Children’s Climate Court Case Pushing an Injunction Against Fossil Fuel Extraction

Some of the kids being used as climate pawns. Photo: ourchildrenstrust.org

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Ninth Circuit is currently hearing an attempt by the Juliana v. United States plaintiffs to halt all fossil fuel extraction in the United States.

The kids suing the government over climate change want to halt fossil fuel extraction

The plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States say they’ve been denied their right to a safe and stable climate.

Umair Irfan

If the injunction is granted, it would lead to a nationwide moratorium on new fossil fuel permitting and leasing on federal lands and waters until the lawsuit is resolved. No small matter. However, existing mining and drilling projects would still proceed.

Philip Gregory, one of the lead attorneys representing the children filing suit, explained that the injunction request is meant to address the urgency of limiting climate change by reducing emissions from fossil fuels immediately. With the case currently tied up in appeals, the plaintiffs wanted to make sure the current state of affairs with respect to climate change doesn’t get worse as the wheels of justice slowly turn.

“We would have preferred to go to trial, submit our extensive evidence, and have the judge require the defendants to come up with a plan, a national climate recovery plan, for how they’re going to go about doing this,” Gregory said.

In response, the federal government argued this week that the injunction maneuver is a ploy to bypass proper legal proceedings. “Indeed, Plaintiffs by their present motion are essentially making a bid in this Court for a substitute mini-trial or ‘trial lite’ — which is premature until the pure issues of law now being briefed in this interlocutory appeal are appropriately resolved as a threshold matter,” wrote attorneys for the US Department of Justice. They described the injunction request as an “ambitious attempt to throttle important government functions superintending broad swaths of the national economy.”

The government also noted that the Juliana lawsuit was filed more than three years ago but the plaintiffs hadn’t asked to block fossil fuel leasing until now, which undermines the plaintiffs’ argument that without immediate action, they would suffer irreparable harm.

Read more: https://www.vox.com/2019/2/23/18234721/childrens-climate-lawsuit-juliana-injunction

A copy of the injunction is available here.

Even President Obama did not support this case – when James Hansen urged Obama to tie President Trump’s hands on climate policy. by settling the case in the plaintiff’s favour, President Obama refused.

I feel sorry for the kids, whom I see as victims of callous green political manipulation. This court case will almost certainly eventually be tossed out, and those poor kids will likely have to live with the crushing disappointment of being tossed aside by their former green friends once they are no longer any immediate use to the green movement.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
267 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 23, 2019 8:17 pm

Sadly we see a picture of nine Drongo kids, manipulated by their parents and being used as climate pawns by the Green Political Machine which will chew them up and spit them out when it is finished with them. They are Green Cannon Fodder.

MarkG
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 23, 2019 9:57 pm

Don’t forget that, for the rest of their life, anyone they want to hire them will do a quick web search on their name and discover they were involved in this nonsense; which means no real business will ever do so.

They really have no idea what they’re doing to themselves.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  MarkG
February 23, 2019 10:13 pm

Like type-cast child celebrities? Yeah, I reckon so!

Greg
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 24, 2019 2:34 am

Yes, acting school:

now children look at the camera and do your best ” I’m really cross because you STOLE my future climate stability rights” faces.

That’s it! Lovely.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Greg
February 24, 2019 8:36 am

#3 in the front row is a capitalist-roader. She’s smiling. Even smirking. Get the Washington Post on this right away. We can’t have smirking.

Rocketscientist
Reply to  Greg
February 24, 2019 9:04 am

I doubt very much if #4 from the right even knows how to spell her name or tie her shoes.
How is this not child abuse?

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Greg
February 24, 2019 1:20 pm

I don’t deny it’s child abuse, but they probably have had no direct interaction with any of the attorneys or publicists orchestrating this case since that picture was taken. Their usefulness ended once that pic was taken. Those attorneys and publicists don’t care a whit about the children, these pictured or any others, and likely would have settled for any of a dozen kids found on any playground anywhere. It just was easier that these particular children already had activist parents who would agree to abuse their children in this manner. All for the cause you know. When you have a society to tear down, who cares about emotionally exhausted and morally bankrupt subadults?

Sam Pyeatte
Reply to  Greg
February 24, 2019 2:50 pm

Only dim-wits would participate in something so repulsive and stupid. Their parents are even worse for letting them do it.

Hivemind
Reply to  MarkG
February 24, 2019 12:07 am

I wish you were right, but they are actually manouvering themselves into plush positions as political hacks for the green and “Democrat” parties. The quotes are because the US Democrat party doesn’t represent the will of the people, but attempt to coerce the people to their will.

MarkG
Reply to  Hivemind
February 24, 2019 8:06 am

Most of them are white or male, so they have no future in a Democrat party that is increasingly in the hands of non-white women.

Jim
Reply to  MarkG
February 24, 2019 7:25 pm

Who are the useful idiots here, the white kids of basically affluent liberals who can count on a guaranteed non-white voting block to advance their green rentseeking policies but lose primaries OR the brown kids of basically impoverished Democrats who can count on winning primaries and that’s about it? How does making the poor poorer or the middle poor with green rentseeking policies help the poor?

Greg
Reply to  MarkG
February 24, 2019 2:02 am

They really have no idea what they’re doing to themselves.

Which I’m sure any future potential employer will realise. There will be plenty of more incriminating things on their Faceberk record by then.

Bryan A
Reply to  Greg
February 24, 2019 9:23 am

Perhaps a wake up call as in a forced divestiture from and of anything and everything derived from fossil fuels that they currently have.
Including:
Plastics
Rubber
Food sourced from Grocery Stores
Aluminum
Gas heating
Gas cooking
All ICE vehicles
Show them what it means to be green like they say they want.

Boulder Skeptic
Reply to  Bryan A
February 24, 2019 11:31 am

Totally brainwashed… they don’t know what they don’t know. They only know what they’ve been told by progressives who are lying to them.

What they should be suing the federal government to stop is $22,000,000,000,000 in growing US federal debt. That’s going to affect their futures more than any climate change that will happen in their lifetimes.

nw sage
Reply to  Bryan A
February 25, 2019 6:49 pm

What it means to be Green: Force them to watch a complete season of Little House On The Prairie and explain the that is the way they will have to live from now on.
Who gets to kill the chicken for dinner tonight?

Greg
Reply to  MarkG
February 24, 2019 2:09 am

They have no idea about anything, if they think that the constitution mentions climate.

Greg
Reply to  Greg
February 24, 2019 2:44 am

Hey, why don’t the mixed-race kids get “constitutional” tee-shirts? Are they second class citizens or what? Oops, where’s my safe room, I’m offended !!

Greg B
Reply to  Greg
February 26, 2019 6:20 pm

Instructive to watch a short video by an Australian journalist confronting climate change protesting children in Australia:

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MarkG
February 24, 2019 8:52 am

“Don’t forget that, for the rest of their life lives

Fixed.

Steve O
Reply to  MarkG
February 25, 2019 11:25 am

I suspect the opposite may be the case. The chances of an HR manager, and a hiring manager being in favor of their cause is fairly high. Their semi-celebrity status will help them.

nankerphelge
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 23, 2019 11:14 pm

Are they up for Cross Examination?
Should be because this will cost a s/load of money!!!

Greg
Reply to  nankerphelge
February 24, 2019 2:46 am

I don’t know but they do look cross ( except the dopey one in the front row who just got a legal spliff from her mommy ).

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Greg
February 24, 2019 6:07 am

Please don’t stoop to criticizing the children’s appearance.

Thank you.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
February 24, 2019 8:06 am

Was a time they would have received a socko paddle to the bottom and sent to bed without dinner.

The left now refers to that time as the centuries of white patriarchy, choosing to gloss over a history of American exceptionalism and declares that their every socialist move is “for the Children.” All the while they drag us down into the abyss of Government run mediocrity and public school idiocracy.

All in all the children are in far greater danger from their Government then they are from their climate

Highflght56433
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
February 24, 2019 8:57 am

Poor little snowflakes will melt if we bust their self esteem. Please pass the soy.

Rob_Dawg
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
February 24, 2019 11:34 am

Normally I would agree but in this specific case their appearance is part of the message. They made their public image fair ground when the donned a uniform and posed for a set piece.

Robertvd
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
February 24, 2019 2:32 pm

Why do these kids want to die young? Before energy became so abounded and cheap most kids died young. Most people died before 65 also kings.

HotScot
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 24, 2019 1:39 am

Nicholas William Tesdorf

Everything they have is thanks to fossil fuels.

Sara
Reply to  HotScot
February 24, 2019 4:30 am

Put them in a “collective” for a year.
If they want heat, they can’t use anything vaguely connected to fossil fuels or carbon-based fuel sources such as wood. Period.
If they want to cook, they’ll have to build what Mother Earth magazine called “solar stoves” in the 1970s. I remember those, because the people who built them said they didn’t work very well.
If they want water for anything, they have to draw it by hand from a well. If they want food, they’ll have to grow it themselves and manage it and weed the rows, and figure out how to preserve it. I almost guarantee it will last about 10 days, max. But I want to see just how long they’ll last in that kind of setup.

I despise parents and others who do this to kids who haven’t got the slightest idea how they are being used by these self-serving adults for their own agenda. The kids should be learning to play field hockey and taking nature hikes to ID plants and insects and wildlife, not showing up in court as a front for money-grubbing greed.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Sara
February 24, 2019 8:58 am

“If they want water for anything, they have to draw it by hand from a well.”

It would have to be a well not dug by powered machinery.

Sara
Reply to  Sara
February 24, 2019 7:27 pm

That’s correct. To dig that well, you start with a posthole digger, not a drill with a drill bit and bucket, and you have to make the hole large enough to accommodate whoever is going to do the digging. Also, you have to locate the well closer to the house than the outhouse – remember, no moderb plumbing!!!! — and you also have to have it tested at least once a year, and twice is preferable.

Cynthia
Reply to  Sara
February 24, 2019 10:47 pm

Sara – Your idea has potential.
We could create a focused educational curriculum.
Students could take a class “Impacts of fossil fuels on daily life”.
This is actually an awesome idea – I think.
This could make a real difference.

Mike Rosati
Reply to  HotScot
February 24, 2019 7:13 am

Am wondering if they live in a yurt / teepee / cave with their parents….?
Great observation, btw!

Daz
Reply to  HotScot
February 24, 2019 7:20 am

Yes , true , time to cut them off from fossil fuels, time for a documentary following their lives relying on mdazeager non fossil fuebls.

D Cage
Reply to  Daz
February 25, 2019 2:57 am

They did a similar experiment at Butser hill in the UK to experience iron age life rather than about green. The relief after a few weeks of it was written all over their faces. And that was not even in real winter.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  D Cage
February 25, 2019 7:30 am

They spent 13 months there, so they spent a winter. And from the interviews, the feelings when it wrapped up were decidedly mixed.

joe
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 24, 2019 2:10 am

I hope the judge issues the following injunction:

The kiddies, their parents, and their lawyers are hereby prohibited from using hydrocarbons. This means:
a) no using internal combustion engined vehicles. It’s walkies or bicycles from now on.
b) no using electric vehicles if steel was used in the vehicle. Unless they can prove the steel was not made using coal.
c) all their electricity must be solar powered using solar panels on their own dwellings. The grid in California still uses natural gas for a portion of the electricity.
The injunction to be in place for twelve years.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  joe
February 24, 2019 8:15 am

Don’t forget, no food processed in a plant which uses fossil fuels or which was grown on a farm using mechanized equipment.

And, of course, no water brought to them using fossil fuel powered pumping stations or bottling plants and delivered by truck.

Don’t get me started on clothing.

Photios
Reply to  joe
February 24, 2019 11:26 am

…with their bicycles built by Kirkpatrick MacMillan!

cedarhill
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 24, 2019 3:41 am

This only shows the battleground for “deniers” and rational science must include, as a primary focus, on the education sysrtem(s). Meaning the school boards, those that run the colleges and universities, their funding and their programs. This has been the single, greatest failure, of the Greatest Generation and the Boomers.
The Millennials are a perfect example of this failure.
Never forget the adage: Give me a child until it’s ten and I’ll show you the adult.

commieBob
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 24, 2019 4:09 am

Drongo … it’s an Australian bird.

