Crazy litigious climate : “citizens have a constitutional right to a stable climate system”

Making America Great Again? USA leads the way in frivolous climate lawsuits

From the “next, let’s sue because the weather was bad for my picnic today” department comes this study that shows just how crazy it’s become. I mean really, what’s next? Sue Exxon because a hailstorm damaged the roof of your house? Or sue the feds the because the Red River in North Dakota flooded in the springtime yet again, because that’s what it does? I would not be surprised if we see something like that this year. The idea that people can litigate action for a “stable climate” is as ludicrous as expecting the universe to revolve around the Earth, something egotistical yet ignorant humans once believed. Stable climate is nothing more than a fable. And, just where in the US Constitution does is say we have a right to stable weather or climate? Nowhere.


Via Columbia University Earth Institute: A new global study has found that the number of lawsuits involving climate change has tripled since 2014, with the United States leading the way. Researchers identified 654 U.S. lawsuits—three times more than the rest of the world combined. Many of the suits, which are usually filed by individuals or nongovernmental organizations, seek to hold governments accountable for existing climate-related legal commitments. The study was done by the United Nations Environment Program and Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.

Around 177 countries recognize the right of citizens to a clean and healthy environment, and courts are increasingly being asked to define the implications of this right in relation to climate change.

“Judicial decisions around the world show that many courts have the authority, and the willingness, to hold governments to account for climate change,” said Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.  Burger said that in the United States, litigation has been “absolutely essential” to advancing solutions to climate change, from the first, successful, lawsuit demanding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulate greenhouse gas emissions, to a recent lawsuit claiming that citizens have a constitutional right to a stable climate system. “Similar litigation all over the world will continue to push governments and corporations to address the most pressing environmental challenge of our times,” he said.

“The science can stand up in a court of law, and governments need to make sure their responses to the problem do too,” said Erik Solheim, head of UN Environment. As litigation has grown, it has addressed a widening scope of activities, ranging from coastal development and infrastructure planning to resource extraction. The scope of individual suits is also growing in ambition, says the report.

Some suits outside the United States have already had results. Among other things, the report describes how, in September 2015, a Pakistani lawyer’s case against the government for failure to carry out the National Climate Change Policy of 2012 resulted in the government designating action points within several ministries, and the creation of a commission to monitor progress.

The report predicts that more litigation will originate in developing countries, where people are expected to suffer many of the worst effects of shifting climate. The report also predicts more human-rights cases filed by “climate refugees,” coming as a direct result of climate-driven migration, resettlement and disaster recovery. By 2050 climate change could, according to some estimates, displace up to 1 billion people. That number could soar higher later in the century if global warming is not kept under 2 degrees Celsius, relative to pre-industrial levels, say some.

International organizations including the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees have already acknowledged the need to address the plights of people displaced by changing climate. But there is yet no international agreement on the rights of such displaced persons, nor on the obligations of countries to respect them.

Technology will not suffice to address coming problems, say the authors; laws and policies must be part of any strategy. They say that because of the Paris Agreement, plaintiffs can now argue in some jurisdictions that their governments’ political statements must be backed up by concrete measures to mitigate climate change.

The paper: The Status of Climate Change Litigation: A Global Review: columbiaclimatelaw.com/files/2017/05/Burger-Gundlach-2017-05-UN-Envt-CC-Litigation.pdf

h/t to Marc Morano

Advertisements

218 thoughts on “Crazy litigious climate : “citizens have a constitutional right to a stable climate system”

      • Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law

        With a name like that it is obviously a totally objective , non political academic institution. /sarc

        This is a “center” in a publicly funded state university? Hell it should be shut down , not just defunded.

    • Absolutely. Just like all the “recovered memory” suits were refunded when that was shown to be bunk.

      Nope, with court-enforced junk science all sales are final; no one is responsible and no one has to make good on damages caused. Why do you think the left loves the courts so much?

      • If they want a stable climate system, tell them to pick up after themselves, put their trash in the trash bins, and stop talking. They’re producing high volumes of carbon dioxide every time they open their pieholes.

        It’s Memorial Day Weekend, you know. #FAMILY PICNICS MATTER! :)

      • Two priests are out driving one day when they get pulled over by a police officer.

        He approaches the priests vehicle and says to the driver “Sorry to pull you over father, but we’re looking for a couple of child molesters”

        The two priests look at each other for a few moments and exchange a few quiet words. The driver turns to the cop and says —

        “OK officer, we’ll do it”

  1. What’s needed is a class action suit against climate scientists and politicians who have bought in to climate alarmism. It’s too bad that the misappropriation of science is not a crime, but there are a lot of other potential charges …

    • Class action against the education establishment as well. The youth in that protest march (featured on the home page) is a snapshot of the product of systemic alarmism corrupting education system at all levels. Certainly that’s true here in Australia at least.

      • To paraphrase the Jesuits:
        “Give me a child from K1 through K12 and I will give you an Environ Mental Retard/”.

    • May I submit, as evidence, “The ever-present absence of Climate Conformity”?

  2. Lawyers, and therefore judges, have a reputation for not knowing much science. Therefore, a plausible “expert witness” can spin absolute fantasy on the witness stand and get away with it. Somewhat off topic, but relevant to theories used in US courts, a theory that cerebral palsy was caused by birth distress resulted in a liability lawyer making enough money to finance a political career, including a run for President.

    • Although a lawyer who understands the true science would rip them apart on cross and object to all the inevitable hearsay in the ‘expert’ testimony.

      • What part of “lawyers have a reputation for no knowing science” did you miss? As another off-topic subject , the cases of “recovered memory” some years ago were patently bogus, as were the interviewing of young children to “reveal” abuse. Neither technique had ever been properly tested as a forensic technique to find just how much false positives were emerging.

      • Agreed! And this: “Technology will not suffice to address coming problems, say the authors; laws and policies must be part of any strategy.” What the heck would laws and policies evolve from or rely on if not technology?? Oh yea, sorry, silly question………….

      • Only matters if the judge is impartial. If the judge is pro-AGW or buys into the rabid environmentalist crap, it does not matter what is true. I know of a government case (involving logging) where the judge informed the lawyers that her definition of “irreparable harm” was cutting down a tree. The government lawyers looked at each other and said, “We just lost our case.” Did not matter that the scientists said that the trees in question needed to be thinned in order to reduce the risk of massive fires, did not matter that trees can be replanted.

        Not all cases go before juries. Wrong judge, you may well get almost irreparable harm. Look at the idiot who tortured/made up law to “justify” those kids (parents) who are suing out in Oregon or wherever. Feds are now stuck spending millions just on discovery. At least one lawyer per agency has to spend thousands of hours going through documents for a “case” that has no legal basis. This alone will take several months, if not longer. Our tax dollars at work.

      • Perhaps, if enforced. There is a series of solicitation ads by lawyers on cable TV recruiting for plaintiffs on the theory that talcum powder causes ovarian cancer.

  3. “citizens have a constitutional right to a stable climate system”

    Hasn’t it been somewhat stable, fluctuating between a few degrees, over millennia?

    • My suspicion is that this is all a charade to put pressure on elected officials. The very last thing the warmists want is for this to actually go to trial. Consider how hard they have fought to hide Mann’s files and communications from the public. Litigation of this nature would open up tons of documents to discovery. Loose one high profile case and their party would be over…

      • Doesn’t make any difference. The Judge decides what is admissible. I here it all the time… “If I were on the witness stand in that trial, I would say Bla-Bla-Bla.” No you wouldn’t! You would say exactly what the Judge allows you to say or you would find you ass in jail. The US justice system is a sick joke. I’m surprised everyone doesn’t already know this.

