CASE DISMISSED – Federal Judge puts the final nail in the coffin of California’ ‘Global Warming Lawsuit’ against oil companies

From the “It’s dead Jim” department comes this ruling from the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Some excerpts of the ruling:

The question is therefore whether or not plaintiffs’ alleged harm — namely, the effects of global warming-induced sea level rise — would have occurred even absent each defendant’s respective California-related activities. It is manifest that global warming would have continued in the absence of all California-related activities of defendants. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to adequately link each defendants’ alleged California activities to plaintiffs’ harm.

As earlier orders have pointed out, plaintiffs’ nuisance claims depend on a global complex of geophysical cause and effect involving all nations of the planet. Ocean rise, as far as plaintiffs contend, would have occurred even without regard to each defendant’s California contacts.

Lacking, however, is a causal chain sufficiently connecting plaintiffs’ harm and defendants’ California activities.

Finally, plaintiffs advocate for a less stringent standard of “but for” causation in light of the liability rules underlying public nuisance claims. Such an argument has been rejected by our court of appeals, which has instructed that “liability is not to be conflated with amenability to suit in a particular forum.”

For the same reasons discussed above, however, plaintiffs do not satisfy this third requirement. Even taking plaintiffs’ allegations as true, they have failed to show that BP or Royal Dutch Shell’s national conduct was a “but for” cause of their harm.

For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motions to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(2) are GRANTED.

You can read the court order here:


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 31, 2018 4:40 pm

I fear these types of suits will continue to be filed in whatever jurisdiction or level goofy enough to accept them. Sort of like the scene from The Terminator: “I’ll be back.”

michael of Oz
Reply to  Windsong
July 31, 2018 5:57 pm

There are measures for vexatious litigants.

Reply to  michael of Oz
July 31, 2018 7:38 pm

There are measures, but courts very rarely apply them.
Courts, being made up of lawyers are loath to interfere with another lawyer’s ability to generate an income.

Nigel Sherratt
Reply to  MarkW
July 31, 2018 8:50 pm

Barrators are doomed to the eighth circle of hell where there will be some catastrophic warming with luck.

‘Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate’

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Nigel Sherratt
July 31, 2018 11:56 pm

Been a while since I have seen a quote from Dante’s ” Divine Comedy”.
Thank you Nigel Sherratt


Donald Kasper
Reply to  MarkW
July 31, 2018 9:56 pm

That is not true. The courts can demand preview of the cases. They can also demand posted bond estimated by defendants legal fees of defense since plaintiffs are likely to lose.

Reply to  Donald Kasper
July 31, 2018 11:13 pm

I’m quite sure that they won’t be using their own money.

Reply to  Donald Kasper
August 1, 2018 6:41 am

Re-read my post. I stated that there are methods, it’s just that they are rarely used.
To refute this, you post one of the methods that are rarely used.

John Endicott
Reply to  Donald Kasper
August 1, 2018 7:13 am

” The courts can demand preview of the cases”

yes, but will they? As MarkW points out, the measures don’t do a lot of good if they aren’t actually used.

Reply to  michael of Oz
August 1, 2018 7:40 pm

The bogus lawsuit against linux, based on copyright law, by a former distributor of linux (so it was a self attack anyway), went as far as claiming that copyright law, the basis of the lawsuit, was unconstitutional (so the claimant went as far as claiming he had no claim). That lawsuit based on exactly nothing, with arguments voiding it, and claiming that the claimant broke the law, was allowed to live to years.

Reply to  Windsong
July 31, 2018 5:57 pm

In future any favourable judgement by an ‘activist’ judge will be overturned on appeal.
Potential liability of cal. defendants was miniscule in any event. Only Exxon makes it into the big-8 at a measly 4%:
Aramco 14%; Gazprom 8.5%; Nat Iranian 8.5%; Qatar Pet 5%; Rosneft 5%; Abu Dhabi Nat 5%; Petrochina 5%; ExxonMobil 4%.
City attorneys Dennis Herrera (San Fran) and Barbara Parker (Oak.) are even bigger fools than Pat Parenteau (professor of environmental law at Vermont Law School) who was and still is ill-advising the plaintiffs as part of a mobster like extortion-racket headed by lawyer Steve Berman (Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro):

Reply to  Warren
July 31, 2018 6:03 pm

By the way, you won’t find any NEWS of Alsup’s dismissal on Steve Berman’s website!
Too funny . . .

Reply to  Windsong
July 31, 2018 8:50 pm

It’s called “Lawfare” … legal warfare. A waste of $$ and time. Our legal system has become a giant papier-mâché puppet in the political theatre of the eco-leftists. A pox on all their houses, and the Foundations that fund them.

Donald Kasper
Reply to  Kenji
July 31, 2018 10:00 pm

Except that the defendants file a complaint of combative litigant and demand bond posted by litigant in advance, given their likelihood to lose. Millions in bond costs. Then upon losing, the defendants file to demand reimbursement of all legal costs, to the tune of millions. So it is going to take $10 million a case to file, which is going to slow it down quickly. This is not a complicit EPA refusing to defend litigation and reimbursing litigants all costs to file more cases with recycled money. Billionaire deep pockets are going to have to open up. Else this approach is quickly going away.

Reply to  Donald Kasper
August 1, 2018 6:42 am

Wake me when the courts actually start to use these remedies.

Reply to  Donald Kasper
August 1, 2018 10:24 am

Billionaire pockets have been and continue to be open.

Reply to  Kenji
July 31, 2018 11:27 pm

…”and the Foundations that fund them”


John K. Sutherland
Reply to  Windsong
August 1, 2018 1:16 pm

They will continue only so long as they are not assessed for all court and defense costs, as well as punitive damages for filing an obviously frivolous lawsuit.
Accountability and Responsibility are what it is all about.

Ted ciolli
July 31, 2018 4:41 pm


July 31, 2018 4:49 pm

— would have occurred even absent each defendant’s respective California-related activities.

and so with the rest of the world

Reply to  Latitude
August 1, 2018 6:23 pm

I gave up trying to explain this to my Prius-driving friends who have all recently given up plastic straws. Unless they are willing to tackle the pollution problems of China and India, they are doing nothing but virtue signaling.

However, (because of their upbringing a Protestant-based culture?) they are convinced that they must do some sort of personal penance for sins against The Earth- as long as their penance isn’t too inconvenient or bothersome.

When I tried to explain that plastic straws are just a tiny part of American-caused plastic pollution, and that the U.S. is only responsible for something like 2 percent of all the plastic pollution of the oceans, they fell back on the “every little bit helps” position…

July 31, 2018 4:53 pm


July 31, 2018 5:01 pm

+Warp 42 for Star Trek reference.

kent beuchert
July 31, 2018 5:06 pm

OH, the West Coast logic. If California was so certain the oil companies gas stations and natural gas pipelines were deadly, why didn’t the state shut them down?

Reply to  kent beuchert
July 31, 2018 7:11 pm

The Liability of Liberalism: Hypocrisy

Reply to  kent beuchert
July 31, 2018 11:03 pm

As if the East Coast is more logical. LOL

Reply to  Wally
August 1, 2018 6:43 am

It must be all that sea water. Drives people insane.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  MarkW
August 2, 2018 6:27 pm

Yeah mark ,,,,,,,,,,,, its an O zone.

Reply to  Wally
August 1, 2018 6:31 pm

Well… there’s an argument to be made that (generally speaking and excluding Florida) the East Coast is saner and more logical than the west Coast. You see, America has traditionally been settled by misfits who could not make a decent living or get along with the authorities in power in their homelands, it was off to America. Also note that America has historically been settled from the East Coast outward to the West.

People who were only mildly maladjusted settled in the East, with those who couldn’t fit in there continuing to move westward until they found a place sparsely populated enough to tolerate their eccentricities. However, the Pacific Ocean halted even those too odd to fit in with the culture there. So, they stayed and bred generations of misfits and eccentrics on the West Coast. Obviously the same is true of Florida, simply substituting the name of the limiting bodies of water.

J Mac
July 31, 2018 5:08 pm

Hurrah! Another baseless and false claim is rejected…

Tom Abbott
Reply to  J Mac
July 31, 2018 6:28 pm

Yeah, what damages did the oil companies cause? As far as I can see, the cities are suing for “future” damages, which haven’t happened yet (or ever).

Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 31, 2018 7:30 pm

I know for certain that some time or another in the future, one of my descendants will suffer some sort of damage, and I want compensation for it NOW!

The Logic of Liberalism: Absurd

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
July 31, 2018 11:12 pm

If that kind of argument worked, I’d be demanding an advance on my life insurance policy. 😉

Richard of NZ
Reply to  drednicolson
August 1, 2018 4:58 am

Well are certain to die someday. It would definitely help you to have the payout now so you could live comfortably now.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 31, 2018 8:20 pm

They want their pound of flesh NOW.

July 31, 2018 5:10 pm

Let’s hope the Colorado one faces the same fate.

Reply to  wouldrathernotsay
July 31, 2018 5:44 pm

A UK one did just recently:

It’s still galling to think that I contributed to the salaries of these useless, lying parasites in the Oakland/SF case.

honest liberty
July 31, 2018 5:12 pm

where are the detractors to claim this is only focused on the state of California, and therefore isn’t included in the global courts network? No, this is a one off!

what a sigh of relief! The tide is turning and me thinks the public is growing weary of this nonsense.

July 31, 2018 5:17 pm

What does anyone know about Trumps new science man Kelvin Droegemeier? Seems he knows his weather and is well respected across parties.

Matthew Thompson
Reply to  Simon
July 31, 2018 6:06 pm

I know I like his first name.

Reply to  Matthew Thompson
July 31, 2018 6:21 pm

Very good for a weather man.

Nigel Sherratt
Reply to  Simon
July 31, 2018 8:39 pm

William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, OM, GCVO, PC, FRS, FRSE, very good for science.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Matthew Thompson
July 31, 2018 9:35 pm

Well Celsius just won’t do for a 1st name.

Reply to  Matthew Thompson
August 1, 2018 9:41 am

He has a good “temp”erment.

Reply to  beng135
August 1, 2018 4:01 pm

I’m trying to decide if I should up vote that for being so good,
or down vote it for being so bad.

Reply to  Simon
August 1, 2018 6:55 am

The Vitae:

His motto: God bless America.

Not bad either, as long as you are American.

Reply to  Hans-Georg
August 1, 2018 4:06 pm

WOW……A 55 page CV

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Simon
August 1, 2018 8:55 am

We can say with certainty that he is a degreed man.

July 31, 2018 5:38 pm

Sadly, this is methodology that has worked for so long with the environmentalist that it will continue. They will learn, albeit and hopefully slowly from this court proceedings. They will continue venue shop until they get at least one court to rule in their favor. The “good news” will then be that we have two different court rulings and if in different states that means just how much faster it will get to the Supreme Court.

Matthew Thompson
July 31, 2018 5:57 pm

If they can’t win this one in California, their cause is hopeless.

July 31, 2018 6:22 pm

I’ll bet NONE of the plaintiffs actually WALKED to court and they all used a petroleum product of some kind that very morning, including the mobiles in their pockets and the ink on their court papers.

Bet they still call Neanderthal Man primitive. Hypocrites.

Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
July 31, 2018 6:33 pm

In the UK case I linked to above, they even mentally abused 9-year old kids and seniors. I hope they live long enough for the kids to sue them for (brain) damages.

Reply to  philincalifornia
July 31, 2018 9:07 pm

Can’t read that article as I don’t want to sign in with yet another site. But there’s no doubt greentard brainwashing spares nobody in the cause of their virtue signalling.

Bryan A
July 31, 2018 6:36 pm

The only way California in general and Oakland/SF specifically can have any effect would to get State legislation passed effectively banning the sale of the Oil Companies products, fossil fuel produced electricity and ALL fossil fueled vehicles within state borders on second thought I live in Wakyfornia and really don’t want to give the head loon any unnecessary ideas. Although as the case findings indicate it would have no effect on sea level rise.

Reply to  Bryan A
July 31, 2018 7:24 pm

Unfortunately, the head loon, aka Animal Farm Pig, knows exactly what he’s doing.

NW Sage
July 31, 2018 6:44 pm

The only way I can think of to discourage this kind of frivolous lawsuit is to allow/require the loser (the plaintiffs in this case) to pay ll costs incurred by the defendants in defending themselves. If the states or other entity cannot promptly come up with the cash then the lawyers involved should be personally responsible for the debt.

July 31, 2018 6:55 pm

The Con (spelling) job should be thrown out with prejudice! Reminds me of……

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Ossqss
August 1, 2018 12:15 am

I think this statement by the judge is worth noting

Such an argument has been rejected by our court of appeals, which has instructed that “liability is not to be conflated with amenability to suit in a particular forum.”

It was rejected by the court of appeals. Their little brains must be squirming, how can they reintroduce the case after that
And the case sets precedent.

I wonder how the green mob will react? Will they menace and threaten the Judge and his family?
The problem with the “Mob” is you eventually lose control of it, just ask Robespierre or rather his ghost..


July 31, 2018 7:03 pm

Anyone know if this was a “loser pays” case?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  skorrent1
July 31, 2018 7:39 pm

No. The joy of getting your day in court is that you get to pay for it, too.

July 31, 2018 7:06 pm

Well done Judge!

July 31, 2018 7:17 pm

There’s too much money supporting the Socialist/Green ideology for this to go away. It will only stop when the bank rollers think they aren’t getting the bang for their buck. That won’t happen until the ideology pushers find a new bogeyman that they feel is more likely to sway the masses.

Reply to  markl
July 31, 2018 7:43 pm

From recent news, seems they may shift to plastic in the seas

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Nashville
July 31, 2018 9:39 pm

Good. The sooner they get their filthy hands off of the innocent Mr. CO2 , the better.

Reply to  Nashville
July 31, 2018 11:09 pm

Indeed, the plastic that largely originates in Asia.

Reply to  Wally
August 1, 2018 3:22 am

So? The Co2 largely originates in Asia, too. But that never stopped them.


Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  Wally
August 1, 2018 11:21 am

A lot of that plastic originates here. We put it into the recyclables bin. The recycling company ships it to Asia. They dump it in the sea instead of a landfill.
Still appears insignificant.

July 31, 2018 7:35 pm

Oh my poor aching brain!

We have a previous WUWT story in which Judge Alsup tossed out charges against the oil companies.

The case numbers are the same so this story and the previous story are talking about the same case.

The previous ruling is titled: “ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINTS”. The introduction is:

In these “global warming” actions asserting claims for public nuisance, defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED .

This latest ruling is titled: “ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION”. The introduction is:

In these “global warming” actions asserting claims for public nuisance, certain defendants move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. For the following reasons, the motions to dismiss are GRANTED .

So is the case not only merely dead, but really most sincerely dead?

The only thing I can guess is that the previous ruling applied to some amended complaints and the latest ruling applies to the case as a whole. We desperately need a proper lawyer to explain this.

Reply to  commieBob
August 1, 2018 12:18 am

I am not a “proper lawyer”, but maybe this will make it clearer.

On June 25 the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds of displacement. That is, the issue of the regulation of global warming caused by emissions was properly the province of the Federal Government, the legislative and executive branches, and so any harms occurring through fossil fuel emissions were not able to be litigated under the Common Law of Nuisance.

The court then asked the parties whether it was still necessary to rule on another ground of dismissal alleged by the defendants, namely personal jurisdiction. This is the argument from causation, which had not been covered in the previous ruling. The court has now ruled on this claim for dismissal. The ruling is that the plaintiffs have failed to meet the standard for proving causation, the test of whether the damage would have occurred absent the defendants’ conduct.

The present ruling is that it would have, and therefore that the plaintiffs have no case.

As I understand it, the two grounds for dismissal are at least partially independent. The displacement test is whether this is a matter for the courts. The personal jurisdiction test is whether you can be claimed to have done the damage. Either one can go either way.

In the present case, the plaintiffs have lost on both grounds. One ground is that this is a matter for the other branches of government (displacement). The other ground is that the plaintiffs have failed to argue that absent the defendant’s conduct the damage would not have occurred.

You can get all the court filings and rulings here (the latest is not up just yet but will be):

There is no substitute for reading the filings. And when you do, it all becomes quite clear.

I suspect this dismissal on both grounds is going to later be seen as marking the high water mark of global warming hysteria.

Reply to  michel
August 1, 2018 12:39 am

Michel :
“is going to later be seen as marking the high water mark of global warming hysteria”
3 mm per year perhaps ?
Golly Gosh ! Rhode Island is about to submerge ….along with Florida , Mauritius , and countless other atolls ( that defiantly keep RISING !
despite the predictions ! GOOD ON “EM !! ……Persistent little buggers !!! ).
( For ” a wide brown land ” Australia SURE IS “GREEN” politically ! )

Reply to  michel
August 1, 2018 3:35 am

There’s the principle of judicial efficiency. If the first ruling actually ended the case, the judge would not normally then turn around and do unnecessary work to rule on other issues.

Reply to  commieBob
August 1, 2018 8:00 pm


And if you read the filings and the rulings you will notice that the judge in this case consulted the parties on whether it was still desirable or necessary to consider and rule on this additional ground for dismissal.

I am not a ‘proper lawyer’, but think that these two rulings set the bar so high that no common law nuisance case on global warming is going to make it. You have to prove both that the defendants were the cause of damage that would not have occurred without their conduct.

And you also have to prove that regulation of the activity complained of is not properly the province of the executive or legislature. And that regulation of it which already occurs by the Federal Government, if there is any, also does not displace.

No way.

July 31, 2018 8:17 pm

anyone who farts would have to be sued….

Reply to  thingadonta
July 31, 2018 11:09 pm

… or exhales.

July 31, 2018 8:35 pm

I hope the complainants have to pay costs:)



July 31, 2018 8:49 pm

With or without prejudice? That will determine if this festering turd can be re-filed so as to keep lining lawyers pockets.

Alan Tomalty
July 31, 2018 9:34 pm

I hope the plaintiffs had to pay all the costs : court costs and both legal teams.

Donald Kasper
July 31, 2018 9:58 pm

So plaintiffs lost and will have to pay millions for defendants costs of defending litigation. This will slow the litigants down.

Reply to  Donald Kasper
August 2, 2018 10:56 am

Both Alan and Donald;
unfortunately, this is the great US of A where there is no “loser pays” scenario which means no, no further money will change hands. Even if it did, remember, the plaintiffs were using taxpayer money…

July 31, 2018 11:02 pm

“But Jim, those are our men down there! We can’t just leave ’em!”

“Bones, … we … don’t … have a choice. Don’t you see there’s … nothing … I can do?”

August 1, 2018 12:26 am

The world sees sense. I guess this tells us that outside the political world there is no support at all for CAGW. Good. It is very limited then.

August 1, 2018 2:13 am

How much dosh was wasted on this case I wonder?

August 1, 2018 3:00 am

This is great news.
The green-leftist ploy of using the courts to push through deeply unpopular policies that have been rejected at the ballot box has failed (this time).

Dr. Strangelove
August 1, 2018 4:16 am

Ali Skeptics KO’s Cali Greens. Who’s next?

comment image

August 1, 2018 4:35 am

Meanwhile, here in MD, the city of Baltimore is considering a similar lawsuit. I hadn’t realized that the city had resolved all their other issues as high crime/murder rate, schools in taters, police department corruption, etc, etc. They don’t have the money to take care of these issues, but have money for a frivolous lawsuit. But come election time, city residents will keep voting for democrats, oh the madness!!

Reply to  PeterinMD
August 1, 2018 9:37 am

City of Baltimore is figuratively and literally a swamp this summer.

August 1, 2018 6:27 am

Hurry up good people! It’s long past time to take the offensive! Sue the warmists under Civil RICO!


I have been considering this approach for several years and I think it is now time to proceed..

Civil RICO provides for TRIPLE DAMAGES. Global losses from the global warming scam are in the trillions, including hundreds of billions on the USA.

We would sue the sources of warmist funding and those who have significantly profited from the global warming scam..

The key to starting a civil RICO action is to raise several million dollars to fund the lawsuit, which will be protracted and expensive.

If serious funders are interested, please contact me through

Regards, Allan MacRae
September 21, 2014 11:28 pm

On Accountability:

I wrote this to a friend in the USA one year ago (in 2013):

I am an engineer, not a lawyer, but to be clear I was thinking of a class action (or similar) lawsuit, rather than an individual lawsuit from yourself or anyone else.

I suggest that there have been many parties that have been damaged by global warming alarmism. Perhaps the most notable are people who have been forced to pay excessive rates for electricity due to CO2-mandated wind and solar power schemes. Would the people of California qualify? Any other states? I suggest the people of Great Britain, Germany and possibly even Ontario would qualify, but the USA is where this lawsuit would do the most good.

There is an interesting field of US law that employs the RICO (anti-racketeering) statutes to provide treble (triple) damages in civil cases. That might be a suitable approach.


Despite congressional attempts to limit the scope of civil RICO, only one major area of law has been removed from the RICO Act. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.A. § 77 et seq.) eliminated liability for RICO claims based on securities Fraud, unless the defendant has already been criminally convicted of securities fraud. The act thus removed the threat of treble (triple) damages in such cases. Congress concluded that federal securities laws generally provide adequate remedies for victims of securities fraud. Therefore, it was unnecessary and unfair to expose defendants in securities cases to the threat of treble damages and other extraordinary remedies provided by the RICO Act.

Critics of the RICO Act applaud this congressional action but argue that the same reasoning can and should be applied to other areas of Civil Law. These critics maintain that the act’s broad scope has given plaintiffs an unfair advantage in civil litigation.

One criticism of civil RICO is that no criminal convictions are necessary to win a civil case under the act. The plaintiff need only show, by a Preponderance of Evidence, that it is more likely than not that the ongoing criminal enterprise occurred. As a result RICO has been used in all types of civil cases to allege wrongdoing. By contrast, a criminal RICO case must be proved Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

In addition, the judge and jury in a criminal RICO case are prohibited from drawing an adverse inference from a defendant’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment Privilege against Self-Incrimination. No such ban exists, however, in a civil RICO case. Critics contend that it is unfair for a party in a civil RICO case who has concerns about potential criminal liability to be forced to waive his or her Fifth Amendment privilege in order to mount an effective defense in the civil action. Once testimony is given in the civil case, the party has effectively waived the privilege against Self-Incrimination, and the testimony may be used in a subsequent criminal prosecution. Critics contend that the RICO Act should be amended to stay (delay) a civil RICO proceeding until a criminal RICO proceeding has been concluded.

The critics of civil RICO also believe that its use has given plaintiffs an unfair tool that often serves to coerce a party to settle out of fear of a treble damages award. These critics believe that no civil RICO action should be allowed unless the party has been convicted under criminal RICO.

[end of excerpt]

I suggest the Climategate emails could provide the necessary evidence of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the public, through fraudulent misallocation of government-funded research monies, and wind and solar power schemes that were forced upon consumers and which were utterly incapable of providing significant or economic new energy to the electric power grid.

Your thoughts?

Regards, Allan

August 1, 2018 4:10 pm

Also from 2015:

Hi Wayne,

Global cooling will put an end to this CAGW nonsense by about 2020.

You can contact me through my website.

Best, Allan

Here is the link to my latest paper.

It is a retrospective of our debate on the Kyoto Protocol that was published in 2002.

by Allan MacRae, Aug. 26, 2015


One’s predictive track record is perhaps the only objective measure of one’s competence. The IPCC has a negative predictive track record, because ALL of its scary projections have failed to materialize. The IPCC thus has NO credibility; actually it has NEGATIVE credibility.

Probabilistically; based the IPCC’s negative predictive track record, one would more correct if one assumed the opposite of the IPCC’s scary projections.

In summary, all our predictions have proven correct in those venues that fully embraced the now-defunct Kyoto Accord, whereas none of the IPCC’s scary projections have materialized.
So what happens next? Will we see catastrophic humanmade global warming? No, our planet will cool.


I (we) predicted the commencement of global cooling by 2020-2030 in an article published in the Calgary Herald in 2002. That prediction is gaining credibility as solar activity [in current SC24] has crashed… It is still early in the prediction game, but SC25 is also projected to be very weak, so we will probably experience two consecutive very-weak Solar Cycles in SC24 and SC25… IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, then successive governments in Britain and continental Europe have brewed the perfect storm. They have crippled their energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected wind power schemes. I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Europe [and the world] will get colder, possibly much colder. I suggest that Winter deaths will increase in the Europe as cooling progresses. I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality rates will provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.

Timing is difficult to estimate, but I now expect global cooling to be evident by 2020 or sooner.

August 1, 2018 6:58 am

comment image

The problem with law is similar to that with education and the media. Over the years the law has been taken over by the left. And since the preponderance of legislators are also lawyers, the system is rigged to, guess what, make them money.

Peter Plail
August 1, 2018 8:42 am

Amusing error in the judgement – apparently Royal Dutch Shell is registered in a marine mammal. “Royal Dutch Shell is a holding company registered in England and Whales …….”

August 1, 2018 9:59 am

Show Trial dismissed.

Tom O
August 1, 2018 11:03 am

Maybe they need to shift to “ocean rising due to land subsidence due to pumping oil out of the ground?”

August 1, 2018 12:06 pm

Next time go after Pop’s corner store and gas station. They might pay to settle.

August 1, 2018 2:41 pm

In other words, the accused oil company actions have no measurable effects of harm to the plaintiffs. This makes way too much sense, and so I’m pleasantly surprised that any court system considering insane claims actually arrived at this sane conclusion.

August 2, 2018 9:12 am

On Feb 13, 2018: The judge dismissed all charges in the lawsuit brought against Dr Tim Ball by BC Green Party leader Andrew Weaver. It is a great victory for free speech.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
Tim’s website is
“Human Caused Global Warming”, ‘The Biggest Deception in History’.

Reply to  Dr Tim Ball - Historical Climatologist
August 4, 2018 4:18 am

Congrats Tim – were you awarded costs?

Are there any other lawsuits outstanding?

What happened to State Penn?

%d bloggers like this: