Climate Lawsuits Piling Up

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

For years many fossil fuel companies seemed content to stay quiet in the face of public vilification, but with big lawsuits looming, this strategy of avoiding public climate controversy is looking increasingly precarious.

Four climate change lawsuits to watch in 2018

Did you know it’s possible to take legal action to fight global warming? Ever more citizens are doing just that. Here are four landmark climate change lawsuits with significant decisions pending in 2018.

According to a survey by the United Nations Environment Program and Columbia Law School, climate change lawsuits are on the increase — with nearly 900 cases in 24 countries as of March last year — and courts will play a greater role to in the fight against global warming over the year to come.

Citizens vs. the government of the Netherlands

It started with a precedent-setting climate lawsuit in the summer of 2015, when 900 Dutch citizens, represented by the Urgenda Foundation, took their government to court to cut greenhouse gas emissions nationwide.

This was the first time a group of citizens sued their own government over climate change action — and won.

The lawsuit resulted in a Dutch court ordering the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions nationwide by at least 25 percent by the year of 2020 (compared to 1990 levels), forcing it to take more measures against climate change.


Youth vs. the government of the United States

Another lawsuit inspired by the Dutch court case was started by a group of American youths, who are suing the US government for failing to curb climate change.

The 21 plaintiffs, who are between 10 and 21 years old, and come from all over the US, filed the climate change lawsuit together with their attorneys and climate scientist James Hansen in 2015.

All the kids and teenagers in the plaintiff group have been personally impacted by climate change. Some of them live on farms being affected by drought, while others have lost their homes due to floods, or face health issues due to forest fires.

An initial ruling in an Oregon district court upheld their main argument that “the government has known for more than 50 years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millennia.”

Peruvian farmer vs. German energy company RWE

Not just governments are facing legal challenges over climate — also a Peruvian farmer and mountain guide is suing German energy firm RWE.

He is claiming that the company’s contribution to climate change is threatening his home, and is asking RWE to take on financial responsibility for the damage.

ExxonMobil vs. US state attorneys

In the US, a similar case is coming to a head this year: the first-ever US legal action aimed at holding the oil giant ExxonMobil accountable for its climate change coverup.

The American multinational oil gas corporation is being sued over failing to safeguard Massachusetts communities against pollution relating to climate change impacts, and lying to the public about the risks of climate change.

Read more:

Up until now it has mostly been enough to simply fight each case on its merits. But as the shock victory in the Netherlands demonstrates, fighting each case solely on the evidence presented at the hearing for that case may not always be enough.

Unless fossil fuel companies do more to publicly challenge the junk science underpinning the climate lawsuit gold rush, they could end up haemorrhaging large settlements to green opportunists.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 15, 2018 6:52 pm

“Unless fossil fuel companies do more to publicly challenge the junk science underpinning the climate lawsuit gold rush, they could end up”………….out of business

Reply to  Latitude
January 15, 2018 10:46 pm

Nope, not in the US anyway.
Let’s all say the SCOTUS & GORSUCH.

Reply to  Wally
January 16, 2018 4:43 am

Provided a number of things happen or do not including no Democrat President in 2020 and only retirements by Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan or Sotomeyer with Kennedy a wild card if he stays to 2021.
If, for example, Thomas retires due to health and the Ninth Circuit finds for the loons of global warming, there won’t be a majority on SCOTUS and maybe not enough to grant cert.
The only solution, in the US, is for the States to convene a Convention and eliminate the power of the Federal Government and the Federal Courts to even consider the issue (including treaties). Just never going to happen.
One hopes they don’t lose because of another Little Ice Age or the next major glaciation. Even then, they’ll promote world government in order to control global cooling. The Left is relentless and, if seems, eternal in their issues and they eventually seem to win even if they need to do a 180.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Wally
January 16, 2018 9:21 am

Wally listen closely to cedarhill. Sit on your laurels and accumulate splinters in you ass. The left is on a steady march to Socialist Globalism and their One World Order will not be deterred by a single Presidential Term or appointment to the Supreme Court. Unless you expect to die in the next 3 years.

Reply to  Wally
January 19, 2018 8:35 am

My understanding is that the SCOTUS relies exclusively on the EPA’s “Finding” that Co2 is “a pollutant”. Trump’s EPA MUST deliver the REAL science to erase this absurdity from the books.

Reply to  Wally
January 24, 2018 12:30 pm

To decide on policy, The US Constitution set up 3 branches of government, with the 2 whose members are elected being the ones allowed to set policy. While the courts are allowed to rule that a policy action is Unconstitutional, the Judicial Branch MAY NOT create policy. It certainly may not overturn the results of all those elections which selected the policy makers. A judge who goes against the Constitution needs to be removed from office for ‘Bad Behavior’ – and ruling against the Constitution certainly is that.

Reply to  Latitude
January 16, 2018 5:03 am

One wonders why public companies threatened by lawsuits wouldn’t spend the money to defend themselves from such profit destroying legal maneuvers? One wonders why the shareholders wouldn’t demand such action be taken to protect their share values and dividends? Given the tremendous revenues of Exxon, and the potential threat, why wouldn’t the company spend $20-50 million a year to put together a solidly researched and legally strong defense against such spurious claims? If half a dozen blogs can do such an effective job of presenting what I believe are sound arguments, why can’t Exxon do a far better, organized, coordinated job? Between this blog, the No Trick Zone, Heller’s blog, Curry’s blog, Climate Audit and others I have forgotten, the work is 60-75% done. It just needs organizing into a legal brief… something corporate lawyers should be able to do with one hand tied behind their back. So why has it not been done? Inquiring minds want to know.

Reply to  Paul Stevens
January 16, 2018 7:25 am

It’s a problem of distributed benefits, concentrated costs.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Paul Stevens
January 16, 2018 7:29 am

So why has it not been done? Inquiring minds want to know.

It’s a Public Relations problem that the major “fossil fuel” crude oil producing/distributing corporations …… don’t want to be a “party” to ……. all by themselves.

If all the “fossil fuel” producing companies joined together in a “class action” law suite against the lefty liberal anti-corporation “wackos” and the MSM ….. then a “staged” protest against a “ff” supplier would have no effect.

Reply to  Paul Stevens
January 16, 2018 7:42 am

NAACP says MLK vision cannot happen without fighting ‘global warming’.
Seriously, that’s what they say now.

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Paul Stevens
January 16, 2018 10:05 am

Heartland Institute has provided the platform for the last decade. I’ve attended five of the International Climate Conferences ICCC, and have been a Sustaining Member for some time. Supporting HEARTLAND and its group of noted Scientists would be helpful. Perhaps supporting Judicial Watch in concert would provide a bank of lawyers to accomplish these lofty goals. Just sayin.

Reply to  Paul Stevens
January 17, 2018 8:45 pm

It’s because they acknowledge the science behind AGW.

Bryan A
Reply to  Latitude
January 16, 2018 12:22 pm

Perhaps it is time for a class action suit against the Green Groups for driving up the cost of energy and the direct financial damages incurred by the nations poor because of it

January 15, 2018 6:54 pm

I’d be fascinated to know the evidence for CAGW presented in the Dutch case. The news report had zero on that.