There is evidence that they utter hoax alarm calls that typically scare other animals off food, which the drongo then eats … link

How very apt.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  commieBob
February 24, 2019 5:30 am

Id like a dropbear or two to land on this cluster…k of drongos;-)

meiggs
Reply to  commieBob
February 24, 2019 8:43 am

The Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) is a brood parasite, meaning that it lays its eggs in nests of other species. A female cowbird quietly searches for female birds of other species that are actively laying eggs. Once she has found a suitable host, the cowbird will sneak onto the resident bird’s nest when it is away, usually damage or remove one (or more) egg, and replace that egg with one (or more) of her own (watch a cowbird laying an egg in a Northern Cardinal nest on NestCams). The foster parents then unknowingly raise the young cowbirds, usually at the expense of their own offspring. Cowbird eggs require a shorter incubation period than most other songbirds and thus usually hatch first. Cowbird nestlings also grow large very quickly. These advantages allow them to command the most food from their foster parents, usually resulting in reduced nesting success of the host species.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 24, 2019 4:39 am

You man by the left. The green political machine is just a cover.

billtoo
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 24, 2019 5:54 am

no worries. they are assured harvard admission by now

TRM
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 24, 2019 8:07 am

I hope they get very cynical when they realise that they’ve been had and used like you say. I recommend a series of George Carlin videos 🙂

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 24, 2019 9:36 am

Note there are no шнуте “men” in the group. Seven girls and two non шнуте boys so its not so subtly constituted with diversity in mind. Can’t have a representative of the enemy in the group who may not be trustworthy or who may not be able to resist mansplainin’.

Tarrasik
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 24, 2019 10:20 am

Yep. Seven skinny little white girls and two big, strong ‘men of color’. Sure looks like a dream harem for colored folks.

They are banning White Males everywhere.

Our local Chase bank usually has a variety of happy family pictures posted on the walls. None of the pictures for the last several years show a white male. The same for our local Target store. I walked through there a couple of weeks ago. Not a single white male picture, except in the kid’s section.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 24, 2019 2:15 pm

Gary, шнуте is srbsk “shut up”.

Dansk would be “Hold kæft”.

Austrian: “Kusch”.

Netherlands “Hou je mond”.

Tim the Tool man “alto el mundo, Chiquita!”

Enginer01
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 24, 2019 12:56 pm

Manipulated by their parents? Get real! My Grand kids were manipulated by their teachers, and get physically ill if you suggest the world will not die in 12 years. Tell them that a greening earth and high agricultural productivity is caused by high CO2 and you can see flashes of tar ‘n feathers in their eyes

Robertvd
Reply to  Enginer01
February 24, 2019 3:05 pm

And NO Iphone NO twitter NO facebook etc.

clivehoskin
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 24, 2019 4:26 pm

So,if these KIDS are fare dinkum?Are they prepared to hand in their Iphones,Laptops and all the other niceties that are produced by fossil fuels and mining?And let’s not forget cars,bikes,electricity and all those things that we produce from said same.Since I would be willing to bet that none of these kids would forgo those things,maybe we should call the parents and find out what THEY are willing to forgo.

Charles Higley
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 24, 2019 5:14 pm

But, but, even if they won their suit, why would they be asked to develop a plan for said cessation of extraction? That is implying that they would have incredible powers just from some liberal judge leaning their way.

Horatio
February 23, 2019 8:17 pm

Child abuse. They do this with all their power grabbing causes

Warren
February 23, 2019 8:19 pm

Russia and OPEC are funding this along with some minor vested interest renewables mafia. from within the USA.

Greg
Reply to  Warren
February 24, 2019 2:04 am

Oh wow, I had not thought of the “russian collusion ” angle. I’m sure Pootun’ is personally behind this . LOL.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Greg
February 24, 2019 5:35 am

yup…whatever it is its Putins fault
getting to be tedious and more inane as the days pass
hmm
like agw claims
russia doesnt really give a rats about usa, except the warmongers and intrusions on its privacy i reckon
fair enough too.
Merkels given usa the middle finger over the nordstream gaslines
shipping gas from use to eu is damned funny its so daft to think you could supply the amounts required
I would credit the saudis with shfrty dealings though, they are no ones “friends” even to their own

MarkW
Reply to  Greg
February 24, 2019 9:53 am

That first the Soviet Union and then Russia have funded anti-energy groups in the past has been proven.

Reply to  MarkW
February 24, 2019 12:58 pm

And I would not – personally – trust Poisoner Putin.
Maybe I am biased.
What’s wrong with that?

Auto

Ve2
February 23, 2019 8:22 pm

Stop the sale of all fossil fuels until the case is withdrawn or settled.
All transports including the planes the lawyers flew in on, cars and trucks, all electrical generation units etc.
Show the little sods what a third world country looks like.
And doc the lawyers and activists.

Kenji
Reply to  Ve2
February 23, 2019 9:31 pm

Our population is becoming so DUMB by following these green pied pipers … that they need a good object lesson. Perhaps they should be transported to … The Bush … and left to fend for themselves against a cruel bitch of nature, not the happy, perfect “ideal” climate they imagine.
Ignorance is dangerous, but the danger needs to be imposed on the ignorant … not allowed to be imposed on the entire population.

Hivemind
Reply to  Kenji
February 24, 2019 12:09 am

Stupidity is a capital offence. Unfortunately allowing people to act so stupidly is stupid in itself, so we will all suffer the same punishment.

Goldrider
Reply to  Hivemind
February 24, 2019 6:15 am

Darwin used to weed those types out quickly.

Reply to  Ve2
February 24, 2019 3:06 am

Fossil fuels comprise fully 85% of global primary energy, unchanged in decades, and unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. For most people in the developed world, fossil fuels provide you with everything you need to survive – your food, your warm home, your car, your computer, your TV, and your mobile phone.

If fossil fuels are eliminated, all this will soon go away, and almost everyone in the developed world will be dead in about a month from starvation and exposure. Other than that kids, it’s a terrific plan…

George Daddis
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
February 24, 2019 6:42 am

Of course, if the injunction were to be successful it would not halt the availability of fossil fuels for heating, transportation and industrial uses; it would just reduce the sources of supply and make everything, including the clothes on their backs more expensive.

Reply to  George Daddis
February 24, 2019 8:35 pm

Of course, if the injunction were to be successful it would destroy the US economy because the balance of trade would spiral out-of-control and the greenback would crash. Other than that kids, it’s a terrific plan…

markl
February 23, 2019 8:25 pm

Ninth Circuit court says it all.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  markl
February 23, 2019 8:44 pm

For those who are not familiar with the US court system, can you explain?

AWG
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 23, 2019 9:24 pm

Could also just say “Ninth Circus Court”.

In the US, we once had a justice system, then it devolved to a legal system, now we even have jettisoned Rule of Law so all we have is a court system.

And the Ninth Circus court doesn’t even live up to that pathetic standard.
Imagine a bunch of demented Marxist children committed to perpetual virtue signalling and trying to see who can come up with the most off-beat opinion, then add psychotropics… now that just begins to describe the foolishness and treachery of the Ninth Circus court.

BobM
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 23, 2019 9:49 pm

The US Supreme Court was established by the US Constitution, and Congress has the power “To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court”. As such, we have a system of 13 “Circuit” Courts which each handle cases in one of 13 geographic areas of the US. Inside the Circuit Courts are 94 District Courts, where Federal cases start and are tried. Decisions in a District Court and/or Circuit Court generally only apply to those states covered by that Circuit Court, sometimes leaving different results in different states on the same basic legal question. Appeals from a District Court go to its Circuit Court. An appeal from a Circuit Court goes to the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court handles cases from the largest geographic area in the US, including the three West Coast states and several Western states, affecting somewhere around 20% of the US population. Therefore it’s decisions can have a huge effect.

Unfortunately, it has also been packed with liberals who routinely make decisions based on politics and their opinions vs. the law, hence the nickname “The Ninth Circus Court”. It is by far the most overturned Circuit Court. Liberals prefer to file their cases in the Ninth because they know they’ll usually get the liberal decision vs. the lawful one. However, in the meantime, the bad decision stands. Note how all the lawsuits against Trump’s Administration are filed in the Ninth and are then overturned by the Supreme Court months later.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  BobM
February 23, 2019 10:03 pm

It sounds like a script written by Monty Python. As in Flying Circus!

Hugs
Reply to  BobM
February 23, 2019 10:50 pm

Thanks! I was totally unaware of this.

Reply to  BobM
February 23, 2019 10:58 pm

To expand on that a bit…

Note that the Ninth Circuit courts have decided that they actually have jurisdiction over the entire nation, whenever they say so. Reference the decisions on immigration issues. So they can affect far more than just one fifth of the populace.

The trouble with this “rogue” Circuit is fully traceable to politics. Left wing Senators created the monster. The rules of the Senate (until recently) have required that sixty percent of them vote to even allow a judicial appointment to be, and allow just one percent – a single Senator – to veto the consideration (if the District Court in question is in their State, or if their State is in the Circuit Court).

The Founders were quite aware of the dangers inherent in an absolute democratic system, the potential for tyranny imposed by the majority, and put guards against such in the Constitution (the Electoral College and the Senate) – but did not go overboard to institute a tyranny of the minority. The filibuster should be eliminated for all matters – and the “blue slip” veto of a judicial appointment should be killed right along with it.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Writing Observer
February 24, 2019 1:35 am

President Trump is in the process of installing three conservative judges on the ninth circuit, which will change the attitude of that court from one of unconstitutional judicial activism back to level- headed thinking again! The Democrats are in an uproar about it, but are those folks stupid enough to ban fossil fuels?!? They might as well ban airplanes and cows, too!! Oh, wait…!!

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Writing Observer
February 25, 2019 4:57 am

The 60 vote threshold in the Senate is a Senate rule and not in the Constitution. The rule used to be 66% (2/3) until 1974 when the Democrats had 62 Senators so they changed the rule from 66 to 60 in order to be able to pass everything they wanted.
But I agree that this practice should end. A simple majority vote will force these Senators to actually take a stand and pass or reject legislation and not hide behind the 60 vote rule.
While we are at it, the 17th Amendment should be repealed and Senators should go back to being appointed by the State legislatures as originally in the Constitution and not directly elected as in the 17th.

Ron Long
Reply to  BobM
February 24, 2019 2:37 am

Good summary of the Ninth Circuit, BobM. I am glad you mentioned “most overturned” as that is the marker for their decisions and activity, they rule on social justice and not the law, and never for the Constitution.

Reply to  Ron Long
February 24, 2019 7:05 am

I’m surprised that a liberal hasn’t chimed in to claim that the “most overturned” assertion has been debunked. Libtard fact checkers have recently latched on to this bit of nonsense.

Some libtard law professor wrote a convoluted paper demonstrating that the 9th Circus has been upheld more than any other Appeals Court. It was almost as idiotic as the Connolly paper that supposedly debunked the 70’s global cooling crisis.

MarkW
Reply to  Ron Long
February 24, 2019 9:57 am

Step one, invent a bizarre definition, under which most of the cases that go against you don’t count. Then show that of the cases that didn’t go against you, most were won.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 23, 2019 10:00 pm

I understand a “justice” system devolving in to a “legal” system, just like in Australia. The biggest wallet wins.

Thanks for your responses.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 24, 2019 3:22 am

One-downmanship:

Canadian federally-appointed Justices are apparently appointed as rewards for fundraising and other services to the leading political parties. These Justices are remarkably incompetent and apparently corrupted, and have little knowledge of the most basic elements of Rule of Law, such as
– Innocent Until Proven Guilty
= Rules of Evidence
– The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
– Human Rights and Gender Neutrality
– The Rights of Children

THE DISGRACEFUL SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CASE R. v. RYAN (2013 SCC 3):

The following describes the extreme incompetence and corruption of Canadian Federal Courts.

