The Earth’s climate changes. The historical record is pretty clear on this reality, and thanks to modern equipment and greater proliferation of temperature-recording devices, information on the current changing climate is being gathered and studied. [emphasis, links added]
The problem lies in the assumption that with this greater ability to track and gather global climatic information, humanity can completely determine how and why the climate changes. The ecofascists even have the hubris to believe that humanity has the power to control it.
Has humanity contributed to current climate change? According to the climate alarmist lobby, the answer to that question is a definite yes, and to even question that is to engage in scientific denialism on par with flat-eartherism.
Of course, climate alarmist dogma insists that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause and driver of Earth’s current apparent warming.
Ergo, with this anthropomorphic climate change dogma established as supposedly indisputable “fact,” the desire to reap gain from this blame game is apparently insatiable for unscrupulous lawyers.
A current court case in Washington State is demonstrating this dynamic at play.
Back in the summer of 2021, a woman in Seattle was found dead in her car. The city was going through a heat wave, and sadly, this woman succumbed to the high heat in her non-air-conditioned vehicle.
A tragic accident or even a foolish mistake on the part of the deceased.
But some unscrupulous folks saw an opportunity in this woman’s death to blame it on climate change and pin said climate change on Big Oil. These lawyers are trying to make this a novel case of so-called “climate homicide.”
Now, five oil companies — Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron, Shell, and ConocoPhillips — are being sued under the ridiculous claim that their products have been “altering the Earth’s atmosphere.”
Of course, that this claim can even begin to be entertained depends on the erroneous notion that anthropogenic climate change dogma is “settled science.”
But worse yet, even if climate change is primarily man-caused, that still does not justify such legal contortions to paint companies that provide the very means that make modern life even possible as the great killers of mankind and the planet.
But the two siren songs of power and money are evidently hard to resist.
The anti-fossil-fuel nuts continue to promote the nonsense idea that if it weren’t for Big Oil, humanity would be much further down the green energy road. Poppycock.
If it weren’t for Big Oil, humanity would still be burning coal.
But even worse than seeking to extract a massive payout from Big Oil companies for their supposed liability in this Seattle woman’s death is the effort to undermine America’s legal system and sensibility.
This is about twisting the law into a pretzel as a means to achieve a desired end, not to arrive at anything even remotely resembling justice.
Here, the climate alarmists are using the Big Tobacco model and stretching it to fit Big Oil. As the complaint states, these oil companies’ “willful and deceitful campaign has influenced the public’s purchasing and investment decisions for decades, driving increased demand for fossil fuels,” and “has also reduced demand for and investment in clean energy, thereby delaying the clean energy transition.”
Furthermore, they assert, “these products have never been safe because their intended use or foreseeable misuse creates a risk of catastrophic harm to the climate and humankind.”
This is not about a search for truth or justice. This is about advancing a dubious agenda through a twisted legal theory to compel people and companies into compliance by leveraging the power of the courts.
h/t John K.
Read more at Patriot Post
The Vultures are curling over Seattle with big $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in their eyes and KAH-CHING KAH-CHING Kah-ching in their heads
“anthropomorphic climate change dogma :
Man made global warming is believed by 99.9 percent of scientists and has 138 years of collected evidence.
“Dogma” sounds like something Archie Bunker would have said.
CO2 warming:
Mainly in colder nations, in coldest months & at “night” (TMIN).
Not hotter summer afternoons.
Such as the record heat waves in the 1930s.
Too main causes of warmer afternoons are fewer clouds and less air pollution.
That 99.9% bullshit has been shown a total lie. So if you are pushing that nonsense then nothing you write is worth reading. Perhaps you should get an actual science degree in an appropriate field in climate science then get back to us.
If you think you’re smarter than over 99.9% of scientists since 1896, you are dreaming.
If you think the daily measurements of downwelling infrared radiation are fake, you are a conspiracy theory nut
My climate and energy blog has had over 1.14 million page views because I don’t publish nonsense.
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/
Wow! So many people wanting to look at the nonsense you post! What again is your education in this field? And where is this 99.9% of scientist who agree with your nonsense listed?
In 28 years of climate reading, I have only found one scientist who denied the greenhouse effect.
That was Tim Ball of Canada, who was a geographer unrelated to climate.
My reading is almost entirely of skeptic scientists.
A larger majority of scientists are consensus scientists, and 100% of them believe there is a greenhouse effect.
You’re not doing conservatives any favors by denying the greenhouse effect and claiming that CO2 does nothing.
None of the most well known skeptic scientists say that.
You seem to be claiming that Happer, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy and Curry are fools for estimating the effect of CO2 on global warming. They are all science PhDs and you are not. By claiming CO2 does nothing, you are saying that they are fools and you are a genius. In my judgment, the opposite is true.
.
Once more you refuse to give us any indication of what your educational background to tell us all these experts don’t know what the hell they are talking about. Your MBA doesn’t do it.