Top DOJ Lawyer: “Obama’s Fault” DOJ is Backing Alarmist Climate Science

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Dr. Willie Soon – One of President Trump’s top environmental lawyers Eric Grant explained to E&E why the Trump legal position in the Children’s Climate Court Case embraces President Obama’s views on Climate Science.

DOJ backing climate science? Blame Obama, official says

Ellen M. Gilmer, E&E News reporter
Published: Monday, November 19, 2018

A top Justice Department lawyer was quick to point to Obama administration officials Saturday when asked why the government hasn’t challenged climate science in high-profile litigation brought by youth plaintiffs.

The answer in that case was filed in a previous administration and reflects the views of that administration,” said Eric Grant, a top lawyer in DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.

Grant was responding to a question about why DOJ acknowledges the link between fossil fuel consumption and climate impacts in legal arguments in Juliana v. United States, the case brought by 21 children and young adults asserting a right to a safe climate.

It was the previous administration that laid the groundwork in the case, Grant said.

“And more importantly,” he added, “our very simple argument is we win as a matter of law. No matter the truth of the allegations of the plaintiffs’ complaint, there is no substantive due process right to a stable climate system.

The Juliana trial is currently stalled while the 9th Circuit considers the government’s latest request to sideline proceedings (Greenwire, Nov. 9).

Grant and other panelists also voiced skepticism about litigation brought by municipalities in California, Colorado and New York, and the state of Rhode Island, against major oil companies over climate damages.

If two cities in California may properly allege injuries from climate change in federal court, then so may every person on the planet,” he said.

One panelist questioned climate science altogether. Mark Smith of the New York law firm Smith Valliere PLLC compared the nuisance cases to “superstitions and mysticism” of the Dark Ages.

He invited audience members concerned about carbon dioxide emissions to hold their breath during his remarks.

Read more: https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/11/19/stories/1060106571

Sadly for climate action advocates the Founding Fathers overlooked adding a clause to the constitution requiring the Federal Government to assume responsibility for maintaining the stability of the global climate.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
94 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J Mac
November 20, 2018 12:48 pm

RE: “……there is no substantive due process right to a stable climate system.”

That says it all, regardless of how many pouty faced waifs are prodded to claim otherwise!

Tom Halla
Reply to  J Mac
November 20, 2018 1:16 pm

I have issues with “substantive due process” in general.

J Mac
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 20, 2018 2:19 pm

I have issues with cats in the house….

MilwaukeeBob
Reply to  J Mac
November 20, 2018 2:51 pm

I have issues…

HotScot
Reply to  MilwaukeeBob
November 20, 2018 4:03 pm

MilwaukeeBob

I have tissues, any use?

Trebla
Reply to  MilwaukeeBob
November 21, 2018 7:31 am

Don’t misuse issues …

MarkW
Reply to  MilwaukeeBob
November 21, 2018 8:06 am

Properly dispose of tissues

Joel Snider
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 20, 2018 4:01 pm

When one side is openly gaming the system, it’s really more a prostitution and perversion of the process.

Obama’s specialty.

Tom Abbott
November 20, 2018 12:49 pm

Something else about the Obama administration that Trump is going to have to undo.

I bet it really irritates Obama to watch everything he did be undone by Trump.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 20, 2018 1:14 pm

There pretty much isn’t much left of Obama’s pen and phone legacy. What remains of his legislative legacy is ObamaCare/ACA and Dodd-Frank Financial Reform.

ObamaCare would have been repealed if RINO McCain hadn’t been blinded with TDS, but still the individual mandate has been repealed at least.
As for Dodd-Frank, it had 3 key components: banking oversight (too big to fail testing), the Volcker Rule, and creation of CFPB. All three of those components have been relaxed by Trump appointees.

MarkW
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 20, 2018 4:54 pm

Without the individual mandate, ObamaCare is doomed.
You can’t have must issue without also requiring everyone to be in the system.
To separate the two invites individuals to wait until they get sick before applying for insurance.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 20, 2018 7:00 pm

Someone else will surely undo/redo everything Trump has done. It’s inevitable.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 20, 2018 7:25 pm

Trump’s federal judge appointments won’t be undone.

It’s funny, when Obama left Office he gave Trump a backlog of about 140 federal judgeships to be appointed. I don’t know why Obama didn’t appoint more of his own people himself. Conservatives are happy Obama left the choices up to Trump. Maybe we can preserve the U.S. Constition a little bit longer because of this.

