The Children’s Crusade (Lawsuit) Against Climate Change

Guest essay by Dale Leuck

A so-far not-widely-noticed lawsuit was filed in the liberal United States District Court, Eugene Oregon Division, in September 2015, in response to the failure of the December 2009 Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change to reach any meaningful agreement, and in anticipation that the December 2015 Paris Climate Conference would also not result in a legally-binding agreement. Should the plaintiffs prevail at trial, the consequences for the U.S. economy would be severe.

Should the plaintiffs prevail, United States government offices, agencies, and departments shall be ordered (Par 12) “…to cease their permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing of fossil fuels and, instead, move to swiftly phase out CO2 emissions, as well as take such other action necessary to ensure that atmospheric CO2 is no more concentrated than 350 ppm by 2100, including to develop a national plan to restore Earth’s energy balance, and implement that national plan so as to stabilize the climate system.”

The lawsuit, organized and guided by Our Children’s Trust, was filed by a group called Earth Guardians, and a group of 21 children represented by their guardians, with defendants listed as the Office of the President, and various Offices, Departments and Agencies of Government. The lead Counsel is Julia Olson, the Executive Director of Our Children’s Trust.

The essence of the suit is that many official U.S. Government documents accept that climate change will cause various kinds of harm to the environment, that will affect today’s children, as well as future generations, through such things as drought, rising sea levels, migration, and political instability. As such, the defendants are alleged to have “…violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” As Mark Buchanan points out:

“They have a plausible case: In earlier proceedings, the U.S. District Court in Oregon ruled that the due process clause of the Constitution guarantees citizens an “unenumerated fundamental right” to “a climate system capable of sustaining human life.”

What Buchanan is referring to is a 54-page November 10, 2016 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Judge Aiken cites the public trust doctrine (36-51); “Obergefell v. Hodges, that guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage, and Roe v. Wade (pp 30-31), as supporting fundamental rights not enumerated in the Constitution.

She found that

“…the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society (pp.32)…just as marriage is the foundation of the family (pp.32).” Aiken agreed that “…inactions of the government…have ‘so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiff’s fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty”.

Importantly, the November decision states that the “…lawsuit is not about proving that climate change is happening or that human activity is driving it. For the purposes of this motion, those facts are undisputed.” The Court is concerned about “…whether defendants are responsible…and whether this Court can direct defendants to change their policy without running afoul of the separation of powers doctrine.”

A Petition For Writ of Mandamus, to vacate the November 10 Order and dismiss the case was filed June 9, 2017 in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Appeals Court was asked to consider the undue burden placed on all government offices, departments, and agencies to provide detailed evidence dating back roughly fifty years, in the discovery process. The three-judge Appeals panel handed down its ruling March 7,2018, denying the Petition for Mandamus because the District Court had not yet issued any discovery orders, nor had the plaintiffs yet filed any motions compelling discovery. The Appeals Court noted that “…issues can be resolved by the district court, in a future appeal, or, if extraordinary circumstances later…by mandamus relief.”

The lawsuit shall continue winding its way through the Ninth Circuit Court system, with a heavy burden of proof now placed upon the defendants, seeming the reverse of usual court proceedings, in which plaintiffs bear the burden of proof.

The lawsuit is a collaborative effort between Dr. James Hanson, of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, and The Children’s Trust, and based on a 6-page non-technical paper whose lead author is Dr. Hanson. Hanson is named in the lawsuit as the guardian of both his plaintiff granddaughter, and plaintiffs “referred to as Future Generations, (who) retain the legal right to inherit well-stewarded public trust resources and protection of their future lives, liberties, and property.” Hanson was Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), from 1981 through 2013. As one of the two sources of surface-based temperature data, GISS periodically adjusts its data to favor the global warming, an example of which in 2016 is discussed at the 4:30 mark in this Tony Heller video. Hanson’s protégé, Gavin Schmidt, employed at GISS since 1996, has headed GISS since June 2014. Schmidt is one of the eight contributors to the blog, Real Climate, along with disgraced inventor of the “hockey stick,” Michael Mann (here, here, and here). Booker, pp. 23-25, describes how Hanson, Schmidt, and Mann contribute to a politicized “climate science.”

The lawsuit has, among its plaintiffs, an articulate spokesperson, Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, the now 17-year-old climate activist and Youth Director of Earth Guardians. His vita states that the precocious Xiuhtezcatl began his career at the age of six, speaking at “…the Rio+20 United Nations Summit in Rio…to addressing the General Assembly at the United Nations in New York city. He is the 2015 recipient of the Peace First Prize, …(the) 2016 Captain Planet Award and the 2016 children’s Climate Prize, from Sweden.” Among his claimed accomplishments were getting “pesticides out of parks, coal ash contained, and moratoriums on fracking.” Xiuhtezcatl has no scientific expertise but brings “music to the masses,” but represents a sympathetic minority (Aztec) youth as an expert on things he knows nothing about.

The lawsuit states (pp.7-8) that the then-15-year old, Xiuhtezcatl, “…engages in sacred indigenous spiritual and cultural practices to honor and protect the Earth…and has suffered harm to his spiritual and cultural practices from Defendant’s actions,” as well as his “…personal safety, property, and recreational interests through the resulting increased frequency and intensity of wildfires, drought, declining snowpack, pine-beetle infested forests, and extreme flooding.” The reference to “spiritual and cultural practices” may arguably allude to an infringement upon freedom of religion.

Page 15 of the lawsuit describes the harm Defendant’s actions have caused 10-year old plaintiff Avery M, who herself has

“…worked to increase awareness in her community about climate change…and advocated for carbon dioxide reductions before her representatives at…municipal and state levels.” The harm done to Avery is related to her enjoying backpacking and “swimming in natural bodies of water.” Not only was Avery unable “…to participate in these recreational activities as frequently as past years due to warmer temperatures, drought, low water levels, forest fires, and algal blooms” but the “…increase of hungry bears in the (Yellowstone) area due to the decline in white bark pine trees forced postponement of a backpacking trip.

Then there is 13-year old plaintiff, Isaac V, who in the lawsuit expressed that summer 2015 was “…the hottest summer Isaac remembers, with temperatures at 100 degrees.” And 14-year old Miko V, an immigrant from the Marshall Islands, who

“…fears she will never be able to travel back…as she intends…because the islands will likely be underwater in the future.”

Plaintiff Sophie K., a 16 resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania “…became passionate about climate science” from stories told by her guardian (representing her in the lawsuit) and grandfather, Dr. James Hansen.

“Extreme weather events…caused Sophie to miss school on many occasions; hailstorms have damaged her house; floodwaters often inundate roads by her house…” and she is “deeply concerned about the future.”

Crusades by idealist, uninformed, and undereducated children, motivated and supported by malevolent adults generally do not end well. The Children’s Crusade of 1212, to expel Muslims from the holy land, for example, was inspired by the teachings of adult preachers. Much like the global warming hysteria, the preaching appealed to idealistic youth, who were torn from and sometimes encourage by their families, and thrust into a closed environment of groupthink. Some thirty thousand, most not yet teenagers, led by a youth known as “Stephen,” massed at Vendome, and trekked towards the port of Marseilles, many dying on the way. When the sea refused to part, as Stephen claimed Christ Himself had promised, in a vision, many turned against him. As if a miracle, two merchants offered seven ships to carry them to the Holy Land. Eighteen years later, a returning French priest, who had accompanied the children, revealed that the two merchants had arranged to sell the children and accompanying adults into slavery. The priest had survived and prospered because of his education, eventually set free.

The youths party to the lawsuit shall most certainly find life disappointing, even if the lawsuit succeeds. But, its success will create an obvious onerous burden on all generations.

Advertisements

152 thoughts on “The Children’s Crusade (Lawsuit) Against Climate Change

    • It’s worrisome that Judge Alsup venerates William O. Douglas, who first perpetrated the crime of jurisprudence as legislation by discovering the previously unobserved “right to privacy” in the Constitution based upon “emanations from the penumbra of the Fifth Amendment and self-incrimination clause”. First elaborated in the 1960s heroic age of judicial activism and creative text-twisting, this fr@ud also served as the dubious basis for Roe against Wade.

      Now Aiken extends this bogus principle without citing any constitutional basis for the unenumerated right she finds to climate correctness. Thus because previous justices found unenumerated rights, she’s free to invent any and all that might please her ideologically.

      We thus have the rule of man and woman rather than of the law. The USSC would overturn her ruling, should it ever reach them.

      • Well I’ve read through the whole tortuous verbiage of the RvsW decision and discounting all the non-sequiturs invoked indicating that the court would like to find for the plaintiff if it comes down to a simple use case :

        A woman walks into a doctors surgery and walks out a while later perfectly well. does the state have any interest requiring legal intervention? And the answer is no.

        No true “conservative” should oppose RvsW . To oppose it supports the idea that big government should involve itself in personal medical decisions like some vile Stalinist dictatorship…

        Wrong wrong wrong..

      • For me one issue is whether states or the federal government should decide what constitutes murder within a state’s jurisdiction. Same goes for same-sex marriage and opposite-sex bathrooms.

        Another issue is that R v. W is clearly legislation rather than jurisprudence. IMO five unelected officials shouldn’t legislate for the whole country.

      • Chimp, the legal doctrine in Roe v. Wade is “substantive due process”, a sorta climb down from the Slaughterhouse Cases reading of the 14th Amendment. As it gives judges the ability to do whatever they please, some judges adore the doctrine. For a takedown of the doctrine, read Clarence Thomas’ concurrence in Chicago v. McDonald.

      • A pregnant woman walks into a man’s house and comes out bruised and no longer pregnant but declines medical attention and claims to be well. Does the state have any interest in what took place inside the house?
        What about when she is later hospitalized or dies due to injury, apparently from an abortion?
        And what magical formula says that a fetus of a certain stage has no fights and a day later is a human being?
        Just askin’.

      • Tom,

        It’s the odious doctrine that the law is whatever the judges say it is. Hence, a nation of men and women, not of laws.

        I’m in Thomas’ court. The only acceptable principle of jurisprudence, if there must be judicial review, is originalism. Judges need only and should only try to determine the lawmakers’ intent, not to twist whatever alleged meaning out of statutes’ verbiage to permit them to do whatever they want.

        As Mike must know, there are different kinds of conservatives. His view looks libertarian. Paleo or traditionalist conservatives, whether Christian or otherwise, take a different view. Hayek famously wrote he wasn’t a conservative, which in European terms, he wasn’t. There and then, that might still include monarchists who didn’t think they should vote, like Waugh, because it wasn’t their place to tell His or Her Majesty whom his or her advisers should be.

        Today both the modern equivalent of Tories, ie social conservatives, and Whigs, ie economic conservatives, are conservatives, but of very different stripes.

      • I have read the text of a few USSC decisions and was surprised as to how some justices argue so little law with so much appeal to emotion. Is this part of the Aiken OPINION AND ORDER a (not very good dictatorial) legislative action?

        “Rather, they ask the Court to declare the United States’ current environmental policy infringes their fundamental rights, direct the agencies to conduct a consumption-based inventory of United States C02 emissions, and use that inventory to “prepare and implement an enforceable national remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric C02 so as to stabilize the climate system and protect the vital resources on which Plaintiffs now and in the future will depend.” First Am. Comp!. at 94. This Court could issue the requested declaration without directing any individual agency to take any particular action.”

        At the end of the order–“…emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” I thought the duty was interpret, not say.

      • “the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society”

        Surely one could contradict this phrase on economic as well a humanitarian grounds. Substitute “the right to have a sustainable economy capable of sustaining human life”

        Eating in the here and now, is far more fundamental than following flawed scientific theories.

        Cheers

        Roger

        http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

      • M Simon March 31, 2018 at 7:08 pm
        No one doubts that there is an implied right to privacy inherent in the 5th Amendment and common law. The issue is how that was twisted to make it illegal for states to legislate abortion laws. And then for that stretch to serve as the basis for whole swaths of dubious rights not inherent in natural, common of constitutional law. Such as “Title IX rights” and “welfare rights”, now to include “climate rights”.

      • ok, so notice that the argument is ‘rights’ and that’s how they always win because nobody can argue against rights.
        so it’s stupid to debate science- it’s a losing argument.

        next, notice that
        “the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society”
        can not be true because it drops the context (deliberately) which nobody noticed cuz they are not critical thinkers; they are wannabe pundits with no comprehension of logical fundamentals.
        the significant part of the context that is undiscloses is ‘AT WHOSE EXPENSE’
        that’s how they always get that catheter into your main vein, impotent chatmongers.
        do you now expect mercy? hahahahaha

      • Chimp
        March 31, 2018 at 7:29 pm

        Well yes. But so many times in this particular debate the beginning is “The Constitution mentions no right to privacy.” As you point out it is misconstrued. The arguments are twisted. etc. None the less a right to privacy is fundamental.

        My take on the issue? If it keeps going the way it has been going there will be a lot fewer leftists in our future. I wouldn’t interfere.

        BTW there is no Drug Prohibition Amendment. When I bring that up in these discussions….. Well. You can imagine.

      • Simon,

        Right to privacy is indeed in the penumbra of the 5th Amendment, other parts of the Constitution, English common law and natural rights. But emanations therefrom get into cloud cuckoo land.

      • Mike, the fact that you miss is that two people walk into the clinic, only one walks out well, the other dies.

    • CO2isLife – Delingpole makes the mistake in his article that they will discuss the science. It doesn’t appear to me that is on the table at all. The question is whether the Court would run afoul of the separation of powers clause.
      If the judge rules that it doesn’t, then it goes to a higher court.

    • As you probably know, there is a lot more to the story than that.

      Ann Aiken is a very scary bitch. Hopefully stuff like this will keep her from being considered for any other position.

    • 15-year old, Xiuhtezcatl, “…engages in sacred indigenous spiritual and cultural practices to honor and protect the Earth…and has suffered harm to his spiritual and cultural practices from Defendant’s actions,”
      Do the cultural practices of Xiuhtezcatl include human sacrifice and the removal of the heart of the sacrifical victim?

  1. James Hansen again? The old boy has made such accurate predictions of doom that I am in awe of his temerity in remaining active in the field of climate science./snark

  2. But who is going to pay for the CO2-proof fence that would need to be erected around the US to prevent third party CO2 breaking the law.

  3. The question to ask is, “What is the best way to protect the US people from climate change?

    If this “…lawsuit is not about proving that climate change is happening or that human activity is driving it. For the purposes of this motion, those facts are undisputed” then don’t dispute it.
    That would be relying on the whim of the Judge. And Sartre-101 tells us that the decision was already made when the choice of whom to ask was made.

    Instead dispute that trying to control the weather through trace gas emissions is less safe than trying to respond and prepare for the weather through the creation of wealth.

    All the history of the world and the study of geography shows that adaptation works.
    While weather control is unproven.
    In fact, even if climate control was possible, that would not defend the people from the weather. Outliers still happen.

    Policies that emphasise climate control over the economy should be ruled unconstitutional.

    • The answer to your question is to ensure that the Earth warms enough to offset the inevitable plunge out of this interglacial. That the current interglacial will end is the only undisputed fact in any climate change discussion.

      BTW if one were ordered to “move to swiftly phase out CO2 emissions” everyone must stop breathing.

      • The potential 3000 years hence of giant, nuclear-powered blow driers to melt the forming ice sheets might cast even the certainty of the next glacial advance into doubt.

    • Most of these children and their parents would not be alive without abundant cheap energy. Cities have never been so clean.Will they start a lawsuit as soon as New York is threatened by a 2 mile thick glacier?

  4. The children’s guardians, the “Earth Guardians” , “Our Children’s Trust” and James Hansen et al should themselves be prosecuted for lying to the children and spreading malicious and unscientific fake news.

    • Unfortunately there is no law against lying to children. Otherwise, how do you explain the Easter Bunny?

      • there there should be a law against purposeful lying. Because there isnt tabloids can say anything along with climate scientists.

      • Who would decide what is lying and what isn’t? That’s the rub. Any such law would immediately become the political weapon of whoever currently has the “truth” on their side.

        And what of other classic stories used to teach moral lessons to generations of kids, e.g. the Boy who Cried Wolf? Those are fiction. That’s another rub, the grey area of the lie that tells a truth.

      • Sheri – My parents telling me about Santa was one of my first opportunities to argue with them about the logistical problems and implausible physics of the concept.
        Of course, I also discovered they did not like like those kinds of arguments.
        Later, Mom said if God wanted us on the moon, he would have put us there. I got knocked down when I responded that if he wanted us to fly he would have given us wings. (She worked in United Airlines flight kitchen – Denver at the time.)
        I knew I had scored. I knew my logic and knowledge was superior as it could not be refuted with words – only violence. That gave me great pleasure.
        And it all started with Santa Claus!

  5. I was born in Eugene, Oregon, but I don’t live there anymore because those people ARE DYSFUNCTIONAL AND PROUD OF IT!

  6. Climategate stopped everything in its tracks, followed by a mass exodus of former true believers. So the emails between the junk climate scientists that proves that AGW is a fraud should be admissible. Slam-dunk! Or am I missing something? I’m no expert.

  7. Possibly an outline for the “lets get rich” scheme of the “parents” of the dead students (in addition to collecting on life insurance policies) and certainly the Five MSD “Survivors” who are attacking conservatives and being payed riches by liberal MSM organizations.

  8. The climate is outside the jurisdiction of the courts, and a jurisdictional challenge is called-for.

  9. “…to cease their permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing of fossil fuels and, instead, move to swiftly phase out CO2 emissions, as well as take such other action necessary to ensure that atmospheric CO2 is no more concentrated than 350 ppm by 2100, including to develop a national plan to restore Earth’s energy balance, and implement that national plan so as to stabilize the climate system.”.

    How pray tell is the United States supposed to ensure that CO2 levels are no more than 350 ppm by 2100 all by its lonesome self? How can it force the cooperation of the rest of the world to ensure it happens? How is the U.S. supposed to stop natural drivers of climate (never mind CO2) to ensure that we “stabilize the climate system”? What exactly constitutes “climate stability”? “Swiftly” phase out CO2 emissions? How fast is “swift”‘? How much is this going to cost us?

    If nuclear power is out of the question for these bozos, do they believe that wind and solar energy by themselves will cut it as alternatives? I seriously question whether the people behind this have anything of significance between their ears. This is what happens when mass hysteria and groupthink rules the day.

    • How pray tell is the United States supposed to ensure that CO2 levels are no more than 350 ppm by 2100 all by its lonesome self?

      The US has a military for those kinds of problems.

      ====

      You know. I don’t think these kids have thought it through.

      • More sad is the fact that Judge Aiken hasn’t thought it through, either.

        But then, she’s a Democrat, so there you go. Thinking things through is not her bag.

      • Damn the consequences (unintended or otherwise)! What matters is that the Cause will be Served!

  10. Is there not scope for a legal action against any mitigation measures on the grounds that ceasing from the use of fossil fuels will collapse civilisation and kill milliions for certain as against speculative, unproven and venal CO2 mystification?i

  11. “…to cease their permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing of fossil fuels and, instead, move to swiftly phase out CO2 emissions, as well as take such other action necessary to ensure that atmospheric CO2 is no more concentrated than 350 ppm by 2100, including to develop a national plan to restore Earth’s energy balance, and implement that national plan so as to stabilize the climate system.”

    Sounds to me like the plaintiffs want relief that they can’t get. If the US shut down every CO2 producing process occurring within the US (except killing all the people), it STILL wouldn’t prevent CO2 levels from increasing.

    Well I guess the US could nuke every other country on Earth to stop them from emitting any CO2, which would result in retaliatory strikes that would destroy the US. The end result would be the extermination (or close to it) of all humans and most other multicellular life, but I guess that would stop the man made emissions of CO2.

  12. Our Children are again being sold into slavery – to bear forever the burden of massive debt and interest incurred by this lawsuit forcing government payments on We the People to be born by our children.

    • No no you are a slave Form 1040 tells you so. There can be no Free people and direct taxation. If your are not free you are a slave.

      • So says the elder Schiff, who died in prison due to that belief.

        I’m all for repealing the 16th (income tax) amendment, but since 1913, it has been the law of the land.

      • Exactly since the enactment of the Federal Reserve System the USA is a mafia. Which makes you a slave.

      • Robertvd
        March 31, 2018 at 3:58 pm

        Schiff is correct. I have read some of the early cases. None the less you will go to jail if you take his position.

      • And die there. That is what has become of the land of the free, it has become the land of the tax slave.It was the way to circumvent the constitution. Slavery has never been abolished it just changed its appearance. That’s why politics don’t change whoever is in ‘power’. The bad guy in the movie won.

      • There’s no secret to avoiding income tax — Hillary & most elites do it. Just hide most/all your income in a money-laundering NGO like the Clinton Foundation.

  13. By this logic, one could argue that the very existence of these young people is making the planet uninhabitable. We should parents for having kids.

  14. Are you anti-gun people finally beginning to grasp the real purpose of our 2nd Amendment?

    • Anti-gun people love Mao and Stalin.

      They have been brainwashed by the system which is very easy when you get them young. That makes them so violent.

  15. If this “…lawsuit is not about proving that climate change is happening or that human activity is driving it. For the purposes of this motion, those facts are undisputed”
    doesn’t the plaintiff still have to prove damages?
    The concept being used is that the US Constitution guarantees citizens an “unenumerated fundamental right” to “a climate system capable of sustaining human life.”
    Don’t the plaintiffs have to demonstrate that the actions of Government have or are failing this guarantee? Who has died due to the incontestable human caused climate change? Human life is sustained in every climate found on earth so far. It is easier to sustain life if abundant energy is available. The US Government has allowed the production and use of fossil fuels to help sustain life so it has complied with this guarantee.

  16. “Importantly, the November decision states that the “…lawsuit is not about proving that climate change is happening or that human activity is driving it. For the purposes of this motion, those facts are undisputed.” You would think this court would await the outcome of the #ExxonKnew court case being held in San Francisco before making such a broad statement.

    This court case is truly bizarre. Maybe it’s good that this winds it way through the liberal United States District Court, Eugene Oregon Division Court so that everybody gets to see how crazy this has all become. It has no chance of being enacted into law, but it shows how stupid everything has become. Especially on the Left Coast. What a waste of court resources. It’s no wonder Trump got elected with all this nonsense, and hopefully he starts weighing in on this stupidity and deal it a final political death blow, at least in the USA.

    In Canada, the Federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna says the government will make it mandatory to consider indigenous traditional knowledge alongside science and other evidence when making decisions going forward on everything, especially related to resource extraction and climate change. To think now that indigenous oral tradition could now be equal to science, given that oral tradition originates in stone age fairy tales. That may even be more bizarre since a court doesn’t even get to decide. Just Chatty Cathy Bimbo Climate Barbie and the Cabinet Circus of Prime Minister Justin Truedope will now make decisions based upon their ‘science’ and indigenous traditional knowledge. And we all know what they are smoking.

    http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/quebec-deputy-minister-gets-pushback-after-questioning-place-of-indigenous-traditional-knowledge

    • What about sharia law? Shouldn’t that be considered, too? Any ancient mythological tradition must be respected, as long as it’s not Christianity or Judaism.

      • I wish I could reply Chimp, but doing so now for me would be a criminal offence in Kanada, even if if I politely gave my opinion on such matters as evil sharia law or islam. Even if they are a bunch of johnny come lately’s to the judaeo/christianity myth. I guess Minister ‘Chatty’ Catherine Climate Barbie could sue me for calling her a Bimbo, but that is abundantly evident for all to see.

      • A sad state of affairs when there is no freedom of speech, however objectionable. Or not.

        Why is it OK for Muslims to oppress women and homosexuals, but not for normal people?

  17. Just cut-off their power and their neighbors. Then one can also forbid them and their parents from buying gas. Then we install those giant windmills in their backyard and cover their house in solar panels and make them buy Teslas. Then we ban meat in their households AND THEN,

    … We have met all their demands.

    • The best way to torture so-called progressives–give them what they want, and lock the door behind them.

  18. Speaking as a licensed lawyer, this lawsuit has a snowballs chance in H even if it makes it through the weird Oregon trial court. Even thismpreliminary standing ruling is deeply flawed. Children do not have standing for speculative future damages that they they themselves cannot comprehend. Byncomprehend, I do not mean relyingnon IPCC ‘hearsay’. Immean actually understanding the arguments such as made in recent Monckton third post ‘Game Over’. Their guardians might, but these adult activist plaintiffs ‘guardians’ are not guardians in any meaningful legal sense and thatnis easy to show.. Neither Roe v Wade (‘penumbra of the constitution’ right to privacy going back to a (if I recall correctly) 1890 Louis Brandeis Law Review aeticle, and implicit in manynother SCOTUS decisions before Row v Wade ) nor Obergefell (equal rights) made this kind of ridiculous reach. Like the SF/Oakland v. Big Oil on ‘Exxon knew’ grounds, a sign of warmunist desperation. Cannot win public opinion, cannot get legislation, cannot get international agreements, so lets get our political way through the US courts. That is not how courts (in the end) work.

    • More’s the pity that you’re not a federal judge.

      I’m sure that if Aiken’s decision is appealed, she’ll yet again be overturned (as she was re the Patriot Act), by the USSC if not by the Communist 9th Circuit.

      • Himp, most certainly with Gorsuch on the Court. But I could see this going 9 zip. And my 2l connlaw professor was non other than a much younger Larry Tribe.

    • Nine-zip would help restore, or create, faith in US jurisprudence, but IMO you’re pretty optimistic with respect to Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.

      You’d know better than I how Tribe might view the right of kids to an unchanging climate.

    • ristvan, I have o percent confidence in the west coast federal judiciary to actin a sane rational manner.
      Would repeal of the endangerment finding, knock the stuffing out of these lawsuits.
      I think I read where this case was going to be heard in district court in San Francisco. Maybe a different suit.

    • ristvan
      March 31, 2018 at 3:44 pm
      —————-

      Children do not have standing for speculative future damages that they they themselves cannot comprehend.
      ————-
      Not only that but:

      Children, we like it or not, do not have any standing at all in matters of law, legislation or constitution.
      As it happens, children do no have any legal or constitutional rights, what so ever.

      Legally and constitutionally a right to a given social or civic condition means being subjected to responsibility in the given matter and right, which children do not and can not have, as children can not be hold legally responsible, as that happens to be the condition of a child protection from the hazards of the “adult responsibility” in matter of law and legislation, or even constitution..

      Next you will hear, will be the insane suing the government, the president, the Congress and any other agency and authority in climate rights, for their right on climate, by invoking the constitution………….
      oh wait, these insane are already attempting it by using, abusing and mentally-emotionally molesting the children…in and by the constitution angle.

      My questing in this matter happens to be simple:
      What are actually the children’s protection agencies actually doing??? Why are these agencies not engaging as suppose to, but have ignored this problem!

      a simple test:
      Four modern English speaking nations, Australia, UK, Canada and USA.
      Please do try to find and point out one single legal-constitutional right that children have, in any of this countries. (bear in mind the connection to legal responsibility, which subjects one to prosecution under the legislation in any given matter, regardless of age at that point.)

      In the case of climate as per this aspect here, even adults at large do not have such right, as that right restricted to federal government,Senate and Congress, or any other agencies or institution, or individuals in position of authority or clearance delegated by the Law makers or the Federal Government.

      So when considering that once upon a time the Indiana Joke might have had a right to climate as per merit of his position in the past, it does not anymore….that must really be really really disturbing as this case in point shows…
      Too dangerous and risky for the children in the care of such fake guardians, who actually not in any care about the children’s position and not much responsible about the children’s interest and well being!

      This actually is more like an attempt to cause anarchy, by going far and beyond the attempt of causing a legal and constitutional crisis, by also attempting a wide social civic crisis, in the most arrogant way possibly imagined…..oh well, Indiana Joke must try by all means possible, regardless of any children and their legal and social protection needs regarded or respected what so ever……Total Anarchy.

      cheers

      • s-t
        April 2, 2018 at 7:45 pm
        Are you saying children have no rights and cannot sue?
        That makes little sense.
        ————
        Thanks for your reply, appreciated, as no any much there.
        A bit too late in the day, but I finding an obligation to respond,as it happens to be the only reply there.
        Yes, as strange that it may seem, and maybe even a little disturbing, from my point of understanding, yes the children do not have any legal or constitutional rights what so ever.
        Let me list it, children do not have any legal or constitutional right to:
        Free speech.
        Right to bear arms.
        Right to private property.
        Right to participate in any legal election, or the right to be legally elected.
        Right to alcohols.
        Right to sex.
        Right to stay late.
        Right to protest.
        Right to avoid education.
        Right to financial activity.
        Right to work.
        Right to travel.
        Right to legally sue.
        No right what so ever to legally sue for any of the above rights they have not,especially in the general context of the whole children’s benefit.
        Maybe if going to extreme in the disturbing position as per religion, children may not have even the legal or constitution right to life, as the above may also suggest.
        But all this said, still society does have a mending here ,,,, the civic way of life at large applies, as per recognition of this condition, where the need for the children and their way of life and their life to be heavily protected, by the laws and the legislation of the land is indisputable, especially in the modern western nations..
        For any lack of these rights, children get a tremendous legal protection.
        Amend any of this rights and the protection immediately defaulted.
        If you think carefully in this given angle, a wining of these children in these court case, happens to be impossible in the general context term, as per all children.
        And a supposed wining in special specific terms, concerning and relying to only these “plaintiff” children, means a contradiction, where these children will be considered adults as per matter of their claim and that will contradict many of the other protection these children have as per lack of other rights these children do not and can not have, like the right to free speech, right to work (like in pornography industry), right to finances, right to private property or right to sex (like the right of abortion or right of clinical castration, as per climate right they may impose)…..as the actual right to climate happens to be very wide and not strictly specified under any legislation.
        Any way, still if you read my above comment still the test stand…..please do find and name one legal-constitutional right at all that children may have!
        Please bear in mind for any legal or constitutional right that you may think that children do have, or may have, then you have to consider that the mighty “children protection clause” does not apply.
        For any legal and constitutional rights that children do not have, the little lucky “brats” do enjoy a tremendous legal protection, especially in modern developed nation, top of the suppose to be ones,,, the USA.
        cheers

  19. I want to file a lawsuit against the Children’s Crusade — for forcing lawyers and judges to consider cases based of falsehoods that set legal precedents to enforce policies based on falsehoods that will cost future children unnecessarily more money to exist in civilization.

    Clearly there is harm to future children here — in perpetuating stupidity translated into public policy.

  20. Oregon is a progressive cesspool where dumb, dishonest thugs mangle everything they touch while insisting they know best.
    Pick any issue or policy arena. It’s the same story.
    Other than that it’s a fine State. :)

  21. “unenumerated fundamental right” to “a climate system capable of sustaining human life.”

    It could be argued that nobody can live in any climate system on Earth, past or present, without some modification of their living conditions.

    All environments will kill humans without food, water, shelter, etc and no environment delivers all of the necessities of life without our ‘interference’ in one form or another.

    ‘Rights’ are a human invention – Nature doesn’t give a hoot whether we are here or not and generally tries to remove us given the energy systems She/Zie/Tey/He/(any other gender neutral pronoun) throws at us on a regular basis.

  22. The left uses children like despots use child soldiers or like terrorists use children as suicide bombers. It is quite sickening, really. And the REAL sick thing about it is that most of the children alive today would never have been born or would have long since starved to death if it weren’t for the advances driven by the use of fossil fuels.

  23. A ridiculous lawsuit. Those folks probably really think they are clever. But it’s not going to work.

    The people who really need to be sued are those who perpetrated this CAGW Fraud on the world in the first place. They have cost the world uncounted amounts of money and are scaring the children to death with their BIG LIE.

    • Btw, it is ridiculous to have a post go into moderation because of the use of the word “Fraud”. What’s the big deal about “Fraud”? It a pain in the you know what to have to avoid this word when it is so necessary on a website like this that discusses the Fraud of CAGW.

  24. as well as take such other action necessary to ensure that atmospheric CO2 is no more concentrated than 350 ppm by 2100

    Do we HAVE to go to war with China and India?

  25. Silly me, when I first read the title of the thread I thought The Children’s Crusade (Lawsuit) Against Climate Change was to sue the various governments that are wasting billions of dollars, trying to control the climate, that could be used to solve real and present problems being experienced by children in poverty-stricken parts of the world.

  26. This is a dangerous lawsuit, should the plaintiffs prevail:

    “Should the plaintiffs prevail, United States government offices, agencies, and departments shall be ordered (Par 12) “…to cease their permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing of fossil fuels and, instead, move to swiftly phase out CO2 emissions, as well as take such other action necessary to ensure that atmospheric CO2 is no more concentrated than 350 ppm by 2100, including to develop a national plan to restore Earth’s energy balance, and implement that national plan so as to stabilize the climate system.”

    • I know some “children” who would oppose this
      case on the grounds they don’t want to spend
      their life freezing in the dark.

  27. Should the plaintiffs prevail, the absolute first action must be to ban them from ever using fossil fuels or any products made from them. The same ban must apply to their guardians, James Hansen, Al Gore etc. Give the idiots what they’re demanding, because if they really mean what their saying, they wouldn’t be using them anyway, and they won’t have any grounds for complaint.

  28. Make them bring their case using no fossil fuels of any kind in a building made in the same way with no modern facilities (or as my mum puts it “with all mod cons”), travelling on foot or horseback and probably most difficult of all (for them) disconnect them from social media.
    I think that would help them see what they are heading for if their case wins.

    James Bull

    • Look around you don’t you see how America (the West) is falling apart. Why do you think the blog WUWT exists?. Most of the people writing here are ex believers until they opened their eyes to see. That’s a very important and frightening first step.

  29. “Extreme weather events…caused Sophie to miss school on many occasions; hailstorms have damaged her house; floodwaters often inundate roads by her house…” and she is “deeply concerned about the future.” Ahem, absolutely nothing about this changes because of that lawsuit. But it is a request to not only legislate from the bench, but also put the courts above the legislative, and executive branches of government and above the people. In the name of 21 people who pretend to speak for children. Over an unsubstantiated fear and out of a desire for control..

    They don’t have a plausible case, but they have a plausible chance of winning.

  30. One would hope (and donate) to any group that seeks to intervene to represent those children that will be negatively effected by the Plaintiffs seeking to impair their unenumerated right conferred by the Constitution and court decisions to restrict their right to affordable and least costly energy because energy is the basis for all society, including life itself, any infringement on the right to affordable energy will have extreme and dire consequences. In fact, that affordable energy is a supreme right which takes precedence over all other rights conferred in the Constitution since it directly effects a citizens companion right to life. (and etc.)
    Thus, the intervenor should seek to be plaintiff against the Defendants, should they prevail in the main case, for them to not construct policies infringe on their right to affordable energy and against the Plaintiffs, should they prevail in the main case, from constructing any remedy that infringes upon the right to affordable energy such that any remedy crafted must use actual economic measurements and those measurements must be used shown to be greater than the proposed remedy.
    For example, if the cost per kwh increases by even a minute amount, the remedy would be rejected since it fails to demonstrably show any net benefit.
    The point being to intervene to force the court to deal with conflicting “rights”. Plus it will make the case drag on for years, perhaps decades, since after 18 years, the “guardian” will have no bodies upon which to claim and the case could be dismissed as moot.

    The point is to not allow the Left and the Greens to do in the Ninth Circuit what they can not do in science or politics and allow it be done by oligarchs of their choosing.

    Above is a possible solution. The best solution is getting the six conservative States that have not voted for an Article V Convention to so vote. Then, an Amendment(s) can be proposed, offered to the States to ratify, and correct the tyranny. A harder solution would for Congress to break up the Ninth Circuit into five Circuits and make sure each Circuit has a majority of non-oligarchs appointed.
    Another Amendment would add a new court, a States Court of All State Courts (SCASC), which would have the Chief Justice of each State as a member and SCASC would run and control the Federal Judiciary, including SCOTUS. SCASC would have the power to remove judges and make such rules as SCASC deems appropriate.
    Of course, Congress, within it’s enumerated powers, can simply remove the Federal Courts from having jurisdiction over any things related to “climate change” as well as pass a State-preempting “Freedom of Affordable Energy Act” which would restore the reality of the balance of power back to the Congress (the above act) and the Executive (signing the Act into law) and thus control the Federal Court oligarchs.

    Sadly, none of these will likely occur. Future generations will likely curse us for, having the tools to defeat tyranny, we failed to act.

  31. Dear kids, Mother Nature is a miserable B****, and you must do everything you can to survive using your intelligence and wonderful inventions such as electricity and fossil fuels.

  32. Sounds like the kids are the ultimate spoiled brats. “I can’t”, “I won’t be able to”, etc. We have made many trips to the Rockies and have never seem the plethora of wondrous animals promised to us. It must be someone’s fault, I’ll be okay with a settlement of $100 million and a lifetime supply of bacon cheeseburgers (I shouldn’t have to spend my money on them though).

  33. It’s not the consequences to the economy to fear, but the survivability of life without our inventions. The science that should be taught in school is the quality and length of life before and after the industrial revolution.

  34. So just how much money were the plaintiffs expecting to get out of this frivolous lawsuit?

    Aside from attorneys’ fees, there must be some cash in the cash drawer aspect of it, in addition to the publicity they’re groveling around to get.

    “…engages in sacred indigenous spiritual and cultural practices to honor and protect the Earth…” This alleged “Aztec” kid is following all those ancient rituals, is he? Is he decapitating his sacrifices and following all the other gruesome practices that they followed, including eating the flesh of their victims?

    Am I, or any other reasoning person, expected to take this stuff seriously?

    Aside from the waste of time it represents, just exactly HOW does Hansen expect to have any control whatsoever on a planetary body that is several trillion times his puny size?

    The whole thing is BS. We all know it. But we have to witness The Follies and let them have their day, because if we don’t, it will happen again and be worse the next time around.

    Meanwhile, i am completely in favor of denying all public services such a power and heating and water utilities, never mind food markets and transportation, to these benighted souls so that they will have a chance to prove their virtue to us, instead of just mouthing the words.

    Thank you.

  35. “…to cease their permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing of fossil fuels and, instead, move to swiftly phase out CO2 emissions, …”

    Only one way to do this, is a Massive, JFK Man on the Moon like, mission of building Nuclear power plants. Would be IMPOSSIBLE to meet these objectives, requirements with Solar and Wind as either or both will require fossil fuel powered backup or Massive reservoirs, which will never be allowed. Musk can’t even get the batteries he needs. Where would the USA get enough batteries to power Chicago for a week,m NYC for a week, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, Huston, Dallas, Denver, St Louis, LA, San Francisco, etc. etc. for a week SEPARATELY, let alone with several large cities combined with no power. from wind or solar. Keep in mind that also means enough batteries for all transportation, Train, Trucks, Autos etc. and Planes is a non sequitur as battery powered airliners would not be able to haul people.

    • They either don’t understand or don’t care. “Mommy, mommy, we won the court case. Why is it dark and cold in the house? Why is there no food? Why won’t my smartphone work?”

  36. wonder if funded by Children’s Investment Fund Management which tries hostile takeovers of companies

  37. “stabilize the climate system.”
    That will be a first. So ‘we’re’ going to stop the climate system changing? And which climate would that be, as there are quite a few different climates? So in essence if we can get the global climate, the average of all the various climates (averages in themselves) to stop changing we will have managed to stabilize an average of an average!

    “Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.”
    Mark Twain

    “When the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large scientific method in most cases fails. One need only think of the weather, in which case the prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible.”
    Albert Einstein

    • One thing I have always wondered about is that when I read an article about Hottest Augest ever, or Hottest January ever, and then look on http://www.wunderground.com/history at that months Record High temperatures that rarely are there more than two record highs in that month for the year they are declaring as record setting for the month.

    • Yeah, what does that even mean? it’s just shows how ridiculous this thing has become. How the hell are they going to separate natural causes and human causes? It’s all based on models and predictions. Climate has always changed and will always change in the future. There is ultimately nothing we can do to prevent that, only to try to go along and survive. Even if we influence the climate it doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing, and it doesn’t mean we should get rid of fossil fuels. It’s just ultimate arrogance to think that we are somehow masters of the climate. This is just a scam. Designed as a quick way to gain cash, power and influence and while doing nothing even if climate change is a problem. Using children and emotions is a classic, cheap, and disgusting way to advance their agenda.

  38. If the guardians of the children want redress from the oil companies for imminent harm, why not take action Against roads, which have done actual, and will do actual, proveable harm to children.
    Sue the roads, the road builders. The freeways. Close them down. ##roadbuildersKnew

    • Remove bridges, dams and reservoirs, and while you’re at it, eliminate water/sewage treatment plants. They smell bad. And kids can jump off of bridges, or drown in reservoirs.

  39. In reference to the Children’s Crusade of 1212, there are and always have been people who will prey on the naive, uninformed and gullible for their own purposes, which are frequently not good.

    This is one of those instances when using children who don’t know they are being used by adults for their own purposes, as happened with the victims of the Children’s Crusade, is something that should be stopped cold in its tracks.

  40. Based upon the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we have been experiending 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 and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. So the real party to litigate is not the fossil fuel companies but rather Mother Nature. Lots of luck on trying to collect on a judgement against Mother Nature.

    Then there is the issue of damages. The climate change that has been happening has been so small that it has taken networks of sophistocated sensors decades ot even detect it. Extreme weather evernts and sea level rise are part of the current climate and are not related to climate change. Weather cycles are also part of the current climate and are not related to climate change. It is virtually impossible to separate out problems related to weather and weather cycles versus true climate change. Hence damages caused solely by climate change cannot be determined.

  41. “just as marriage is the foundation of the family ”

    They threw that out of the window….

  42. “Obergefell v. Hodges, that guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage, and Roe v. Wade (pp 30-31), as supporting fundamental rights not enumerated in the Constitution.

    These references make no sense what so ever.

    Marriage is defined by the state; it’s a case of an arbitrary restriction of a service provided by the state. The right to an abortion just means the state cannot interfere arbitrarily.

    Now they are asking for interference by the state in the use of combustion of hydrocarbons.

    There is no constitutional right for a “stable” (whatever that is) climate (whatever that is).

  43. This should be a jury trial. Just lay out the facts, and a jury will deliberate that there is no reason for alarm-ism about CO2 increases, etc.
    6 Inches of SLR in 100 years.
    No significant actual observed global temperature rise in 100 years.
    No hurricane/ typhoon increase over the last 100 years.
    No significant melting of the Greenland and Antarctic icecaps over the last 100 years.
    No indication of global drought increases over the last 100 years.
    Same with global precipitation and snowfall…
    Etc.
    Do I have to put in all the observed data links? That is what the defense lawyers should do…all that info and more is available here on WUWT for those lawyers to research….

  44. The use of children as symbols in advocacy crusades is actually more common than people realize. And as they well know, symbols beat facts any day. It is also a play on personality types by personality types.

Comments are closed.