Dutch court gets climate science wrong

Posted: June 15, 2021 by oldbrew in climate, Critique, Emissions, Legal
Tags: ,

Credit: planetsave.com

Embarrassing. Whatever the true science may be, it’s not what the court claimed. Is an appeal against their verdict in order?
– – –
A recent Dutch Court decision is getting international attention because it commands climate action.

The case itself is like angels on a pinhead, so of little interest, says David Wojick @ CFACT.

Shell Oil proposed to cut CO2 emissions by 40% and the Court made it 45%, both targets being stupid. The real concern is the precedent of Courts making climate policy, so this decision is worth looking at.

Turns out the Court’s version of the science is amazingly bad.

The Court’s decision document includes a long science section titled “Climate change and its Consequences“. There are a series of fundamental errors, glaring omissions and questionable claims, each of which supports the alarmist decision.

Some of the worst are first quoted then analyzed in turn below.

The Court says: “Mankind has been using energy, primarily produced by burning fossil fuels (coals, oil and gas), on a massive scale since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Carbon dioxide is released in this process. ….Some of the released CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere, where it lingers for hundreds of years, or even longer.”

Wrong! Roughly 25% of the atmospheric CO2 is replaced every year because of the vast natural “carbon flux”, as it is called. This replacement includes our emitted CO2.

Thus almost all of every year’s emissions is gone in 5 to 6 years. The exact figure is the subject of a large ongoing scientific literature.

Clearly the Court was not informed of this fundamental fact. On the contrary they have been seriously misled. The same is true for what follows.

“CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas which, together with other greenhouse gases, traps the heat emitted by the earth in the atmosphere. This is known as the greenhouse effect, which intensifies as more CO2 ends up in the atmosphere. This in turn increasingly warms the earth.”

Wrong again! Water vapor is by far the primary greenhouse gas. CO2 accounts for a relatively small fraction of the natural greenhouse effect.

The exact amount is still controversial but it may be just a few percent. Water vapor and clouds are the dominant causes.

Continued here.

  1. JB says:

    Kangaroo opinions.

    The only way real kangaroos gets a beating…

  2. hunterson7 says:

    Calling this perversion of justice and science a “kangaroo court” is to insult kangaroo courts. Lewis Carol would have found the modern climate consensus too preposterous to satirize.

  3. ivan says:

    With the information we have this ‘decision’ is NOT based on any science – it is pure politics designed to follow the new world order as set out by the UN Church of Climatology.

    When any court starts to make political decisions rather than those based on facts and law it is time to disband the court and start again – but then who trusts lawyers anyway?

  4. Tim Spence says:

    Courts should operate based on their bas of knowledge which is law.
    They have no remit in Science or scientific debate.
    Should we ask them to judge all the scientific theories so we can all sleep easy?

    These are not courts of law, they are political racketeers.

  5. Curious George says:

    How do you dare! The Courts always know best.

  6. Chaswarnertoo says:

    It still moves.

  7. stpaulchuck says:

    since the scamdemic’s wheels have fallen off, cagw is their fallback position for NWO tyranny. Getting courts to back their play with junk science “evidence” and such plays to the hubris of these courts. It gives them royal like powers over the masses.

    Next on the horizon is no-drive days, alternate drive days (odd even license numbers), mandated remote control thermostats, and lots more fascistic fiats. In the meantime, thousands of windmills and solar arrays to be bought from China and installed across the once beautiful countryside where they will provide spastic energy and cause brownouts and blackouts across what was once the developed world. This is not a future I will greet openly.

  8. Peter Norman says:

    Kangaroos. I think not. Just sing along and enjoy.

    Go Dutch and half the climate bill.
    Or sing for your supper “You can be sure of Shell, Shell, Shell”.
    40% or 45% of nonsense is still nonsense,
    We need an expert in climate nonsense.
    The Court calls witness David Attenborough!

  9. Phoenix44 says:

    But surely the court ruled on a point of law? What was that?

    If Shell are fighting this on the basis of 45% rather than 40% then I have no sympathy. They have been trying to buy off the Devil with only part of their soul.

  10. ivan says:

    I know this is a little off topic but it appears that the EU has been spending money to bolster the myth that we are all going to die because the Arctic is melting.


  11. tom0mason says:

    How things have changed

  12. […] Dutch court gets climate science wrong […]

  13. cognog2 says:

    It is dangerous for the legal profession to usurp the power of Parliament and decide upon political matters. Most of these cases should be thrown out on that basis. This apart from the fact that the profession is not competent in scientific matters.
    Otherwise we find such absurdities as shown here. Believe it or not but some lawyers actually think that CO2 is a pollutant 🤯 and thus DEEM it to be so.