J. Philip Peterson
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 20, 2018 7:36 pm

ROTFLMFAO @ Tom Abbottt: ” I don’t know why Obama didn’t appoint more of his own people himself.”

Two words ……………….Mitch McConnell.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 20, 2018 7:53 pm

Mitch McConnell is indeed a Savior of the this great nation.
He stared down Obama and Advised him the Senate would not give Consent to any of his nominees to replace Scalia since he was a Lame Duck President. The Left howled but was largely snickering at McConnell’s bravado because they knew the fix was in for Hillary. Need any proof? Look at how the Left went totally bizarro-nuts to try and stop Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation. They knew Kavanaugh’s confirmation was their Waterloo moment.

Mitch McConnell saved this great, 235 year long experiment in a Republic.

I would sign a petition to put his face on Mt Rushmore. Hell, I’d carry it around door to door his act was so important. And the Left knows it.

J. Philip Peterson
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 20, 2018 8:01 pm

Joel shows how ignorant he is. Obama was not a “Lame Duck” president when he nominated Garland. I suggest you learn what “Lame Duck” means. Mitch McConnell subverted the intent of the Constitution by blocking Obama’s nomination of Garland.

J. Philip Peterson
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 20, 2018 8:08 pm

If Joel thinks Mitch McConnell “saved ” this nation, just wait until Joel learns what the “power of the purse” means when the House of Representatives begins it’s term in 2019.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 20, 2018 9:04 pm

JPP,

Definition: A lame duck – In politics, a lame duck is an elected official whose successor has already been elected. The official is often seen as having less influence with other politicians due to their limited time left in office.

True, Obama’s successor had not yet been elected, but it was also true that because of the 22nd Amendment Obama was not going to be President in 2017. He was term limited. That meant as Presidential politics go, Obama was a Lame Duck President, and in his 10 months as president when he nominated Garland. That was the “Biden Rule” definition for Supreme Court nominees. And before Garland was even nominated by Obama, the Senate Majority Leader advised the President his nominee would not be consented to by the Senate. Constitutional duty fulfilled. If you disagree, please point to a phrase in the US Constitution where the Senate must vote on a nominee under the Appointments clause.

No, JPP is the ignorant one.

As far a “Power of the Purse” goes, you are the ignorant one JPP. Go back and look at Nancy Pelosi’s history as Speaker. Her House never passed a budget with Obama as President. Did the nation cease to be? They’re called Continuing Resolutions (CR’s). Check it out. The House can’t get any spending resolution to the President without the Senate’s approval. And then the President can veto if he wants. The Pelosi-run House can do whatever they want, but without the Senate’s 60 votes… it’s meaningless.

JPP, Note: you are out of your intellectual league trying to debate/argue with me. I know the history. I know the Constitution. I know the law. I know the Senate and House rules as they stand. I have educated myself. You will get thrashed in any debate. But please, try. I love thrashing a naive opponent.

MarkW
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 21, 2018 8:08 am

As usual, JPP is redefining terms in order to benefit his side.

KaliforniaKook
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 21, 2018 9:07 am

Yeah. It’s a bit hard to say, but McConnell has done a lot to preserve the values of the Founding Fathers. He’s been pretty consistent. I have frequently bad-mouthed him in the past. I may have been wrong.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 21, 2018 6:26 pm

“ROTFLMFAO @ Tom Abbottt: ” I don’t know why Obama didn’t appoint more of his own people himself.”

Two words ……………….Mitch McConnell”

I don’t recall McConnell blocking any of Obama’s lower court appointees. Do you have anything that shows McConnell blocked Obama’s lower court appointments?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 22, 2018 4:16 am

Well, I just learned this morning that Obama appointed about 320 lower court judges during his two terms in Office, so it doesn’t look like McConnell was doing much blocking of Obama’s efforts. What do you say about that JPP?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 20, 2018 7:54 pm

They were smug in believing the fix was in for President Hillary.

Darrin
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 21, 2018 12:36 pm

Bush left with a lot of openings too.

What happened is Democrats use the nuclear option to pass Ocare. When Republicans took over the Senate they basically decided that since the Democrats used the nuclear option the ice was broken and we no longer need 60 votes to approve a judicial appointee either, 51 votes is all they need. That’s why he’s been able to appoint so many judges. Just watch out for what happens when the Dems get the Senate and Presidency again.

