oceans from dying out. You shut those down and the bottom falls out of our relatively balmy and pleasant climate, and it gets too cold to grow crops. Then your hamburgers get very, very expensive.

If it's bad enough, you put the planet into an icehouse climate and there's so much snow and ice that the Earth reflects all the sunlight back out into space and we get Hoth.

Deadhouseplants: Two words: ration cards

Each registered vehicle gets an 18 gallons a week ration card.

Government would then subsidized the price of fuel down to $2.00 to $1.75 a gallon.

How is that possible?

Simple, there will be no form of prevention to go over the 18 gallons a week. However, if you do go over the 18 gallons to fill up a boat or a long road trip, you will be forced to pay a 250 percent surcharge of each gallon of gas. So basically, the price of gas goes to like $5.00 for each gallon. The overage charge will cover the subsidy of lower cost of fuel. Trust me, it will, Americans are known for over-consumption.

The side effects of such a plan...

The ration card will act in the same manner as a gas credit card. Each month, the United States Department of Energy could branch off and provide billing for such an endeavor.

You want to go on a trip, and avoid a subsidy, save up. Gallons can rollover. So say if you only use 10 gallons this week, the following week you will have a gallon balance of 26 gallons. This would in turn reward individuals for using public transit, or biking to work.

A card is distributed not to everyone, only individuals with registered vehicles. So miss your car registration payment and have expired tags, good luck driving around with no gas. This also solves the problem of netting uninsured drivers. Most states require that in order to register your vehicle, you must provide proof of insurance. Again, no insurance, no fuel.

Let me guess. You're an engineer? And one that has no experience with government workers?

Deadhouseplants: Two words: ration cards


Personally, I'd rather spend the hundreds of millions that your plan would take to administer on technological solutions for renawables.

Today's high gas prices are not caused by an oil shortage. It's market driven.

As for the true cause of global warming, well, people can debate that all they want. It's just that future generations will have to deal with the decisions that are being made today. When the planet supports 6 billion people it's a sure bet that our impact is damaging this planet. I have seen much environmental change in my lifetime and it makes me sad when I think of my grandkids and what they will have to face.

Read the scientific reports and not the propaganda and make your own conclusion.

Personally, I think these lawyers have not a damn clue what they're about to get themselves into. Oil is so entangled with the government at this point that they might as well be suing the military for causing an unusually high rate of on-the-job fatalities among its employees.

mmb1978: An appropriate response from Big Oil would be to turn off all the gas stations in the US until the federal legislature indemnifies them against this ligitation. If the litigation proceeds and is successful, the appropriate response from Big Oil would be to set off explosives in all of their refineries, set fire too all of their wells, and destroy every piece of machinery they own. /Paging Senor D'Anconia.

First off, Ayn Rand knows nothing about economics. Reread "Atlas Shrugged" - it's ironically similar to "The Communist Manifesto" in that it focuses only on the supply component of the market while ignoring the demand component. From a fundamental level, the woman just doesn't know what she's talking about. Like the Communism Manifesto, it too proposes a utopia based off its its false premises, and it's eternally in chasing this utopia that the followers of both blind themselves to the inherent flaws in their belief systems. But that's for another day.

Are you kidding? If Big Oil shut down and held the economy for ransom in order order to get special treatment, do you think the public would smile broadly and take the time off from being unable to drive to kick back at home and read "The Wealth of Nations"? The backlash would be so sudden and so intense that I'd be surprised if the CEOs weren't thrown in jail before the mobs could get to them. That's the problem with Randites - they're so caught up in this fictitious economic world that they've lost sight of how reality actually functions. PLUS, you're talking about erasing trillions of dollars in wealth over the prospect of losing billions. I'd love to see you live out your own advice and set fire to your house and everything inside to avoid a mortgage payment.

/don't take this too personally, I'm just annoyed by Rand's ideas and it's too late to tell *her*
//owns oil stock