This note is from an eminent Canadian legal scholar – on the Extreme Bias and Incompetence of Canada’s Supreme Court:
“The rot starts at the top! [Canadian Supreme Court] Justice Abella once opined that women are victims in 90-95% of domestic violence incidents. That is the level of ignorance and bias you are up against when you go to court on something like this. This is the court that thinks that it is too much of a hardship to put a woman through a second trial after she hired an undercover cop to put a contract on her husband’s life… R. v. Ryan [2013 SCC 3]. ”

NOTES ON CANADIAN SUPREME COURT CASE R. VS RYAN (2013 SCC 3):
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12807/index.do?r=AAAAAQAJUiB2LiBSeWFuAQ

The Supreme Court ruled that it was too much of a hardship to put Mrs. Ryan through a second trial after she hired an undercover RCMP officer to murder her husband. The court ruled that she had no choice but to kill, due to “duress” because she falsely claimed that she was abused. The court also falsely criticized the RCMP for not protecting her. Other than Mrs. Ryan’s false testimony, which was accepted as true without any credible evidence by judges at all three levels of court, no evidence was provided that her husband was violent.

A subsequent major public investigation exonerated the RCMP and showed that Mr. Ryan was not violent. Mrs. Ryan was the violent partner.

Justice Beverly McLachlin, who was Chief Justice for the R. vs. Ryan debacle, has since retired from the SCC and is practising international law.

In comparison, Canadian federal courts make the Ninth Circus Court look competent.

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
February 28, 2019 4:07 am

BIG NEWS IN CANADA!

The blatant corruption of the Liberal Party of Canada has been fully exposed as the former Justice Minister told the truth about PM Justin Trudeau’s overt attempt to subvert the justice system. This is the same uber-Green, ultra-PC Justin who has done everything he can to embarrass Canadians on the world stage and destroy our resource-based economy.

https://calgarysun.com/news/national/clearly-inappropriate-key-quotes-from-wilson-rayboulds-appearance-at-justice-committee/wcm/21c492dc-a8b0-444f-9aea-1f87e991e144

No Canadian should be surprised by these facts. The Liberal Party of Canada has been deeply and widely corrupt for decades. The big surprise is that a Liberal Member finally told the truth! Anyone who votes Liberal is voting for deep corruption and gross mismanagement – it IS that simple!

R Shearer
February 23, 2019 8:25 pm

If one wanted to put children’s health at risk, they would turn off their heat and power. This suit is a poor joke.

Jim M
February 23, 2019 8:27 pm

What does it say about our society that some choose to hide behind children to salvage their agenda.

I am disgusted.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Jim M
February 23, 2019 8:49 pm

What does it say about our society when we abandon the scientific method and all its principles. The “climate scientists” and Al Gore’s Church of Climatology united in an unholy alliance to abandon the scientific process and then to continue the scam had to abandon all scientific principles by 1) using circular thinking in reports 2) refusing to test the null hypothesis 3) hiding all data and refusing to release it upon request 4) non publishing of methodologies 5) pal review 6) manufacturing a consensus 7) firing and ostracizing skeptic scientists 8) refusing to debate the physics 9) adjusting data fraudulently 10) purposefully use alarm to scare the politicians into action for a non problem. THE WORLD IS NOW IN A MESS BECAUSE OF THIS.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
February 24, 2019 9:42 am

Well said Alan Tomalty.

sunderlandsteve
Reply to  Jim M
February 24, 2019 2:39 am

Can’t convince the adults, use the children. Simples

SAMURAI
February 23, 2019 8:29 pm

It’s so sad listening to these poor kids who have been brainwashed into believing the earth is going to “end in 12 years” from the ravages of Global Warming…

The delusional Leftist teachers who have traumatized their students into believing this rubbish should be sued for child abuse and malfeasance of public funds.

In 12 years, it is very highly likely a global cooling trend from mid-1996 will be evident caused by 30-year ocean cool cycles and from the cooling effects of a Grand Solar Minimum.

It’s always the poor and the children that suffer most from Leftist lunacy and tyranny..

RockyRoad
Reply to  SAMURAI
February 24, 2019 1:23 am

So you’re saying the AOCene will be the shortest epoch in geologic history? 12 years is less than a blip on the clock!

R Shearer
Reply to  RockyRoad
February 24, 2019 11:39 am

It’s 11 years and 11 months now.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  SAMURAI
February 24, 2019 6:25 am

Samurai

Cooling is the new warming, didn’t you hear? We already know that the coming cooling is caused by mankind’s burning of fossil fuels and a direct consequence of global warming.

No doubt at the same time the polar ice caps on Mars will regrow, which is caused by the combustion of rocket fuel burned while landing vehicles on the surface.

We are screwing up the entire solar system.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  SAMURAI
February 24, 2019 7:59 am

“It’s so sad listening to these poor kids who have been brainwashed into believing the earth is going to “end in 12 years” from the ravages of Global Warming”

Maybe we should create a list of all the failed predictions that have been made by the CAGW Alarmists over the decades.

That might help the kids understand that there are a lot of people out there, even smart people, who have made very wrong predictions, and that is especially true when it comes to climate science.

Kids, these “gloom and doom” predictions come regularly from the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) alarmists and not one of them have come to pass yet. So console yourself by telling yourself that these “experts” have been 100 percent wrong in the past and they won’t do any better with this dire prediction.

The list of failed CAGW predictions is very long. These kids need to know how many times someone “cried Wolf!” and it turned out there was no wolf.

Btw, I spelled out “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” above because Wiki has disappeared “CAGW” from its pages in a lame attempt to shape the dialogue, and kids just wouldn’t know what CAGW is anymore if we don’t spell it out. 🙂

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 25, 2019 4:18 am

Here’s a list from Tony Heller of 50 years of failed predictions about the future and the Earth’s climate:

https://realclimatescience.com/fifty-years-of-failed-apocalyptic-forecasts/

To all the kids: Don’t be afraid. The claim that the Earth only has 12 more years without radical change is just another failed prediction of delusional people. Read the claims in the link above. Every one of those people making those claims were absolutely sure they were correct. It turns out none of them were correct. And this new 12-year doomsday scenario is also incorrect. You’ll see.

markl
February 23, 2019 8:32 pm

A waste of time and money. Something needs to be done about frivolous lawsuits involving CC.

Hivemind
Reply to  markl
February 24, 2019 12:16 am

In Australia (and I think many other countries), you can’t simply sue someone and ignore the cost to them (even hope it is as big as possible). If your lawsuit fails, you have to pay the costs of your opponent’s legal fees. It creates a real brake against frivolous an malicious legal action.

MarkW
Reply to  Hivemind
February 24, 2019 10:00 am

The lawyers have been able to successfully fight any attempt to install such a system in the US.
As I’ve said before. The primary purpose of the legal system is to enrich lawyers. Anything that might cut down on the transfer of money from working people to lawyers simply is not permitted.

Highflght56433
Reply to  markl
February 24, 2019 7:55 am

Blame the BAR, institution of …. wait for it… England. The Brits conquered the USA via banking and the BAR.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/attorneysarenotlawyers13mar05.shtml

Patrick MJD
February 23, 2019 8:37 pm

Hang on, do I see a plastic coat and plastic glasses frames? They are dressed, look healthy and well fed, and they want to ban fossil fuels?

Clueless!

David Chappell
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 23, 2019 9:00 pm

And all the other little things – for example the inks to print their T-shirts.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  David Chappell
February 23, 2019 11:18 pm

Made in Bangladesh or India and transported by ship to America.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 24, 2019 1:07 pm

Sailing Ship?
Or a 10,000plus TEU container ship running on (Marine) Bunker Oil, that, at 60F, you can pick up handfuls, and watcvh it slo-o-o-owly ooze out of your hand?
If you have a quarter of an hour to spare!

Auto

Richard Rounds
February 23, 2019 8:39 pm

These kids may never change their minds. They might become “heroes” within the green movement. When in grad school in the mid-60s I had a fellow grad who walked with a bad limp. He had taken a Russian bullet to his leg defending Berlin as a Hitler youth. At 30 years of age he still thought that the world would have been a better place if Hitler had won the war! People using kids is about as low as you can go.

u.k.(us)
February 23, 2019 8:41 pm

If everyone agreed that kids were off-limits for political purposes….wait…I thought that was like a rule.
What happened ??

H.R.
February 23, 2019 8:42 pm

Eric Worrall (my bold): “I feel sorry for the kids, whom I see as victims of callous green political manipulation. This court case will almost certainly eventually be tossed out, and those poor kids will likely have to live with the crushing disappointment of being tossed aside by their former green friends once they are no longer any immediate use to the green movement.”

“Those poor kids” only have 12 years left, according to AOC, and the case will take longer than that before a judgement is made. Do the math, kids. Quit while you’re ahead and start dating or something. Maybe go get an ice cream cone or visit Disneyland.

These are supposed to be their fun years. Being a part of this lawsuit is probably not much fun. They don’t look happy.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  H.R.
February 23, 2019 8:52 pm

That is because we taught them that they will either drown or burn in a fiery hell on earth.

AWG
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
February 23, 2019 9:31 pm

“That is because we taught them that they will either drown or burn in a fiery hell on earth.”

We should. Point to Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe, the former Soviet Union and its satellites.
The Green Leap Forward is a McGuffin for imposing Communism.

These kids already live a life indistinguishable from communism: never paid a bill, never had responsibility for any of life, free education, medical, food, clothing, housing, transportation. So that life has served them well, why not keep the childlike lifestyle forever?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  AWG
February 24, 2019 5:44 am

Peter Pan!

Graemethecat
Reply to  H.R.
February 23, 2019 9:42 pm

Progressives always look miserable.

MarkW
Reply to  Graemethecat
February 24, 2019 10:03 am

That’s because progressives measure their success in life, not by what they have done and acquired, but by what others have done and acquired.
So long as there is somebody who has more than they do, they are miserable.

Photios
Reply to  MarkW
February 24, 2019 12:15 pm

…and by what they have stopped making people happy.

David S
February 23, 2019 8:50 pm

“The Ninth Circuit is currently hearing an attempt by the Juliana v. United States plaintiffs to halt all fossil fuel extraction in the United States.” So what happens if we buy all these fuels from foreign sources instead? Will that stop the use of fossil fuels? No. What sense does that even make other than to increase the cost of all fossil fuels. It sounds like their objective is to stop the use of fossil fuels immediately. OK so go for it. That will bring the country to a screeching halt. No driving cars, trucks, buss’, no airplanes, no heat in homes, and no hot water. There will be no food in the grocery stores. And 62% of electricity comes from fossil fuels so we will have to cut our consumption by that amount. People will begin freezing to death and starving to death. Hospitals will shut down. A little while of that should convince the country to embrace fossil fuels and hang the climate change nuts.

February 23, 2019 8:51 pm

Those kids are wasting their time. The United States is third in emissions behind China and Europe, and China’s emission are double the US while India is catching up rapidly. They should take their problem to the United Nations, as Eddie Cochran advised in “Summertime Blues.” CO2, like Mexicans and Central Americans, respects no borders. If the US stopped CO2 emissions completely, the rest of the world would make up the difference in less than ten years. Then President Ocasio-Cortez will be sending runners all over the US to let us know how wonderfully we acted to save the world. As evidence, even as CO2 levels continued to soar, global temperatures will be dropping as the next hundred-thousand-year glacial period begins. Rejoice!

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Michael Combs
February 23, 2019 8:53 pm

How can I rejoice when I am suffering from carbon taxes?

John Loop
Reply to  Michael Combs
February 24, 2019 5:41 am

This point is so obvious it is frustrating to see it totally ignored in the MSM. Which reveals their agenda. When will I see some talking head or “journalist” ask this obvious question. Ask AOC or anybody on the left. What can they possibly say? “We will self destruct and hope the Chinese follow our lead?” Unbelievable how stupid the West is becoming.

George Daddis
Reply to  Michael Combs
February 24, 2019 6:58 am

Michael, your point should be cause for the injunction to be refused out of hand:

…the plaintiffs wanted to make sure the current state of affairs with respect to climate change doesn’t get worse as the wheels of justice slowly turn.

Unless the ruling impacted China and India, CO2 emissions it would continue and their alleged “harm” would be unabated. If the overall suit were successful, production would be outsourced to those countries, with no global reduction in emissions (and our economy would be in shambles).

The only gain from this suit would be votes in 2020 for the Left and dollars for the lawyers.

M__ S__
February 23, 2019 8:55 pm

Children being used for political gains again—just like that chap in Germany in the 1930’s used to do.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  M__ S__
February 23, 2019 10:44 pm

Indeed, recruiting children and the elderly was a sign of desperation and eventual defeat.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Chris Hanley
February 24, 2019 8:53 am

Good point, Chris.

The CAGW promoters are definitely desperate and it’s not over CO2 concentrations, it’s over maintaining their CAGW gravy train.

The alarmists double down and ramp up the hysteria with the new IPCC report and the U.S. Deep State report, and now they are recruiting children. Desperation.

It’s cooling. It’s been cooling for three years. Their CAGW hypothesis can’t explain that. If it continues cooling their pet CAGW hypothesis is in serious trouble. That’s the cliff they are standing on. That’s why they are nervous. Manipulating the surface temperature record may not be enough, and they have nothing else. It’s looking bleak for them.

David S
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 24, 2019 10:10 am

When the global warming crowd realized they didn’t know what they were talking about they changed the name to “climate change”. That way they can blame us no matter what happens. The only way they lose is if the climate stays the same, but that’s something it never does.

Flight Level
February 23, 2019 9:09 pm

IMHO a characterized case of child molesting .
Indoctrination and intellectual terrorism, abuse and exploitation of adult authority.

How the hell can this happen in a society with that many laws of child protection ?

Isn’t there a judge with enough integrity to tell the green psychopaths what time it is ?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Flight Level
February 24, 2019 9:05 am

“Isn’t there a judge with enough integrity to tell the green psychopaths what time it is ?”

We need a judge like that English judge who was trying to protect English school children from Al Gore’s CAGW propaganda movie “An Inconvenient Truth”.

https://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/british-judge-bruises-al-gores-movie/

British Judge Bruises Al Gore’s Movie

By Mike Nizza October 10, 2007 5:26 pm

Critics of “An Inconvenient Truth” include Al Gore’s political opponents, global warming skeptics and even rank-and-file scientists. But the former vice president waited until today for a detailed review from a high court in Britain.

Asked to ban the film from secondary schools, Judge Michael Burton refused, as long as “serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush” were explained at screenings, Agence France-Presse reported.

The bill of particulars that he issued, posted to the Web site of the plaintiff’s political party, had 11 points.

end excerpt

Duncan Smith
February 23, 2019 9:10 pm

When the rich don’t want to fight, your resources are spent and the war is lost, what do you do?….You turn your children into Warriors. Sick that the adults would have their children fight their fight, they are expendable.
comment image

Adam
February 23, 2019 9:17 pm

The 9th is the go-to court for leftist plaintiffs. It’s located in SF, naturally. Trump has attempted to appoint a couple of sane jurists to replace departed 9th circuit loonies.

Important 9th decisions are routinely overturned by the Supreme Court, but much pain and expense occurs in the interim.

Clyde Spencer
February 23, 2019 9:19 pm

There is a very good reason we send kids to school. And there is a good reason they aren’t allowed to vote until they are 18. There are many things that kids are forbidden to do until they reach the age of majority. Those prohibitions are based on what is known about how and when the brain matures, and is able to process the facts they are supposed to learn in school. Yet, the presumption is that these kids can actually understand the science behind the debate, and understand the consequences of their actions. They clearly will suffer the most and the longest because they have been deceived by their parents and teachers. It is a very sad state of affairs. I’m really surprised that the they were given standing in the case considering the obvious impediment of not being mentally competent to understand what they are doing.

MarkG
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 23, 2019 9:52 pm

“There is a very good reason we send kids to school.”

Yes. To indoctrinate them into leftist ‘useful idiots’.

This is why anyone sane home-schools their kids.

Hugs
Reply to  MarkG
February 23, 2019 10:40 pm

Well, there are not very many sane people around.

More two the point, it does not need to be home school, a private school with ideologically sane teachers would do

Hivemind
Reply to  MarkG
February 24, 2019 12:21 am

I have taught home-schooled kids. They are seriously lacking in resilience and can’t hack classes for long. Every time a parent comes to me with the child & explains that they were home-schooled because they couldn’t handle the stress of the playground & social interactions in the classroom, I am sad for them.

Adam
Reply to  Hivemind
February 24, 2019 6:50 am

I homeschooled my kids until middle school, at which point they moved on to junior college, where many other former homeschoolers were to be found.

My oldest just turned 17. He’s an applied math major and computer science minor at our large state university. He’ll be a senior later this year. All A’s. Loves it. He’s way too busy to get into partying or trouble of any kind. Not at all a geek.

Also, I’m saving much money, due to fact state charges high schoolers reduced tuition. Took some of the money saved and bought him a brand new car.

sycomputing
Reply to  Adam
February 24, 2019 7:49 am

I homeschooled my kids until middle school . . .

Which, if done properly, is no small task for parents to accomplish. Thank you for your service and sacrifice to all of us in making the effort.

sycomputing
Reply to  Hivemind
February 24, 2019 7:13 am

. . . because they couldn’t handle the stress . . .

You’ve experienced a broken type of home-schooled child.

In my experience with them, young ladies were already pre-law at University at 16 years old. Others could and did think circles around their peers at state run education facilities. These children weren’t exceptional, i.e., not genius products of brilliant parents, but rather just children of everyday people who had had more expected of them from a demanding curriculum.

My own public school education failed me. It was necessarily designed such that the lowest common denominator in the class could pass. That’s the reason I made exceptional marks, not because I was so smart, but rather because the curriculum was lacking. I was bored out of my mind.

MarkG has it absolutely correct, the public education system is designed primarily to educate children toward whatever purpose at the time the central government believes serves the greatest number of the general population, i.e., the “Many,” not toward that which serves the individual child toward his/her individual edification, knowledge, or success in life.

Adam
Reply to  sycomputing
February 24, 2019 8:00 am

In our state, the top 1% of high schoolers, plus academically advanced homeschoolers, are allowed to go straight into junior college, and then onto the state university. Most of them are college juniors by 18 years of age.

It’s a very innovative state, but California expats are slowly turning it blue, so I expect things will start going downhill.

sycomputing
Reply to  sycomputing
February 24, 2019 8:14 am

. . . but California expats . . .

I’m very sorry to hear that. We’re experiencing the same phenomenon in Texas, i.e., an influx of individuals and companies from “progressive” states.

From an influx of “Moderns” comes only “Modernity.”

MarkG
Reply to  Hivemind
February 24, 2019 8:09 am

“They are seriously lacking in resilience and can’t hack classes for long”

Aka they’ve not been trained to sit in a boring classroom while a teacher lectures them on things they’re not interested in and that they’ll never find useful.

sycomputing
Reply to  MarkG
February 24, 2019 8:25 am

. . . lectures them on things they’re not interested in . . .

Exactly why all my marks were exceptional except for conduct. I’d finish the astonishingly boring work the first half of class and then had nothing else to do other than talk to my neighbor.

Interest was a huge factor. Today, kids like I was are diagnosed with some form of ADD and placed on pseudo-methamphetamine medication in order to keep them in line.

God save the children, and we, from an entire generation of meth-heads brought up by the best and brightest leaders in the public education system.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkG
February 24, 2019 9:24 am

MarkG

There is something that can be said for self-discipline. One can’t always be doing things that they enjoy or find to be fun. One of the measures of maturity is the ability to delay rewards to achieve longer term goals. It is one of the characteristics of liberals to live by the motto “If it feels good, do it.” Any sort of logical examination takes second place to emotional feelings.

It has been my experience that self-educated people typically have holes in their education (which they are often unaware of) precisely because they only studied the things that they were interested in while they were immature. The function of educational curricula is to have older, wiser, and more experienced teachers reflect on what is important, rather than what is interesting.

sycomputing
Reply to  MarkG
February 24, 2019 9:47 am

The function of educational curricula is to have older, wiser, and more experienced teachers reflect on what is important, rather than what is interesting.

Agreed, until an agenda other than education for its own sake finds itself permeating throughout the presuppositions of the educational philosophy of those in leadership positions within the national educational system. Then, “important” to whom, and for what purpose?

You mean, for example, as per these “older, wiser and more experienced teachers” reflect upon what they find important to the modern school curricula?

https://pulitzercenter.org/nytclimate

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkG
February 24, 2019 11:03 am

sycomputing
There is little doubt, at least in my mind, that political agendas have taken precedence over learning fundamental things like the classic “3R’s” and how to logically analyze and solve problems

I’ll share an anecdote. Back in the 1990s I had gotten to a point in my life where I had become too expensive compared to recent graduates. I decided to start a business because I was having so much difficulty finding employment. To help with the cash flow, I started doing substitute teaching from the third-grade through high school. One particular elementary classroom stood out. Hanging from the ceiling were mobiles with how to say “Good Morning” in about 30 different different languages. I was left with the impression that ‘diversity’ was the focal point of that teachers curriculum rather than the 3R’s.

Incidentally, as a result of my substitute teaching experience, I’d recommend that EVERY parent, with a child in public schools, spend at least one day a year in their child’s classroom to see what it is like. The problems are more than just curriculum.

sycomputing
Reply to  MarkG
February 24, 2019 11:27 am

There is little doubt . . .

Thank you, Mr. Spencer. There is no doubt in my mind that the same is true.

All the more reason to laud. applaud and encourage parents such as Adam, who choose to sacrifice of themselves for the betterment of first their children, but also secondarily the overall population of the United States, by themselves attending to their children’s educational needs in such a manner as to cause them to be University seniors at 17 years old.

MarkW
Reply to  Hivemind
February 24, 2019 10:06 am

I’ve dealt with hundreds of home schooled kids. I have never met a single one that matches your description.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  MarkW
February 25, 2019 7:52 am

I have to say that my youngest has a student who was previously home-schooled and is now in parochial school, grade 3. My son has a very outgoing personality and didn’t think anything of making a friend of the new boy. Problem is, the home-schooled student is a constant disruptive influence. None of the other kids want to be friends with him as anyone in his sphere of contact is caught up in subsequent disciplinary actions. My son perseveres, despite the risk, in making a friend of him. I don’t know whether my boy is oblivious or courageous. In either case, I have decided not to interfere.

drednicolson
Reply to  Hivemind
February 26, 2019 8:52 am

Home-school, private school, private tutors, public school are all capable of teaching well or badly or somewhere in between. Some over-protective parents do use home-schooling to shelter their kids. All too many parents treat public schools as free daycare. Even with private schools or tutors, more expensive doesn’t always mean better.

But the parents who pay attention, make time, and stay on the ball will find the best option within their means for each of their children.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkG
February 24, 2019 9:14 am

MarkG

The problem is, not all parents are up to the task — intellectually, academically, and available time — to adequately home-school. That is why teachers are required to have at least a B.S. in an applicable subject matter for their primary assignments, and a teaching credential issued by the state as a further check on their competence. The very brightest students may succeed in spite of whether their teachers are their parents or public employees. But those who need special attention are going to have a difficult time. There is also the issue of how you teach things like chemistry at home without a fume hood and acid-proof table tops.

The problem is that liberals seem to be drawn to teaching and teachers tend not to be paid as well as in industry, so that the public schools are left with the dregs that industry doesn’t want. Better pay for teachers would help with the quality of teachers. More parental oversight of the sanctioned curriculum would reduce the impact of the liberal ideology in public schools.

Rather than home-schooling, one’s time would be better spent to become proactive in reforming the public schools, which really have become indoctrination centers.

sycomputing
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 24, 2019 10:05 am

The problem is, not all parents are up to the task — intellectually, academically, and available time — to adequately home-school.

All you’ve argued here is that home schooling is a problem for those who fit your criteria. And you haven’t any credible data to suggest how many parents meet your criteria.

Rather than home-schooling, one’s time would be better spent to become proactive in reforming the public schools, which really have become indoctrination centers.

So by your own admission, while our children are being indoctrinated, which presupposes responsible parents spend a good deal of their valuable time “un-indoctrinating” that indoctrination, you would argue those parents are also to spend even more time than this attempting to reform an already failed system, rather than home school or send their kids to private school?

Happily, a good deal of states disagree with your assumptions and provide parents a choice for their children’s education!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  sycomputing
February 24, 2019 11:12 am

sycomputing
OK, I don’t have a problem with giving parents a choice with educating their kids. After all, someone with a parent like Dr. Heller would be privileged to have private tutoring. However, I would hope that someone with an average to below-average IQ (50% of all parents) and a GED would have the common sense to find someone else to teach their kids geometry, algebra, or physics and chemistry.

sycomputing
Reply to  sycomputing
February 24, 2019 11:51 am

However, I would hope that someone with an average to below-average IQ (50% of all parents) . . .

I’m interested in your statistic . . . so by your own data, between you and I one of us is average to below-average IQ. Which one of us would that be and how do you know? From where exactly to you get your statistics?

As an aside (in that I don’t wish to start a doubly OT debate on an already OT subject), why do you place such importance on the Intelligence Quotient as a means of determining an individual’s capability to educate their own children?

The quotient purports to measure nothing more than an individual’s ability to reason, yet I wouldn’t hesitate to believe that most STEM scholars holding with CAGW today are high IQ individuals. If I’m correct. doesn’t the current belief regarding the esteem of the IQ quotient really just contradict itself? Those who are supposed to have the highest ability to reason do not appear to have that ability. Or so it appears to me.

MarkW
Reply to  sycomputing
February 24, 2019 2:15 pm

For subjects you don’t know, there online course and home-school associations.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  sycomputing
February 24, 2019 4:44 pm

sycomputing
You asked, “From where exactly to you get your statistics?” The IQ curve is defined as being a normally-distributed curve with a mean of 100 and 50% of the population having IQs less than 100. Although, with the number of people who receive head injuries in contact sports, vehicle crashes, and who have fried brain cells with drugs, I would expect the percentage of adults with IQs less than 100 to be greater than 50%.

One of the reasons for the development of standardized aptitude tests was to help predict success in academic pursuits, back when not everyone went to college. I would be very surprised to discover that anyone, who themselves did not score well in standardized aptitude tests, are very good at teaching academic subjects, especially if they never took the classes!

I hope you aren’t trying to teach your kid(s) statistics. The probability distribution of IQ is of little value for a sample of two. There is a 68% chance that you will be within one standard deviation of the mean, that is, between 85 and 115 for a test with a SD of 15. There is no way of predicting a priori which of us has the higher IQ or whether one or both of us fall within 1 SD.

But, you missed the point. Generally, people know if they are bright or not. (Although there seems to be a problem with a lot of men thinking that they are brighter than what they really are!) I said that I would hope people wouldn’t handicap their children by attempting to do something they aren’t qualified to do.

One of the reasons that people, who can afford it, send their children to prestigious schools with high tuition is that they expect their children to lean more from the best academics than they do from mediocre ones. Why should it be any different for elementary and secondary education?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  sycomputing
February 24, 2019 4:53 pm

MarkW
You said, “For subjects you don’t know, there [sic] online course and home-school associations.” Speaking as someone who has been paid by UC Berkeley Extension to develop technical online course work, and subsequently taught the material, I’m of the opinion that face-to-face learning is almost always superior to online instruction. Online instruction is a way for academia to lower their costs and increase their profits. The students suffer from the use of the educational model.

sycomputing
Reply to  sycomputing
February 24, 2019 6:24 pm

I hope you aren’t trying to teach your kid(s) statistics.

Ah well thank you for that. Perhaps we can agree to an exchange of skillsets then? You teach my kid(s) statistics to cover my inadequacies and I’ll teach yours logic to cover your impairment with critical thinking. What say you?

One of the reasons that people, who can afford it, send their children to prestigious schools with high tuition is that they expect their children to lean more from the best academics than they do from mediocre ones.

So you would argue then, that the best academics are to be found at, say, high-tuition schools like Berkeley, where you yourself taught, and who offer the following coursework:

“This decal aims to confront uncomfortable conversations about privilege and positionality to understand where white bodies have the responsibility to be in movements against white supremacy. This class will not be to coddle white fragility, but to deconstruct and relearn whiteness through case studies, speakers, and intense, critical readings. Some week topics include White Service, White Fragility, White Education, White Entertainment, White Emptiness of Culture, and White ‘Innocence.'”

https://decal.berkeley.edu/courses/4293

And then you base the following argument on the premise above:

Why should it be any different for elementary and secondary education?

I would suggest given the Berkely example, as well as other “high-tuition” institutions that push similar pathetic proflagate progressive propaganda, that your overall argument is a textbook example of the petitio principii fallacy. You, as an educator within the system, argue your system is the better system pretty much soley due to argumentum ad verecundiam don’t you?

For example, by your own admission elementary and secondary schoolchildren are being indoctrinated, i.e., “that political agendas have taken precedence over learning fundamental things,” hence you seem to answer your own question above in the negative do you not? If so don’t you contradict your own premise with your own conclusion here?

In addition to the error above, you also argue that while “teachers are required to have at least a B.S. in an applicable subject matter for their primary assignments, and a teaching credential issued by the state as a further check on their competence,” it is also true that “liberals seem to be drawn to teaching and teachers tend not to be paid as well as in industry, so that the public schools are left with the dregs that industry doesn’t want.”

If public schools are then “left with the dregs that industry does not want,” then it would appear you’ve again answered your own question above in the negative.

Therefore, while you argue that people send their children to public school with the expectation of a good education from adequate instructors, you yourself admit that the expectation cannot be fulfilled in reality.

Don’t you contradict yourself, Mr. Spencer?

sycomputing
Reply to  sycomputing
February 25, 2019 5:04 am

It seems my reply from last evening didn’t make it out of the ether so I’ll try again.

I hope you aren’t trying to teach your kid(s) statistics.

Thanks so much for that. How about we agree to an education exchange? You teach my kids statistics to make up for my inadequacies there, and I’ll teach yours logic to make up for your impairments in critical thinking. What say you?

One of the reasons that people, who can afford it, send their children to prestigious schools with high tuition is that they expect their children to lean more from the best academics than they do from mediocre ones. Why should it be any different for elementary and secondary education?

You mean because spending more money presupposes a better education and this is why U.S. students’ test scores as compared to the rest of the world are reflected in the amount we spend per student? Seems like a textbook example of the petitio principii fallacy if you ask me.

By your own admission you’ve agreed that “political agendas have taken precedence over learning fundamental things like the classic ‘3R’s’ and how to logically analyze and solve problems.” And in your anecdotal example you admit that with regard to the classroom you were “left with the impression that ‘diversity’ was the focal point of that teachers curriculum rather than the 3R’s.” You suggest that as a result of your own teaching experience parents monitor their children’s classroom because the “problems are more than just curriculum.” The public school system is not a place of learning, but a series of “indoctrination centers.” So much so that “parents need to become proactive in reforming the public schools.”

With regard to the “best academics” versus the “mediocre one’s,” meaning trained teachers versus mere parents, with your right hand you argue that “teachers are required to have at least a B.S. in an applicable subject matter for their primary assignments, and a teaching credential issued by the state as a further check on their competence,” but with your left hand that “liberals seem to be drawn to teaching and teachers tend not to be paid as well as in industry, so that the public schools are left with the dregs that industry doesn’t want.” Thus it would appear according to you the public school system offers the best trained dregs.

Is there a better conclusion other than that you answer your own question above in the negative and contradict yourself? Should I not thank you for making my case for me?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  sycomputing
February 25, 2019 6:00 pm

sycomputing
You said, “Don’t you contradict yourself, Mr. Spencer?” No, I don’t. You just are trying very hard to make it appear so with strawman arguments. What I’m really saying is that the system is thoroughly screwed up and some out of the box thinking is necessary. Homeschooling is NOT the answer. The educational system needs to be completely re-done.

sycomputing
Reply to  sycomputing
February 26, 2019 2:57 pm

You said, “Don’t you contradict yourself, Mr. Spencer?” No, I don’t.

Oh dear well do pardon me then won’t you?

Thus saith Prof. Julius Clydius Spencer, “‘Tisn’t true, I’ve declared it, and now you shall take your seat and that will be all there is to that!”

What I’m really saying is that the system is thoroughly screwed up and some out of the box thinking is necessary. Homeschooling is NOT the answer. The educational system needs to be completely re-done.

Yes I recall very well quoting your own words on how the system is “thoroughly screwed up.” Again, God be thanked for Adam and others who, rather than thinking “out of the box” by abandoning the lifeboats to repair a sinking ship, choose to take the common sense course of action instead!

All the best and take care.

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 24, 2019 10:08 am

OK, not all parents have what is needed to teach kids.
We’ve already demonstrated that way too many teachers don’t have what is needed either.
As always, the solution is spend more money.

WouldRatherNotSay
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 24, 2019 5:54 pm

Actually, studies show that the level of the education of the parents does not matter in the success of homeschooled students. Don’t have a link handy, but probably HSLDA has a link to the study. My dyslexic oldest graduated a semester early from my homeschool with 22 credits. She would not have gotten the help she needed in the public schools here. My twin boys may or may not graduate early. But, that’s not why I am home educating them. I home educate them to make sure they get the best education for them and their goals and desires.

Nik
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 24, 2019 3:17 am

Dittos regarding standing.

One also wonders how they will prove damages/harm to themselves.

They are also barking up the wrong trees. If they genuinely wanted to stop extraction/consumption to save the planet (rather than going after a soft target like the 9th Circuit and attendant deep pockets), they’d seek moratoria with India and China.

Earthling2
February 23, 2019 9:25 pm

The best thing that could happen world be for the Ninth Circuit to rule in favor of the kids for their Interlocutory Injunction on the suspension of production of fossil fuels. That would highlight the gravity of the situation immediately, while being made a priority of the Appeal Courts and ultimately SCOTUS very quickly. Everyone could weigh in the sheer stupidity of what’s going on, and ultimately prove how useless the juvenile freshman politicians in the Democratic Party are.

As if the nation could just turn off the fossil fuel extraction process on a dime. Of course this is a nuisance suit, but hopefully the Ninth Circuit will highlight the absurdity of the situation, and perhaps others will bring criminal charges against those adults who are pulling all the strings on these poor kids who are being totally abused. There should be consequences against those adults who would hide behind children in their misdeeds. Who knows what other abuse is going on, including the educational system who is peddling all this harm to the Nation through the kids about impending climate doom. That really is abuse!

MarkG
Reply to  Earthling2
February 23, 2019 9:53 pm

Seriously, the court should do it. Declare that all fossil fuel production shuts down as of tomorrow.

That would result in a backlash that would wash away the entire Climate Mafia and smash judicial activism.

michael hart
Reply to  MarkG
February 24, 2019 12:25 am

The problem is that they are only asking for new production to be halted.

The green plan is just to make energy progressively more expensive in ratchet-like fashion. People are already poorer in many Western nations as a result, but few of them realise that this due to increased energy costs. We mostly didn’t notice that our increased standard of living over the last couple of centuries was heavily influenced by more affordable energy and the danger is that we won’t notice the reverse.

Adam
Reply to  michael hart
February 24, 2019 7:06 am

There’s a limit to this screw tightening. See Yellow Vests.

I think one major problem is Californians and New Yorkers presuming to tell Texans and Oklahomans how to live, and what their energy costs will be.

This is not a “manageable” country. There are going to be limits to how far a future Democrat-controlled federal government is going to be able to go.

BTW: Arizonans, you had better clean up your electoral process, or there will be a Democrat in the White House.

SAMURAI
February 23, 2019 9:28 pm

I just noticed the propaganda written on the kid’s T-shirts:

HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE
STABLE CLIMATE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

All rational humans want a healthy atmosphere. Since the 1980’s real air pollutants have been slashed 60~99%:

https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-summary

A “stable climate” is physically impossible due to the chaotic nature of climate and Milankovitch cycles which assure glaciation periods every 20,000 years or so..

There is no “Constitutional Right” to for the Federal governemnt to create climate stability, however, under the 9th and 10th Amendments, individual states have the right to implement whatever crazy Leftist CAGW schemes they wish with the proviso that any economic damage and debt accrued from such insane policies are the sole the responsibility of the state, and the federal government is prohibited from bailing them out.

TRM
Reply to  SAMURAI
February 24, 2019 8:15 am

Yea the “their right to a safe and stable climate” made me LMAO. When the glacial phase resumes then they will find out what Earth’s “stable climate” is. COLD. I recommend they give this post by Dr Brown of Duke U a read:

https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5790561&cid=48073849

jtom
Reply to  SAMURAI
February 24, 2019 3:07 pm

Sometimes (not often) I wish I could to supply an argument for attorneys to advance. A Constitutional right for anything concerning the atmosphere is an impossibility. If man can not control the climate, who would you sue in the event of a deteriorating climate (whatever that would be)? Mother Nature? God? If the declining climate is a result of Man, the Courts have no jurisdiction over other countries like Japan and India.

So neither the Courts, Legislature, nor Executive branches of Government can enforce that ‘right’ to safe, clea, stable climate. Therefore such a right can not exist in the Constitution.

This a not unlike trying to sue the government to stop all deaths, since it is accepted that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as described in the Declaration of Independence.

Garland Lowe
February 23, 2019 9:28 pm

When a few of these kids commit suicide, the left will blame global warming.

Hugs
Reply to  Garland Lowe
February 23, 2019 10:48 pm

That’s an ugly comment. I see them making a career. Probably not in anything practical though. With parents that uninterested in science, they’ll end up us actors, artists, authors.

Hivemind
Reply to  Hugs
February 24, 2019 12:30 am

Politicians!

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Hugs
February 24, 2019 5:56 am

actually Garlands comment is not ugly, just the plain truth
these ass…les of parents n “teachers” are giving these kids huge amounts of stress worry and fear
no damned wonder child suicides are rising fast! and way many are on ssris meds as yound as 8yrs old for anxiety disorders.
I remember the starving biafran kids being shown on tv and womens magazines my mum read
and feeling guilt about eating while they starved, I would have been around 9 or so i think.
media now is even more in their faces, so we are going to have some massive mental health issues ongoing for many years to come with just about everyone under 25 who have been assaulted daily with the agw and other crud.

HD Hoese
Reply to  Hugs
February 24, 2019 8:15 am

I’m not so sure about the career, am reading an American Scientist article about the oil spill, lead author a Ph.D. candidate, two others with big titles. “Renewed Hope for Coastal Marshes in Louisiana” spent $118 million from offshore sand to produce 365 hectares, 20 year life span in a eroding fossil delta area where “monitoring was minimal” in Gulf of Mexico saltmarshes (true a half century ago), but somehow some of us know a lot about the area. Lack of homework and save the planet. New editor, Sigma Xi administrators now seem more interested in communication.

HD Hoese
Reply to  HD Hoese
February 24, 2019 8:30 am

The website– https://www.americanscientist.org/article/renewed-hope-for-coastal-marshes-in-louisiana#infographic

Pouring oil on saltmarshes is not a good idea, but lack of credibility is worse. They need to drink a little at Whiskey Island where we did. Interesting graph about blue crab catches.

MarkW
Reply to  Hugs
February 24, 2019 10:11 am

It may be ugly, however the suicide rate for teenagers is sky rocketing, in large part due to these kids being told they have no future.

Garland Lowe
Reply to  Hugs
February 24, 2019 10:44 am

Not meant to be ugly Hugs, these kids are scared into believing in the “global warming crisis”. In their mind failure equals death for all. That’s a lot to put kids shoulders. Some will not be able to handle it. The people doing this to the kids should be punished.

Jeff Mitchell
February 23, 2019 9:30 pm

I thought this decision was already invalidated on standing grounds.
https://www.legalreader.com/trump-bunks-lawsuit-against-trump-and-blasts-climate-kids-ruling/

Joey
February 23, 2019 9:54 pm

I’ve got a better idea. Just stop shipping any fossil fuels of any kind to any jurisdiction that takes part in such idiotic lawsuits. Shut them off completely. I mean really if they are so concerned about emissions the can really take the bull by the horns and simply pass laws not permitting any fossil fuel use in their area. Simple.

Serge Wright
February 23, 2019 10:00 pm

Of course this is all about socialism under the guise of environmentalism. The Raw New Deal proposed by AOC lets this cat out very comprehensively.

What these Raw Deal proponents either forget or are unable to comprehend is that capitalism is what drives wealth and prosperity across the entire population base of the country. The recent catastrophic failure of the Venezuela socialism experiment is just another example of a very long list of such failures. More importantly this style of socialism has always ended in failure and it always will, for the obvious reason that most humans will always opt for welfare over work, given the choice. Just take a drive to your nearest indigenous land title reservation or public housing establishments to see what happens on a smaller scale.

The sad part is that these children have the best opportunity of any children on the planet to make a successful and prosperous life, because they are growing up in a system that allows everyone to achieve the level of prosperity of their choice. All they need to do is to study and work hard and reap the benefits. By teaching and persuading them that they are entitled to a freely funded existence from the public largesse is more than a pushing a lie, it’s a life sentence of misery.

n.n
February 23, 2019 10:12 pm

Hydrocarbons and, not coincidentally, certain carbon-based lifeforms, too. There is a method and pattern to their madness.

Patrick MJD
February 23, 2019 10:16 pm

Hair treatment? Flash photography?

Hugs
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 23, 2019 10:58 pm

The photographs used in these cases are professional, so I guess the looks in the picture are intentional. Their org site has signs of the Big Green money in operation.

Gwan
February 23, 2019 10:30 pm

Don”t blame these kids .
Blame their stupid parents,these children are being used to advance an ideology and are expendable as pawns in a power struggle .
I have written before about our 37 year old New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern
She is in coalition with the Greens and NZ First and one morning she woke up and announced that she had had a nuclear moment [ which refers to a previous Prime Minister who banned American nuclear ships from our waters ].
She stopped all new oil and gas exploration off our coasts without any costings of what this action will cost New Zealand in the next 30 years .
The loss of jobs and then the imports of oil and gas as our present gas fields run out has now been costed at 30 to 40 billion dollars.
Absolutely no thought or costings were undertaken .
This was just virtue signalling to the UN and to hell with the 4.8 million people who live in this fair country .
It did not stop her from flying to the climate rukus in Switzerland .
I remember a movie in the fifties titled ” I’m All Right Jack ” and that’s what these people are signaling ,they have never thought about life with out affordable fuel for their cars and plentiful affordable electric power .
And that’s not even thinking about all the products that are made from oil and all the heavy industry that produces steel and aluminum that are essential for all modern countries.
Enough said .

Dirtman
February 23, 2019 10:30 pm

“…submit our extensive evidence…”
————————————————–

These kids don’t know what evidence is.

In order to demonstrate how committed they are to zero fossil fuels, they should immediately cease any and all fossil fuel usage – no heat or light for the homes they live in or the schools they attend if it comes from fossils, no automobile, train or plane travel, and that goes for their teachers and their lawyers and the courts their case is heard in too.

Only then should the courts allow their case to be heard.

February 23, 2019 10:31 pm

I wonder how the kids in there Future World would get along without all of their electronic toys to play with.

MJE iii

Maxbert
February 23, 2019 11:40 pm

Pitiable, brainwashed kids.

Chaamjamal
February 23, 2019 11:48 pm

(A) the injunction request is to halt all fossil fuel extraction in the USA.

(B) It is meant to address the urgency of limiting climate change.

Have they presented evidence that (A) will achieve (B)?

https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/06/tcre/

https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/14/climateaction/

And that the science of climate change really is science and not activism?

https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/02/03/hidden-hand/

Arild
February 23, 2019 11:58 pm

“and we want ice cream and chocolate chip cookies with every meal”

tonyb
Editor
February 24, 2019 12:06 am

all credit to the wisdom and foresight of these children. they have obviously agreed to cease using all forms of fossil fuel;. no cars. no school bus. no trips in planes. no computers or social media. no electricity. no heat to keep themselves warm. A vote for a 19th century lifestyle.

Grimwig
February 24, 2019 12:53 am

The zealots behind these children are no different, in principle, to the terrorists who launch their cowardly attacks from behind a “wall” of women and children.

StephenP
February 24, 2019 1:05 am

Walk to school.
No car trips to visit friends or go on holiday.
No flights to go on holiday.
Only natural fibres for clothes, which you have to make yourself.
No shoes.
No smart phones or iPads.
No heating in winter.
No AC in summer.
Grow your own food.
Oh no!!
It sounds just like third world existence.

John in Oz
February 24, 2019 1:12 am

The plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States say they’ve been denied their right to a safe and stable climate.

Is this right written into your constitution? If not (as I suspect) where did this idea come from?

I doubt there is any climate anywhere on Earth that is ‘safe and stable’ as there are storms, floods, heat waves, cold weather, etc wherever one lives.

This should be the starting point (or the reason to dismiss the case out-of-hand) unless the plaintiffs can show that their chosen place of residence was ‘safe and stable’ when the CO2 levels were down at whatever figure they deem is necessary.

StephenP
Reply to  John in Oz
February 24, 2019 1:15 am

Camelot is the only place with an ideal climate, according to the musical.

drednicolson
Reply to  StephenP
February 26, 2019 9:15 am

It’s also a silly place.

RockyRoad
February 24, 2019 1:29 am

Would banning these children from all conveniencies derived from petroleum wake them up? Would their parents and promoters agree to the same restrictions? That might wake them up but that connection has already been erased from their brains! This is a prime example of propaganda meant to destroy our country! The socialists and communists must be getting very desperate–they had us on a hundred-year roll but that deception is coming to an end!

Donald Kasper
February 24, 2019 2:11 am

9th circuit moratorium would just be ignored. Oil and gas and coal companies would just lie. Take a play book page from the Chinese and deny it.

4 Eyes
February 24, 2019 2:13 am

The gloves are off. Play hard on the kids and watch the despicable child abusing ecoloons who want to use them squeal in horror at the defendants just ask the kids for right of reply. This is child abuse pure and simple and the perpetrators must be exposed on the world stage. Whatever happens now kids are going to get hurt which is disgusting.

embutler
February 24, 2019 2:15 am

its the equivalent of alcoholics(lawyers) and kids dependent of the sale of alcohol, suing the gov
to establish prohibition …

Ed Zuiderwijk
February 24, 2019 2:33 am

Should the court be foolish enough to grant the injunction, the proper response from energy/fuel providers would be to stop delivering their product to the states covered by the court. With immediate effect.

ladylifegrows
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
February 24, 2019 10:14 am

Ed, the fuel providers are part of the anti-scientific “believer” problem. They are a MAJOR instigating force behind first “global cooling” (we have to quit using fossil fuels now or the Earth will freeze) and then after a warming decade or two, CAGW.

It began in 1973, with the OPEC oil crisis. OPEC = Organization of Petroleum Exporting States, mostly Arab at the time. They decided to slash the production of oil to jack up the price and for political pressure.

Well do I remember the long gas lines, the even and odd days as to when you were allowed to buy gas, and the shocking prices. Gas went from around 30 cents a gallon in the US to the unimaginable 50 cents. Then it hit a dollar. There was plenty of talk about ending our dependence on foreign oil.

Most people were much more aware of the effect on consumers, but of course, fuel companies were also heavily affected. They did not like their commodity controlled by a handful of people on the other side of the world. They invested in alternative fuels–hydro, solar, wind. They want a return on that investment.

If fuel companies really wanted to sell as much fuel as they could, they would advertise in such a way that journalists would tell the climate truth and the nonsense would not be popular. There is no way they’ll cut fuel to idiot states. They do NOT want to wake people up.

ghalfrunt
February 24, 2019 2:40 am

Worrrall you say “I feel sorry for the kids, whom I see as victims of callous green political manipulation. This court case will almost certainly eventually be tossed out, and those poor kids will likely have to live with the crushing disappointment of being tossed aside by their former green friends once they are no longer any immediate use to the green movement.”
———————–
Most of the “children” in this particular group are over 15 years old. What right have you to make this sweeping statement without proof. At 15 many “children” are capable of understanding climate change. Many are concerned for their future – for they will have to live with our excesses – they have a right to try to maintain a liveable future.
In only a few years most of these “children” will be able to vote – are you suggesting that voting should only be allowed when over say 50years?
There IS scientific evidence for AGW. You ignore this. You claim that the science is financially driven. You suggest that there is a conspiracy amongst 10s of thousands of scientists without proof (!!!). Does this belief of yours seem like science.

Profligate living now may feel good if you are old – more money, more cheap motoring, etc. but it would be wise to take a small hit now rather than a wipe-out in 50 years when you will be dead.

Why not listen to them and engage with scientific evidence as to where their stance is wrong. Calling them “victims” is showing your ignorance.

Rasa
Reply to  ghalfrunt
February 24, 2019 4:12 am

What a flog……..
Fortunately these kid will grow up and won’t be so gullible. Like older people they will be skeptical about the nonsense their unfulfilled aunties tell them
the “global warming” “science” has been exposed as a generational fraud.
Hope these kids can make even better gains in health education longevity wealth and peace than the Boomer Generation achieved?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  ghalfrunt
February 24, 2019 4:42 am

Sounds to me like you’d be happy living in North Korea, where most people live dirt-poor lives under the boot-heel of a repressive communist government. You should go live there then, and wallow in your own brainwashed ignorance and your idiotic CAGW ideology (which is all it is).

MikeP
Reply to  ghalfrunt
February 24, 2019 4:45 am

Ghalfrunt, thank you for illustrating a science denier in action. All innuendo, no content. Read some of the threads here and become educated. If you want more, go to the links below to scientists like Judith Curry … If you can deal with a little maths …

icisil
Reply to  ghalfrunt
February 24, 2019 5:34 am

“There IS scientific evidence for AGW. You ignore this.”

You’re ignoring the fact that there really is NO evidence. What you call evidence is computer modeling. Computer modeling is neither evidence nor science; it is merely a tool of science.

“You claim that the science is financially driven. You suggest that there is a conspiracy amongst 10s of thousands of scientists without proof (!!!).”

This is a straw man. You are the one who frames it as a conspiracy; very few skeptics, if any, do that. In reality, every person on earth seeks what is in their best interests, and for climate scientists that means toeing the global warming line. Skeptics receive ridicule, censure, job loss, no funding, publications rejected, etc. etc. There’s a lot of evidence of that.

” Does this belief of yours seem like science.”

Science is based on skepticism and inquiry. What you call science is actually just belief in what people calling themselves scientists say. In essence that is no different than believing what religious clergy say.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  ghalfrunt
February 24, 2019 6:01 am

let me guess your under 35?
and youve grown up with the lies yourself
anyone over 50 sure isnt so gullible
we’ve been there done that
and have the scars to prove it in many cases.

RockyRoad the "half runt" detective
Reply to  ozspeaksup
February 24, 2019 7:53 am

Maybe his comment was designed to be satire! Anybody that uses a name that contains “half runt” should be taken with considerable skepticism!

A C Osborn
Reply to  ghalfrunt
February 24, 2019 8:44 am

It is painfully obvious that you have never read the UN Agendas 21, 2030 and Sustainability and the proclamations of various UN officials.
Yea there is Scientific Evidence for Global Warming and Global Cooling, in fact the only thing there is no Scientific Evidence for is a “Safe & Stable Climate”, which is what these poor abused children are demanding.
Can you enlighten us on how there demand is to be achieved and when we will know that we have achieved it?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ghalfrunt
February 24, 2019 9:52 am

ghalfrunt: “There IS scientific evidence for AGW. You ignore this.”

Please provide some of this evidence. How much added warming does CO2 add to the atmosphere?

No need to answer. I know you don’t know the answer. Noone knows the answer. There is no evidence CO2 is adding additional warmth to the Earth’s atmosphere, there is only speculation. It is possible that any effects of CO2 could be completely offset by other factors.

You say there is evidence but that’s not true. Every time evidence is requested it is the same old thing: crickets. That would be because there is no evidence. You could prove me wrong, but you won’t.

ghalfrunt:”You suggest that there is a conspiracy amongst 10s of thousands of scientists without proof (!!!)”

You are referring to Climategate. No, the conspiracy was only among a handful of people. Unfortunately, these people controlled all the data and went about modifying the climate data to make it appear that the climate was getting hotter and hotter as time goes along, and the modifications made it appear that the warmth of today is unprecedentedly high. This was the deceptive template, the infamous Hockey Stick chart, that went out to all the other scientists in the world, who had no reason to question its varacity, and they accepted it as established fact, and are currently unwittingly (some) basing their scientific studies on this bogus data.

Just a very few people have managed to deceive billions of people about the Earth’s climate by rigging the surface temperature data, and sent the Western societies off on an enormously expensive wild goose chase to try to control the Earth’s climate.

MarkW
Reply to  ghalfrunt
February 24, 2019 10:19 am

If you believe that there is evidence to support AGW, please present it.
The mere fact that it is warmer than 150 years ago is not evidence.

Your claim that 10’s of thousands of scientists agree that the tiny bit of warming we’ve seen is both a problem and caused by man is a complete lie. Those claims have been presented and shredded on these pages many times.

As to limiting the vote to those over 50, it’s not a bad idea. I’d support it.

PS: Since you obviously didn’t bother to actually read the responses, many of the posters above have actually done what you demanded. Show where the kids are wrong. I guess there’s no room for reality when you are in the middle of an emotional rant.

cosmic
Reply to  ghalfrunt
February 24, 2019 10:57 am

There is no change that has occurred that is even close to being outside the envelope of what we know has occurred in the past. A friggin 0.6C change in over a century. Good effing grief. Idiocy.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  ghalfrunt
February 24, 2019 12:24 pm

ghalfrunt,
You are the one is ignorant, to the point of being a fool. A 15 year old’s decision making process is mostly governed by hormone fueled emotions. Rational cognition becomes a bigger factor later (if ever). This is the reason why many activities, like voting, are restricted to ages 18 or older, while others are restricted to age 21. These young people are simply doing what they have their entire lives when confronted with complex difficult decisions: they are deferring to their parents and other adult authorities. So regardless of what evidence they or you believe they have to present, these children (for indeed they are still legally considered children) do not have the ability to judge if it is valid or not. This makes them a pure PR tool by their parents and lawyers, which is shameful. And shame on you if you can’t see this.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  ghalfrunt
February 27, 2019 9:01 pm

What Gag Halfrunt meant to say was, “Zaphod’s just this guy, ya know?” He should have just said that forgot the rest.

Gamecock
February 24, 2019 4:49 am

America, where red is blue, and red is green.

Cos being red doesn’t actually work.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Gamecock
February 24, 2019 11:22 am

You bring up one of my pet peeves Gamecock. No one will ever convince me that it was pure chance that red came to be associated with the Republicans and blue with the Democrats, or that it was chosen because red and Republican both begin with R. It was surely a conscious decision to avoid associating red with the left-wing party as was the norm in most countries for many years. Accusing a Democrat of being a socialist was an effective attack and the socialists running the show were keen to avoid outing their comrades.

John Endicott
Reply to  Rich Davis
February 25, 2019 7:06 am

No one will ever convince me that it was pure chance

Well, you maybe happy to remain ignorant of the history of the choice of colors in the US, but for those who aren’t it dates back to the 1970s when color graphics began to be used on TV news (before then, the majority of TVs were B&W). each outlet used it’s own color scheme, often switching the colors each presidential cycle. As Vice-Presidential candidate for the Democratic party, Geraldine Ferraro described the reporting of the 1984 election: “One network map of the United States was entirely blue for the Republicans. . . . On another network, the color motif was a blanket of red.”. It was the 2000 election that cemented the red/blue color code we know of today. In that election NBC had used Red for the Republicans and Blue for the Democrats and it was Tim Russert who coined the terms “red state” and “blue state” in his analysis of the election results. The terminology and colors stuck and have been in use ever since.

Rich Davis
Reply to  John Endicott
February 25, 2019 5:24 pm

I’m not ignorant of that “history” at all John. I remember it well. And I’m saying that after their memory of McGovern and Dukakis, and the negative connotation of being cast as socialists in those days, the news media fellow travelers came up with rationales for not associating the Democrats with the Reds as would have been the honest thing. The switching colors game was all part of that process of assuring us that the Democrats are not the red commies. You can quote the Wikipedia nonsense all you want, I’m not buying.

John Endicott
Reply to  Rich Davis
February 26, 2019 5:19 am

Facts are not nonsense. Sorry to inform you, but baseless conspiracy theories on the other hand are. Get back to me when you have some real facts to back up your conspiracy theories.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rich Davis
February 26, 2019 9:42 am

I didn’t say it was a conspiracy. They didn’t need to conspire when everybody in the news media was on the same page philosophically. I’m sure that they all acted independently on the same concern, that the public shouldn’t get the idea that Democrats are the red party. Or maybe you can explain why else they would have been concerned that it was relevant to switch the colors each election? Was it because red was the desirable color and they didn’t want to unfairly impact the Republicans?

Use your head for more than a hat rack.

John Endicott
Reply to  Rich Davis
February 26, 2019 10:40 am

Red is a vibrant color. Some of them chose to make the incumbent party Red, other the party that looked likely to win the election. There are plenty of reasons why the colors and why the switching each election cycle without inventing nefarious quasi-conspiritory reasons. But by all means, keep the tinfoil on your head if it helps you sleep at night.

John Endicott
Reply to  Rich Davis
February 26, 2019 10:43 am

Oh, and if they had the ” the same concern, that the public shouldn’t get the idea that Democrats are the red party.” yet you acknowledge that they switched from cycle to cycle (meaning the Democrats occasionally were the “red” party for certain election years) you’ve just defeated your own fact-less and baseless theory. well done.

Nash
February 24, 2019 5:04 am

When the left can’t abort babies, they wait, and use them as propaganda when they get a little older.

Coach Springer
February 24, 2019 5:25 am

How long until one of the Big Oil producers file an amicus brief supporting the kids? Crazy world.

Bruce Cobb
February 24, 2019 5:25 am

Their use of children to push the “climate” cause is just further proof not only of the depravity of the CAGW ideology, but also signals that it is in its death throes. They are desperate now. But this is why we need another Trump term, so they can’t recoup and reposition themselves. I wasn’t much fond of Trump when I voted for him, and I am even less so now. But the fact that I voted for him, and will do so again is entirely on the Democrats, who, it seems, instead of learning from their mistakes are now doubling down on them.

StephenP
February 24, 2019 5:33 am

Why is it that in a line-up of kids they always look so glum, yet when it is politicians and lawyers they look so smug?

ScienceABC123
February 24, 2019 5:53 am

Nature has it’s own way of denying “a safe and stable climate.” Reference the geological history of the Earth if you doubt my statement.

billtoo
February 24, 2019 5:57 am

well, it guarantees them admission into harvard, so there’s that.

Stevek
February 24, 2019 5:59 am

Ultimately this seems to be a political issue and not a legal one.

For example if this succeeds, they could sue to stop all trade with China and India because such trade grows their economies which leads to even more co2 being released. China and India are the ones producing the most co2.

embutler
Reply to  Stevek
February 24, 2019 7:28 am

the trade would stop due to no more fuel for the cargo carriers..

Just Jenn
February 24, 2019 6:28 am

Coming Soon

District 9 becomes District 1

This message brought to you by the Green Agenda, Sponsor of YOUR Hunger Games!

damp
February 24, 2019 6:29 am

We will continue to get these attacks on civilization from baby barbarians until we end the charade of government “education.”

DMacKenzie
February 24, 2019 6:52 am

Three years ago those kids believed in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. They look like they would still go Halloweening. Eventually their mental growth will lead them to the conclusion that they shouldn’t blindly trust what other people try to force onto them….

icisil
February 24, 2019 7:37 am

The children feel entitled to be in charge, and they’re super cereal. “I’m the boss! How about that?!”

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1099458921901613056

Wharfplank
February 24, 2019 8:16 am

Billy Bob McKibben was using public school kindergarteners over a decade ago to further the Church of Climate so this is nothing new and in fact it has only increased since then. As demographics is destiny, I’d be interested to know the age of WUWT commenters (and lurkers). I’m 64.

lb
Reply to  Wharfplank
February 24, 2019 12:39 pm

I’m 54

Photios
Reply to  lb
February 24, 2019 1:57 pm

I’m Spartacus

John Endicott
Reply to  Photios
February 25, 2019 6:54 am

Funny you look nothing like Cory Booker.

jtom
Reply to  Wharfplank
February 24, 2019 3:44 pm

68, but inside of me is a twenty year old screaming, “What the hell happened?”

Bryan A
Reply to  Wharfplank
February 24, 2019 9:05 pm

56

F.LEGHORN
Reply to  Wharfplank
February 25, 2019 12:53 am

29 (once removed).

Aka “58”.

drednicolson
Reply to  Wharfplank
February 26, 2019 9:43 am

36

Almost the same age as that current New Zealand PM. But I’ve never screwed with a sovereign nation’s economy on an ideological whim and I’m sure we all agree that’s admirable.

PeterUK
February 24, 2019 8:41 am

Here is another picture of kids being used to promote left wing ideology:
http://laurenream.github.io/culturalrevolution/images/chineserevolutionaries-2000×817.jpg
Estimated cost in human lives 20 to 45 million.
I thought our problems here with EU energy policy inflicted on us by our political “elite” were bad enough, but this is madness in the extreme. Hopefully someone will remind these children about this in twelve years time, meanwhile perhaps they could gen up on cycles of solar activity, effect of magnetosphere on cosmic radiation, changes in the ellipse of the earth’s orbit, variations in earth’s rotational axis, the greenhouse effect of water vapour, and ocean currents which change over hundreds, even thousands of years. Just a few of the many factors which influence climate on earth to a greater extent than an increase in concentration of that life-giving “pollutant”, carbon dioxide.

mikewaite
February 24, 2019 8:56 am

Fossil fuels , for energy and as a petrochemical source, help to make the quality of life for most of us the most satisfactory and pleasant for all of human history. I wonder if there is not an assumption by these youngsters that this quality of life, underpinned by a US – wide democratic system and rule of law, would be unaffected or only slightly affected by the loss of these resources .
Something similar happened in Roman Britain when the greatest period of its prosperity , the 4th Century , was suddenly disrupted by the removal, partly through Imperial ambitions , partly through invasions on the Continent and the English coast , of the force that underpinned this peaceful and prosperous life, namely the Roman garrison.
According to J N L Myres (“The English Settlements”) what followed was 2 centuries in which, to judge from the archaeology , life reverted to the most basic existence (trade, industry and agriculture being severely constrained) and the province split into separate British, and then Anglo- Saxon, areas , “kingdoms”, frequently at war with each other.
If it came to the point where Federal US Govt banned fossil fuel use , areas of the US with ready access to this resource might decide that the choice is : stick with the US system and live with a much reduced lifestyle or abandon the Govt and set up your separate republic and continue to enjoy the resources that you have.
It would depend on the strength of Federal military might and with no fuel and the knock- on effect on equipment that strength would be reduced and perhaps quite non effective .
Is this what the billionaire backers of these youngsters want?

Photios
Reply to  mikewaite
February 24, 2019 2:17 pm

States’ Rights…!!?

jtom
Reply to  mikewaite
February 24, 2019 3:54 pm

I would expect them to declare themselves ‘sanctuary states’ and exempt from any federal laws limiting the use of fossil fuels. Just dare the federal government to send in people to enforce the law.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  jtom
February 25, 2019 4:59 am

If the socialists ever got the presidency and did something as radical as prohibiting the production of coal, oil and gas, I think Texas would not follow this path and would leave the Union if it came to that. Lots of other states could do the same thing. If Oklahoma, my state, didn’t follow Texas, I would have to move to Texas, which, fortunately, is not a big move for me either in distance or culture. I like Texans. The only time we don’t get along is during the Oklahoma-Texas football game. 🙂

William Astley
February 24, 2019 9:26 am

We need some new ideas, a different approach to stopping the cult of CAGW. Fighting is not working,

This crazy lawsuit and dozens and dozens of lawsuits worldwide is a natural consequence of fake news, political parties, and activists groups amplifying the fake CAGW paradigm.

There are now true CAGW believers, at all levels of government, in the legal system, and in almost all news outlets.

There are well funded activists’ groups in every G20 country pushing CAGW and working to block (pipelines, drilling, fracking, permit issuing, and so on) anything to do with hydrocarbon energy and working to push the green scam energy.

Ignoring the fact that there is no AGW, the spending on green scams has accomplished almost nothing besides increasing the cost of electricity and making our countries less competitive.

CAGW is a fake problem which we are throwing money which we do not have at.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/02/23/delingpole-the-five-best-arguments-against-climate-alarmism/

“Vast sums of public money — in excess of $1.5 trillion per year — are being squandered on the chimaera of “climate change.” Yet despite all this spending, using the alarmists’ own calculations, it will offset “global warming” by the end of the century by 0.048°C (0.086°F).”

Paul Milenkovic
Reply to  William Astley
February 24, 2019 10:49 am

This is Ralph Nader’s legacy — that public policy could be directed by such lawsuits.

Nice plan for a high-speed railroad you had there in California.

jtom
Reply to  William Astley
February 24, 2019 4:19 pm

Here’s an idea, but most likely only new to me: co-opt the movement. Take their own words, and change the narrative. Here’s how to re-frame their arguments:
1. We only have twelve years before serious changes in climate.
2. Much of the heat is already ‘baked in’ by the existing CO2 in the air.
3. Even if the US went to extremes to eliminate all its CO2 emissions, there would still be climate change because of other countries, primarily India and China, over whom we have no control.
4. Renewables have not yet reached the technological maturity to be a replacement for existing fossil-fueled power plants, and even if were possible, they could not be installed in twelve years.

**Therefore, we need to initiate Plan B** Living in a Warmer World

Instead of a crash program getting rid of fossil fuels and belching cattle, we need to develop technologies to help us adapt to a warming world:

Since we can’t stop global warming there is no point eliminating the use of fossil fuels.
Re-direct funds from wind turbines, and develop better desalination technology to cope with droughts.
Re-direct money from solar plants to fund research in improved flood control methods to better cope with increased floods.
Re-direct money from improving climate modeling to improving meteorology models to better warn people of impending severe weather.
Instead of trying to stop sea level rise, incentivize people to relocate further from the shoreline.

You get the picture. Those in position to get new funding for the above projects would be onboard immediately. Those at risk of getting their existing funding cut would be adamantly opposed. Pop some popcorn and watch the two groups fight each other.

February 24, 2019 9:31 am

All the children in the picture look healthy and comfortable. Those stylish T-shirts with printed logos look nice too. The kids are well groomed, in a safe photo setting, willing to have their picture taken by the latest photo equipment and displayed for all to see on the latest media.

Mmmm, I wonder how all this is possible. Could it be? That fossil fuels enable ALL this?

So, we are proud in America to train our kids to be extremely short-sighted, ignorant idealists, so out of touch with their own realities that they cannot see what little liars they all are, … AND they don’t even know it, because their adult leaders don’t want them to know it.

Yay, for the village of tribal leaders — good job at being responsible adults! …………….. NOT.

Paul Drahn
February 24, 2019 10:39 am

All the above posters are missing the key result. Each of these children can now add this to their resume for college entrance application. No school in the US could deny their application.

titan28
February 24, 2019 10:43 am

Who pays for the lawyers?

Al Miller
February 24, 2019 11:09 am

The children’s “climate crusade” a sad and thinly veiled case of child abuse , manipulation and far fetched ideology from radical far leftists. Very sad it could ever get this far.

Adrian
February 24, 2019 11:10 am

What makes these kids think they have a right to a safe and stable climate? In what court will children plead for their right to escape the next ice age? Will they sue the Earth for too much wobbling or the Sun for minimum radiation output or extreme sunspot activity? What court has jurisdiction over volcanic eruptions? The perspective is outrageous.

Paul Penrose
February 24, 2019 12:33 pm

The way to defeat this particular injunction is to simply point out what a tiny fraction of worldwide total hydrocarbon extraction these new projects represent. Then ask the children’s lawyers, in light of this fact, to quantify how much warming will be avoided if the injunction is granted, given that supposedly all of the last 1 degree of warming was caused by the entirety of all extractions to date. Of course they can’t answer that, but it is obvious it would have to be meaninglessly small. This obviates the need for an emergency injunction since no possible harm can occur in the short time (relative to climate timescales) while the case is decided.

Vuk
February 24, 2019 1:17 pm

This young lady is going to go long way ….
https://youtu.be/LIPepvcUGMc
to make a fool of herself.

Greg Woods
February 24, 2019 1:31 pm

They look like the kids from that old movie, The Village of the Damned…

Tom in Florida
February 24, 2019 2:35 pm

There are no white males in the picture. This is the new diversity.

Photios
February 24, 2019 2:35 pm

If they wish to plead for a ‘stable climate’, their plea woud be better expressed in a church (or temple, mosque, gurdwara etc) than in a court of law.

Robertvd
February 24, 2019 2:37 pm

Are they suing their parents if they don’t like what’s for dinner ?

Photios
Reply to  Robertvd
February 24, 2019 2:44 pm

If their parents are militant vegans, they may have to sue to get sufficient vitamin b12 in their diets…

Robertvd
Reply to  Photios
February 24, 2019 3:22 pm

It looks like some of the kids in the above picture have militant vegan parents.

Gunga Din
February 24, 2019 3:23 pm

Here in the US when some kids from Covington Catholic HS didn’t respond in kind to verbal abuses, some on the left demanded the names and addresses of the kids so they be “addressed”.
No one here at WUWT has demanded that I saw. I won’t either.
“He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Stuart Moore
February 24, 2019 5:08 pm

They have been denied the right to a full and proper education more like it. Having to go to school in cold, wet, snowy, or hot conditions is what is known as ‘weather’.

Gerald Machnee
February 24, 2019 7:00 pm

So if the school buses do not pick up those kids, are we making progress? We have to cut fossil fuel consumption somewhere.

John the Econ
February 24, 2019 8:11 pm

If as a child I have ever said anything so ignorant and stupid, my parents would have sent me to my room to live a limited-carbon existence. Little food, none of it processed, no heat or cooling, and certainly no electronic amusements. I would have learned the lesson.

And yet I am certain that these kids are denied nothing.

Kyle in Upstate NY
February 24, 2019 8:56 pm

What makes you guys so sure that the 9th won’t issue the injunction and turn the fossil fuel extraction industry upside down?

PERRY
February 25, 2019 12:40 am

When I read how these naive children are being brain washed by adults, my thoughts are directed to a beer garden in the1930s, where two men drank a toast to themselves with wine & a young man began singing. It’s educational! Who remembers this?

F.LEGHORN
February 25, 2019 1:35 am

29 (once removed).

Aka “58”.

D Cage
February 25, 2019 2:46 am

I always used to believe that the idea of law was innocent until proved guilty. Surely before bringing a case for banning something for causing injury it should first be proven in a court that the injury has actually taken place beyond reasonable doubt.
In the case of climate we have a claim by a group with considerable commercial self interest at stake making a claim they say is beyond question and therefore never properly examined by better trained people from outside their clique. A claim that does not even stand what I refer to as the Mystic Meg test for a clairvoyant let alone that of scientific rigour. Is the claim unambiguous , unmodified over the period in question and met in essence if not in detail by the test of hindsight.
Science would also demand the data to be provably accurate to the claimed level and clear cut correlation of claimed cause and effect. This to any engineer requires day to day recording of fossil fuel use, resulting emissions, solar intensity and local temperatures at spacial and time intervals that make averages meaningful at the required accuracy which is probably at least several hundred times the actual level done.
I find it strange how no case has ever been brought to prove climate science which would convince millions who currently feel robbed and despise the scientific fraternity for their arrogance and incompetence every time another doom story is disproved. Do other branches of science not see how they are propping up crooks or idiots with their own reputations laid on the line?

February 25, 2019 5:28 am

There is a very good axiom of parenting, “To use is to abuse”. These kids are being used.

Sheri
February 25, 2019 9:47 am

Good. They can all freeze to death and starve. Or lose their minds when they have no cars to drive, no cell phones and no computers. You just cannot fix stupid.

Robertvd
Reply to  Sheri
February 25, 2019 10:13 am

Natural selection.

John Endicott
February 25, 2019 10:57 am

If this case was in front of a sane court I would say the court should issue an injunction – not against the fossil fuel industry but against the Children’s Climate Crusaders from using any fossil fuels or fossil fuel derive products until the case is resolved one way or the other. The first freezing cold day without fossil fuel heat or the first blazing hot day without fossil fueled AC and the case will quickly be dropped.