Clintel is changing the course of climate litigation
Clintel, a not-for-profit organization based in The Netherlands that promotes science-based climate policy consistent with the rule of law, is changing the course of climate litigation, which thus far has been dominated by the climate movement. Indeed, Clintel has applied for leave to intervene in a high profile Dutch court case between oil and gas company Shell and the environmental NGO Friends of the Earth (in The Netherlands called Milieudefensie).
Climate case of the century
This case is now pending on appeal before the Hague Court of Appeals. In first instance, the District Court found, based on evidence submitted by Friends of the Earth, that at or above an average temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius “dangerous climate change” will occur. Shell, it ruled, must do its part to prevent such “dangerous climate change.” Clintel disputes the scientific and factual basis for this judgment.
Friends of the Earth (FoE) calls this case ‘the Climate Case of the Century’. Clintel agrees and is therefore intervening.
In The Netherlands, we have now had two prominent climate cases. In 2015 Dutch NGO Urgenda won its case against the Dutch state, demanding more ambitious reduction of greenhouse gases. Now FoE prevailed against a private company, Shell, in a climate case. Shell was ordered by the Hague District Court to adopt corporate policies to reduce the CO2 emissions from the group’s activities by net 45% by the end of 2030 compared to 2019. This reduction obligation applies to the Shell Group’s entire global energy portfolio. Shell must not only reduce its own emissions but also ensure that the emissions of its suppliers and customers (Scope 3 emissions) fall drastically.
Thus, many citizens and businesses around the world will be affected by the court judgment. Neither citizens nor businesses other than Shell, however, were represented before the court.
Sweetheart law suit
The verdict and court documents reveal that this is some sort of ‘sweetheart’ case in which the parties agreed on the facts. Shell could hardly defend itself against the alarmist statements put forward by FoE because the company had previously made similar statements. Moreover, nowadays, a large, publicly traded company cannot publicly deny the “climate crisis”. If a company were to do so, it would have the media, activists, and a large number of politicians all condemning it. No public company can afford such reputational damage. Climate activists exploit the inability of corporations to defend themselves.
Friends of the Earth in power
With the big win against Shell in its pocket FoE demanded ambitious ‘climate plans’ from 30 major Dutch companies, including food companies and even banks and insurance companies. These climate plans have been verified by the “NewClimate Institute,” a consultancy known for the “Climate Action Tracker” that has turned climate into a huge revenue model. The result was a red “climate crisis index” rating for the vast majority.
These companies face the same dilemma as Shell. If they fight back they will likely suffer reputational damage. Shell moved its headquarter from The Hague to London last year, and will receive huge subsidies for CCS-projects (Carbon Capture and Storage) and green hydrogen. Ultimately, the bill for all these ‘climate plans’ will have to be paid by citizens and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). Small companies are already suffering due to high energy prices, which are only partly related to the war in Ukraine and are structurally the result of environmental and climate policies.
The strategies and arguments developed in this court case are also deployed in other countries to get judges to impose climate policies in violation of the scientific ethos, citizen rights, the separation of powers and the rule of law.
Intervention by Clintel
Clintel, founded by the well-known Dutch climate journalist Marcel Crok and emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout, is saying “enough is enough.” In October Clintel sent a request to the Hague Court of Appeals to join the FoE v Shell case as an independent third party. Clintel’s aim is to make clear that the judge based its verdict on a distorted picture of climate science, the role of the IPCC and the state of the climate. It will also defend the rights and interests of citizens and democracy.
Not surprisingly, but disappointing nonetheless, both Shell and FoE oppose Clintel‘s proposed intervention. The court ordered a hearing on March 15th 2023 in which Clintel can plead its case.
The outcome of this case will be critical to the future of climate litigation around the world. Clintel must win this battle to restore balance and science-based policymaking. Clintel seeks your help and support.
Clintel launched a special website for this court case: climatecaseofthecentury.org.
Everyone in the world can (free of charge) join our case (as a citizen/lawyer or as a scientist) by filling in a form on the website. The more people participate, the better for making your voices heard. You can also help us by alerting other people that might want to join our case.
Clintel faces powerful and very well financed opponents. FoE receives millions of euros subsidies straight from the Dutch government! To achieve its objective and reverse the course of events, Clintel needs financial support for this big court case. All details about how you can contribute are available on climatecaseofthecentury.org.
Many thanks in advance for your help and support!
Guus Berkhout & Marcel Crok, founders of Clintel
For more information, please contact the general email address of Clintel, firstname.lastname@example.org. Clintel has also published the World Climate Declaration that has now been signed by 1500 scientists and experts around the World.
About two weeks ago I donated, and filled in the form to join Clintel. I got a thank you for the donation and told that I would hear in due course regarding my application. Since then nothing further regarding joining the organisation.
We will start sending updates to co-plaintiffs in the near future. Meanwhile we are working hard to prepare for the court hearing on March 15.
Marcel Crok, Clintel
Tried again to join using the link in the above paper and this time it has worked.
Recently I was reviewing Miskolczi 2014. The main criticism of his work relates to figure 15 where atmospheric energy absorption (opacity) is plotted vs. time. The trend is perfectly flat showing no change in the greenhouse effect. However, if you remove the first decade or so, it looks like a positive trend as predicted by climate science. Hence, it was claimed the early data was unreliable and his work rejected.
What I noticed was the higher values in the early part of the graph and the end of the graph correlate almost perfectly with the AMO. It turns out the first 14 years and last 13 years were during the +AMO and the middle 33 years were during the -AMO. Coincidence?
What if the opacity is not quite a constant. What if something happens related to the AMO that changes it slightly?
Jim Steele’s latest podcast provides an answer. The Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) north/south movement leads to more meridional transport into the Arctic. This warms the Arctic and much of the NH. In addition, this would mean more energy from the planet exits from higher latitudes.
It could be there are slight latitudinal differences in the opacity. This would show up in the exact manner as Miskolczi’s figure 15 when more energy exits from the Arctic. This also supports the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis by Javier Vinós & Andy May.
Most importantly, it explains the differences seen in figure 15 which means the objections to the Miskolczi work are rejected. Concentrations of well mixed greenhouse gases, such as CO2 and CH4, cannot drive warming.
As a result, no oil company could have made any difference in the climate.
I slogged thru his papers, and the critiques thereto, some years ago. I concluded his work was flawed and not to be relied upon. But, there are many other easier ways than his flawed ‘first principles’ to show the alarmist global warming hypothesis is just wrong, so Shell saved. A few examples:
Models wrong, predictions based on them wrong, FoE Shell ‘harm’ wrong.
His papers are a difficult read, but I saw much better explanations in his 2014 paper. The tie in to Kirchhoff’s Law is very powerful. I believe he has the science nailed. The main problem is the data wasn’t perfect and I think the relationship to the AMO explains it.
I have no problem with using multiple lines of attack.
Predictions are not based on models.
Models are programmed to match predictions
Except INM, which used to be near the bottom of of the +1.5 to +4.5 degrees C, 1979 Charney Report wild guess ECS range.
But now the INM is OUT of the new IPCC arbitrary wild guess ECS range of +2.0 to +4.5 degrees C.
So I wonder if the Russian INM model will get sanctioned and removed from CMIP6, or at least removed from CMIP7?
Climate Howler Global Whiners have been looking for that pesky hotspot for a long time. Exactly what does the absence of a hot spot mean to you?
The tropospheric hot spot is allegedly due to changes in the lapse rate. As you get higher into the atmosphere, it gets colder. The rate of cooling is called the lapse rate. When the air cools enough for water vapor to condense, latent heat is released. The more moisture in the air, the more heat is released.
More humid air in the tropics cools at a slower rate compared to the poles. When the surface warms, there’s more evaporation and more moisture in the air. This decreases the lapse rate – there’s less cooling aloft.
This means warming aloft is greater than warming at the surface. This amplified trend is the hot spot. It’s all to do with changes in the lapse rate, regardless of what’s causing the warming.
“so Shell saved”
It would appear that Shell doesn’t want to be saved.
“Concentrations of well mixed greenhouse gases, such as CO2 and CH4, cannot drive warming.”
FALSE. Those gases always impede Earth’s ability to cool itself. The effect may be mild and harmless, but it does exist. If you are an AGW denier, then you are doing us no favors in the difficult effort to refute CAGW.
Once again you refuse to read a paper that goes against your predetermined opinion. It’s not that CO2 and CH4 do not impede a little more IR, it’s that water vapor’s greenhouse effect is reduced. The combination of all 3 lead to a nearly fixed global greenhouse effect.
Over 60 years of NOAA data support this idea as well as Gero/Turner 2011. The mechanism was even predicted by Dr. William Gray a decade ago.
Why do you stand in the way of progress?
Not to mention that the amount of CO2 from industrial and transportation is so tiny (the vast majority of CO2 is naturally occurring) that removing all of it wouldn’t change the composition of the atmosphere in any measurable way so it defies all common sense to believe that a tiny amount of CO2 somehow magically controls the earth’s temperature and its climate
About 1/3 of the 420ppm CO2 is from the +200ppm to +300ppm of manmade CO2 emissions. I don’t consider 2/3 natural to be a “vast majority”.
The first 100ppm of CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. Over 400ppm, CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. But it is still a greenhouse gas above 400ppm, and 1/3 of all the CO2 came from manmade CO2 emissions since 1850.
That means CO2 increased about +50% from manmade CO2 emissions since 1850 (estimated) and if that had no effect on Earth’s ability to cool itself, I’ll eat my hat.
Denying that CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gases is not progress.
Changes in their atmospheric levels are two of many causes of climate change.
Any climate change cause that increases the average temperature of the troposphere, such as CO2 and CH4, will have a water vapor positive feedback because a warmer troposphere holds more water vapor.
The greenhouse effect is not fixed — you are a greenhouse effect denier, and that is claptrap.
Why does the word “drive” escape your purview ? Not even the IPCC claims that, as it was always water vapor amplifying the warming.
The water vapor positive feedback allegedly causes some of the IPCC wild guessed warming in the next 70 years (TCS), but not a majority.
The water vapor positive feedback allegedly amplifies the effect of CO2 by 2x to 4x in two to four centuries, for the IPCC ECS wild guess.
The article reports, “Not surprisingly, but disappointing nonetheless, both Shell and FoE oppose Clintel‘s proposed intervention”.
In light of Shell’s opposition, it seems difficult to support Clintel’s participation. Shell must be concerned that if Clintel is let in, the case will be overwhelmed with more participants, and as Shell well knows there are at least 100 )1000?) organizations in existence to torment “Big Oil” for every supporting organization. As the article explains, any Shell supporter will be attacked by politicians and the media.
On the other hand, it’s easy to understand Friends of the Earth, they want all the glory and subsequent donations for “saving the planet” from Big Oil (by significantly damaging the world economy).
“In light of Shell’s opposition, it seems difficult to support Clintel’s participation.”
Very important point. Friend of the court is apparently not a friend of Shell. That can’t help.
The Dutch government is taking “sue and settle” to the next stage.
The Dutch government knows Shell cannot reduce their emissions by 40% and looks forward to collecting the rather large fines they will impose in future. Collecting energy revenue under some other novel name is an international tax department sport.
I made a significant donation to Peter Ridd in Aus, and will now do so here—anonymously.
FWIW, because of this stuff Shell (formerly a Dutch/UK jointly headquartered corporation) moved its sole HQ to post Brexit UK. So, the FoE actually lacks jurisdiction except for Shell Dutch operations. They may be ardent alarmists, but they have hired lousy lawyers who are ripping them off.
“lousy lawyers” – tautology? . Isn’t ripping off their clients (and their clients opponents) the prime motivation for the vast majority of lawyers? 🙂
Why don’t all oil companies refuse to deliver petrol and diesel to the Netherlands .
There is a shortage of fuel as prices have all increased around the world .
If you as a company are being sued for supplying fuel that is alleged to be causing future problems wouldn’t the smartest thing to do would be to stop supply.
Next they will be suing car manufactures and then shipping companies and so on down the line.
If these companies don’t grow some back bone and take retaliatory action they will be milked by every climate group .
I don’t know the current situation but I recall reading that, due to NY (city or state?) banning additional gas supply pipelines, the major gas supplier announced that it could not add any new customers. Its pipelines to deliver were at capacity. Any more draw on them would cause performance problems for existing customers.
The city (or state?) took them to court and won. The company had to start delivering gas into the system on trucks.
If that is correct it sounds like “we ban pipelines which are cost effective with low energy requirements but you now have to deliver in bottles on trucks which takes much more energy ”
The world has a BIG problem with bureaucrats with LITTLE brains because of climate change . Everything can be blamed on climate change .
A tropical cyclone hit Auckland on the 18th to 20th of January this vear.
No real warnings were given out and council staff were fairly relaxed but there was extensive flooding .
We now have another cyclone Gabriel which is going to hit Auckland tomorrow Every one are now on high alert with extensive warnings and Auckland airport is closed ..
These warnings should have been made to all residents four weeks ago but some one down graded cyclone Hale to a mild storm .
But of course the doom sayers blamed the flooding on climate change .
I have looked back to the 1958 flood in the Waikato and the rainfall over three days in February 1958 was higher than the three days in Auckland last month .
Yes, your Honour, we, Shell, will reduce our CO2 emissions, infact by 100% by shutting things down completely as soon as possible, right after our flights leave the Netherlands.
Enjoy your requested neo-neolithic period.
So very true, Rud. By allowing lawyers (the legal system) to seize power over societal, scientific and economic policies the Dutch (and other Western countries) are putting themselves at a disadvantage on the world stage both economically and militarily. FJB and FLeftists.
Shell. Milked by grifters because they are managed by woofters.
I mean, For the Sake of The Lord, can they not afford a couple of million here or there to employ a decent lawyer?
From what I’ve read, the peoples who became modern Germany also kept careful records hundreds of years ago. Those records recorded the murder/execution of more than 50,000 witches during a certain dark period. I suspect that similar activities, and results, occurred through much of Europe. The few Salem incidents, except for being local to the Americas, were so irrelevant as to be less than a rounding error.
Other historical records suggest that while the witch hypothesis was disdained by many in the beginning, few dared to speak out as the consequences of doing so became clearer. That, it seems to me, is the current situation. Shell, and almost any other entity, dare not raise its head above the crowd.
So far, cries to burn the heretical are being activated upon mainly in non-violent ways but they are not going unheard and the impetus to act may yet reach its threshold. I fear there is no useful protest until the madness has run its course. Considering its current size, it might bring down the entire world this time.
No, the world will go on no matter the suicidal polices of the Leftist West. It is just that China, India and the rest of the developing world will assume leadership of world economic and military affairs over the coming decades. People will perforce learn Mandarin, much as they learned English in the 20th Century, a time when America focused on free-market economic growth and military strength. FJB and FLeftists.
Oh, in case I forget: FJB and FLeftists.
Did I mention FJB and FLeftists? If I didn’t, FJB and FLeftists shouldn’t be left unsaid so FJB and FLeftists.
And, no, I haven’t been drinking this fine Sunday morning with stormy weather on the desert. Its just that at this late stage in life I don’t care what pantywaists think or say.
The wages of appeasement. Shell has Stockholm Syndrome.
A pox on Shell and all the other oil majors. If they won’t defend themselves, why should we? As skeptics we stand accused of taking dirty oil money and all manner of accusations equally untrue. We’ve carried the banners of both truth and morality for years, what little good we’ve done has been to the benefit of Big Oil, certainly not ourselves. I’ve personally lost both friends and income.
It will be horrible for the people of Holland should Shell lose this case. When (if) the people rise up en masse against this insanity, I’ll donate to them.
If they won’t defend themselves, why should we?
Well, the fact that we need their products might be a consideration.
The only way we demonstrate that to the common person is to let insanity like they are pursuing in Holland proceed. Shell will retreat out of Holland (they already moved to head office to London) and the other companies similarly threatened will do the same. When reality sets in perhaps the Dutch will elect a different breed of politician, or perhaps drive those in power out of the county Sri Lanka style. Until then the Dutch voter and Shell are both getting what they asked for.
Parents should take a page from the climate activist playbook & start suing media corporations on behalf of their children. NPR & the BBC should probably be high on that list. They have been lying to them & it should not go unpunished. https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1602834395567718401
Note, this graph is for temperature change relative to date of study, not pre-industrial that most policy and new articles focus on.
They neglect to tell you that 1.5C above preindustrial temperatures is well within the range where climate change is still beneficial. https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1621948976718020608
It was 1.5C above the NOAA/NASA average in 1934, in the United States. Hansen said 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, and 1998 was 1.1C warmer than the NOAA/NASA average.
So, the Earth has already hit 1.5C above the average and the world did not come to an end. It got pretty hot but we surived. And then, after 1934, the temperatures cooled by about 2.0C down through the 1970’s. Today, we are about 0.7C cooler than 1998 (and 2016).
It’s anybody’s guess when or if we will hit 1.5C again. Currently, CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere, yet the temperatures have cooled by 0.7C since the 2016 highpoint. How do the Hague judges explain this? They claim they have seen evidence that more CO2 equals higher temperatures, but reality is slapping them in the face.
I believe the entire planet hit +1.5 degrees C. twice, in April 1998 and in February 2016, rounded to the nearest 0.1 degree C, at the peak heat of two very large El Nino Pacific Ocean heat releases. Millions of people died,
It was in all te newspapers,
You got lucky.
So much waste, soooo many maggots and worms picking over the corpse of Gaia.
so easily avoidable
It has never been easy, not ever.
No, it’s not been easy, and the bad guys have the momentum.
What they don’t have is the evidence and the truth.
This dutch court cannot order people and companies in other countries other than maybe the EU to do any thing. The court has zero jurisdiction in Canada or the US.
This court ought to be disbanded if they cannot figure out that there is no evidence showing CO2 will cause discernable changes in the Earth’s climate or the human condition.
I just finished rereading Frank Herbert’s ‘Dune’ for the first time in over thirty years and it got me thinking about ecology and the environment. It is so sad to see the desecration of the environmental movement by the grifters and eco-evangelists that keep shouting their climate alarums from every rooftop! Trying to bring sanity back may seem a Sisyphean task, but the world that awaits us on the other side of Nuts Zero is truly apocalyptic!
I have a strong feeling that there are many more REAL environmentalists here at WUWT than there are in ANY of the alarmist cults! They enjoy their feelings of superiority for being so nobly concerned over an environment they rarely encounter; but climate models are so much cleaner, after all! They cut down forests to install unreliable wind generators; causing the slaughter of countless birds and bats, and now may be causing the deaths of endangered whales, too!
We, on the other hand, use our logic and learning to try and improve the world around us! I’d bet most here agree with my philosophy of REMOVING trash and litter I find when hiking or camping! That was taught to me by my parents on my first backpacking trip when I was five years old, and based on that I could NEVER be an alarmist; not once I saw the lies and BS!
That’s a racing certainty.
The real environmentalists are the corporation’s who create adequate money wealth to address the problems that are plain for all to see.
Bodies like grandly named Environment Protection Agencies are often described as environmentalist. They are not. All that they can do is rearrange by financial force the budgets of corporations who were fixing the main problems at their own rate, with available money and in order of their own priorities. That is, appropriate management.
When you closely examine big names like Greenpeace and WWF, you find that they contribute nothing of value. They exist to cause problems for regular folk. Regular folk have good ideas about what needs fixing. They do not need bloated NGOs telling them what their children must think to be virtuous, or else the boogey man will get them. Geoff S
OT: “Dune” – what a great read! But IIRC the Fremen’s longterm goal was to
change the climate of their desert planet to one more lush, which ironically would destroy
what made them & the planet unique [spice, worms, etc]. Another group thinking
they could control the climate – sound familar?
But such a richly detailed scifi novel, chock full of plots & intrigue. Thanks for the reminder!
From the article: “In first instance, the District Court found, based on evidence submitted by Friends of the Earth, that at or above an average temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius “dangerous climate change” will occur.”
No, the court’s decision is not based on evidence about CO2 and the Earth’s temperatures because there is no evidence that CO2 will have this effect.
The court has misinterpreted speculation, assumptions and assertions as being evidence.
The court system is in bad shape when they cannot discern what is evidence and what is not evidence. Or maybe they can discern the difference, but are making their decisions based on politics instead of science.
I would like to see this so-called evidence they claim to have. Anyone who knows anything about the subject knows they don’t have the evidence they claim to have. They are blowing smoke.
Why do you think the alarmists have to go to court? Answer: Because they don’t have the evidence to convince the general public that what they claim is true, so they are hoping the courts will force this on the people.
The people should take a serious look at the judges on this District Court. They can’t tell the difference between evidence and speculation. Would you want one of them hearing your case?
Judges should stick to evidence and quit trying to be alarmist climate scientists. You haven’t been presented with evidence CO2 will raise the temperatures to or above 1.5C. That’s pure speculation based on nothing but flawed computer models which are already proving their estimates do not reflect reality.
What evidence? Anyone who says there is evidence is either a dupe or a liar. It’s not good to have judges that are either dupes or liars.
Makes you wonder why, Shell didn’t request FoE provide the undisputable evidence. As we know, none exists.
I recommend not wasting your money on this effort that will fail to accomplish anything but waste money.
CLINTEL is clueless on how to fight the coming climate crisis propaganda.
They seem to think they can win with a science argument.
That has been tried since the 1970s, and has failed since the 1970s
Repeating the same strategy and expecting different results is insane.
The two reasons the science argument fails is:
— The coming climate crisis is not based on science — it is merely a prediction that has been wrong since the 1979 Charney Report, and
— The government science authorities have the appeal to government authority logical fallacy on their side. No judge will reject science “authorities” over some conservative non-government organization.
I have tried in the past to offer suggestions on how to refute the coming climate crisis religion. CAGW beliefs were not formed with facts, data and logic — CAGW has never existed — so there are no CAGW facts, data and logic. Therefore, CAGW can not be refuted with facts, data and logic.
What is CAGW?
CAGW is a prediction that has been wrong since 1979
Every prediction of environmental doom, including climate doom, that I know of since the 1960s has been wrong.
CAGW is merely a prediction, but there is no evidence any humans can predict the climate, or anything else,
Two strategies to refute CAGW predictions:
(1) Wait 51 more years to prove that CAGW was a wrong prediction for all 100 years since the1979 Charney report, or
(2) Discredit the government bureaucrat scientists and other scientists who made 100% wrong climate predictions since the 1960s. Repeat their failed predictions, describe who made the wrong predictions and state what actually happened.
In my opinion, the global warming from 1975 to 2015, and the CO2 emissions since the 1940s, have both IMPROVED the climate.
Colder nations are not as cold as they were in the 1970s,
Antarctica is not melting,
C3 plants grow larger, and in more places, due to more CO2 and warming
… and women wear fewer clothes on the beach to beat the heat,
Everything that has happened to the climate from climate change since the very cold 1690s was GOOD NEWS.
And there are over 7 billion first-hand witnesses to the good climate news in recent decades.
All climate predictions have been wrong
The climate is better than ever
MAKE THESE TRUE POINTS TO REFUTE CAGW
Do not try to win a science argument with government bureaucrat scientists, who have the strong appeal to authority logical fallacy on their side. But that is exactly what CLINTEL is doing.
24 climate science and energy articles, and 24 articles on other subjects, were read and recommended using two lists of titles and URLs this morning, along with 40 conservative memes, all posted at: Honest Climate Science and Energy
Who says we want to win with a science argument? The reason we started this court case is exactly because we agree with you that you don’t win this battle through the science alone.
It is the lack of science with regard to CO2 and the Earth’s atmosphere that is the problem.
I wish I could stand in front of those judges and say, “What evidence? “Show me the evidence.”
The alarmists would be quoting “CONfidence levels”, to “prove” their points. And it looks like the ignorant judges at the District level bought this snake oil.
Judges, Human-caused Global Warming/Climate Change is the biggest science scam in human history. If these judges can’t figure that out, then a lot of people are going to be in big trouble.