Climate lawfare suffers another defeat

Posted: July 20, 2018 by oldbrew in climate, Legal
Tags: ,


Is it any wonder that US judges are reluctant to put themselves in the position of climate experts, when the evidence for man changing the global climate is so nebulous and strongly disputed?

Today a U.S. District Judge threw out New York City’s lawsuit against five major energy companies alleging damages relating to climate change, reports The GWPF.

Judge John Keenan wrote in his opinion that, “Global warming and solutions thereto must be addressed by the two other branches of government,” not the judiciary, according to Bloomberg.

This major blow marks the third climate case to be thrown out—litigation in San Francisco and Oakland was dismissed by a federal judge last month on similar grounds. Both of these cases were dismissed by U.S. District Court judges after the suits were ordered to be heard in federal court rather than state court, where they were initially filed.

Given these recent developments, it’s safe to say that the nationwide climate litigation campaign is not going exactly as planned. But while this isn’t the outcome activists are seeking, it’s possible that it’s still the outcome they expected.

Remember, the campaign itself can be traced back to a 2012 meeting among climate activists and lawyers in La Jolla, Calif., where a plan to stigmatize energy companies was devised. During the meeting, participants discussed ways to replicate the broad-based litigation brought against tobacco companies in the 1990s and apply it to fossil fuel companies.

But during the meeting, Dan Yankelovich, co-founder of Public Agenda and expert in public opinion research, expressed reservations about depending on a legal strategy to change climate change policy:

“I am concerned about so much emphasis on legal strategies. The point of departure is a confused, conflicted, inattentive public. Are legal strategies the most effective strategies? I believe they are important after the public agrees how to feel about an issue. Then you can sew it up legally. Legal strategies themselves are a double-edged sword. The more adversarial the discourse, the more minds are going to be closed.”

The recent case dismissals call into question the future of the other pending lawsuits.

Continued here.

Comments
  1. Phoenix44 says:

    I love the “more minds are going to be closed”. These people believe their own minds are open but anybody who disagrees with them has a closed mind.

    Debate and argument has become impossible, on this issue and on so many others. The upside-down world Progressives live in would be funny if it wasn’t so serious. The latest version are Remainers, who have having tried every trick they can think if to make Brexit chaotic, now turn round and blame Leavers for the chaos!

    Its is as if somebody unleashed a virus that turns half the population slowly mad.

  2. oldbrew says:

    participants discussed ways to replicate the broad-based litigation brought against tobacco companies in the 1990s and apply it to fossil fuel companies

    You can live without tobacco, or make it optional – but industrial energy, not so much.

  3. The dismissal of the NYC case, and its siblings in CA, is something of a hollow victory when there was an opportunity to drive a stake through the heart of these “Matt Pawa-led” lawsuits, along with all the other AGW lawsuits. Their core premise for existing is based entirely on the idea that fossil fuel companies paid skeptic scientists to lie about the certainty of AGW, and their main ‘leaked industry memo’ evidence to prove that is WORTHLESS.

    “Defeated — but still Unscathed” http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=7074

  4. oldbrew says:

    Another legal setback for climate obsessives…

    CLIMATE CAMPAIGNERS LOSE HIGH COURT BATTLE OVER CO2 TARGET
    Date: 20/07/18 Belfast Telegraph

    Charity Plan B Earth brought legal action against the UK Government’s stance on the 2050 carbon target, but a judge ruled the case was ‘unarguable’.

    http://www.thegwpf.com/climate-campaigners-lose-high-court-battle-over-co2-target/
    – – –
    They must like wasting their own money and the court’s time. Charity?

  5. ren says:

    A dry winter in Australia.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s