      • Fred,
        I think you know already, but Canute [Cnut = Knut] was a pretty shrewd cookie.

        King of England, Denmark and Norway (IIRC) – partly by right of conquest Canute the Great was continually being praised by his courtiers [hangers-on, . Perhaps a few spoke truth to power. Maybe!].
        One day, he took them at their word – probably it was something like ‘Our Great King, Canute the Awesome, the Virile, will halt the tides in their path, still the vasty waters, and calm the deeps’ [paraphrase].
        Canute was aware of his – considerable – powers in the human realm, but had doubtless journeyed enough on sailing vessels [Viking longboats, for sure, but possibly also other northern craft] to know that Man may propose, but the Sea will dispose.

        So off they trot to the nearby seaside [nowhere in England is more than 75 miles [120 km] from the sea].

        Canute had no doubt carefully checked high tide times [this was before the Admiralty referred everything to High Water at Dover or at London Bridge (which I cross every working day – I must be mad!!!)].

        Carefully positioning his throne on a hummock, and his courtiers seawards of him, the great king began ordering the tide to be still.
        Requesting.
        Beseeching and imploring.
        The tide came in. As tides do.
        The tide came in some more. As tides do.
        Courtiers, at this point are thinking about wet feet.
        The tide came in more – again.

        Well, you know how it ended, and Canute proved his wisdom, humility and realism.
        [Why do those nouns remind me of Doc Mann?
        Does anyone know if he has certificates for dancing competence [Latin American, say, or Modern, or Waltz]?
        He seems to have certificates and medals for pretty much everything else, we hear.]

        Auto

      • Mods

        About Canute – made up (dramatized) , but not /Sarc.

        About Another – Doc (emphatically not an anagram for Cnut) – a mere request for information from a joint Nobellist [a subject/serf of the EU when it won a Nobel for asking its citizens not to run holding scissors (IIRC)].
        Auto, emphatically Easing Explanations

      • 8-)
        The Bill of Rights was intended to limit the power of Government.

        These last 50 years or more declaring something to be a “right” is intended to expand the power of Government.

  4. “citizens have a constitutional right to a stable climate”

    Since there is no such thing as a stable climate, it should make an interesting law suit:
    People vs Mother Nature

    • Stable climate is very apropos. Put the horses out and hand out the mucking-out forks.

      • With the rise of CO2 levels, there have been few hurricanes, fewer extreme weather events, in SH, total cyclone energy 2016 was half what it was a few decades ago.

        Seriously, by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, we are doing everything we can to create a nice stable climate for everybody.

        Why are they fighting this ?

        I wish they would make up their minds !

      • If CO2 does the things they claim it does….then it acts as a buffer
        ….when something is low in buffer it is unstable
        add enough buffer and it will stabilize

    • Remember that song from Camelot?

      It’s true! It’s true! The crown has made it clear.
      The climate must be perfect all the year.

      A law was made a distant moon ago here:
      July and August cannot be too hot.
      And there’s a legal limit to the snow here
      In Camelot.
      The winter is forbidden till December
      And exits March the second on the dot.
      By order, summer lingers through September
      In Camelot.

      • Evan Jones did (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/26/crazy-litigious-climate-citizens-have-a-constitutional-right-to-a-stable-climate-system/#comment-2511919 )

        Great minds :)

        Nice point by you both. The lyrics show that from 1923 (when Jay Lerner was old enough at age 5 to notice) to 1959/60, i.e., the main context for his writing, there was “wild weather” and “climate weirding” “the year without a summer”, et -ceterah! et-ceterah! et ——- CET–ER–AH! (to quote another 50’s (ish) musical :) ).

        It’s good that Mr. Lerner lived mostly back before the founding of the Holy Cult of AGW (and all its progeny, “{Name of Religious or Philosophical Group} and AGW,” e.g., Presbyterianism and AGW — makes your particular group EXTRA holy!)…. or we would never have had that delightful song!

      • Sounds like Colorado. Denver use to brag that the earliest snow on record was July 7th , the latest July 4th.

    • The global climate is a very complex system with both internal and external variables. So, physicists would probably say its future states, include any stability, cannot be predicted. .. Or, as the character Data in ‘Star Trek – TNG’ says: “Complex systems can sometimes behave in ways that are entirely unpredictable.” .. https://youtu.be/gQx07iKX3NA

  5. You have a constitutional right not to get hurt while base jumping. Repeal that stupid law of gravity! Sue Newton!

    • You have the constitutional right not to be burned by hot coffee—millions awarded. You have the constitutional right to not be burned by a lighted Bic lighter you stuff into your pocket—millions awarded. The list goes on and on. As long as judges and juries are handing out other people’s money, there will never be any concern over truth or justice. Money just screams so much louder.

  6. The cat’s been away far too long! Students in the pic seem to have a vacuous empty look. The new core subjectless propaganda indoctrination maybe? “Sabin center for climate change law” wouldn’t have anything to with this trend, would it? Or organizations looking into climate refugees? It’s going to take a lot of brass to weather this ugly marxbrothers storm. Trump is used to serial lawsuits and endless harassing audits, so he should be up to the task. But half the world seems to be employed in meaningless jobs that would evaporate if the Parasite Agreement collapses. There will be a lot of ky-yiying for a while but we better get started.

    • ‘marxbrothers’ – did Karl have a brother?
      Friedrich Engels was not a brother to Karl [he may have been a leech.
      Not a mass murderer like Stalin [50 millions, maybe] and Mao [arm-waving, about a hundred million victims; probably nobody will ever know to within ten million . . . .].

      Auto
      Very concerned about Communist camouflage and creepy crypto-commie confluences.
      NB – Avoid alliteration absolutely. Always.

  7. And this is why the US MUST get out of the Paris Agreement. The green blob will use any and all US statements and obligations in a court of law in an attempt to impose their agenda. Any conservative/Republican that isn’t concerned about this is either ignorant or a liar.

    • +10. Yes. Thank you. You pegged it The Paris Agreement invites courts to impose climate extremist policies on the United States. This is an incredible insight on your part. How can this be brought to the attention of decision makers who are seeking to make America Great again?

  8. What cannot be done by law can still be done by using the courts. (Should be a Rule for Radicals.)

    Punch back twice as hard. (Reynolds’ Rules for Sane People)

  9. I declare that I have the right to crispy fries. Soggy fries are a violation of my constitutional rights! It’s just as valid.

    • Exactly, EC.

      There is no “right” without a corresponding duty.

      It is only a religious belief that “people have a right to healthcare” and the like.

      Those who so LOUDLY jump all over displays of religion in the public square (e.g., Nativity scenes in private yards visible from a public street), seek to shove their own religion down the throats of the rest of us.

      Yes. I believe in the Jewish (and later, also Christian) tenet: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Leviticus 19:18) I believe that makes me morally obligated to help poor people with their needs. That is part of my religion.

      AGW, based solely on conjecture and “it just seems likely,” is not science. It is a religious belief.

      • An integral part of a true civil right is the freedom not to exercise it. The right to vote is also the right to not vote. Universal healthcare is a phoney right because there’s no corresponding right to not participate. You’re mandated to support it from your taxes.

        And a right to a “stable climate” is a whole other level of loony. Unless they mean universal access to heating and air conditioning? But we know they don’t.

      • It’s the old case of positive rights vs negative rights.
        Negative rights are things that people cannot take away from you. That is, I have a right to not be abused by agents of the government. Or anyone else.
        Positive rights are those that others must provide for you. Such as health care.
        Declaring the existence of positive rights is the equivalent to bringing back slavery, since you are declaring that you have a right to force people to do stuff for you, without compensation.

      • Janice Moore – I have no doubt that you mean well when you bring up religion. And by religion you mean present-day, humanistic Christianity. First, Christianity is not the only religion today, nor was it ev.er Religion in various forms existed before there was civilization. Some remnants of ancient beliefs may be found among native s in the remaining wild places of the world. Of present day religions, Moslem faith is an off-shoot of early Christianity with whom they share several Biblical stories and beliefs. Yet they differ and even its relatively advanced form in Saudi Arabia they have restrictions on women who are not even allowed to drive. Not to speak of more doctrinaire forms of Mohammedanism where women are not allowed to go to school. Or where citizens lose their heads if they don’t properly honor Allah. You have a right to think that Christianity is free of such persecution but if you do you forget that it was not always so. Christian doctrine in the middle ages believed in the reality of witchcraft and thousands of women were burnt to death as witches. We know it was totally bogus evidence but this will not bring them back. The witch-hunters were well organized and believed that God wanted yhem to kill witches. They even published textbooks on how to get witches to confess that have survived to this day. I have no idea how they finally got rid of this junk. Just remember to thank your lucky stars (!) that you were born today and not in the middle ages. Luckily, we all were born after the witchcraft trials were over. The authority to kill witches was of course divine – directly from God himself. This is not the only religious atrocity, there were many more. One of the most widespread was practiced by the Aztec empire in pre-conquest Mexico. Their religious structures were pyramids on top of which sat a temple. In the temple w3as a large sacrificial stone. The victim was spread-eagled on his back and held down by three priests while the fourth on took a stone knife and cut the heart out of the victim. The victim’s blood was then drunk by all prists present. The victims were usually war prisoners, and that included some of nHernan Cortez’s nen as they battled back and forth. Christianity wiped out the Aztec system and Mexico is now Christian but here is the problem: all religions, Christianity included, claim to derive their legitimacy from a divine ruler or rulers whose will must obeyed, no matter what he says. Some environmentalists have made use of it by instigating native Americans to say that there should be no telescope on their sacred mountain or that a 8000 year old human remains are their ancestors and must be buried. In ancient Mexico if the priest tells you that according to the deity you must sacrifice your daughter to bring rain to the country you better go and take her to the pyramid keepers who execute such orders from above. It is a remnant belief from pre-historic peoples. We are lucky that science has proven the absence of such intervention by divine personages. But for reasons unknown the clear majority of mankind will not accept this fact. Christians. Moslems and Hindus are the largest groups of believers but there are hundreds of others, all bound by irrational beliefs of various kinds. Human societies have ethics but these religionists have insinuated themselves into their midst to direct ethics according to what their superstitions desires. There is a group of people interested in ethics free o divine intervention. They are the humanists but they are not very popular, probably because they have no divine overlord to obey and are free to reason about it.

      • Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak) May 26, 2017 at 3:51 pm

        Thank you for that post.
        I am glad that this blog allows you to write what you did.

      • Arno,

        That all sounds so very enlightened, but If that Book is Legit, as I believe it is, it’s just you demonstrating your belief that no supernatural entities exist, over and over again. You have no actual way of knowing there are no supernatural entities, including evil supernatural entities that were actually attacking and corrupting any or all of those people’s societies (including some Christian ones).

        You can pretend you time-traveled and mind-read all sorts of people throughout history, throughout the world, rendering you the perfect judge of all humans, but I say it’s arrogant closed-minded bullshit.

      • Please consider, readers, just a couple things;

        “First, Christianity is not the only religion today, nor was it ev.er.”

        If that were not so, the Book would have to be total fiction . . it’s a major recurring theme throughout, that there were and will be, false religions galore . . Yet this man feels Janice needs some lecturing on the matter?

        “Religion in various forms existed before there was civilization. Some remnants of ancient beliefs may be found among native s in the remaining wild places of the world.”

        Well, sure and if we apply ‘Occum’s razor’, we get? . . uh oh; Supernatural entities exist . . Yet, this man feels Janice is in need of some lecturing about the matter?

      • This one is so weird, I feel compelled to respond;

        “We are lucky that science has proven the absence of such intervention by divine personages.”

        It’s utterly impossible for science to ever “prove” any such negative, obviously I feel, but the “We are lucky” part is the real clunker here, to my mind. Janice believes there’s a very good chance she will be resurrected and spend eternity with a loving Creator God, and this man actually believes she’s going to see the possibility she and millions of others won’t, as a lucky thing? Amazing . .

    • If you throw in ‘cold stale fries’, I’ll join your lawsuit and we can make it a class action. :))

    • It’s actually very simple. If it forces money or service from someone, it’s not a right.

    • If somebody else must provide it for you then it is NOT A “RIGHT”.
      You do not have the “right” to the benefits from another’s efforts.

      • …you have the right to consult with an attorney and/or have an attorney present during questioning; if you cannot afford and attorney one will be provided (and paid for by others).

      • Don M. …not quite the same, probably due to semantics. Your cited example is not a right as much as it is a responsibility of the prosecuting authority to assure that your personal freedoms (rights) are not being infringed by improper application of the laws.. Without going too far down the rabbit hole regarding ceded rights and social contracts, many of what people call “rights” are actually responsibilities provided by the society they have joined.

  10. The science can stand up in a court of law, ….

    No, it can’t.

    1) The “science” presented is mere conjecture; and
    2) The observation-based science which would soundly and easily refute the plaintiff’s conjectured injury is excluded — for it does not support these lawsuits. Not one whit. (See, e.g., Climate Models Fail by Bob Tisdale).

    One example (not a lawsuit, but, the exclusion of best science is exactly the same) —

    Re: the EPA CO2 “endangerment” finding:

    – “EPA refused to examine “relevant data,” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 513 (2009) (quoting Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Assn. of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)), and made other procedural errors. Scientists Brief at 6. “Because evidence EPA had available to it contradicts EPA’s ultimate conclusion,” Scientists at 6-7, “EPA’s Endangerment Finding is not “rational,” but arbitrary and capricious. Fox, 556 U.S., at 516.” Scientists Brief at 6.

    (http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/GW-Amicus-2013-05-23-Br-of-Amici-Curiae-Scientists-ISO-Petitions-fo….pdf )

    EPA’s own Inspector General, in a procedural review issued in September 2011 [Procedural Review of EPA’s Greenhouse Gases Endangerment Finding Data Quality Processes, Report No. 11-P-0702, at 36 (Sept. 26, 2011) at: epa.gov/oig/reports/2011/20110926-11-P-07 02.pdf] faulted EPA for procedural deficiencies including the refusal to use the Scientific Advisory Board process.” Scientists Brief at 22. “In particular, the Inspector General criticized EPA for failing to follow all recommended steps for an external peer review by independent experts. See Inspector General’s Report, at 36.” Scientists at 23.

    (Note: it was the Judiciary that prevented Agency from seeing best science — Brief of Amici Curiae Scientists in Support of Petitioners Supporting Reversal, Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, No 09-1322 (CADC June 8, 2011), ECF No. 1312291. The D.C. Circuit declined to grant leave for that brief to be filed. Scientists at 23.)

    (from my memorandum about this topic)

    • Ms Moore,

      Here in the US, regrettably, the Courts defer to Government agencies on defining the science. Therefore, we need to get the Government agencies on the right track before these lawsuits increase. However, with the Endangerment finding, and the “hottest year evah” agency positions, the results of the lawsuits are a foregone conclusion. It is no wonder that the US is “leading the way”.

      And the agencies have to get some backbone and start fighting, hard, the NGO sue-and-settle strategy.

      • FIGHTING the NGO sue and settle strategy?! They are part of it – simply by not defending the government’s position in the courts in many cases.

      • Typically, the federal government defends itself vigorously against lawsuits challenging its actions. But not always: Sometimes, regulators are only too happy to face collusive lawsuits by friendly “foes” that are aimed at compelling government action that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to achieve. Rather than defend these cases, regulators settle them in a phenomenon known as “sue and settle.” link

        I hope the Trump administration will put an end to that nonsense.

        In my dreams, the government would charge with treason the people who refused to defend against this abuse.

      • There is only so much the agencies can do, even if they are reasonable. So much depends on the judge in the case. Sue-and-settle works in part because there is rarely risk to the NGO. There is at least one law that requires the NGO to pay the other side’s costs in certain situations (IIRC, if the suit is found frivolous or maybe even if they lose, I really need to look up the exact reasons), but many judges routinely ignore this. If these laws were enforced, we would probably see sue-and-settle usage plummet.

        Regardless, sue-and-settle raises other problems. Settling often results in poor policies and the like, but not settling means risking losing (and getting worse policies, etc.) and/or spending massive amounts of time and money on these cases. Do we want agencies spending millions of tax dollars on each lawsuit? The national deficit is already stratospheric. Are people willing to have a huge increase in taxes to pay for defending these cases? On an ideological/moral level, I am all for playing hardball. On a practical level, I am not convinced the hardline is always worth it.

        I agree that something needs to change, particularly with the agencies that are pushing the dishonest and unethical policies/ideas/actions. As usual, if existing laws were being followed, a lot of these problems would not exist. Perhaps the first step should be getting those laws enforced. I can think of a few NGOs that I would not mind seeing bankrupted by their own self-righteous hubris.

  11. The “science will stand up in a court if law” assertion is only valid in courts run by kangaroos.

    • Hunter,
      isn’t it funny though that the scientific world *en bloc* failed to distance itself from the profitable, and convenient, lies of An Inconvenient Truth, and that the first “establishment” voice raised against it was that of a judge in the High Court of England and Wales, who had to venture far outside his comfort zone to get to the facts obvious to any scientist? Why did the science world leave it up to Justice Burton to do what was (morally, if not officially) their responsibility, and how will their [snip]ped grandchildren ever forgive them?

      • It’s funny in the way that watching a train wreck is funny. The climate fear industry is very very lucrative.

    • I was going to protest the abuse of kangaroos but then I read this. Explosive temper, stubborn, life is a battle that must be won at all costs, out of touch with reality … that reminds me of someone.

      • It has exactly: 0 load-bearing points. Only by the suspension of logic and critical thinking can one go far along that bridge of bristle cone twigs.

  12. I’s called lawfare.

    “Lawfare is a form of asymmetric warfare, consisting of using the legal system against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, tying up their time or winning a public relations victory”

  13. The use of lawsuits is an Alinsky type of action. Even if they don’t win, they win.

  14. People have a right to a *stable* chaotic, non-linear system, and every child should know how to square the circle and shoe a unicorn before they leave high school.

    • Brad,
      In the UK, solar managed – at lunchtime today, 26th May ’17 – to provide 24.3% of total generation across the UK.
      For an hour or two (an hour or so?).
      See
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40058074

      BBC.
      Cheerleader for watermelons.
      No mention of 17th of May, when solar peaked [reached its zenith] at about (by eye) 2GW (perhaps a centi-tad less) – or about 5 or 6 percent. Note ‘peaked’.
      Every night it goes to zero.
      Zilch. Nada. Nowt. Nothing at all. Zero.
      As solar does at night.
      Funny that. It’s nighttime and all.

      All very variable, and the good soul from Greenpeace [Greenpieces of Eight?] Hannah Martin, “head of energy” for Greenpeace in the UK, is reported as saying: –
      “Today’s new record is a reminder of what the UK could achieve if our government reversed its cuts to support for solar. All around the world, solar power keeps beating new records as costs come down and power generation goes up.”

      And there are protests about minor reduction in solar subsidies . . . .
      If it was that good, it doesn’t need subsidy.
      Surely?
      .In the real world.
      But do our Citrullus friends want that?
      Or simply the death of ninety-plus percent of all humans living today [now >7.5 billion, per http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#top20%5D.

      With subsidy, growing beans, to feed to unicorns, would be a viable power source, by harvesting the methane from unicorn farts.
      Please sent serious spondulix!!!
      Seriously!

      Auto.
      Solar is good for isolated stations.
      Interconnecting technologies help a bit to smooth small variations. But 24% in and out again over 16 hours or so???
      It helps – a bit – but stops at night. That is blindingly obvious.
      If the wind drops, as it sometimes does, the lights go out if there is no back-up, warm, spinning, source.
      We all know that is the truth.
      Except in South Australia, it seems. And California. And parts of the EU. Including [Sir (!! blimey!) Ed Davey’s UK . . .]

    • Archimedes actually DID square the circle, in propositon 19 of his book, “On Spirals”. In doing so, he didn’t restrict his methods to straight edge and compass.

  15. This is the type of thinking from these individuals:

    * Citizens have a constitutional right to a stable climate system
    * Citizens do not have a constitutional right to own firearms
    * Citizens do not have a constitutional right to say mean, hurtful things
    * Citizens do not have a constitutional right to refuse to do something that violates their religious beliefs

    The fact that the last 3 are codified in the US Constitution but the first one is not is irrelevant to them. It is always “do it my way, OR ELSE YOU WILL REGRET IT!”

      • MarkW
        That looks, from the other side of the Atlantic, to be a geographically variable statement.

        We now have an election – thought to be a shoo-in for the Tories.
        They have proved to be politically inept – if economically reasonable [correct!].
        So it might still be a nail-biter.
        I do not see the US-UK Alliance surviving the first [putative] Trump-Corbyn telephone call, never mind summit.

        Auto
        No great fan of May’s recent pledges. Still, I assume she is a politician and is lying every-time she opens her mouth.

    • You only don’t have a right to say mean and hurtful things about government protected minorities.
      For all other groups, it’s mandatory.

  16. In fact delaying America’s exit from the Paris Agreement risks a Court ruling making the Paris Agreement law by way of a court ruling. It is clear that a disturbingly large number of judges are corrupt enough to use any opportunity to impose law on America by judicial fiat and will also seek opportunities to humiliate the President and put Americans at risk. This actually s very serious situation and the clock is running against Trump and America.

  17. Reminds me of the film “The Man Who Sued God” Starring Billy Connolly.
    Advocate Steve Myers (Billy Connolly) is a disillusioned lawyer who becomes fed-up with the perceived corruption within the judicial system. He quits the law business and buys a small fishing boat and takes up fishing for a living. His fishing boat is struck by lightning and explodes into pieces, burns and sinks. He informs his insurance company, which reviews and then subsequently declines his claim on the grounds that it is not liable as his fishing boat was destroyed due to an “Act of God”.
    Frustrated that his claim is repeatedly declined, Steve files a claim against God, naming church officials as representatives of God and thereby the respondents. The church leaders, their respective lawyers and their insurance company get together to find a way to settle this dilemma, which catches the fancy of the media. It is in Court that God’s representatives will have to admit that the destruction of Steve’s fishing boat was actually God’s Act, accept and compensate him, or deny it altogether thereby denying God’s existence, leaving the onus on Steve to prove his claim.

    Life imitating art.

  18. And most of all we can claim for a better gravity that doesn’t make plans to crash.

  19. “citizens have a constitutional right to a stable climate system”

    So what is the “proper” global average temperature, and how is it to be measured?!?

    • Wow.
      What a stunning surprise!
      As soon as you get a slew of folk seeking to get their trotters into the swill trough – a complete mess.
      Gor’ blimey!
      Who would have thought such an outcome even marginally possible???

      Mods – believe it or not – /Sarc.

      Auto

  20. “as ludicrous as expecting the universe to revolve around the Earth, something egotistical yet ignorant humans once believed.”
    I don’t think your statement is fair. The geocentric model was based on available data, not egotistical. Even up to (and after) Copernicus, the available data pointed away from a heliocentric model. It wasn’t until gravity was better understood that many of the problems with the heliocentric model could be rationalized.

    Here is a good article about the transition in science from the Geocentric model to the Heliocentric model. (It wasn’t called science at the time, I think it was Natural Philosophy)
    https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2017/05/18/perpetuating-the-myths-addendum-the-copernican-shock/

    • Thank you kindly. Our ancestors weren’t idiots (I do see a lot of modern-centrism, thinking that “now” we Understand At Last). As far as I can tell, the only two pieces of evidence that even hinted that Earth was not the center of the cosmos were:

      1) the retrograde motions of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn (the idea that Mercury and Venus might orbit the Sun is fairly old, even if not universally accepted); and

      2) the sidereal year being one day longer than the solar year.

      That’s it. That’s all ya get. Figuring out heliocentrism was a huge, huge intellectual accomplishment, and yet moderns act as if it “should” have been all but self-evident.

      The parallax expected if the Earth orbited the sun does exist, but is too small to have been detected by the ancients; it was first observed in the 1800s. The lack of parallax was in fact used to refute the heliocentric view: a lack of visible parallax implied that the stars were unbelievably far away; why would all that empty space exist in any reasonable cosmos?

      (It’s also the case that Earth at the center explained basic phenomena such as why things fall down; moving the Earth out of the center meant having to come up with a whole new concept. How quickly would you embrace an idea that overturned all of physics?)

  21. The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
    It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
    Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
    It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:

    • Is California a state or just a state of mind. And after obtaining a constitutional right to a stable climate will California enact a constitutional right to stable geology, thus outlawing any unauthorised movements by the San Andreas fault?

      • I thought Moonbeam had already outlawed that – by Executive Order.
        Sleep well in Ca.

        Auto

  22. A constitutional right to a stable climate system? I guess I missed where Mother Nature was a signatory to the Constitution.

  23. Burger said that in the United States, litigation has been “absolutely essential” to advancing solutions to climate change

    There have been no ‘solutions to climate change’ so how can litigation have done anything but line lawyers’ pockets? The climate will change at different rates in different ways and nothing that litigation can force will alter the rates or ways the climate changes. We need a modern King Knut to prevent this malaise of overweening hubris .

    • Their first job when making the climate stable will be to stop El Nino and El Nina from happening.

  24. “And, just where in the US Constitution does is say we have a right to stable weather or climate?”

    And just where in the US Constitution does it say we have a right to kill an unborn baby? or marry a person of the same sex.

    You do not understand, Our Elders and Betters in Black Robes believe that words have no meaning, and that the only limit on their power is their will, and their ability to get away with assertions of their power. That is easy to do when then affirm the validity of fashionable opinion among the ruling elite and their peg boys among the media.

    Since climate is the subject of fashionable opinion, the Judges will grasp the reins and off we go.

    This is a major reason for Trump to refer the Paris non-Treaty to the Senate for its non-approval, and then to formally denounce the instrument. It is not bullet proof, but when dealing with those people, nothing is. Remember words have no meaning.

    • Risky: Only 22 of 52 GOP senators signed that recent letter to Trump urging withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Of the 30 others, only 19 votes would be needed to pass the Treaty. They’d be heavily lobbied, and there’d be a massive sit-in around the capitol to pressure them.

      • It sounds like it is time for skeptics to find out if their particular Senators signed the letter, and if they did not, skeptics should write to them and ask that they add their name, and if they don’t want to add their name, they should provide the reasons why.

        Then, any U.S. Senators who would support the Paris Agreement should be voted out of Office at the next opportunity. That would be a good mesaage to send to all our representatives. If they are dumb enough to support the Paris Agreement, then they have no business serving in public office.

        The Paris Agreement should be submitted to the U.S. Senate for an up or down vote. I don’t think it has a chance in hell of passing the Senate.

        Senator Rand Paul is introducing a bill to force the president to submit the agreement to the U.S. Senate. We should also inquire of our personal Senators as to how they would vote on Paul’s bill, and tell them how we think they should vote.

        Republicans need a kick in the butt. It’s time for Republican voters to speak up.

  25. Filing an injunction will not stop an advancing mile-high glacier.
    And the glaciers are ‘coming’….. It’s just a matter of time.

  26. Some countries would actually benefit from an additional degree or two of warming, with accompanying changes in rainfall, longer growing seasons and the like.

    Can we expect them to go to the UN to argue for leaving “climate change” the hell alone??

  27. and so, the Erosion of Civilisation creeps inexorably on.

    (There’s no way to ‘shut these people up’ without them saying you should ‘shut up’. Itza pig innit?)

  28. The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers

    – Henry VI, Part2, Act IV, Scene 2
    – William Shakespeare

    There’s a reason lawyers have been held in such contempt for so long. That got a good laugh in it’s day and every day since.

    • The end game is clear: Get a Court to impose a judgement that circumvents treaty and law (not to mention history and science) and restrain the US Government from ever leaving Obama’s pos agreement as something untouchable. We have a lot less time to save ourselves than most believe. How to get Mr. Trump back on board? Climate is the *key* to draining the swamp….

    • Gaaaaah! “… its day”, not “… it’s day” !

      I blame auto-correct — it’s probably my biggest enema.

    • As I’ve always said, the primary purpose of the legal system is to keep lawyers employed.
      Everything else is secondary, or lower.

      • Lawyers are only educated in the law. Not other disciplines such as science and history. I’m told there is no time in their training for such things
        In court they appear to only cite precedents for their opinions, as far as I can see.
        Those defending will select the favourable precedents and those prosecuting will select those favourable to their clients.
        It is odd then that lawyers as judges seem to be allowed to pronounce on subjects they are unlikely to have any acquaintance with.
        They can be seen perhaps as just middlemen representing opposing views for money. An honourable way of making a living, of course, but nothing more.

      • A mate of mine, a highly expensive lawyer said all legislation was deliberately drafted to be open to as many interpretations as possible so as to maintain the highest possible income stream for lawyers.

  29. If our governments don’t legislate to rob billions from the poor, destroy millions of job creating industries, clean water, sewerage plants, hospitals, mitigation of extreme temperatures both hot and cold, therefore killing millions by ghastly murder by making electrical power too costly to all but a privileged few based on a religion and not science I am going to sue that government.

  30. By 2050 climate change could, according to some estimates, displace up to 1 billion people.

    That sounded kind of familiar? Oh yeah, here it is! –

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/feared-migration-hasn-t-happened-un-embarrassed-by-forecast-on-climate-refugees-a-757713.html

    Six years ago, [2005] the United Nations issued a dramatic warning that the world would have to cope with 50 million climate refugees by 2010. But now that those migration flows have failed to materialize, the UN has distanced itself from the forecasts. On the contrary, populations are growing in the regions that had been identified as environmental danger zones.

    If they’re desperate enough to recycle that old failed prediction can the failed “Himalayan glaciers will be all gone by 2035” prediction be far behind?

  31. Of course it works both ways. If you sell your beach house because ten years ago you were told by ‘climate scientists’ that it would be flooded by rising sea levels that they predicted from their models then surely you should be able to sue said scientists if the property did not flood as they said it would.

  32. 1) as a journalist, it really makes me cringe when such “reports” spout a lot of scary claims and predictions and back this up with the incredibly vague phrase, “some say” as the citation. “Some say” the world is flat.
    2) don’t civil lawsuits have to prove actual damages in order to consider the suit? Normally there can’t just be a claim of damage done to a person, they have to show it clearly so that the value of the damage can be assessed, and they require proof of it. If someone claimed they were forced out of their home by rising sea levels and Exxon was responsible, as a judge I’d ask for the proof. I don’t see how they could even come close to proof.
    I know, no proof of AGW is required nowadays… even in court I guess.

    • It didn’t hail on this day last year. It did hail this year. CO2 is higher this year than last.
      Ergo, CO2 caused the hail that damaged my house.
      /sarc

  33. Next we’ll see a flurry of bottom dwelling trial lawyer ads on late night TV.
    Call Dewey, Cheathem & How at 867-5309 today!

  34. We actually are probably in a time where the climate is more stable than at any other time in near past.

    LIA was bleak, and apparently the weather was atrocious.

    The warming out of the LIA has been totally and absolutely beneficial, and a bit more warming would continue to reduce the temperature difference between the equator and higher latitudes, leading to an even more BENIGN climate

    If you believe that CO2 causes warming, then why would anyone want to stop it…

    … particularly as it leads to more abundance in food for the whole planet.

    While we are still just a jot above the COLDEST period in 10,000 years, we actually live in rather STABLE climate times.

  35. Meanwhile it seems Mr Trump’s views on climate change are “evolving”…
    “(TAORMINA, Italy) — President Donald Trump’s views on climate change are “evolving” following discussions with European leaders who are pushing for him to stay in the Paris climate accord, a top White House official said Friday.
    “He feels much more knowledgeable on the topic today,” said Gary Cohn, Trump’s top White House economic adviser. “He came here to learn, he came here to get smarter.”

    What could that possibly mean, “evolving?” Perhaps he is going to stay in the Paris agreement? This is going to be interesting to watch…..

    • If he does stay in the Paris Agreement, a large proportion of the people who voted for him will turn their backs on him.

      Again we may have the situation of a conservative politician bowing to the manic yapping of the far left.

      Guess what… It has never worked in the past… and it will never work in the future.

      • AndyG55
        Maybe you are right…. then again maybe not. People who voted for Trump did it for a few reasons. Sure some will throw their toys over this (if he stays), but most of his hard nosed supporters wont care.

      • Its about numbers. He needs to retain the support of ALL those who voted for him…

        Why go down the wimp line, and cow-tow to those who would never vote for anything except the like of Obama or Clinton?

      • AndyG55
        So trying to understand is being a wimp? Explains why “you” don’t bother to try.

    • 1) The United States is not “in” the Paris environstalinist deal. That was purely the former president’s hobbyhorse. What he did matters as much as his replacing the flowers on the Whitehouse tables with bowls of — ooo, doesn’t that look SO lovely (cough) — fruit.

      **********************

      2) Take heart! All is well.

      (1)

      For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan …. The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution ….

      The Trump Administration is also committed …. to reviving America’s coal industry ….

      (Source (copied about 20 minutes ago): https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy )

      (2)

      US President Donald Trump on Tuesday rolled back a slew of environmental protections …. to untether the fossil fuel industry.

      In a maiden trip to the Environmental Protection Agency, Trump signed an “Energy Independence Executive Order,” a White House official told AFP.

      The new president unveiled a series of measures to review regulations curbing oil, gas and coal production and limiting carbon emissions. ….

      Trump said his order would “end the war on coal” and would usher in more jobs and energy production.

      Critics said it reverses Obama’s climate change commitments.

      “It will make it virtually impossible” for the US to meet its target said Bob Ward, a climate specialist at the London School of Economics. ….

      (Source: https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-03-28/trump-about-end-obama-era-emissions-cuts-how-will-co2-emissions-change )

      Donald J. Trump is by no stretch of the imagination pro-AGW
      (the trollish snide comments of the video’s maker nicely underscore the above. :) )

      (youtube)

      00:26 A big scam.

      1:42 {renewables} not economically viable

      (and China is doing the smart thing by using coal)

      2:22 This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop.”
      (Donald J. Trump tweet, 1/2/14)

      *********************

      MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN — LIVES!

      #(:))

      • That article’s highly premature “conclusion,” Mr. Knights (the same one I was replying to above, referred to by Simon above), was based entirely on this man’s testimony:

        Of all of the people who signed up to join the Trump administration, one of the most surprising was Gary Cohn. ….

        He’s a registered Democrat. ….

        {O}n Friday, he showed signs of taking the first step in a series of steps that might result in blurting out, “I can‘t work with you morons anymore!” …. One of them involved trashing coal ….

        The other was the tacit {implication} that the president {is} dumb ….

        Cohn says of POTUS at G7 summit: ‘He came here to learn. He came here to get smarter.'”

        ….

        (Source: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/gary-cohn-donald-trump-get-smarter )

        I am not ONE BIT worried about where Donald J. Trump stands on the AGW issue.

        Mr. Cohn should be worried about his job….

        Donald Trump is all about: Make America Great Again.

        Mr. Cohn is all about: Mr. Cohn’s and his cronies’ investments (hint: they are not in coal).

      • “Mr. Cohn should be worried about his job…”

        Janice, I heard a report today that spokesman Sean Spicer gave one version of Trump saying “Germany is bad”, and then Mr. Cohn tried to come along later and clear things up, and he ended up making things worse, and so Trump cutoff all access to the press for the rest of the day. Don’t know if Trump is mad at the press or at his spokesmen. Trump is supposedly going to go on offense with the press and the Democrats over all the lies they have been spewing, when he gets back from Europe. He’s setting up his “war room”. :)

        Trump supposedly said something like “Germany is bad” which was mistranslated in a German newspaper as Trump saying, “Germany is evil”, so his spokespeople said Trump was talking about the huge number of German cars that were coming into the U.S. and running up the trade deficit, and that was what was bad, not the nation of Germany in general, as was misconstrued by the Leftists on both sides of the Atlantic. The Left is good at misconstruing things. It’s their bread and butter.

        War room! Coming soon!

      • Janice, I wasn’t endorsing the report, just providing the link that the initial commenter omitted.

      • “If American car companies could make a product of the same quality as Germany makes…”

        You are clearly unaware that BMW manufacture cars for the US market in in Greer, South Carolina.

    • A “trial” in one or more informal “science courts” would add clarity to this matter.

  36. Why was it egotistical for humans to believe that the earth didn’t move and that the heavens moved about the earth?
    All of their senses were telling them that the the earth did not move, and the heavens did?

  37. The US “leads” primarily because of the ‘American Rule’ that allows plaintiffs to play the Litigation Lottery for nearly nothing. Every other sane judicial environment has a credible loser-pays system of one sort or another to disincent frivolous lawsuits.

    • It exists, but many (if not most) judges do not enforce it. I know a few government lawyers who would dearly love to hand each of the sue-and-settle NGOs some very large invoices.

  38. Anthony,

    “The idea that people can litigate action for a “stable climate” is as ludicrous as expecting the universe to revolve around the Earth, something egotistical yet ignorant humans once believed.”

    The charge of “egotistical” there at the end seems . . presumptuous (and in a sense egotistical itself, in that it places the modern thinker’s (speaker’s) knowledge and understanding of the matter in a position of perceptive obviousness it simply does not deserve . . Please provide some logical reason emotionally balanced people in the distant paste would have had, to think the universe did not revolve around the Earth, if you can think of any, I can’t . .) to me.

    This looks to me like residue of just the sort of propaganda (I believe) has been put forth by people intent on enthroning Siants gods over us no good, ignorant little monkeys, in the place of the (presumably) foolish; Rule by consent of the governed, model, handed down to us by our no good, ignorant little monkey Founders ; )

    Please be careful not to help the real perps hide behind a human shield . .

    For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places

    • Nope. You evidently never went to law school. The ‘penumbra’ of the Constitution infers. For example. The penumbra of the second Amendment allows chamb red weapons, not just 1789 mussle loaders. It allows semi auto chambered weapons. It does not allow you to own and operate an M60 0.50 cal heavy machine gun without special permissions.
      Greyscale law is tough stuff. Get used to it.

  39. “what’s next? Sue Exxon because a hailstorm damaged the roof of your house? Or sue the feds the because the Red River in North Dakota flooded in the springtime yet again, because that’s what it does? ”

    Hush! Don’t give ’em any (more) stupid ideas.

  40. For the record.

    It’s true! It’s true! The crown has made it clear.
    The climate must be perfect all the year.
    A law was made a distant moon ago here:
    July and August cannot be too hot.
    And there’s a legal limit to the snow here
    In Camelot.
    The winter is forbidden till December
    And exits March the second on the dot.
    By order, summer lingers through September
    In Camelot.
    Camelot! Camelot!
    I know it sounds a bit bizarre,
    But in Camelot, Camelot
    That’s how conditions are.
    The rain may never fall till after sundown.
    By eight, the morning fog must disappear.
    In short, there’s simply not
    A more congenial spot
    For happily-ever-aftering than here
    In Camelot.
    Camelot! Camelot!
    I know it gives a person pause,
    But in Camelot, Camelot
    Those are the legal laws.
    The snow may never slush upon the hillside.
    By nine p.m. the moonlight must appear.
    In short, there’s simply not
    A more congenial spot
    For happily-ever-aftering than here
    In Camelot.

  41. Based upon the paleoclimate record and upon work that has been done on climate models, the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record and there is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. To date Mankind has been unable to change one weather event let alone change global climate. Even if governmnet could somehow cause the climate to stop changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are part of the present climate. In the past there has been no known global climate that has eliminated extreme weather events. So the party at fault here is Mother Nature and that is the party that should be named in climate legal actions. Lots of luck in collecting on a judgement against Mother Nature.

    If the burning of fossil fuels is some how at fault then those responsible are those that have been making use of goods and services that involve the use of fossil fuels. It is the consumers whose money keeps the fossil fuel companies in business that actually caused more CO2 to enter the atmosphere that are the responsible parties for increasing CO2 in our atmosphere.

    In terms of total greenhouse gases entering the armopshere, it is the Earth’s oceans that are to blame and hence it is the Earth’s oceans that should be held accuntable. It will be very difficult to collect on a judgment against the Earth’s oceans.

  42. Given the recent court determinations against Trump regarding the hiatus on Immigration from certain nations, it is obvious that many of those on the bench have no obligation to follow the law but can imagine anything to justify their ruling. The recent rulings have used statements by people other than Trump to justify their decision. The 9 th circuit is overturned over 50% of the time when challenged. Obama and Clinton have packed the courts with people who are zealots and have no intention of following the law or the Constitution they are of the same ilk as those who have run the EPA, DOE, IRS, etc..
    Similarly they will unilaterally knock down any attempt to return government climate change policy to something that makes sense and based on facts and the Law.
    Given this, it might be wise to submit the Paris Agreement to the Senate and have them turn it down.

    • “Given the recent court determinations against Trump regarding the hiatus on Immigration from certain nations, it is obvious that many of those on the bench have no obligation to follow the law but can imagine anything to justify their ruling.”

      Let’s hope the Supreme Court doesn’t see it the same way. If they do, then we are *really* in trouble. No controlling authority. The U.S. Constitution would be worthless looked at from that perspective.

      I think there should be a serious effort to remove all the Justices in the Fourth District who voted to uphold this ruling. They obviously have a very skewed view of the U.S. Constitution. They’re making things up.

      It’s unbelievable that they are basing their decsions on what they think was and is in Trump’s mind rather than what is actually written on the EO sitting in front of them. They apparently believe themselves to be mindreaders. They have set themselves up to overrule the U.S. Constitution by totally misreading the law. The law is plain and simple: The president has the authority to stop anyone from coming into the U.S. for ANY reason he thinks necessary. What Trump personally thinks about a particular group is irrelevant.

      I certainly wouldn’t want one of these judges deciding a case I was involved in. They are completely out to lunch. No clue. Really disheatening. Disheartenig to see just how far the Liberal agenda has progressed in U.S. courts.

      On a happier note, Trump gets to appoint the next 100 or so Federal judges. Maybe many more if Trump gets reelected and then Pence gets eight years. We need something like that to turn this situation in the courts around.

      • TA, we have 4 Judges on the Supreme court that do think “that way” and they vote “that” way on every important issue. One of them has stated our system is not the best and praise a constitution from a South American Country. Fortunately she sleeps at important events and may soon be replaced by Trump.
        If Hillary were elected we would have a majority on the Supreme court that do not respect the law or the Constitution but will vote for the progressive agenda.

  43. From New Zealand comes ” The student suing the NZ Government” also headlined as ” Student takes Government to Court” by Jamie Morton NZ Herald Science Reporter (The New Zealand Herald Thursday May 25, 2017)-
    “Former Prime Minister John Key once described it as ” a joke”- but now a Hamilton student’s climate change law suit against the government is about to get an airing.
    In a case thought to be the first of its kind(!) Sarah Thomson has taken Climate Change Minister Paula Bennett to court over what the 26-year-old claims is a lack of action over the issue.
    Bennett says she’s comfortable that New Zealand’s target, pledged as part of the Paris Agreement ratified last year, is fair and ambitious.
    Thomson filed papers with the High Court before the UN Conference in Paris in 2015, in an unusual suit that Key dismissed as a joke, pointing out that climate targets by the US and Australia aimed lower.
    But the law student has remained serious about the action, and was recently notified the case is to be heard in Wellington next month…….”
    To be continued…..
    One comment: Apart from Justice Burton in the U.K. High Court, has any judge anywhere given a ruling contesting or even slightly querying CAGW?
    It will take a brave judicial officer to do so.
    Is there witness protection for judges?

    • I am sure it will pass just like the “political science student” who tried to sue the NZ gubmint because…get this…the seats at the “Beehive” (Parliament House in Wellington) were not able to handle her ample “frame”. Kid you not!

  44. Ambulance chasing is too much work. Spinning tales with fuzzy climate science is better since there is no solid ground to work around with courtroom schemes and Clinton-style win-the-day tactics.

  45. Just another opportunity to ram home the faux news climate meme…

    It isn’t even meant to be taken seriously, it’s just to put ‘man made climate change’ in your face one more time.

    All your agendas are belong to us….

  46. Quote: They say that because of the Paris Agreement, plaintiffs can now argue in some jurisdictions that their governments’ political statements must be backed up by concrete measures to mitigate climate change.

    Yes, that is the back door in many constitutional arrangements. When your government signs up to any sort of international agreement normal people would think that it is just the other signatories to that arrangement who have the right to enforce it. But that is not the case.

    A well known example in Australia was the Tasmanian Dams case. The Tasmanian government wanted another dam for its hydro electric power. The Australian government was against it but had no direct constitutional power to intervene. But because the Australian government had the power to intervene in matters where it had signed a UN treaty it used its external affairs power to intervene. In effect that (and its corporations power) gave the Australian government power to legislate about everything under the sun.

    As others have pointed out, the only way out is to get out of every international agreement while your country still has some sovereignty.

    This will take some very clever minds because the bad guys are big in number and are pretending that they are the good guys.

  47. Look, we could sue the global warmists for making the planet too cold with their various schemes! That is the plus side of all this, no? :)

  48. This sounds like a good strategy , when the climate funds dry up because governments realise they have better things to do with their money lets sue them for it. Either way it’s meant to end up in the same pockets

  49. Borrowing a phrase from Mark Steyn (on a completely different topic and I hope I don’t cause a derailment): ‘what is their happy ending here?’.
    Do they seriously believe that the energy requirements of 7 going on 11 billion people can be satisfied by windmills and solar panels?
    The mere mention of nuclear usually brings the same crowd out in protest.

  50. As a lawyer who has litigated for close to 30 years, I would say this strategy will likely succeed. Judges talk a lot about deciding based on the law. But the truth is they decide basec on a desire to attract attention to themselves. The climate crowd will cultivate the forum very carefully, and the forum will respond predictably. God help us.

  51. Governments have a constitutional obligation to protect and defend our inalienable rights to: life, freedom from government oppression and our private/intellectual property, howerver, no individual or government has the right to initiate force against others in the execution of CO2 sequestration policies for which no net CO2 damages or causation have been established..

    To the contrary, the increase in CO2 levels since 1750 has been net-positive with: higher crop yields, massive increases in global greening, extended growing seasons from 0.3C of CO2 forcing, less frost damage, increase in arable land in Northern lattidudes, a slight increase in precipitation, increased drought resistance in plants, more phytoplankton for healthier oceans, shrinking deserts, etc.

    Moreover, the additional 0.3C of CO2 forcing between now and 2100 (at current CO2 emission growth rates) will help ameliorate some of the detrimental global cooling effects from the coming Grand Solar Minimum…

    To sue for damages, a plaintiff must prove that both net damages and causation have occurred, which is not possible.

  52. Just a thought…

    Doors locked (doors locked)
    Blinds pulled (blinds pulled)
    Lights low (lights low)
    Flames high (flames high)

  53. Demand a Star Trek weathernet. I’m sure the government has created one and is just hiding them to punish us for not believing in climate change and income redistribution. Make them roll one out and fix all our nasty weather problems.

  54. When I was about the same age as the protesters in the photo, the big thing was to protest the use of oil because we were running out. The protesters advocated for every possible alternative, without regard to viability, except nuclear because nuclear was bad.

    Now the big thing is to protest oil because we have too much. The protesters advocate for every possible alternative, without regard to viability, except nuclear because nuclear is bad.

    Fascinating.

  55. Litigation is not going to effect climate change nor is spending trillions of dollars on green scams.

    The cult of CAGW might as well propose that we all hold our breaths to stop climate change.

    The cult of CAGW have the possibility of being comically, surreally incorrect, concerning their future temperature prediction.

    The following is a graph that shows how temperatures have changed on the Greenland Ice sheet in the last 100,000 years. The warm period (the current interglacial period) is called the Holocene Period, which is roughly the last 11,000 years.

    Interglacial periods last roughly 10,000 years and have all ended abruptly.

    The cyclic warming and cooling events all (small, medium, and super large temperature change events) have a periodicity of 1470 years plus or minus a beat frequency of 500 years.

    As internal earth climate forcing events are ‘chaotic’ the fact that earth’s climate is changing periodically and the period remains the same in both the interglacial phase and glacial phase, supports the assertion that there is a massive external forcing function (it’s the sun) that is forcing the earth’s climate.

    The following is how temperatures have changed on the Antarctic Ice sheet for the last 420,000 years.

  56. “The idea that people can litigate action for a “stable climate” is as ludicrous as expecting the universe to revolve around the Earth, something egotistical yet ignorant humans once believed.”

    Just a note on this comment… With Redshift showing everything moving away from us, there are TWO possibilities, one of which was discarded solely (AFAIK) because Physicists don’t like ‘special’ positions.

    One is that everything IS moving away from everything else but the other is that everything is moving away from Earth/Solar System.

    As near as I can tell there is zero evidence to discard the second choice other than prejudice against Earth being special. :D

    • One is that everything IS moving away from everything else but the other is that everything is moving away from Earth/Solar System.

      Both can be true. In an expanding universe, everything is moving away from everything else, and from the perspective of any position (such as the Earth/Solar System) everything is moving away from it. Nothing special about it.

    • Sure, but it might depend on your connections in the courts and some friendly media groups.

  57. It’s not about the climate. Just another way for those that have a crappy life to get attention.

  58. This is just another scam perpetrated by the “language arts” majors to enrich themselves. The “legal” profession is totally dependent and aligned with government for their personal enrichment. Without the government enacting thousands of “laws” , mostly comprised of victimless crimes against the government the legal profession would not be as lucrative. The reality that government is comprised of lawyers that continuously enact obscure laws that only they can interpret through their use of an arcane language that can turn a two page agreement into hundreds of pages of mindless prattle and then have the gall to call it a necessary clarification of an issue is ludicrous.

  59. “…citizens have a constitutional right to a stable climate system.”

    Spoken as people who have no clue what the climate is really like.

  60. the climate is a set of statistics, NOT a force, NOT some power, the climate has ZERO control over the weather…….there NEVER has been a “stable climate” and never will be………ALL this stuff shows me is many people of “letters” are either stupid or dishonest.

  61. Reading a proposal like this should remove the proposer to the asylum of deluded mortals.

    The article is beyond ridicule in my view.

  62. If they want a stable climate system it would be glaciation. After all, hasn’t that been the most stable climate over the last 3 million years with short spans of unstable warming tossed in every 100,000 years or so?

  63. This is why Eugenics was created… so that evil scientists wouldn’t have ignorant masses to follow them blindly.

    • Famously, Winston Churchill, was a staunch supporter of “eugenics” and even supported the 1912 “Feeble Minded Persons Act”, basically forcing “serfs” (Us) to fight wars the “eliete” (Them) wanted to fight.

  64. God, the idiots are demanding their right to stable climate so could you quit with the weather thing??? They think they have a God given right to fair weather.

Comments are closed.