Reply to  Jer0me
January 15, 2018 6:56 pm

They didn’t need evidence anymore.
Courts more and more are ruling based on ideology alone.

Reply to  MarkW
January 15, 2018 8:44 pm

And your evidence for that is?
Or are bloggers making comments based on ideology alone?

Reply to  MarkW
January 15, 2018 11:15 pm

That depends on the ideology.

JP Kalishek
Reply to  MarkW
January 16, 2018 2:40 am

depends on the judge. But all too many are not judges, and are instead, political enablers. It ain’t just here in the USA, either.

Reply to  MarkW
January 16, 2018 6:08 am

@ Germonio
“And your evidence for that is?”
The aforementioned dutch ruling. The ruling means the state has to cut nation emission (not just his: all dutch people’s), that is, has to compel other dutch citizen to cut their emission; which require laws, that obviously doesn’t exist (otherwise the case would had no meaning). This is a ruling that demands new laws to be written! Since when a judge think he has the power to do that?
Just piece a junk of a ruling, that should be overturned
As a government, I think i would answer: let’s ask the people (referendum).
Question: do you vote yes or no to the new law which states: [insert ruling]
Then if the answer is yes, promote the judge in a position to apply his own ruling. If the answer is no, kick him out.

Reply to  MarkW
January 16, 2018 7:24 am

My evidence? Recent history is sufficient. Except for those who believe that Ideology is supposed to trump reality, such as you AGWers.

Reply to  MarkW
January 16, 2018 7:26 am

I believe it was in Kansas City, the judge in charge of the school desegregation process ordered the city council to raise taxes so that he could have more money to restructure the schools.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Jer0me
January 15, 2018 7:15 pm

Well, smoking and eating weed has been legal in Holland for a long time. I suspect that has had some impact.

Reply to  Jer0me
January 15, 2018 8:02 pm

It was the *Dutch Government* that was sued. Consequently, the only “evidence” needed was the Government’s own propaganda. QED

Reply to  ianl8888
January 15, 2018 10:56 pm

The ‘sue and settle’ technique pioneered in the US?

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  ianl8888
January 15, 2018 11:07 pm

Political propaganda is not scientific evidence.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  ianl8888
January 16, 2018 7:47 am

***It was the *Dutch Government* that was sued. Consequently, the only “evidence” needed was the Government’s own propaganda. QED***
The government’s and the green’s zeal to “care for the environment” will cost us billions or trillions of dollars. They (especially Trudeau and McKenna) have ignorantly admitted to CO2 emissions causing climate change. That is resulting in flimsy lawsuits because the ignorant government did not know how to defend itself. Meanwhile lawyers and “envirnmentalists will get rich. The oil companies made the mistake of giving grants to AGW groups and universities. They should have engaged in research to show there is nothing to the global warming scam. Getting late to be nice guy. Hopefully Trump will put a stop to some of that.
The oil companies have a chance to get New York – will they sit and do nothing?

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Jer0me
January 16, 2018 1:49 am

Holland is also the home of greenpiss in europe

Alan Radlett
Reply to  Stephen Richards
January 16, 2018 2:17 am

My Dutch friends are always puzzled why people insist on calling their country Holland when Holland is only part of The Netherlands, It’s like people calling America, Texas or California

Reply to  Stephen Richards
January 16, 2018 10:18 am

I don’t know anyone that “insists” on calling The Netherlands something other than The Netherlands.

If you need to exaggerate then maybe you point isn’t worth making.

Amsterdam is in north Holland. Greenpeace is headquartered in Amsterdam. As you know Holland is a part of the netherlands.

Frans Franken
Reply to  Jer0me
January 16, 2018 2:39 am

Dutch government defended stating that the additional measures imposed by the court would result in only 0.000045 C less global warming by 2100 (

All wind parks projected by the Dutch government are estimated to deliver a maximum global warming reduction of 0.0013 C by 2080 under the most “favorable” conditions (wind energy production factor 30% of installed capacity, avoided CO2 emissions calculated from all wind energy produced; In practice – as shown in other European countries – no CO2 or global warming reductions will be achieved. Which is good because CO2 is only beneficial for Earth and mankind. Of course no cost-benefit analysis was produced.

gary garner
Reply to  Frans Franken
January 16, 2018 7:41 am

Also, the Dutch goeverment has appealed this judgement. Alas, the judgement of the lower court was rendered “uitvoerbaar bij voorraad” which means the judgement has to be executed, not withstanding the appeal.

Bryan A
Reply to  Frans Franken
January 16, 2018 12:27 pm

So basically ALL Dutch reductions by 2100 (0.000045C) would be negated by China’s emissions next week

Reply to  Jer0me
January 16, 2018 6:15 am

I am Dutch and a lower court surprisingly took that decision. There is an appeal coming up this spring and would not be surprised that a higher court rejects this stupid judgement. Recently another group tried a similar case for fine dust and this was rejected immediately. Looks like they won’t make the same mistake twice.

Johnny Cuyana(@cuyana2000)
Reply to  Jer0me
January 16, 2018 6:57 am

Jerome, yep … that is one of the notions which came to mind immediately. As a USA legal citizen, unfamiliar with Dutch legal process, I am curious about this case:

[a] specifically, who decided against their govt, in this case? A panel of judges, a jury or otherwise?
[b] on what standing of Dutch law does this radical group, Urgenda, which brought forth this suit, get to have a panel of judges or whoever “make law” — i.e., dramatically force their national change of life — for the remainder of their country?
[c] how did their govt approach their argument regarding this suit? IOW, is the Dutch govt brainwashed regarding hypothetical AGW or does it hold an alternate opinion?
[d] in view of item-c, what factual counter-arguments did the govt make and how vigorously did they make same?

On first glance, and, in full admission that I do not know the relevant critical details of this case, this case impresses me as something that here in the USA we might expect from the pre-POTUS Trump EPA; where, e.g., the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats of the EPA making “sweeping” LAW [read: WOTUS] and do so without evaluating the direct and often harmful impact on the citizens.

January 15, 2018 6:55 pm

Judges are out of control. They seem to believe that they should be the only branch of government.

Reply to  MarkW
January 16, 2018 1:42 am

Lower Court judges certainly are. Their pronouncements shouldn’t carry legal standing until heard by highest court.

Bryan A
Reply to  MarkW
January 16, 2018 12:31 pm

There are 3 branches of government
Executive Jurist prudence
Legislative injustice

NW sage
January 15, 2018 6:56 pm

Clearly too many lawyers with too much time on their hands! Somehow it needs to be made much less profitable to take on lawsuits like this.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  NW sage
January 15, 2018 7:34 pm

We appear to be victims of our own system, courtesy of the megalomaniacal opportunists inadvertently cranked out by academia from time to time.

