From Climate Litigation Watch, the war to link weather and climate from a legal standpoint is about to heat up:
Activist AG Admission: Washington State AG Declined Climate Nuisance Suit Because of Insufficiency of ‘Attribution’ Claims
Newly revealed emails, wrongly hidden from public by OAG, further suggest origin of renewed “Attribution” push
CLW readers are aware of the new, plaintiffs’ bar-driven push to claim an ability to attribute climate change — all the way down to responsibility for individual storms, weather apparently is climate when it’s the right kind of weather — just as the first AG #ExxonKnew trial approaches, later this month.
Obviously, that case has become an accounting dispute, and has little to nothing to do with climate. It does however seem that certain parties would like to orchestrate some climate background music to give a different sense and, of course, when actual climate trials do occur plaintiffs’ lawyers hope to point juries to specific storms, that they may have personally experienced, as less abstract and so a necessary part of the lawyers’ appeals to emotion.
But we also have recently learned what happened next: the lawyers got the activists working on a more convincing stab at claiming attribution. We now know that lead attorney Vic Sher requested the newly released attribution paper with a 1965 baseline, the paper that is so energizing some in the media to write up stories furthering its narrative.
Full story here (worth a read)