“It bears repeating over and over,” opened a recent Nature editorial on suing over “climate change”. “The science is not in question.”
Now why would a “the science” that is not in question bear repeated assertions, over and over? That question is not rhetorical. Do you hear editorials, over and over, proclaiming that electricity and magnetism are aspects of the same phenomenon? Are politicians mounting rostrums to insist in passionate rhetoric that blood circulates in the body? Do propagandists devote entire broadcasts on how the sun rises in the east? Over and over?
Those questions are rhetorical.
There is no need to trumpet, over and over, a science that has proven itself. What needs repeating, over and over, is advertising for products people don’t want or need, but which some entity who stands to make a profit is pushing. Who stands to profit from blasting, over and over, the possibility of a slight increase in modeled average global temperature?
Lawyers, for one. Nature says “By the end of last year, 2,666 climate-litigation cases had been filed worldwide”.
Climate litigation?
Yes: “under the legally binding Paris climate agreement, nations pledged to keep average temperatures within 1.5 °C of pre-industrial levels.” Of course, if you have followed the stats (blog/Substack), it would be next to impossible to measure the difference of the tenth of a degree from times historical, given the imprecision in measuring what temperatures were—and are. (This involves proxy modeling, which should be put in predictive terms, yet is instead put in parametric language, which introduces vast over-certainties; see the links.)
But never mind that. Let’s think about these “law”-suits instead. Here’s a picture of their number:
This is an astonishing increase. All predicated on the premise that countries, and businesses with money inside countries, can not only control the climate, and control it with micro-, tenth-of-a-global-degree precision. Ludicrous isn’t in it. I don’t know how else to say this except to insist there is no way to know.
The companies sued are not all “fossil fuel”, the products of which all those who sue use with gusto, ignoring the hypocrisy. They include companies producing of all manner of things, from paper to tobacco to “health services”—and even propaganda (“media”). Any business with a lot of money, really.
Most of these suits are filed by “people and NGOs”. There have been several by kids. Which is to say, by adults using kids as cover in the hopes the Appeal to Non-Authority Fallacy (blog/Substack) can help their case.
These suits are, for now, mostly exploratory, activists pestering people and groups trying to score a quick money hit, yet “most claimants struggle to get a positive result”.
In the next few months, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ principal judicial organ in The Hague, the Netherlands, will begin hearing evidence on two broad questions: first, what are countries’ obligations in international law to protect the climate system from anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions, and second, what should the legal consequences be for states when their actions — or failure to act — cause harm?
We’ve discussed it before (blog/Substack), but there is no such thing as “international law”; at least, there can’t be unless there is some power above countries and nations. Does such a One World Power exist? Ask China or Russia. There can be treaties and agreements between nations, more or less adhered to. But good luck collecting from, say, China, if it is determined that they are the largest contributor of “greenhouse gases.”
California is shaking down “five of the world’s largest oil companies — BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon and Shell — and their subsidiaries, demanding that they pay ‘for the costs of their impacts to the environment, human health and Californians’ livelihoods, and to help protect the state against the harms that climate change will cause in years to come’.”
Gruesome Newsom is not stupid: he will only squeeze enough so that oil companies make some profit, like they did with car companies. If oil companies lost money, they’d leave. Or should. Which means that if the left gains complete power, they could move to nationalize all energy companies, stealing the resources outright. Even the Nature writer sort of recognizes this:
Ultimately, climate action at scale and pace will happen only when the international community is persuaded that humanity has no alternative but to decarbonize in a just way; not because of the threat of prosecutions, but because our collective survival depends on it.
In other words, our self-destruction will commence when the hersterical idea that the climate is out to kill us no longer needs to be repeated, over and over.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: \$WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.
Chevron just voted with their feet and ditched their California HQ for Houston. Others to surely follow…UNLESS Head Nutball in Charge Newsome forbids it!
Tony Heller at RealClimateScience does the best job at debunking climate alarmism for the average person who doesn’t have the science background to consider the arguments. He uses historical press reports of bygone weather events; he plots unadulterated government data versus the ‘adjusted data’; he shows how the ‘models’ overestimate warming; he will show pictures of tree trunks emerging from retreating glaciers; he shows glacier historical advances and retreats; he once published a bit of software he wrote to graph local days above 90F – in most areas these hot days are in decline…..and etc practical things that any of us can comprehend.
And, the politically corrupt EPA declaring CO2 a “pollutant” comes as news to the entire world’s biosphere. The entire world’s trees and plants that are now enjoying a greater worldwide greening effect considers CO2 food and releases massive amounts of O2 in return. Nobody talks about that. Greenhouse gas effect? What greenhouse gas effect? Global warming? Yeah, it’s called “Summer.”
It was 44 degrees (F) here this morning, in sunny Northeastern Midwestia. Yesterday’s high was 68 degrees. In August.
This is a very real and damaging conspiracy, the world has been psychologically raped with this bullshit for sixty years.
The fools that believe this hoax , motivated by despair, will lead us all to destitution. It’s already impacted the cost of everything
and the continuous onerous regulations layered from year to year lead to totalitarian serfdom. This boogeyman conceived and
launched by the Club of Rome in 1965 haunts every crevice of the intellectual ecosphere throughout mass media. If nothing else
they’re patient and persistent for what they know will be multi-trillion dollar payoffs.
It’s currently a blistering 75° here in SE Virginia, and forecast to be a toe-numbing 61° this evening. Man, I hate the dog days of August.
1 yes, the lawsuit lunacy is absurd and likely to succeed for the climate change believers. I suspect that the longer-term solution will involve proving in court that CO2 is not a pollute. However, it’s hard to see who and how that’s going to get done.
2 To restate what everyone here probably knows – a gas expense when heated, the troposphere is not expanding [we have over 100 years of of data, daily since roughly 1950 for major airports around the world, that says so available from the noaa] . So the whole thing is largely nonsense.
3 if you want to understand what’s driving this read Festinger and think about the misunderstanding of Thomas Malthus, by German cafe Talking Heads during the 19 century as a basis for Socialism, and now, the general belief that the world is an ant hill, containing far too many people doing far too much damage. Credible if you’re in London during the summer, but dead wrong.
4 I am writing this comment by dictating to an iPad. Every pause becomes a comma and some words on the screen do not really resemble what I’m trying to say – but hey, it’s fast and you can guess at the missing words can’t you?
“International Court of Justice” – It seems “of justice” has become what the young folk refer to as a “meme”. As in “Hey Earl, hand me the hammer of justice”. Or “I can’t find the fingernail clippers of justice, do you know where they are?”
Net Zero is currently incompatible with human life. Which means the problem will eventually solve itself, and the procrastinators will inherit the earth.
@McChuck,
Here in North Jersey (that’s northern New Jersey to you outsiders) we also had a 44F low last night/wee hours of the morning. This either matches or slightly beats the all-time low for August 22 in our region. Third day in a row for such record-low temps here in the year’s hottest month. Yesterday mid-morning was breathtakingly gorgeous, felt Autumnal.
What? People are noticing the “Autumnal Blast” that happens in mid-August most years? If that early warning that autumn is coming doesn’t happen, well, that should be noticed. ;p That said, “climate change”, as used by our “rulers” is a scam. We live in and adapt to our local weather. Climate tells you little to nothing about current, let alone future, realized weather. Climate only summarizes previously realized local weather. You’ll have some information about the bounds, but that’s pretty much it. That the globe’s cities are warmer than their surroundings is to be expected. Carbon dioxide is plant food. Why do you want to starve the plants? Oh, I get it, you want death and destruction. Count me out.
Global Cooling we can all live with…until the Climate Anarchists start whining on about that, too! “Call Uncle Al Gore Jr., this CAN’T be happening!”
“Gruesome Newsom is not stupid.”
Come on, I’ve spent my life in California. You can’t fool me that easily.
Along the same lines, I remember a research paper that began: “The evidence for Climate Change is overwhelming.(400)”
If there is already 400 citations proving your thesis, why are you publishing another one???