Reply to  NW sage
January 15, 2018 8:31 pm
We are paying to sue ourselves. And the Eco Lawyers are all buying Tesla saloons on our largesse

January 15, 2018 7:02 pm

Remember companies like Exxon are fighting with judges and juries that have been brainwashed into man caused warming and CO2 being bad. Facts matter less and less and those passing judgement are in a fixed position.

Reply to  Tom Henman
January 15, 2018 8:00 pm

Global News, March 9, 2016

Re: Imperial Oil sale of about 500 ESSO gas stations to fuel distributors.

Appears Imperial Oil Canada is no longer in the gas station business.

More on the internet on this subject.

Reply to  Tom Henman
January 16, 2018 7:30 am

There is an attitude common in juries that companies are just big pots of money that is available for juries to spend to correct social wrongs.

January 15, 2018 7:06 pm

Ross McKitrick has issued a statement re the Exxon suit here.

They still cant bring themselves to mention Steve McIntyre by name after more than 15 years…..

Nigel S
Reply to  Manniac
January 16, 2018 1:21 am

Looking on the bright side at least Mann wasn’t cited as ‘Nobel Prize winning …’

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  Manniac
January 16, 2018 2:20 am


That is a phenomenal response by McKitrick to the ridiculous accusations made in court in what seems to be an attempt to forestall mention of the take down M&M provided in 2003 of M Mann’s fatally flawed hockey stick MBH98.

Already saved and shared with friends.

January 15, 2018 7:16 pm

Anywhere there is a lawsuit, immediately close all gas stations, support for the lawsuit will end in about 1 to 2 weeks. Even if you can get by without driving, when deliveries stop to the grocery stores, attitudes would change quickly.

Reply to  Davis
January 15, 2018 7:44 pm

Atlas needs to shrug again.

Reply to  Annie
January 15, 2018 8:21 pm

Yep. Send America into darkness and cold … let the Children have their way.

Walt D.
Reply to  Davis
January 16, 2018 10:40 am

Like the old bumper sticker from the 70’s
Ban Mining – let the Bastards Freeze in the Dark,

Extreme Hiatus
January 15, 2018 7:40 pm

Eric, you really need to update your information and this post. You missed this major development:

“The ExxonMobil filing makes the obvious point:

The stark and irreconcilable conflict between what these municipal governments alleged in their respective complaints and what they disclosed to investors in their bond offerings indicates that the allegations in the complaints are not honestly held and were not made in good faith. It is reasonable to infer that the municipalities brought these lawsuits not because of a bona fide belief in any tortious conduct by the defendants or actual damage to their jurisdictions, but instead to coerce ExxonMobil and others operating in the Texas energy sector to adopt policies aligned with those favored by local politicians in California.”

Extreme Hiatus
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 16, 2018 12:42 am

Not directly but in the process of arguing this case the junk science will inevitably be exposed, as well as the selective use of the real science. These governments are suing Exxon for the certain damages while they tell investors may not happen. Pretty inconvenient.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Eric Worrall
January 16, 2018 4:55 am

It is an approach more likely to be understood and accepted by the courts than all the scientific arguments you could possibly muster.

Reply to  Extreme Hiatus
January 17, 2018 1:13 am

Extreme Hiatus
January 15, 2018 at 7:40 pm

Eric, you really need to update your information and this post. You missed this major development:

“The ExxonMobil filing makes the obvious point:

The stark and irreconcilable conflict between what these municipal governments alleged in their respective complaints and what they disclosed to investors in their bond offerings indicates that the allegations in the complaints are not honestly held and were not made in good faith.

This clearly shows they are not telling the truth in their court action, or their fund raising on the bond markets, OR BOTH. There must be some action that can be taken against them (obtaining money under false pretenses etc.)


Michael S. Kelly
January 15, 2018 7:50 pm

A liberal use of the objection “Assumes facts not in evidence” by defense counsel would quickly bring this travesty to an end.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
January 16, 2018 7:59 am

YES. That objection should be like a beating drum EVERY TIME somebody “sues” over “climate” BS. And should be used to FORCE somebody to “prove” human-induced disaster is factual as opposed to computer generated fantasy or opinion (regardless of whether the “opinion’ is that of supposed “experts”).

January 15, 2018 8:08 pm

I can just see it all unfolding now. They come to arrest Anthony and to get all the names and IP addresses of all us commenters. Griff is the head of the Inquisition, and we are all hanging by our thumbs for daring to be skeptical of Science.

Don’t laugh…the NSA and 5 Eyes 👀 all have extensive files on each of us. We will all be prosecuted for our ‘thought’ crimes and be sent to serve out our sentencing punishments on the northern tip of Elsemere Island.

Welcome to 1984, and Animal Farm. Looking forward to seeing you all soon.

Reply to  Earthling2
January 15, 2018 8:19 pm

I got a good deal on a super-warm parka this past Christmas Season. Oops … now I just got an extended sentence for mentioning the make-believe religious character … instead of the solstice holiday time.

Reply to  Earthling2
January 16, 2018 5:03 am

“Griff is the head of the Inquisition..”

I wasn’t expecting that…

Not planning on arresting anyone.
I hope some people will be persuaded to re-evaluate their viewpoints though.

Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2018 7:31 am

“I hope some people will be persuaded to re-evaluate their viewpoints though.”
Well, “re-evaluate my viewpoints”, is exactly what I did. I started to look into CAGW business out of fear for a family home close to the ocean, in an area that were islands just a few century ago. Then it turned clear that no risk existed for submersion, or even for these to be islands again. That Greenland WAS indeed green when vikings discovered it (I previously believed what I had been taught: that had been some sort of sc@m to attract colonists; it wasn’t ). That variation of several degrees in average temperature in the course of decades are very common in history, which, combined with the chaotic nature of climate just doesn’t allow the rejection of null hypothesis “this is all natural, and can go back anytime”.
That billions were spent on this non-issue instead of real ones.
That the proposed cure is to slash earning by x2, while reducing the power needed for each $ earned by another /2 with unknown means, for a total of /4 power.
That this cure will result in the predicted themogeddon delayed to a single year in a century (2101 instead 2100).
That the same people who pretend this is THE problem, endangering the whole Earth (no less), don’t put it at n°1 on the to do list, but behind closing all nuclear power stations, preventing new dam, fighting GMO, ranting against Trump and Pepe, fighting racism and sexism by being racist and sexist, fighting for free speech by accusing free speakers of causing trouble, threatening jobs and even life of dissenters, and, last but not least, maintaining as high a powered standard of living as they can afford for themselves…
So I stopped worrying about GW (and even started to wish it), and started being angry against the government, IPCC, billionaires enriching themselves out of the business, whornalists making a living out of the hype, and useful !diots you perfectly represent, Griff
Now it is up to you to
1) re-evaluate your viewpoints just like I did.
2) start living as preach: divide by 4 your power use, which, included gray energy of every thing you buy, means dividing by 4 your budget (I guess you may use the saved 3/4 to invest into “renewable energy”, though). As a bonus, this will allow you to tell people “look, I did it myself, don’t be scared of what it means”, which is a GREAT boost in credibility.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2018 7:55 am

Answer the question that you have been asked many times and FAILED. Then re-evaluate YOUR position>
Griff: Shoe us a study that MEASURES the amount of warming caused by CO2.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2018 8:16 am

@paqyfelyc spot on.

Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2018 8:16 am

A study, not a computer model.

Michael 2
Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2018 9:39 am

“I hope some people will be persuaded to re-evaluate their viewpoints though.”

I do that nearly daily. That is why I am here reading the news; I also visit ATTP; figure between the two of them the important points of view are covered. Hot Whopper is merely a litany of complaining and not particularly useful. SkS is propaganda, sometimes useful, usually not, IMO.

Prior to Climategate I didn’t care much either way about this hobby of worrying about climate. Farmers have worried about climate for as long as there has been farming.

Climategate revealed that climate science was in bed with politics; it had been “weaponized” to use a metaphor. It also revealed that most science is in bed with politics particularly where publicly funded.

Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2018 1:00 pm

Not planning on arresting anyone.
I hope some people will be persuaded to re-evaluate their viewpoints though.

Be careful what you ask for, Griff. A large number of people haven’t seriously looked beyond the propaganda on this issue. Most of the climate skeptics got that way when they did start investigating it more thoroughly. More and more people are likely do that when their living costs increase substantially due to climate legislation.

Widespread reevaluation won’t turn out well for your agenda. And that may be why some of the alarmists really are suggesting arresting people and restricting freedom of speech.

And by the way, why aren’t you reevaluating your viewpoint? As I posted here on 1/12/18

Dear Griff:

I’ve often wondered why you keep bringing this type of thing to these discussions. You must be reading at least a little bit of some of the more credible articles posted here. And your responses show that you do read at least some of the posts responding to you, which expose the flaws in your facts and/or reasoning. Therefore, in contrast to most of the zealots in the climate catastrophe cult, you have to be aware that many of arguments for CAGW are seriously flawed.

Nevertheless you do not even move toward the more middle-of-the-road “lukewarmer” position. Instead you keep posting here in futile attempts to promote the extremist global warming narrative.

Is it because you’re so committed to the ideology that you can’t see its weaknesses, which are so often exposed here? Or do you really know that the narrative is wrong, but you have some other motivation to keep putting all that effort into flogging this dying horse?

Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2018 4:53 pm

Just chiming in here to note that I too “re-evaluated my viewpoint” years ago, when I was a global-warming champion alarmist. Make that “a global-warming alarmist parrot” — merely mimicking the trash-logic to which I was exposed. The fact that I used to be 180 degrees from where I am today speaks volumes about the flaws in the “consensus” view.

CO2 is NOT a pollutant. CO2 is NOT a big deal — probably NOT a deal at all, where warming is concerned.
Humans cannot change the climate with a flea-fart amount of their industrial gas added to a piss-ant amount of the gas already in the atmosphere naturally.

Which reminds me: The other day, when the temperature outside was around 10 degrees F, I took a vat of my homemade dog food outside to cool. It consists mostly of rice, and as you might well know, hot rice stays hot for a long time. Anyway, I sat my vat of food (composed largely of the hot brown rice, just off the stove) onto a table, as a gentle, frigid breeze lifted steam off it into the air. Well, I placed my hand a foot above the surface where that steam was coming off, and I could NOT feel any of the warmth. Think about that — a foot above a steaming vat of hot rice, and I could NOT feel any of its warmth. What I felt was the gentle, frigid breeze of that 10 F air.

January 15, 2018 8:11 pm

Personally, I believe all the major fossil fuel; explorers, providers, shippers, and refiners should simply STOP. OK … the children want to play. Let em play without ANY fossil fuels. No more production or transport of ANY “nasty” “carbon” products. Give them the PERSPECTIVE that their own parents (and mentor, Dr. James Hansen) FAILED to give them. 6 moths to 1-year of ZERO carbon based fuel production. None.

Warren in New Zealand
Reply to  kenji
January 15, 2018 9:08 pm

South Australia comes to mind.

Reply to  Warren in New Zealand
January 16, 2018 1:33 am

As does Victoria.

Reply to  kenji
January 24, 2018 7:09 pm

Regrettably, Kenji, that hurts the rest of us.

January 15, 2018 8:23 pm

The oil companies’ new mea culpa:

First they came for the coal companies, and we did not speak out—
Because we were not a coal company.
Then they came for the nuclear power companies, and we did not speak out—Because we were not a nuclear power company.

The oil companies could have shot this Lysenkoist hoax down in the first six months if they’d been more interested in truth than in market share and profits.

paul courtney
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
January 16, 2018 1:07 pm

Jorge: Agree 100%. Instead of shooting it down, oil execs sent them money, and if it could be traced, the same money is now used to sue them. It’s as if the Huns rode into Rome on horses bought with roman tribute. On the plus side, I love the response noted above, that oil co. cite the city’s own bond reports to investors showing the Plaintiff contradicts itself in statements in which the City has a fiduciary duty to be truthful. Arguing the science will put most judges to sleep, but showing the other side tells investors the opposite of what it is saying in court will get most judges fairly riled.

January 15, 2018 8:32 pm

People who sue those who enrich the atmosphere with CO2 should start by eliminating their daily consumption of the very food that atmospheric CO2 produces.

Fair is fair!

January 15, 2018 8:51 pm

These lawsuits are the modern-day incarnation of “burn her, she’s a witch.”

January 15, 2018 9:32 pm

The answer to such phoney lawsuits is simple……ENORMOUS COUNTERSUITS. Let them know that there is a BIG downside to such nonsense.

Reply to  Joey
January 16, 2018 1:24 am

Absolutely. These are frivolous lawsuits. Countersue – big league.

Reply to  Joey
January 16, 2018 2:52 am

And get what ? they have no money and by doing so you give them martyr status in the eyes of the ‘faith’
Even if the case is throw out as a joke, by raising these cases than have nothing to lose , and only need a little to claim a ‘great victory ‘

The court of public opinion is the only one that matters , not science , not the law.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  knr
January 16, 2018 7:24 am

Hansen has money …and a reputation …. take away both .

Reply to  knr
January 16, 2018 7:34 am

Lawyers can also be made liable for junk suits.

John from Europe
January 15, 2018 9:39 pm

Yep, Urgenda did that in the Netherlands. But the government appealed with a higher court and among other things asking them what the effect was of the measures Ugenda asked. According to calculations it was 0.000045 deg C.

More here (in Dutch)

Reply to  John from Europe
January 16, 2018 1:35 am

Suing the Kingdom of the Netherlands is usually a futile effort.
Even if you make some headway in lower courts, if the bureaucrats do not like it, they will appeal to the King and his advisers. And it is a very difficult to convince the King to condemn the King.
For ‘the good of the realm’ it always gets flat out rejected or a law gets passed to counter the effects of the ruling.

Reply to  RLu
January 16, 2018 2:02 am

RLu, it seems to me that you are overemphasizing the royal dimension here greatly. I live in The Netherlands and have just a superficial knowledge of our judicial system. However, I have never seen anything resembling the possibility of the queen or king influencing our courts. That even applies to politics and law making. Only during times of formation of a new government is there some influence, though not that big. So more of a symbolic nature. It should be totally discarded in my point of view of course. But then again, there are other priority items that should be done, such as the reduction of the power of the state over the individual. We are not a free people.

January 15, 2018 9:54 pm

It might be worthwhile to counter sue, and bury the court with valid evidence that calls into question spurious claims of injury due to climate change, such as drought, hurricanes, ‘bomb cyclones’, etc., etc., etc. Energy companies just need to have the courage and patience to appeal court findings until rational minds (perhaps the SCOTUS) render a reasonable verdict. A counter suit would put fear in the hearts of the claimants that continued pursuit of these frivolous suits could become catastophically costly to them should they lose.

Dave Fair
Reply to  jwgiles
January 15, 2018 10:54 pm

The municipal politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats are, no doubt, regretting ever having heard of Gore and company.

Reply to  jwgiles
January 16, 2018 1:22 am

That’s what I’ve been saying.

Reply to  jwgiles
January 16, 2018 6:04 am

Tony Heller has all the evidence needed in US.

January 15, 2018 10:30 pm

Speaking of lawsuits: why is there no news on Ball vs Mann? Anyone know what might be happening, and when?

Reply to  NeedleFactory
January 16, 2018 2:46 am

He is still a case of ducking and diving for all he is worth, for although very keen to bring court cases oddly Mann seems to be very reluctant to see them ever get to actual court for some reason.
But it does help when someone else is picking up the legal bills , who is a very good question.

Reply to  knr
January 16, 2018 6:04 pm

And what’s up with the Ball – Weaver lawsuit?

Post your property with no trespassing and no soliciting signs and make any servers get a warrant to come on your property? Don’t accept any papers, envelopes, packages from anyone you don’t know? Including registered mail.

January 15, 2018 11:12 pm

And in Ireland, groups of Irish alarmists are bringing the Irish government to court over Ireland’s failure to avert climate change.

Effectively bringing themselves to court, when they’re asked to demonstrate the percentage of “climate change” that has been attributed to Ireland, they go uncharacteristically silent.

Similar silence ensues when any of these people are asked to demonstrate exactly how much “climate change” Ireland is potentially able to “avert”.

Thing is, hard facts and actual details aren’t particularly important here, ideology is.

But keep the appeals for donations coming guys. We can all have fun suing ourselves.

The legal profession will be laughing all the way to the bank.

Greg Woods
Reply to  David
January 16, 2018 2:58 am

If putas are the oldest ‘profession’, which would be the second oldest?

Ian Macdonald
January 15, 2018 11:37 pm

I’ve often thought that lawsuits ought to be taken out against firms claiming to operate from ‘100% renewable energy’ when that cannot possibly be the case.

Also, those who ‘divest from’ fossil fuels should be placed under a court order not to use them.

January 16, 2018 12:30 am

Back in 2007, I was working as a motoring journalist and attended Toyota’s 70th anniversary celebrations in Europe. I asked one of their senior executives why the car companies didn’t hire their own scientists to question the supposed CO2 warming mantra.
He just shrugged his shoulders and said ‘We just do what governments tell us to.’
Let’s hope that the major industries in all countries now have the courage to mount a proper challenge to all the CO2 scary stories, and lance the proverbial boil once and for all.

Reply to  Carbon500
January 16, 2018 5:07 am
Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2018 7:37 am

Another example of Griff putting propaganda ahead of reality.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2018 4:51 pm

“Griff January 16, 2018 at 5:07 am”

In 2008, IIRC, Kevin Rudd, the then PM of Australia gave Toyota about a AU$90mil+ grant to develop an Australian made hybrid even though Toyota had the technology and were already selling units. That year Toyota posted a profit of about AU$90mil. Coincidence I am sure. But I am sure any car maker will say anything to get some free money to assist their bottom lines.

Tom Gelsthorpe
January 16, 2018 12:33 am

Is the forest god, Pan, going to PAY fossil fuel companies for increased rates of tree growth, thanks to more atmospheric CO2? For increased forest acreage, thanks to more productive agriculture on existing farmland?

Can consumers get sued for failing to appreciate more reliable food supplies? For refrigeration?

Can anti-nukers get sued for blocking low carbon power? Can athletes get sued for exhaling more than their share? Bean eaters for farting too much?

Fair’s fair, right?

Tom Gelsthorpe
January 16, 2018 12:39 am

Is anyone going to sue China for burning more coal the the rest of the world out together? Boycott all Chinese trade goods?

Didn’t think so. Tort lawyers aren’t all that popular there. Only rich, ungrateful, frivolous countries can afford such luxuries.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
January 16, 2018 3:16 pm

Are they going to sue Russian/Saudi/Venezuelan petro companies? Or is it just the American companies that are targeted.

Tom Gelsthorpe
January 16, 2018 12:49 am

Children goaded by James Hansen are suing to prevent their cushy way of life from continuing? To match how far back in time? 1700? 1500? The Stone Age?

Can Hansen get sued for being a Pied Piper?

Tom Gelsthorpe
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
January 16, 2018 12:53 am

“March” how far back in time?

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
January 16, 2018 8:41 am

Those same “children” these days are using the internet to “campaign” against “climate change.” And they’re too deluded to see the hypocrisy in that – the internet is the most energy hogging method of communication and research ever created.

Every child “social justice warrior” needs to experience a “fossil fuel free summer,” EACH YEAR until they are providing for themselves, devoid of cell phones, computers, air conditioning, cars, electricity, etc. Let them wear their stinking clothing – or wash it by hand by scrubbing it against a wet rock, and air dry it. Make them gather firewood to cook their dinner (and even THAT is a violation of the “fossil fuel free” standard, since I’m assuming they would still be supplied with “store bought” food, but they would have to WALK to the store to get it every day – no refrigeration at home! But let’s face it, they would starve trying to hunt or gather their food). Two months of that between school years every year should put the fear of “what happens when you demonize fossil fuels” into them nicely.

January 16, 2018 12:55 am

Courts? Or black robed oligarchs?

William Astley
January 16, 2018 1:20 am

Lawsuits do not change what is or is not true.

The observational evidence unequivocally supports the assertion that the greenhouse gas mechanism saturates. The warming in the last 150 years was hence not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2.

Recently, Bill Gates explained in an interview with the Financial Times why current renewables are dead-end technologies. They are unreliable. Battery storage is inadequate. Wind and solar output depends on the weather. The cost of decarbonization using today’s technology (William: Solar and wind power rather than nuclear) is “beyond astronomical,” Mr. Gates concluded.

Another study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate. The period of time for the study was from -540 million to 0 years. The study linked to below used the most recent paleodata and is supported by other studies.

Tip of the hat to NoTricksZone.

The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years
…. The correlation between DRFCO2 and linearly-detrended T across the Phanerozoic Eon is positive and discernible, but only 2.6% of variance in T is attributable to variance in DRFCO2.

Of 68 correlation coefficients (half non-parametric) between DRFCO2 and T proxies encompassing all known major Phanerozoic climate transitions, 75.0% are non-discernible and 41.2% of discernible correlations are negative.

Spectral analysis, auto and cross-correlation show that proxies for T, atmospheric CO2 concentration and DRFCO2 oscillate across the Phanerozoic, and cycles of CO2 and DRFCO2 are antiphasic.

A prominent 15 million-year CO2 cycle coincides closely with identified mass extinctions of the past, suggesting a pressing need for research on the relationship between CO2, biodiversity extinction, and related carbon policies.

This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.

Michael 2
Reply to  William Astley
January 16, 2018 9:49 am

“The observational evidence unequivocally supports the assertion that the greenhouse gas mechanism saturates.”

I do not believe your belief. When the atmosphere is 100 percent CO2, *then* it is saturated. Now it is 0.04 percent; hardly saturated. It would be more correct to assert that the infrared capture and release mechanism is largely superseded at surface pressure by convection and mechanical transfer of heat energy.

January 16, 2018 1:21 am

Good grief – it looks like we’re losing. 🙁

Coeur de Lion
January 16, 2018 1:26 am

Isn’t there a Gravy Train here? Surely world class ‘sceptical ‘ scientists appearing for Exxon can claim a fat fee? But probably more effective to appear ‘pro bono’. Anyway this may spell the collapse of AGW

January 16, 2018 1:44 am

I would like to ask the farmers in the US what used to grow on their land before Mr John Deere steel , back in the 19th century, ploughed it up. If it was Prairie grass i would like to point out that this was a drought resistant grass that indicated what the climate could produce and probably not a good idea to think that droughts would not happen.

Michael 2
Reply to  richard
January 16, 2018 9:51 am

“I would like to ask the farmers in the US what used to grow on their land before Mr John Deere steel , back in the 19th century, ploughed it up.”

When you die such an opportunity may arise to do exactly that.

January 16, 2018 1:45 am

The West appears to be endlessly inventive in this era in bizarre ways to destroy their own cultures.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
January 16, 2018 1:57 am

Can’t two play this game? Is there any way that climate numerate people could sue a group of activists or Mann for losses because of the rise in fuel costs etc . Any lawyers looking for a class action and some rich backers. It would be overdue to see Greenpeace or WWF in court answering for some of their misconduct.

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
January 16, 2018 5:01 am

Certainly, two can play this game.
C/AGW is an ideology-based concept, backed by altered and compromised data, dependent on the faith and support of people whose common response is “I believe in global [whatever], including threats of punishment and violence toward those whose opinions differ.

In addition to the ‘I believe’ responses and the politicization of C/AGW, there is the fraud aspect of it, the suspicion that it is a money-grubbing scam.

There is plenty of other physical evidence to support that, starting with for AG Loretta Lynch’s investigation into a RICO complaint by a professor at George Washington Uiversity in Virginia, which turned into a RICO investigation of the professor when it was shown that he had bulldozed 19 other scientists into signing his complaint. That’s the place to start, and Mann’s constant attention grabs, Nye’s pubic threats, the routine altering of raw data to suit an agenda, and the repeated denigration of people who don’t follow the “I believe in climate change” mantra show that this is an ideology-based concept and a fraud inflicted on the public and uninformed masses, and not the pursuit of valid scientific investigation into atmospheric science.

January 16, 2018 2:03 am

This is why Poland is proposing judicial reforms to stop left wing activists in the judiciary from forcing their insanity on the nation. In Poland’s case the judiciary is a hangover from the days of Soviet rule and of course the Poles don’t want that system propagating into their new era. The EU of course are screeching blue murder over it since it decapitates one branch of their multi-headed hydra. The Poles want more transparency and accountability from their judges who should be subject to the same democratic process as everyone else. The idea of a self-selecting independent judiciary is fine until it goes rogue as we now see in the Netherlands and elsewhere. The prospect of batsh!t crazy old leftist judges upholding these kind of activist suits and crippling the energy sector is truly frightening.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  cephus0
January 16, 2018 2:55 am

CephusO – a hundred per cent right, I just hope that Poland sticks it out and refuses to buckle under the EU assault.

Reply to  cephus0
January 16, 2018 5:09 am

Poland is trying to stop the judiciary having any influence over govt.

this is not some worthy crusade against ‘leftist’ influence.

Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2018 8:11 am

Sorry it is Griff, it’s an abuse of power. Governments are there to make the laws, Judiciary are there to enforce it.

What is happening is some garbage like what the government is doing is going to kill my children and the planet in 100 years and seek to use the law to change government policy. So you get some stupid funded minority green group abusing the law. It worked in some country so they try it in other countries. The judiciary do have powers to protect individuals but in many cases they are overstepping the line.

The majority in most countries are getting fed up with this minority rabble and we are starting to kick politician heads and butts, who are trying to control the judiciary. You have seen the backlash starting (Germany still can’t cobble a government together) and it’s going to get worse and the greens are going to be crucified if they start doing real economic harm.

Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2018 9:51 am

Oh really, and why would the Polish people wish for an unelected and undeposable left wing activist judiciary to have the power to overrule their democratically elected leaders? Laws are not made by the judiciary. They are supposed to administer the law made by democratically elected representatives and nothing more. If they refuse to do that and try to interfere with government by interposing their own personal ideologies then that is deeply wrong.

Poland want judges to be democratically elected in the same way as politicians are and if they don’t do their jobs and/or stick within the bounds of their remit than they can be voted out again. None of this will appeal to a left wing totalitarian halfwit such as yourself of course but it does appeal to the Polish people and being a sovereign people they can tell both the EU and yourself where to stick it.

Michael 2
Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2018 9:56 am

“this is not some worthy crusade against ‘leftist’ influence.”

The left is perfectly willing to use any tactic or strategy to achieve its aims; including pretending to its own opposition. However, the left/right thing is itself somewhat misleading — if you go far enough left you find yourself also at the farthest right. Both tend toward totalitarianism.

The left presumes upon democracy; but when the majority doesn’t go along with the script suddenly it is the minority whose rights are most important. 900 persons -> judge -> Citizens of Netherlands.

Reply to  Griff
January 17, 2018 2:49 pm

“this is not some worthy crusade against ‘leftist’ influence.”

That is precisely what it is.

January 16, 2018 2:09 am

If this is allowed-
“the government has known for more than 50 years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millennia.”

The I’m afraid it’s game over.

Reply to  richard
January 16, 2018 7:16 am

Not really. The burden of proof lies on the complainant to show that the government knew. That requires actual data that have not been compromised or altered to suit an agenda. The proof would also require a report AFTER a specific time period, which they have indicated is thousands of years. How would that report be obtained? Do any of them have time machines?

It’s simply an allegation that fails to account for naturally-occurring events over which no one has any control, and is based on assumptions derived from altered raw data.

January 16, 2018 2:12 am

If the burning of fossil fuels is somehow to blame then the appropriate parties to sue are those who have actually burned the fossil fuels and that is not the fossil fuel companies. One believes that the burning of fossil fuels thatn they should stop making use of all goods and services that involve the use of fossil fuels before they take legal action.

The reality is that the climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind, including the oil companies, have no control. The party responsible for climate change and extreme weather evernt is Mother Nature. It is hence Mother Nature that should be seued. Lots of luck collecting on a judgement against Mother Nature.

Reply to  willhaas
January 16, 2018 12:00 pm

Interesting. It would then exact money from not only power plants, but anyone who has driven a gas/diesel-powered car or truck.
Think of all the gardeners in Kalifornia who use gas powered tools for mowing grass and blowing leaves.
People who build homes, and employ Caterpillar and John Deere dozers. Metal refiners who use coal to make the steel which is used to build the skyscapers (or any three-plus story building). If you pay someone else to burn the fuel, are you any less guilty? (If you hire someone for murder, you go to jail – if caught & convicted.) If we just move our manufacturing to China, aren’t we still burning MORE coal?
If you build a windmill or a solar panel using fossil fuel in the process, you are still guilty if you believe people are to blame if they use fossil fuels.
It just gets ridiculous. How can these people win in court?

January 16, 2018 2:15 am

As for farming- Worldwide 2017 was another bumper year for agriculture. They should just produce the results for the last few years.

January 16, 2018 2:20 am

Whilst I understand the theory behind global warming theory what is the science that indicates that CO2 emissions cause climate change? It seems that somehow the argument has morphed from global warming to climate change without any real attempt to explain the scientific lab experiments that show the theoretical concepts.So whilst there can be some scientific potential for global warming, climate change has been spun by the warmists from thin air. Even the IPCC casts serious doubts on most activities that constitute climate change. I would also question the science on whether there are any proofs that the warming or climate change is in fact dangerous. The fact that these cases actually don’t get thrown out proves to me how biased and corrupt the judiciary is in most western civilisations.

Tom Gelsthorpe
Reply to  Dave1954
January 16, 2018 7:29 am

It’s nearly impossible to determine cause and effect in a complex chain of events if you can’t isolate the variables. CO2 is only one variable in climate, but there is no way of knowing whether it’s a trivial or important factor. There are many others.

Propagandists, do-gooders,and ambulance-chasers have contaminated the equation by glomming onto CO2 for their own purposes:

1. The non-scientific public knows what CO2 is.

2. CO2 makes a politically convenient scapegoat.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
January 16, 2018 9:16 am

Actually, there IS an easy way to identify CO2 as being a complete non-factor in determining the Earth’s temperature; the long term paloeclimate record, which shows NO correlation which suggests that CO2 “drives” temperature, and includes significant episodes of REVERSE correlation (underscoring CO2 as a non-factor in determining the Earth’s temperature), and the ice core temperature/CO2 records, which show CO2 FOLLOWS temperature, up AND down, and ALSO shows temperatures START going DOWN when CO2 levels are at their HIGHEST level – AND while CO2 levels are still increasing (which AGAIN, underscores the FACT that CO2 is a complete non-factor in determining the Earth’s temperature).

On the other hand is the “climate” psuedo-science, which is nothing more than the HYPOTHETICAL effect of increasing CO2 level, which applies IF and ONLY IF “all other things” are “held equal.” Which they are NOT – and clearly based on the Earth’s climate history, the “feedbacks” are negative/offsetting feedbacks rendering CO2 a complete non-factor.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
January 16, 2018 9:19 am

Oh, and it gets worse – in order to come up with their “scary scenarios,” they actually have to ASSUME the existence of POSITIVE feedback loops, which the Earth’s climate history clearly shows DO NOT EXIST.

January 16, 2018 2:27 am

In the tobacco lawsuits, the lawyers got a big chunk of the settlement, pushing up the price of cigarettes. The states could have increased tax on tobacco without a lawsuit.
Go ahead California, the price of gas is not high enough for you, push it up another two or three bucks.

Reply to  Joe
January 16, 2018 2:41 am

Indeed and it is that ‘blood in the water ‘ that attracts the lawyers now , there is very big money to be made if they can pull it off. And it is not going to go on windmills but private jets and bench front houses for the green they care about is the colour of money .

Reply to  Joe
January 16, 2018 8:21 am

If the politicians raised the taxes on cigarettes, then the politicians would have to answer to the voters.
If they can get the courts to do their dirty work, they can pretend to be clean come the next election.

Michael 2
Reply to  MarkW
January 16, 2018 10:00 am

I doubt there’s a price on cigarettes that would impact sales. The price flexibility (elasticity) of demand is very low; that is to say, the demand flexibility is low and that means the price can go way up, and has!

It is similar for gasoline. People must have it and will pay; the consequences ripple onto everything else.

January 16, 2018 2:36 am

There is a fundamental issue which gets little publicity. That is the divide between real science which historically follows the Scientific Method and Post Normal Science which depends on consensus. Post Normal Science seems to be used when it is not possible to achieve a result by real Science. For instance we do not know how the climate might have changed without human intervention ergo we cannot measure human impact with any certainty. This a difficult concept for MSM to publicise because it is beyond the wit of many people without a scientific training. We need good communicators to take the baton.

Reply to  spen
January 16, 2018 4:49 pm

Spen, that’s the hard fight– good communicators communicating real science. The apparatus developed by the left with their lapdogs in the media and academia presents a formidable wall against the possibility of a widely informed populace. Put simply: the left animates whatever narrative it wants to tell and enough people believe it to make reality. Thus, if CO2 might raise the global temperate in 100 years, that’s a scary thing that everyone should believe! Scientific method be damned.

January 16, 2018 2:50 am

Spoiled children suing for better weather, heh.

Ian W
January 16, 2018 3:17 am

Surely, the question to ask these lawyers is do you use fossil fuels in any form? If so you are also responsible in part for your claimed impact on the climate.

January 16, 2018 4:39 am

I’ve seen frivolous lawsuits slapped down. I’ve been subjected to one, and the idiot lost. This is frivolous litigation based on ideology, or “faith”, not on hard numbers and measurements that can be corroborated by raw data. As we’ve all seen, the raw data have been altered to suit an agenda, and that will continue until someone files a complaint of fraud over it, indicating plainly that it is a grab for money by the CAGWers/ Warmians/greenbeans.

An unreported spill of hexavalent chromium into Lake Michigan by US Steel into has resulted in Mayor Rahmbo jumping on the lawsuit bandwagon.

The issue is that while it’s 30 pounds, not 30 or 300 tons of the stuff, it is a harmful compound used in the steel industry. Apparently (according to the mayor) it was not reported to the EPA as it should have been. This is a legitimate complaint, but he just HAD to thrown in the politics (all the Trump admin’s fault), which is a distinct flaw in his complaint and may cost him. A more important issue is that US Steel is in Indiana, and it was that state’s venue, not Chicago’s. I don’t know if this will go very far, but he’s facing being diselected from the mayor’s office, so he hadda do something, right?

The difference between this complaint and those others is that the spill is a real event, is measurable, and the compound is harmful, and it is provable with facts.

The others are not, because they are based on emotions, not proofs. The attorneys involved in this smell money and don’t give a crap who wins or loses because they still get paid, regardless. By the time this nonsense is over, I sincerely hope someone shows that this is a faith-based complaint based on ideology and greed for cash, not on real science. AG Loretta Lynch’s RICO booboo in 2016 might be a good place to starat.

January 16, 2018 5:40 am

Now this is good news . . .
a group, today, with the science being settled, raises a law suit to force the government to make changes with a stated specific purpose.
And when the underlying science is proved wrong or the opposite happens . . . ?

The government can sue the people of “(Insert your own country name here)” for getting it wrong !

Coach Springer
January 16, 2018 6:32 am

Suggesting that “fossil fuel” energy defend itself is a quaint idea. If they do, they get a RICO action against them in the US.

January 16, 2018 7:38 am

They couldn’t win on the science.
They couldn’t win using politics.
Now they are relying on the courts to give them what they couldn’t get any other way.

January 16, 2018 7:43 am

Taking this nonsense to the Courts may be a good idea. Trying to defend this nonsense in a public court of law will expose the fraud.

Climate Change Double Standard Double Speak Proves Slimate Clience is a Fraud

Liberals can take one position, that the recent record cold is normal and natural, when they are taking the position opposite of President Trump. Liberals can then take the exact opposite position when they are defending Al Gore and Michael Mann. The position a liberal will take isn’t dependent upon the science, data or facts, the position a liberal will take is dependent upon who is making the claim. If Conservative believe the facts point to climate change being a fraud, liberals will defend it to the death as scientific truth. Liberals are so oblivious to the facts that The Guardian recently published an article about global warming and defended their position by using quotes that disprove the very position they were intended to defend.

Reply to  co2islife
January 16, 2018 9:15 am

No, the courts are corrupted by the climate creeps. Be careful.

January 16, 2018 7:51 am

Unless fossil fuel companies do more to publicly challenge the junk science underpinning the climate lawsuit gold rush

Meh, experts in energy gathering and delivery know little about reverse brainwashing cultists. A one week strike would be much more effective. Instead of a hunger strike, it could be called, you’re going hungry strike.

January 16, 2018 8:04 am

The climate machine is after the whole if our society.
What pathetic parasitic monsters.
But how to push back?
They have corrupted every level of school and government. Dominate media nearly completely.
Google could turn off all internet access to all skeptics anytime they choose.
And as we have seen, when climate predictions fail, and they all fail, the climate parasites dig in deeper and get more angry.

January 16, 2018 8:36 am

When IPCC reports are no longer regarded as the Bible on climate change, then the word, “evidence” will have to have a face lift, where climate arguments are concerned.

David Cage
January 16, 2018 8:47 am

Since the climate lobby claim it is a life or death matter the energy firms should turn that back on them and say that they must provide quality control proof to life critical standards if they expect any action that costs money to be acceptable to the firms and therefore to be taken.
Since climate data fails the QA tests miserably for one of the cheapest chains in the UK it should at least provide a good start for killing off any claims.
Even this cheap chain expect comparison of the data measurement equipment and environment with a reference standard to be done regularly and climate scientists do not even consider it necessary in most countries to pass peer reviews.

January 16, 2018 9:22 am

The problem at least with the US court setup is, the decision should be based on who argues a better case rather than universally accepted “truths”. Relying on universally accepted truths rather than arguing a better case is sheer laziness.

Curious George(@moudryj)
Reply to  RHS
January 16, 2018 9:38 am

The U.S. justice system is about following rules, not about finding the truth. That makes it uniquely incapable to engage in scientific disputes.

January 16, 2018 10:09 am

What a wonderful way to support the economy by giving lots and lots of work to lawyers, law clerks, judges and all their support staff … not forgetting the MSM, and the myriad academics and ‘experts’ who will be called upon to explain the perils of global warming after battling through yet another round of bitter winter winds.

January 16, 2018 10:09 am

What a wonderful way to support the economy by giving lots and lots of work to lawyers, law clerks, judges and all their support staff … not forgetting the MSM, and the myriad academics and ‘experts’ who will be called upon to explain the perils of global warming after battling through yet another round of bitter winter winds.

Theodore White
January 16, 2018 10:16 am

The same strategy – using lawsuits – can be applied against the ‘man-made global warming’ propagandists who wasted at least 30 years, along with billions of dollars and resources, to push an ideology that does not exist – all the while that the climate of global cooling and its brutal weather gets underway in the real world.

What is good for the goose is also good for the gander; which means that what is appropriate in one case is also just as appropriate in the other case in question.

Bruce Cobb
January 16, 2018 10:18 am

If this were Jeopardy the answer would be “what is lawfare?”

Jeffrey Taylor
January 16, 2018 11:10 am

An excellent essay on why the US cases will fail.

Steve Zell
January 16, 2018 11:55 am

[QUOTE]”The 21 plaintiffs, who are between 10 and 21 years old, and come from all over the US, filed the climate change lawsuit together with their attorneys and climate scientist James Hansen in 2015.”

How can a 10-year-old (or a 17-year-old for that matter) file and win a lawsuit?

If these kids were victims of a flood or forest fire, couldn’t they be compensated by insurance companies, if their parents had taken out the appropriate insurance?

Why should the government be liable for a drought, flood, or forest fire? The government didn’t cause any of these to happen, and could not have prevented them!

Reply to  Steve Zell
January 16, 2018 12:57 pm

You have to understand the pity party show involved when a minor under the age of 15 is included in something like this.

Obviously, there are few 10-year-old children who are interested in filing lawsuits. It would be logical to say that his parents pushed him into it, with the notion that they will benefit financially by bulldozing their grade schooler into agreeing to be included in this. The younger s/he is, the better, as it generates something called “public sympathy”, another name for cynical misuse of a minor as a poster child for ‘generations to come’.

Joel Snider
January 16, 2018 12:07 pm

I seem to remember predicting the wall of lawsuits.
You cannot placate hate. You have to meet it in the middle and beat it back.
This is one of the more important lessons from World War 2 that has been deleted from history.

January 16, 2018 12:23 pm

I’d like to suggest a class action suit against the frivolous Hansenites on behalf of all the users of fossil fuels.

Man Bearpig
January 16, 2018 12:42 pm

Presumably, they are suing for money. Do they realise how much energy is used in making money? There should be a counter suite

January 16, 2018 1:13 pm

Lawsuits against CO2 are bogus. Compelling evidence the energy absorbed by CO2 is redirected to the lower energy wavelengths of water vapor has been hiding in plain sight. Failing to recognize that CO2 has no significant effect on climate is a distressing mistake but is dwarfed by the potential disasters (precipitation related flooding) of failing to attend to what is happening that actually does.

January 17, 2018 6:11 am

Plaintiffs lack standing.

Damages are theoretical, completely undefinable.

Tom13 - the non climate scientist
Reply to  Gamecock
January 17, 2018 7:49 am

Gamecock – I agree that plaintiffs lack standing, Plaintiffs claims are too remote, Damages or only theoritical.

However, after MA v EPA, the concept of standing is thrown out the window.

%d bloggers like this: