Judge Dismisses Claims CO2 Emissions Caused Hurricane Katrina

Judge Dismisses Claims CO2 Emissions Caused Hurricane Katrina

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
September 8, 2007 - 12:58 ET

While media carped and whined about the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina devastating New Orleans, a judge in Gulfport, Mississippi, ruled on a lawsuit filed against oil, coal, and electric utility companies that could have significant implications on future litigation involving greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

Unfortunately, from what I can tell, not one press outlet found the judge's decision at all newsworthy. Not one!

To set this up, NewsBusters reported on August 15 a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of a number of Mississippians claiming that the greenhouse gas emissions of a very long list of companies doing business in the Gulf exacerbated the strength of Hurricane Katrina thereby making them responsible for the citizens' financial losses.

On Friday, LexisNexis Mealey's Legal News reported (very grateful h/t NBer Par for the Course):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

A federal judge on Aug. 30 rejected Mississippi residents' claims that coal, oil and chemical companies were liable for greenhouse gas emissions, which allegedly led to an increase in powerful hurricanes in the region, including Hurricane Katrina (Ned Comer, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA Inc., et al., No. 05-CV-436LG, S.D. Miss., Southern Div.).

Though I'd like to supply more information about this decision, I can find absolutely no media coverage on the subject whatsoever.

Think you would have heard about this if the judge had ruled that greenhouse gases released by these companies were to blame for Katrina's strength and size?

Yeah. I do, too.

Yet, that wasn't the only significant legal ruling on August 30 surrounding Hurricane Katrina media chose to ignore, for at virtually the same time in New Orleans, a federal court sided with a major insurance company regarding disaster claims.

As reported by the SunHerald (emphasis added):

A federal appeals court sided with Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. on Thursday in a landmark Hurricane Katrina case.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled that language in the insurer's storm policy that was used to deny coverage is not "ambiguous."
"The reason the term ambiguous is important in insurance matters is because ambiguity in insurance contracts is almost universally decided in favor of the policyholder," said Robert Hartwig, vice president and chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute in New York. "But what the panel is saying here is that it is not ambiguous, that it is quite clear."
That's exactly the ruling Nationwide wanted.

Didn't hear about this ruling, either? Think you might have if the court ruled differently? Get the feeling that we'll only hear about rulings in this region supporting the media meme that all companies are evil, greedy entities focused on stealing from innocents to line their wallets?

Yeah. I do, too.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Noel

September 8, 2007 - 13:14 ET by

and as i noted earlier today the past two hurricane seasons with way below normal storms isn't highlighted either. Think they would if they were above normal?

Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

Half The News, All The Time

September 8, 2007 - 17:03 ET by Junk Science Skeptic

While it's widely reported that warmer water appears to have a strengthening effect on hurricanes, the fact that never gets mentioned is that warmer air affects wind shear, inhibiting the formation of hurricanes and breaking them up before they get dangerous.

As such, it's not just a simple two-mode closed system where warming automatically equals more and stronger hurricanes, as the media narrative attempts to portray.

Same goes for most of climate science. Climate is an open system with too many variables to allow making simple "if, then" statements.

Yes, the climate is slowly warming, and it will be till the next ice age begins. Yes, humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Yes, atmospheric levels of CO2 are rising. However, none of these three statements have been proven to be linked to the others, in spite of widely reported assumptions to the contrary.

It's entirely likely that nature can consume far more CO2 than humans and "fossil fuel" energy use can produce, yet nature may not be able to absorb the CO2 level increases created by solar input. It has also been shown that temperature increases lead CO2 level increases, not the other way around.

Those spinning the media narrative and other AGW proponents couldn't give a damn about the environment. Their efforts have far more to do with Neo-Stalinist control, than with any real benefit to the environment. "Gulfstreams and motorcades for me, but not for thee."

Thompson/Giuliani 2008

Something else you're

September 8, 2007 - 13:30 ET by danbo

Something else you're likely not to see.

The's also some question as to the reality of 2005 being the real record in numbers. The year 1933 had 19 hurricanes to make land fall. 2005 had 17. What put 2005 ahead was the number of storms that never made landfall. They were identified by satellite, radar and fly through. This was not available in 1933.

One on 2005's storms (Gert) which hit Mexico was only identified as a tropical cyclone via satellite, imagery and fly through. (I will add that one storm in 2006 was only recognized after the year was over and they reviewed data.

Source

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

It's not nice to fool Mother Nature

September 8, 2007 - 13:45 ET by DontFeedTheTrolls

Add to this the fact that they weather services have conspired to now officially name 'sub-tropical' storms so they can slyly say the number of storms is higher.

It doesn't seem to be working though, Mother Nature isn't cooperating.

Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.

Won't be long now until they

September 8, 2007 - 15:04 ET by motherbelt

Won't be long now until they start naming the tropical "waves"....

All I can say is thank heaven the suit failed. Just what we need, people suing over the weather!! (John Edwards, call your office!)

I thought they were already

September 8, 2007 - 15:05 ET by danbo

I thought they were already naming every bunch of clouds over the gulf.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Noel, on the second ruling..

September 8, 2007 - 13:58 ET by Gary Hall

Noel, on the second ruling which you mentioned:.this ruling is concerning the issue raised every time in such storms - that of "what do ya mean, my homeowner's policy does not cover floods?" The Sun Herald piece, you referened noted:

Nationwide said the Leonards' policy did not cover damage from rising water and they were only responsible for wind damage.

People who live in flood prone area's are responsible for obtaining flood insurance. Each and every time this happens, the reporters (and recently it was a CNN anchor, Anderson Cooper) run down there and promote the meida's (victacrat) view of,"can you believe this. The insurance company is claiming that poor little Miss Marrybelle's policy will not pay for flood damage. We're fighting for you Marrybelle."

If the MSM would report the story the way it is, and stop blaming the insurance companies for the ignorance of, or the reluctance to purchase, homeowners to understand how it works, perhaps more of them would actually know that they must purchase flood insurance.

And, of course, thanks for doing what the MSM does not do Noel; bringing us the news that needs to be heard. (;~>

Just for information. My

September 8, 2007 - 14:11 ET by danbo

Just for information. My take.

On the Mississippi Coast the question was if the floods were in essence wind damage.

Here the winds pushed in a lot of water. 20-30 feet worth of high tides and high waves on top of that. The water was not caused by rain or rising rivers, and no levees broke. (We have no levees.)

Not saying I agreed with it or not. I have flood insurance. And live on a high hill. That was the argument I was hearing.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

danbo

September 8, 2007 - 14:33 ET by Gary Hall

danbo -- acutally yes, I think I understood the specific argument in this case. And to some extent, even in the MSM reporting of the generic issue, it was spelled out on an occassion or two. My take being slightly different than your expample, but I see the parallel (winds pushing the water - wind caused - is an interesting tweak, indeed). For the record, another factor, perhaps smaller, in storm surge, other than the wind, is the low pressure itself - the water rises up like a dome, centered on the low.

I believe that the view held by the plantiffs, is that their home was first destroyed by the wind -- before the strom surge wiped the slate clean. And it's possible in a few cases that this indeed might have occurred, perhaps by a tornado spawned off in the hurricane. But, people who live in flood prone areas must be made to have their own flood insurance - or be responsible for the results. Besides, in the Katrina case, the federal government has set up and funded the Road Home program which will provide up to $150,000 (max) for upwards of 200,000 homeowners who suffered major or complete loss -- for uninsured losses. 43,000 folks have already received an average payout of some $73,000 each. These are tax-free grants, not loans.

I intentially skipped over the details of the case, in order to mention the historic stance of the MSM in the issue. Each and every time, they sit there on a destroyed foundation and express wonderment that the homeowner's policy does not provide for flood insurance.

PS. Glad you live on a hill. We could share hurricane stories. I experienced the edge of Camile, lost an aunt in Florida a couple of years back in one, and was dead center in the middle of Hurricane Gilbert in Cozumel, at it's peak, in 1988. (186 mph sustained winds).

Yep we could share stories.

September 8, 2007 - 15:02 ET by danbo

Yep we could share stories. I was in Baton Rouge when Camille hit. Went through the eyes of Hilda, Betsy and Katrina. The house for Katrina (I got out) And the edge of Andrew. And my camper went through Ivan and Dennis.

Though some houses were destroyed by the winds. (My neighbors house was hit by an embedded tornado.) But most of us with just wind damage did relatively well. (I was above the high tide.)

But the winds came in with the tide. As the winds built the tide rose. Seems it would be rare and hard to prove if your house was already knocked down by the winds.

Funny story. Someone I know whose home did flood. He did have flood insurance. A diver. He found his dive computer after the storm. He was able to document how deep the water got. How long it was underwater. Etc. Though he couldn't dive for a while as he had to wait for his computer to clear.

PS I sure didn't get 73,000. LOL. My insurance company did what they were supposed to do.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Another Anniversary

September 8, 2007 - 14:25 ET by NoMoreClintons

Hey, didn't we just pass the 10th anniversary of Clinton getting his head job from Monica in the Oval Office bathroom? Why don't the media report this ground breaking anniversary?