Svend Ferdinandsen
November 20, 2018 12:51 pm

It was a kind of Pandoras Box the climate scientists opened when they deemed CO2 as the main climate controller and did all they could to prove it.
Anything bad you could imagine regarding weather/climate is apparantly caused by CO2. Only few peoble look at the benefits the energy has given us that far outweights the very small drawbacks it may give.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Svend Ferdinandsen
November 20, 2018 2:47 pm

** and did all they could to prove it.**
They NEVER proved it. However, the media, politicians, and pseudo-scientists keep repeating the falsehood.

HotScot
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
November 20, 2018 4:08 pm

Gerald Machnee

Not one single empirically derived, credible, scientific study to demonstrate atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm. Not one, ever.

FeverishRudi
Reply to  HotScot
November 23, 2018 10:10 am

But it feels so good to know you might be doing something to save the planet. While they’re at it, they should clothe all the squirrels on earth since that might slow down catastrophic anthropomorphic warming also. Maybe they could find a way to make the giant trash heap bigger in the pacific? That would cause there to be less fish consequently releasing less C02. As long as they’re taking shots in the dark they might as well try anything right?

icisil
Reply to  Svend Ferdinandsen
November 20, 2018 3:28 pm

One very large benefit of CO2 that I never hear anyone talk about is that it’s the source of atmospheric oxygen. More CO2, more plant life, more photosynthesis, more oxygen. More oxygen is better. Does anyone know if the atmospheric concentration of oxygen has increased in the past century (I know the trend is down for the past million years)?

HotScot
Reply to  icisil
November 20, 2018 4:13 pm

icisil

Don’t give the alarmists ideas. They’ll claim forest fires are increasing because of raised atmospheric oxygenation because of increased CO2.

Any excuse.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  icisil
November 21, 2018 4:06 am

icisil – November 20, 2018 at 3:28 pm

More CO2, more plant life, more photosynthesis, more oxygen.

Right you are, icisil.

The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere has fluctuated over the last 600 million years, reaching a peak of about 30% around 280 million years ago (Carboniferous and Permian Periods).

And it t’was the horrendous growth of plants during the Carboniferous Period which resulted in that 30% atmospheric O2 and the humongous coal deposits.

Hugs
Reply to  icisil
November 21, 2018 6:46 am

One very large benefit of CO2 that I never hear anyone talk about is that it’s the source of atmospheric oxygen. More CO2, more plant life, more photosynthesis, more oxygen. More oxygen is better.

The O2 source of the CO2 is (mostly) atmopheric oxygen, so your argument does not hold. The more we burn coal, the less oxygen in atmosphere. Not that it would matter, but your argument was wrong.

And as divers and medics know, more oxygen is not always good. Not at all. Oxygen is simply poisonous so you simply can’t use pure O2 while diving deep.

MarkW
Reply to  Hugs
November 21, 2018 8:11 am

More CO2 means more plants.
More plants means more O2.
So the argument does hold.

While O2 at several atmospheres is not good, there’s a reason why they give pure oxygen to sick people.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Hugs
November 22, 2018 6:53 am

Hugs – November 21, 2018 at 6:46 am

The O2 source of the CO2 is (mostly) atmopheric oxygen, so your argument does not hold.

Hugs, I’m not quite sure what you were “claiming” in you above comment, ….. but the literal fact is, ….. the ocean waters are the major sink (storage) for carbon dioxide (CO2), ….. in the forms of 1) a dissolved gas, 2) carbonic acid and 3) calcium compounds, …… as well as the major source of atmospheric oxygen (O2).

So, you can burn (oxidize) all the coal you want to, and it won’t affect the percentage of atmospheric O2 ….. as long as you don’t severely reduce the oxygen generating plant life in the ocean.

So heed Mark’s advice of “More plants [anywhere] ….. means more O2.”

Wiliam Haas
Reply to  Svend Ferdinandsen
November 20, 2018 3:41 pm

The AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is full of holes. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well.

MarkW
Reply to  Svend Ferdinandsen
November 20, 2018 4:55 pm

Not just the benefits of energy, they are also ignoring the many benefits of CO2 itself.

Joel O'Bryan
November 20, 2018 1:00 pm

I’m thinking the generation that had to endure The Winter of 1777-1778 in Valley Forge would’ve welcomed any bit of Global Warming. They’d look on at amazement if they could see a political class today claiming the cold climate pre-1850 was something to cherish and preserve.

