Originally Posted by zoom44

no way in hell any automaker settles this. also no way in hell any automaker will let it get to court. just the pre-trial motions could take so long and cost so much that you could bankrupt the calfornia government.

my first thought about this was they will try to use the "tobacco suit/settlement" angle. he's hoping that that model will work. and this morning on th elocal radio i heard them make that exact comparison WHICH IS LAUGHABLE at best. the dj guy even said " sure they know what they're doing JUST LIKE those tobacco companies."

ridiculous.

understand this is what they will have to prove in court(and just what this AG is hoping for the chance to improve his image by argueing this)

he will have to PROVE in a court of law that there IS global warming. He will spend 10 years just trying to do that and not succeed
he will have to PROVE in a court of law that this change IS HARMING or WILL HARM
his state. he'll never get to this point
He will have to PROVE the expense of those damages. im sure he'll have some experts willing to name a dollar amount(which will be how much they would charge to "fix" the damage or at least study a fix)
He will have to PROVE the autos contribute to that change AND how much the contribution to that change is. which will just prove there are others that contribute way more
He will have to prove the automakers are somehow LIABLE for this when they have been following the Federal and STATE regulations regarding those emissions(and in many cases EXCEEDING those regs). which while doing so he will just prove that there are others way more culpable- like the state of california for building the roadways and allowing this to occur. not just allowing it but ENCOURAGING it.

he said himself he's looking for hundreds of millions in damages. so he'll spend a couple billion trying to get a what? 500 million?

ridiculous

Originally Posted by flomulgator

then you'd have shows like "Pimp My Smartie" and "Overampin'"

Originally Posted by zoom44

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/s...200609215.html



harvard should fire her- she is obviously incompetent. no thats harsh- harvard should get her a vacation and some counciling- she's losing her mind

Originally Posted by zoom44

i mean this part in particular



because it is.

but she is stating the wrong precedence in my mind. the AG is saying (well in the reports anyway, i have not yet read the full complaint) that the companies product has changed the enviroment causing the State to spend large sums of money to fix or prepare for the changes yet ahead. there is barely a mention of the impact to the health of the citizens

Originally Posted by bascho

I'd like to offer some of my opinions on the global warming issue. I watch almost everything on Discovery Science, TLC and NG. From what I've read and watched it is a fact the planet has gone through periods of extreme climate change in it's lifetime. These changes often cause the extermination of most life on earth. Does this mean we humans have no impact on climate trends? I think we do. Global warming seems to be apart of the earths life cycle and is inevitable. However, IMO, human impact as well as non-terrestrial impact can have some effect on the timing of those cycles. It really comes down to whether you believe the earth requires a delicate balance for complex life to exist. If you believe in that balance then we should be mindful of our actions and the consequences. If you do not believe in a delicate balance then it does not matter what humans do. I for one think we can impact climate and are doing so right now. In the same breath I will tell you that climate change resulting in the extermination of most life is a part of the earths life cycle.....and is inevitable.