And from the legal stand-point of desired court-ordered remedies from the plaintiffs, what can the court give them? The court can’t order Congress to appropriate money to “fight climate change”. And the Obama CPP order to the several States, as the previous administration’s attempt at complying with the Paris (illegal) Treaty, was clearly D.O.A. with the Supreme Court conservative majority.

What can the plaintiffs hope for as a court ordered remedy? It’s a “Be careful what you ask for” problem.

The court clearly lacks jurisdiction outside of laws passed by Congress with regards to climate. Not that that has stopped activist judges willing to legislate from the bench, which the plaintiffs have clearly jurisdiction shopped (aka, forum shopping) in filing their case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_shopping

Still, when the Leftists engage in this kind of litigation behavior, they are unwittingly opening themselves up to a possible Supreme Court precedent-setting decision that has the opposite long-term result they originally hoped for. The “Chevron Deference” is one such Big Government SCOTUS precedent that the Liberals are possibly setting up for a fall with the now conservative Supreme Court. The reason is that now with a Trump Admin running the federal agencies, the plaintiffs will have to argue that “Chevron Deference” must be overturned. The plaintiffs could win this battle, and then lose big time at the Supreme Court by having the conservative majority SCOTUS rewrite the Chevron Deference precedent to fit Justice Kavanaugh’s and the other conservative justices’ views on limited government.

Which brings us back to the point the Democratic socialists are painfully aware of with a conservative Justice Brent Kavanaugh (and why they fought so dirty to try and stop his confirmation) now on the Supreme Court, and the 85 yr old liberal scion RBG healing some cracked ribs with President Trump and 53 Republican senators waiting to replace her. The tilt of the Supreme Court to solidly true to Constitution’s text (“textualism”) is the Liberals worst nightmare.

Joel O'Bryan
November 20, 2018 1:01 pm

I’m thinking the generation that had to endure The Winter of 1777-1778 in Valley Forge would’ve welcomed any bit of Global Warming. They’d look on at amazement if they could see a political class today claiming the cold climate pre-1850 was something to cherish and preserve.

And from the legal stand-point of desired court-ordered remedies from the plaintiffs, what can the court give them? The court can’t order Congress to appropriate money to “fight climate change”. And the Obama CPP order to the several States, as the previous administration’s attempt at complying with the Paris (illegal) Treaty, was clearly D.O.A. with the Supreme Court conservative majority.

What can the plaintiffs hope for as a court ordered remedy? It’s a “Be careful what you ask for” problem.

The court clearly lacks jurisdiction outside of laws passed by Congress with regards to climate. Not that that has stopped activist judges willing to legislate from the bench, which the plaintiffs have clearly jurisdiction shopped (aka, forum shopping) in filing their case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_shopping

Still, when the Leftists engage in this kind of litigation behavior, they are unwittingly opening themselves up to a possible Supreme Court precedent-setting decision that has the opposite long-term result they originally hoped for. The “Chevron Deference” is one such Big Government SCOTUS precedent that the Liberals are possibly setting up for a fall with the now conservative Supreme Court. The reason is that now with a Trump Admin running the federal agencies, the plaintiffs will have to argue that “Chevron Deference” must be overturned. The plaintiffs could win this battle, and then lose big time at the Supreme Court by having the conservative majority SCOTUS rewrite the Chevron Deference precedent to fit Justice Kavanaugh’s and the other conservative justices’ views on limited government.

Which brings us back to the point the Democratic socialists are painfully aware of with a conservative Justice Brent Kavanaugh (and why they fought so dirty to try and stop his confirmation) now on the Supreme Court, and the 85 yr old liberal scion RBG healing some cracked ribs with President Trump and 53 Republican senators waiting to replace her. The tilt of the Supreme Court to solidly true to Constitution’s text (“textualism”) is the Liberals worst nightmare.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 21, 2018 4:32 am

Great post, Joel.

If Federal Judges have the unquestionable legal authority to “rule on” what the POTUS and/or the US Congress can or can not do, …… then what the hell is the reason for electing the latter?

Federal Judges should be limited to presiding over Legal Trials in their jurisdiction, …… and NOT flaunting their personal prejudices by “prejudging” potential Legal Trials before they have been “filed” in a Court of Law.

n.n
November 20, 2018 1:12 pm

Redistributive change for profit, manageable communities, and cost sharing.

r.s
Reply to  n.n
November 23, 2018 10:18 am

n – You have to let us know what comment you’re responding to. There might be 33 comments in moderation right before yours you don’t know about. This consequently doesn’t allow us to know what you’re talking about in the slightest. You’re dealing with a slow message board here since there are a lot of profane violent activists against more people realizing, climate change has relatively nothing to do with the human race. Thank you for baring with us in the struggle to only allow civil discourse.

Vince
November 20, 2018 1:13 pm

“And more importantly,” he added, “our very simple argument is we win as a matter of law. No matter the truth of the allegations of the plaintiffs’ complaint, there is no substantive due process right to a stable climate system.”
How am I to understand this statement.? Who is the “we”? Am i as a taxpayer going to be paying the plaintiffs?

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  Vince
November 20, 2018 3:02 pm

Bingo!

Steven Fraser
Reply to  Vince
November 20, 2018 3:05 pm

Vince: the ‘we’ here is the Government, as represented by the DOJ lawyers in the case. The crusher is the comment: ‘there is no substantive due process right to a stable climate system’ That is, the suit has no basis in law.

I don’t think there will be any payments involved when it is all said and done.

J Mac
Reply to  Steven Fraser
November 20, 2018 5:55 pm

Correct.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Steven Fraser
November 21, 2018 12:46 am

I don’t think there will be any payments involved when it is all said and done.

Except to lawyers, as per usual…

MarkW
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 21, 2018 8:12 am

As I’ve been saying for years;
The primary purpose of the legal system is to employ lawyers.

KaliforniaKook
Reply to  MarkW
November 21, 2018 9:38 am

I wish I could argue or belittle that statement in some way. I have known lawyers who seemed to be good people. That’s about the best I can do.

Nick Schroeder
November 20, 2018 1:18 pm

“A law was made a distant moon ago here
July and August cannot be too hot
and there’s a legal limit to the snow here
in Camelot.”

It’s hard on the unicorns and snowflakes.

Pa Wi
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
November 22, 2018 3:54 am

Smiling.. at your post Nick..who would’a thunk it! Can’t believe I actually saw it(Camelot) at the theater in 1967 on my first date where we held hands! This is a great thread!

Greg Cavanagh
November 20, 2018 1:26 pm

“there is no substantive due process right to a stable climate system”, nor can the government provide a stable climate.

The end of the matter.

November 20, 2018 1:43 pm

Can the citizens sue thecalarmists and renewable energy community for fraud?

Bob boder
November 20, 2018 3:05 pm

Why not just pass a law that says the climate can’t change. That would solve all of the problems

commieBob
November 20, 2018 3:23 pm

I believe there’s a rule that says you can’t assert something in one court case and assert its opposite in another court case. That seems to imply that if the Feds under Obama said in a court case that CAGW is real, the Feds under Trump can’t say it isn’t. Do I have that right?

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  commieBob
November 20, 2018 6:22 pm

So whoever makes an absurd statement first, gets right of way?

Wiliam Haas
November 20, 2018 3:34 pm

The climate has been changing for eons and it could not have been mankind that caused it. Currently climate change is so slow that it takes a very sophisticated network of sensors decades to even detect it. The extreme weather related events that we have been experiencing is part of the current climate and have not been changing. Damages caused by current weather related events can not be attributed to climate change. I doubt that the plaintiffs can show that they have suffered compensable damages caused by climate change.

Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude the the climate change that we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So it is “Mother Nature” that is causing the Earth’s climate to change so “Mother Nature” is the party that they should be litigating against. Lots of luck collecting on a judgement against ” Mother Nature”.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Wiliam Haas
November 21, 2018 5:19 am

Yeah any nugget that calls this planet ”mother” isn’t worth listening to.
You will just be drowned in emotive sophistry, and they will identify it as ”the science”…….

Anthony Timms
November 20, 2018 3:56 pm

This has really ruined my day. I was planning on issuing a statement of claim against the Canadian Federal Government because i find that the climate in Canada is consistently too cold, there is too much snow, and the winters are too long, thus denying me my right to a warm stable climate system. The link between the burning of fossil fuels and staying alive is very strongly connected in the Great White North.

Reply to  Anthony Timms
November 20, 2018 6:29 pm

Think yourself lucky to have ‘a warm stable’ to put your climate system in.

When I were a lad, we used to dream about having ‘a warm stable’ to put our climate system in.

Steve richards
Reply to  saveenergy
November 21, 2018 12:46 am

When I was a lad I would dream of a stable.

JohnB
Reply to  Steve richards
November 21, 2018 6:06 pm

When I were a lad, we dreamed about joost seeing a stable.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  JohnB
November 23, 2018 1:52 pm

Well of course we had it rough. We used to live in a shoebox in the middle of the road… all 12 of us…

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  saveenergy
November 24, 2018 8:51 am

“When I were a lad”

Instead of paying attention in school. 🙂

Joel Snider
November 20, 2018 3:59 pm

Agreed.

Honest liberty
November 20, 2018 4:06 pm

Dammit Anthony this site is now attacking my Android with forced redirects and spam

HotScot
Reply to  Honest liberty
November 20, 2018 4:21 pm

Honest liberty

No problems whatsoever with Windows using a pop up blocker and Ghostery.

Honest liberty
November 20, 2018 4:07 pm

And why no more voting?

HotScot
Reply to  Honest liberty
November 20, 2018 4:18 pm

Honest liberty

I believe the site was hacked shortly following the change over.

Stick with it.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Honest liberty
November 24, 2018 8:52 am

You haven’t been paying attention, have you.

Joel O’Bryan
November 20, 2018 4:20 pm

[ mods…Another lost comment from 2 hours ago… sigh.]

Marcus
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
November 20, 2018 6:02 pm

Me too….. : (

roger murphy
November 20, 2018 4:29 pm

Why don’t the oil companies release a statement declaring that it is the responsibility of the end purchaser of their products to use them in a safe manner, further if they are not made legally immune from these junk suits by money seeking activists they will cease production until they get immunity. Every human benefits from petroleum products an need not be inadvertently lining the pockets of greedy lawyers as energy companies are forced to pass these costs on to all of us.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  roger murphy
November 20, 2018 6:57 pm

WARNING: The use of fossil fuels is addictive. People quickly get used to the comfort and convenience provided by fossil fuels and are reluctant to give them up. Fossil fuel use Increases the risk of increased fertility, high birth weight, and subsequent obesity. Fossil fuels contain/produces chemicals known only to the state of California to cause cancer, and birth defects or other reproductive harm; ingestion is cautioned against. One should never use their mouth to siphon gasoline.

November 20, 2018 4:35 pm

Viewing the USA from Australia did Obama do any good for the USA economy, other than perhaps trying to improve health coverage for the poorer majority of its people ?

November 20, 2018 4:37 pm

Viewing the USA from Australia did Obama do any good for the USA economy, other than perhaps trying to improve health coverage for the poorer majority of its people ?

MJE

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Michael
November 20, 2018 4:55 pm

Yes.
In aperverse way, President Obama was directly responsible for the decimation of the Democratic Party from 2008-2016.

From Washington Post, November 10, 2016.
“When I use the term “decimate” in reference to what’s happened to the Democratic Party in the era of Barack Obama, I admit that I am using the word in a way that would annoy those same pedants. After all, the number of Democrats in Congress and in state leadership positions has dropped far more than 10 percent since 2008.”
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/10/the-decimation-of-the-democratic-party-visualized

So yes, Obama was cathartic for Americans to see what Socialism looked like and we turned away.
MAGA!
Trump-Pence 2020.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
November 20, 2018 5:12 pm

And I might add the Dimocrats are in great danger of committing that exact same mistake of falling in man-love of a cult personality Socialist again in 202, just as they did in 2008.

And the initials of that collosal mistake are also B.O. And also with no nothing more than a smile hiding a Socialist.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
November 20, 2018 6:17 pm

The sad history of Socialism for the last 100 years:

– In 1919, Russians fell in love with personality cult Socialism, and its name was Vladimir Lenin.
– In 1933, Germans fells in love with personality cult Socialism, and its name was Adolf Hitler.
– In 1944, the Chinese fell in love with personality cult Socialism, and its name was Mao Tse-tung.
– In 1959, Cubans fell in love with personality cult Socialism and its name was Fidel Castro.
– In 1998, Venezuelans fell in love with personality-cult Socialism, and its name was Hugo Chavez.
– In 2008, the US Democrats fell in love with personality-cult Socialism: and its name was Barack Obama.
– In 2016, the US Democrats fell in love with personality-cult Socialism: and its name was Bernie Sanders.
– In 2020, the US Democrats will likely fall in love with personality-cult Socialism once again: and its name will be Beto O’Rourke.

US Democrats a long line of socialist sheep waiting-begging to be led to the slaughter house. Sadly, they want to take everyone else with them.

E J Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 20, 2018 8:40 pm

Somewhat ott methinks. Neither Obama nor Sanders are even remotely in the same league as the first 5 rascals.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 20, 2018 9:49 pm

E J Z,
Only because of the 22nd Amendment which term limits the President. Power corrupts. Absolutely.
How many Conservatives would Obama have been willing to put in “re-education camps” if he could have to pursue his agenda?
Remember, it was the Democrat’s great 20th Century President, FDR, that ordered the Japanese Internment Camps in ’42. The same President that 6 years earlier had ushered in the New Deal and Social Security.

Power corrupts. And as Senator Lindsey Graham blasted the dishonest Democrats on September 27th 2018 at Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, the Democrats are desperate to gain power. God help us if they get it.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 21, 2018 5:39 am

Sanders no,……..

But obama certainly has a million peoples blood on his hands many 1000s of them American, droned 7 countries before receiving his peace prize.

Trump wont get a peace prize, hasn’t bombed enough nations.

He has only out ISIS and N Korea,…….
And faced off & chased off the chinese.

MarkW
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 21, 2018 8:17 am

Don’t forget the Italians and Mussolini.
Cambodians and Pol Pot.

JohnB
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 21, 2018 6:13 pm

Just an observation from Australia.

Personality cult thinking is strong in the American left. When watching the last few elections it was rather obvious from the chants of the crowd. Where the Republicans consistently chanting “U-S-A”, Democrats were chanting “O-Bam-A” and then “Hill-A-Ry”.

Anyone can check the clips on youtube to see for themselves.

MarkW
Reply to  Michael
November 21, 2018 8:16 am

While Obama often claimed that he improved health coverage for the poor.
Real world data refuted that claim.
What he did do was make health care more expensive for everybody.

roger murphy
November 20, 2018 4:38 pm

When will petroleum producers point out that it is the purchasers decision how they choose to use their products and that if they are not legally protected from these sorts of junk lawsuits they will cease production until they are granted immunity. Every human on earth has benefited greatly from fossil fuels and these money grubbing lawyers are only making them more expensive as producers are forced to defend themselves against these junk suits.

roger murphy
Reply to  roger murphy
November 20, 2018 4:42 pm

oops, first post did go through!

Deano
Reply to  roger murphy
November 20, 2018 10:10 pm

Yeah.. I keep saying that Roger!
Since these insane liberal run municipalities keep attempting to sue all of the major oil companies, they should all agree to stop selling ALL of their product within their municipality.. That should get their attention don`t you think??

gringojay
November 21, 2018 12:19 am

When I heard about children litigating climate it made me think of the historical Childrens’ Crusade. Lots of those eager children didn’t experience what they were led to believe was real.
If history remains consistant these modern little litigants will look back at their youth abashed at the naivite.

pykewex
November 21, 2018 2:00 am

As a lawyer, the court is not the place to discuss complex science topics, the length of filings forces one to focus on the legal aspects of the case because in most cases you don’t even have the space to fully discuss that – much less get into detailed discussion of science. The legal case here correctly focusses on whether these kids have standing and the like. I wouldn’t get too bothered about this.

November 21, 2018 2:14 am

The Medieval Childrenns Crusade end up with the children beeen sold into slavery. Fast Forward to today, do we have a repeat situation via socialisam.

MJE

November 21, 2018 2:16 am

The Childrenns Crusade end up with the children beeen sold into slavery. Fast Forward to today, do we have a repeat situation via socialisam.

MJE

Gary Ashe
November 21, 2018 5:45 am

Socialists kids are pavlovianised mental slaves Micheal,
And all socialist will try to enslave your kids as well.

beng135
Reply to  Gary Ashe
November 21, 2018 8:47 am

Yes. The Pavlovianization into socialism/marxism goes all the way back to nursery school in kids/young adults now, so they no longer feel the necessity of hiding it & the results are coming right out in the open now.

Jim Whelan
November 22, 2018 12:29 pm

“He invited audience members concerned about carbon dioxide emissions to hold their breath during his remarks.”

Gotta love it!

%d bloggers like this: