By Dr. John Happs ~
“Climate lawfare is now a well-established route to avoid the checks and balances of democratic legislation. It subverts the legal system of a country, often with the help of activist judges, to impose the ideological preferences of an elite of the climate industrial complex on wider society. The total number of climate change court cases is growing worldwide and has more than doubled since 2017 ….”
Arkush and Braman write in their dramatic opinion piece: Climate Homicide: Prosecuting Big Oil For Climate Deaths:
“Prosecutors regularly bring homicide charges against individuals and corporations whose reckless or negligent acts or omissions cause unintentional deaths. Fossil fuel companies learned decades ago that what they produced, marketed and sold would generate “globally catastrophic” climate change.”
And:
“Acts this culpable and harmful should not be beyond the law’s reach, even for the most powerful actors in our society. Where the conduct is immoral enough and the harm is great enough, criminal prosecution must be considered as a tool to protect the public.”
https://ssm.cm/abstract=4335779
In contrast, Sean Rush, a leading New Zealand barrister, specialising in petroleum licensing law and climate litigation, called oil and gas bans “economic vandalism at its worst in exchange for virtue signalling at its finest”.
Environmental activists and many other vested interest groups would have us believe, without providing any empirical evidence, that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming aka climate change aka unusual extreme weather is caused by the trivial emissions of carbon dioxide from power stations, gas and oil exploitation and various other human activities.
Dr. Roger Pielke describes how billionaires with vested interests in climate alarmism, such as Tom Steyer, Henry Paulson and Michael Bloomberg asked the question:
“How do you make climate change feel real and immediate for people?”
Each contributed 500,000 USD towards the goal of “Making the climate threat real, immediate and potentially devastating to the business world.”
Pielke explained how climate activists have vigorously promoted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) extreme Representative Concentration Pathways RCP 8.5 climate model prediction. Note that even IPCC contributing scientists rejected this as a possible scenario.
Pielke added:
“By focusing on the most extreme scenario as business-as-usual they guaranteed that the economic impacts of climate change that they projected into the future would be eye-poppingly large.”
Climate activists have been supported by a number of other wealthy vested interest groups whose intention is to promote climate alarm for their own financial/political ends. They do this by financing and encouraging activist groups to demonstrate in public, block coal, gas and other energy projects. They increasingly use the legal system to bring about court actions they hope will support their claims.
These actions have often been successful.
Tom Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, reported how “dark money” organisations have sent millions of dollars to certain law firms that are willing to use climate litigation actions against the oil and gas industries. For instance, the New Venture Fund sent grants of around 2.5 million dollars to the Sher Edling law firm in 2022.
Pyle commented:
“Across the board, it’s rotten and is further evidence that the green movement is no longer about protecting the environment. It’s about being a political, financial and organizational arm of the Democratic Party.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dark-money-group-wired-millions-law-firm-suing-big-oil-dem-states
Without offering any empirical evidence, Sher Edling argued that oil companies are financially responsible for global warming and extreme weather events that impact people and communities. Such, readily available empirical evidence shows that Sher Edling’s position is untenable as Senator Ted Cruz concluded:
“New Venture Fund and Sher Edling’s litigious gamble is nothing but an attempt at achieving a goal lacking majority support in Congress: the eradication of fossil fuels.”
Daniel Turner, the founder and executive director of Power the Future, noted that:
“Green groups have tried, and in many areas succeeded at owning the courts, knowing it is the only way to implement their agenda. But you’d expect a level of impartiality and integrity in the judges in their myriad lawsuits.”
Common sense and trust in the legal system suggests that the scales of justice should tip according to available empirical evidence showing there is no carbon dioxide-global temperature link and there is no increase in extreme weather events or weather-related deaths. Other evidence, presented in court, would show that thousands of scientists have already said as much, with more than 4,000 scientists, including 70 Nobel Laureates, having signed the Heidelberg Appeal to say there is no climate emergency: https://americanpolicy.org/2002/03/29/the-heidelberg-appeal/
Additionally, more than 31,000 scientists, including geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers and environmental scientists have signed the Oregon Petition to say there is no climate emergency: http://www.petitionproject.org/
An amicus curiae (Friend of the Court) brief has been filed by Dr. William Happer, Emeritus Professor of Physics, at Princeton University and Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Emeritus Professor in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at MIT. Amicus curiae briefs can be provided by an expert adviser to the court whilst that advisor is not a party to the case. It is usually someone who wants to provide evidence that should influence the outcome of a lawsuit involving matters of wide public interest.
Professors Happer and Lindzen have made clear that the “climate science” accepted by many politicians is seriously flawed. They stress that the “climate crisis” declaration is without any valid scientific basis and they have provided empirical evidence in support of their position. Happer and Lindzen also point to the adverse impact on the economic and social well-being of citizens that is being imposed upon them without their lawful consent.
(Case: 22-30087 Document: 00516366850 Date Filed: 06/22/2022)
Substantial petitions from scientists and statements of fact should close down any alarmist claims brought into the courtroom by climate activists, yet judges are often placed in an invidious position where they are being asked to make rulings involving the complex area of climate science. The many factors that impact the climate are not likely to be understood or even known to them and it is certain that some factors that influence global climate change remain unknown.
Fortunately, a number of climate activist cases have not impressed judges and they have failed whilst others have gained traction in some courtrooms, illustrating the uncertainty of outcomes when conflicting “evidence” is presented by plaintiffs and defendants. This area is problematic for judges who are being asked to reach a decision in an area where they are likely to lack expertise. Consequently, we have seen different court rulings when activists have engaged lawyers to promote their climate alarmism.
In 2011, environmental groups thought they had triumphed in the Gibraltar Supreme Court’s 18 billion USD judgement against Chevron for environmental damage caused to the Amazon River basin in Eastern Ecuador.
The country’s foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, said that the presence of oil pollution showed Chevron’s complete disregard for the Amazon and its people. Later evidence showed that the case was based on evidence fabrication and Chevron was awarded $38 million in damages.
Donziger was jailed but released early to serve the rest of his sentence at home.
A U.S. district court in New York ordered the lead American lawyer behind the lawsuit, to hand over his files. Those files and diaries revealed illegal bribes for judges and court officials and the prevention of the Ecuadorian government from cleaning up pollution in the area so that this would support his case.
The U.S. district court in New York nullified the judgement because of fraudulent and illegal activities by Steven Donziger, the lead American lawyer behind the lawsuit. It appeared that Donziger was set to gain financially should the fraud remain uncovered.
Donziger was jailed but released early to serve the rest of his sentence at home.
It is interesting to note the rejection of 3 major global warming nuisance cases: Connecticut v. American Electric Power, Comer v. Murphy Oil, and Kivalina v. Exxon brought before the courts with Russell Cook pointing out that:
“The Supreme Court dismissed Connecticut v. AEP on June 20, 2011; Comer v. Murphy Oil came to its final end on March 20, 2012; and the 9th District Court put the final nail in the coffin of Kivalina v. Exxon on September 21, 2012, prompting some legal pundits to wonder if this was the end of climate tort litigation.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/11/the-greens-versus-big-oil/
The end of climate tort litigation? This was never going to be the case since the activists and their wealthy financial supporters were intent on persisting with their court actions. After all, there were too many vested interests at stake.
Common sense might suggest that, when judges find there is no evidence for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming or more extreme weather, activist claims would be dismissed. This was the case in 2011 when, in an 8-0 decision, judges of the Supreme Court in the United States threw out a case, ruling that:
“The court decision noted that the Environmental Protection Agency itself had “acknowledge[ed] that not all scientists agreed on the causes and consequences of the rise in global temperatures.”
Not all scientists agreed?
This would refer to the tens of thousands of scientists, that have now signed numerous petitions to say there is no climate emergency.
The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg
The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said:
“The court, we caution, endorses no particular view of the complicated issues related to carbon-dioxide emissions and climate change.”
She added that carbon dioxide is necessary and ubiquitous, and shouldn’t be the target of indiscriminate attacks. She pointed out:
“After all, we each emit carbon dioxide merely by breathing.”
The late Dr. Freeman Dyson
The justices wisely recommended reading the words of Princeton’s Professor Freeman Dyson, who was perhaps America’s most respected scientist. He wrote in the New York Times Magazine (March 29, 2009), pointing out that carbon dioxide, rather than being harmful, is both necessary and desirable. He argued that “increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
https://financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-supreme-skeptics
One might think this would be a landmark ruling that would be considered in any future legal challenges to coal, oil and gas exploration. One might also think that it would be referred to in future cases when plaintiffs argue that such activities endanger the planet and public health.
In 2018, Greenpeace took their protest against the 660 MW Celukan Bawang coal-fired power station in Indonesia to court, saying that:
“The Celukan Bawang coal burning power plant represents a major threat to the continuing survival of the human race.”
The 660 MW Celukan Bawang coal-fired power station in Indonesia
Greenpeace argued that Indonesia should be switching to inefficient/unreliable wind and solar sources of energy. Ignoring the fact that Indonesians rightly want a reliable and inexpensive electricity supply, Greenpeace attempted to close down the Celukan Bawang coal-fired power station and place further hardship on a nation striving to lift more of its people out of poverty.
The Greenpeace case was dismissed on day one.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-coal-bali-idUSKBN1L20YK
Greenpeace ship Esperanza
Ironically, Greenpeace has a number of ships such as the third Rainbow Warrior, the Arctic Sunrise, the Esperanza and a variety of inflatables.
Presumably, they are all powered by the hydrocarbon fuels that Greenpeace wants to ban!
https://www.greenpeace.org.au/about/ships/
Judge John F. Keenan
In 2018, U.S. District Judge John Keenan rejected New York City’s lawsuit against five major energy companies alleging damages relating to climate change. In fact, this was the third climate case to be thrown out in San Francisco and Oakland.
When hearing the case, Judge Keenan said:
“If we didn’t have fossil fuels, we would have lost that war (World War II) and every other war.” Planes wouldn’t fly. Trains wouldn’t run. And we’d be back in the Stone Age.”
Spencer Walrath commented further:
“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.”
The California-based Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA) had their case dismissed in a filing with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This lawsuit named Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP America, Shell and ConocoPhillips, among other oil companies as defendants. It sought to hold the industry accountable for its alleged “decades-long campaigns of deception about the science of climate change and the role their products play in causing it.”
PCCFA, was represented in court by California law firm Sher Edling. It was argued that its business was harmed by (imaginary) global warming caused by oil and gas exploitation resulting in the “world’s oceans changing,” impacting both wildlife and businesses reliant on the maritime economy. PCCFA pointed out that the Dungeness crab fisheries, the most lucrative fisheries on the West Coast, had also been impacted. They added, without supplying any empirical evidence, that:
“Defendants, major corporate members of the fossil fuel industry, have known for nearly a half century that unrestricted production and use of their fossil fuel products create greenhouse gas pollution that warms the planet, changes our climate, and disrupts the oceans.”
The case was dismissed in what was seen as a victory for the U.S. energy industry.
In a shameful move, we are now seeing the disgraceful exploitation of children in courtroom attempts to have them testify that their future is being jeopardised by carbon dioxide emissions, resulting in dramatic global warming and extreme weather along with a host of other imaginary dangers.
Ross Clark commented:
“If children are suffering from ‘eco-anxiety’, there ought to be a pretty easy cure – namely for government, media, schools and everyone else to dial down the scaremongering and offer more reasoned coverage, rather than parroting the language of environmental activists.”
https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/10/its-no-wonder-young-people-have-eco-anxiety/
There are laws in place to protect children from abuse and indoctrination. Undeterred by such laws, climate activists, including (to their shame) many teachers, will continue to persuade children that a climate emergency exists and that their future is bleak, as Eric Worrall points out:
“Having failed to win over adults, climate activists appear to be stepping up efforts to impress their viewpoint on children entrusted to their care, with strategies ranging from climate themed early learning stories to activism workshops for teenagers.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/15/climate-activists-stepping-up-efforts-to-ensnare-your-kids/
Activists have brought nuisance lawsuits and feel no shame in using children for their political/financial aims. This action should be viewed as a clear case of child exploitation. Fortunately, this has not gone unnoticed by some judges.
In 2019, A federal judge dismissed a climate lawsuit brought in the name of two young Philadelphia boys. One was seven years of age and the other eleven. This was a blatant attempt by climate activists to use children as plaintiffs although Judge Paul Diamond saw through this ploy. Bonner Cohen commented:
“In both the Pennsylvania and Oregon cases, children were recruited as plaintiffs to serve the agenda of climate alarmists. Seeing this for the exploitation that it clearly is, Judge Diamond took the trouble to lambaste Judge Aiken’s judicial recklessness in allowing the political ploy to serve as the basis of a far-reaching court decision.”
Unfortunately, a number of judges still ignore ample evidence to the contrary and have been persuaded to believe that carbon dioxide, a life-giving gas essential for all life on Earth, poses an environmental problem.
In 2020, a group of young Americans sued the US government for violating their constitutional rights with activities that exacerbated climate change. Fortunately, the Federal Court rejected their lawsuit (Juliana V United States). Curiously, without referring to any empirical evidence, Judge Andrew Hurwitz said he believed that global temperature was rising rapidly as a result of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
He stated that climate change is occurring at:
“An increasingly rapid pace and that the federal government has long understood the risks of fossil fuel use and increasing carbon dioxide emissions.”
Judge Hurwitz then cautioned against using the courts, pointing out that:
“The issue should be raised with the executive and legislative branches of government, not the courts.”
Another Judge, Josephine Staton, again without pointing to any empirical evidence, disagreed with the verdict, dramatically saying:
“In these proceedings, the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response—yet presses ahead toward calamity. It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses.”
In 2021, Western Australian judge, Justice Jeremy Allanson, rejected an attempt by the Conservation Council of Western Australia to overturn environmental approvals given to Woodside’s $16 billion Scarborough gas project, arguing that the council had failed to properly assess the environmental impact of the project.
The Scarborough gas project aims to pipe gas from gas fields, about 375 kms off the coast of WA, to the Pluto processing facility near Karratha. This project would provide around 19 billion dollars in Australian taxes, lifting GDP by billions of dollars whilst providing more than 3,000 jobs.
https://www.woodside.com/what-we-do/growth-projects/Scarborough-Energy-Project
Activists, again ignoring empirical evidence that shows carbon dioxide has never driven global temperature and is incapable of doing so, argued that the project would produce 1.6 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, “equivalent to building 15 new coal power stations.”
https://thewest.com.au/news/environment/wa-judge-rejects-woodside-gas-challenge-c-5885661
A recent challenge to Woodside by Raelene Cooper (who claims to be the Custodian of Whale Dreaming and speaks to the Spirit Whales) and the Environmental Defenders Office has been brought before the court of Australia with Woodside being ordered to stop work on its 16 billion dollar gas project.
Judge Craig Colvin ruled that Woodside had a duty to consider “cultural harm” caused by their project and ordered the company to conduct a more thorough environmental assessment of the project and work out terms with the Spirit Whales.
Woodside was then ordered to pay Raelene Cooper’s costs.
In 2021, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, without offering any empirical evidence, sued over 20 fossil-fuel companies for creating a “public nuisance” arguing that:
“The production, sale, and promotion of carbon energy has increased greenhouse gas emissions, thereby contributing to climate change that will cause “property damage, economic injuries, and impacts to public health.”
However, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations cannot be sued for their carbon dioxide emissions under federal common law since the Clean Air Act delegates the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Undeterred, climate activists increasingly and shamelessly continue to use children to garner a more sympathetic hearing in the courtrooms.
In 2022, three UK students applied to the High Court for a judicial review of the UK government’s alleged failure to take effective measures to meet their climate change commitments under the Paris Agreement. They argued that that the government’s Climate Change Act 2008 was in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998.
The High Court rejected the application for a judicial review because of the problem of trying to establish that such failures also violated the claimant’s human rights. Justice Bourne noted that:
“Because certain climate change proposals, policies, and programmes had been made, it was sufficient to meet the Government’s statutory duties under the Climate Change Act. Disagreement with the merits of those proposals did not give rise to an arguable case.”
In 2022, the Alaska Supreme Court, before Justice Craig Stowers, dismissed a lawsuit filed by 16 young Alaskans who claimed that the long-term effects of climate change would devastate Alaska and that the state had not taken steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Following the dismissal, a statement from the Governor Mike Dunleavy said:
“Like the young Alaskans that filed this lawsuit, all of us want a sustainable and healthy future for Alaska. Through its policy decisions over the years, the state has achieved an appropriate and effective balance between resource development and environmental protection.”
In 2022, Virginia Circuit Court Judge Clarence Jenkins also dismissed a lawsuit filed by Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based non-profit public interest law firm, on behalf of 13 children who claimed that the state was allowing fossil fuel projects to go ahead and exacerbate climate change and that this violated their constitutional rights.
Judge Jenkins dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the complaint was barred by “sovereign Immunity” which prohibited the plaintiffs’ claims because they sought to restrain the state from issuing permits for fossil fuel infrastructure and this would interfere with governmental functions.
It would appear that so-called “attribution science” was starting to have limited impact in the courtroom with a report, produced by supporters of the climate litigation campaign, admitting that attribution is difficult to prove:
“However, plaintiffs have been unable to overcome even the more flexible causation tests applied in several jurisdictions which ask if damages are ‘fairly traceable’ to defendants’ actions. This is typically due to courts’ finding that the evidence provided does not substantiate the connection between individual emitters’ actions and plaintiff’s losses.”
And:
“Our analysis shows that when courts considered evidence on causation, they typically found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that defendants’ emissions caused the alleged impacts.”
In 2023, a children’s climate lawsuit was filed in Montana when 16 plaintiffs, ranging in age from 5 to 22, claimed that carbon dioxide emissions were harming the environment and their health. The plaintiffs, again, were supported by Our Children’s Trust, an organisation that has raised more than 20 million USD to take its lawsuits to state and federal courts.
Interestingly, none of their previous attempts actually reached trial yet Judge Seeley noted that:
“Montana’s emissions and climate change have been proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana’s environment and harm and injury”
Proven? Again, without pointing to any empirical evidence, Judge Seeley added:
“Every additional ton of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions exacerbates plaintiffs’ injuries and risks locking in irreversible climate injuries.”
The attorney representing the youth was Julia Olson, executive director of Our Children’s Trust. She released a statement calling the ruling a “huge win for Montana, for youth, for democracy, and for our climate.”
With no empirical evidence cited, Olson added:
“As fires rage in the West, fuelled by fossil fuel pollution, today’s ruling in Montana is a game-changer that marks a turning point in this generation’s efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate chaos.”
Presumably, the fossil fuel pollution Julia Olson referred to is carbon dioxide – a gas that actually suppresses fire and is essential for all life on Earth.
Emily Flower, spokesperson for Montana attorney-general Austin Knudsen, described the ruling as “absurd” and said the office planned to appeal. She said:
“Montanans can’t be blamed for changing the climate. Their same legal theory has been thrown out of federal courts in more than a dozen states. It should have been here as well, but they found an ideological judge who bent over backward to allow the case to move forward and earn herself a spot in their next documentary.”
The declaration that this was a victory for the climate alarmists, proved premature since it was tempered when Judge Seeley also ruled that the Montana law forbidding consideration of greenhouse emissions was unconstitutional and, how it is considered, is up to the agency or legislature.
Conclusion:
“This need not slow down or stop any project.”
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/14/1193780700/montana-climate-change-trial-ruling
Some judges, clearly lacking the necessary expertise in assessing climate facts and climate impact statements, have been swayed by the testimony of activist scientists and well-funded environmental groups. Some courts have simply accepted the “climate defence” without being shown any empirical evidence to reach their position whilst sympathetic hearings have been given to activists in the courtroom even when they have clearly committed vandalism to promote their cause.
In 2008, Greenpeace activists were cleared in a Maidstone, England Crown Court of causing £30,000 of damage at the Kingsnorth coal-fired power station in the UK.
The court was told that global warming placed parts of Kent at risk from rising sea levels, along with the Pacific islands of Tuvalu, coastal areas of Bangladesh and the city of New Orleans and Greenland.
No empirical evidence for such alarmism was provided and facts such as the growth of Pacific Islands and the impact of land subsidence on relative sea level were ignored.
The activists added that there was a real threat to the Arctic ice sheet, China’s Yellow River region and the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica.
Again, no empirical evidence was provided to support their claims.
If courts consult those with expertise in climate science and with no vested interest in promoting climate alarmism, plaintiff claims brought to the courtroom should be quickly dismissed. Clearly, this hasn’t always happened and it is always worthwhile reflecting on the qualifications, backgrounds and affiliations of any “expert” witness who might be selected and called in to support the climate activists.
Hansen arrested again
The “lawful excuse” for the damage Greenpeace activists caused was that they were actually preventing property damage due to climate change and Judge David Caddick listened to evidence given by Dr. James Hanson. This is the same James Hansen who has been arrested at least 4 times for environmental demonstrations:
This is the same James Hansen who, in 1986, predicted incorrectly that the global temperature would increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020:
This is the same James Hansen who later, in 1989, said that:
“By the year 2050 we’re going to have tremendous climate changes, far outside what man has ever experienced”
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/08/james-hansen-s-many-and-varied-furphies/
This is the same James Hansen who put climate activism on the world stage before Al Gore’s Science, Technology and Space committee hearings in 1988. Former Senator Timothy Wirth admitted how they chose Hansen who was then an activist NASA scientist. Even Hansen’s supervisor did not agree with his global warming alarmism. Hansen orchestrated his appearance before the 1998 committee with Wirth admitting:
“We called the Weather Bureau and found out what was historically the hottest day of the summer…so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.”
He described the subterfuge they used:
“We went in the night before and opened all the windows so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room.”
file:///Global%20Warming%20File/Hansen/Wirth%20on%20Hansen.webarchive
After the successful hearing, Wirth added:
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.”
In the Greenpeace activist case, and without any supporting evidence, Hansen told Judge David Caddick that the power station would emit 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide each day and could be responsible for the extinction of up to 400 species. Hansen added:
“Somebody needs to step forward and say there has to be a moratorium, draw a line in the sand and say no more coal-fired power stations.”
Millionaire environmentalist Zac Goldsmith also testified before the court, saying:
“By building a coal-power plant in this country, it makes it very much harder [to exert] pressure on countries like China and India to reduce their burgeoning use of the fossil fuel.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamp
Other climate activists found guilty of damage and obstruction have also received a sympathetic hearing in court.
Heathrow Airport, London
In 2016, 13 climate activists were found guilty of aggravated trespass by entering a security-restricted area of an airport when they cut through a perimeter fence, waving banners and protesting against a third runway at Heathrow airport, London.
Judge Deborah Wright warned the group of activists who were backed by Green party MP Caroline Lucas, to expect a custodial sentence. However, they were given sentences of 6 weeks suspended for 12 months and told that, should they break the law within that time period, they would likely serve the sentence.
The Judge said:
“It was very clear your stated intention was to cause as much disruption as possible. You have achieved your aim with 25 flights being cancelled and that each and every one of those people who had their journeys disrupted was a victim of your actions.”
Judge Wright pointed out that immense costs had been incurred because those protesters chained themselves to railings and forced the cancellation of 25 flights.
The activists argued that their actions were necessary to prevent death and injury due to air pollution and climate change, arguing, without offering any evidence, that 31 people near Heathrow die prematurely each year because of airport pollution and the effects of climate change.
Following their court appearance, the 13 said:
“The science is clear – There can be no new runways in the UK if we are to take climate change seriously.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/24/heathrow-13-climate-change-protesters-avoid-jail
The third runway and its associated new West Terminal would enable an additional 260,000 flights annually and Heathrow’s Chief Executive Officer, John Holland-Kaye, said that the airport expansion project was still on track. However, in 2020, the UK Court of Appeal ruled to stop the expansion of Heathrow airport, pointing out that the government had not taken into account its own firm policy commitments on climate change under the Paris Agreement.
As Tilak Doshi reported:
“This decision will surely open up a whole new Pandora’s box and allow the likes of Greenpeace to legally challenge any and every project they don’t like in future.”
And:
“It shows a concerning shift towards authoritarian-like decisions where the balance of scientific skepticism and public policy is disturbed by the influence of powerful, ideologically driven groups.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2024/04/21/climate-change-and-the-law-the-lunacy-escalates/
While Heathrow’s third runway was stopped by climate activists, Dubai is investing 35 billion dollars into what will become the world’s largest airport with 5 runways. One wonders if the climate activists will chain themselves to railings and force the cancellation of flights in and out of Dubai.
In 2023, another group of 9 climate activists was acquitted despite them having caused £500,000 worth of criminal damage to HSBC’s London headquarters. The activists claimed their action was based on the defence of “lawful excuse” since the Criminal Damage Act allows this defence if the defendant believed that they had the consent of others to damage the property in question.
In 2017, a US federal court rejected plans to expand coal mining in the Western United States. The US Court of Appeals has jurisdiction in Colorado, Kansas, Utah, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming and concluded that the Bureau of Land Management must look closely at greenhouse gas emissions that come from coal leases.
The new mining territory contains 2 billion tons of coal. When combusted, it would produce 3.3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to the emissions of 1,000 coal-burning power plants. This was according to WildEarth Guardians, another plaintiff in the lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/19/16332952/court-ruling-coal-climate-change
In response, the Bureau of Land Management argued that:
“Even if it did not approve the proposed leases, the same amount of coal would be sourced from elsewhere, and thus there was no difference between the proposed action (of approving the mine) and the no action alternative in this respect.”
The Court of Appeals rejected this as “the Drug Dealer’s Defence” although a similar argument was successful in the case of the Alpha Coal Mine in 2013:
http://envlaw.com.au/alpha-coal-mine-case/
As it was in the 2015 case of Adani’s Carmichael Coal Mine, when work started in 2020 and coal seams were reached in 2021:
http://envlaw.com.au/carmichael-coal-mine-case/
As it was in the case of the New Acland Mine in 2017:
Objections to mining operations have been argued on the grounds of groundwater pollution, threatened species in the proposed mining area, noise, surface water contamination as well as any carbon dioxide emissions being released that would lead to (imaginary) dangerous climate change.
In 2017, the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) refused an application for an open cut coal mine at Rocky Hill in the Gloucester Valley of NSW. This open-cut mine would produce 21 million tons of coal per annum for 16 years.
The court decision against Gloucester Resources Limited was delivered by New South Wales court’s chief judge Brian Preston, the Chief Judge of the New South Wales Land and Environment Court.
Judge Preston is the author of Australia’s first book on environmental litigation and 103 articles, book chapters and reviews on environmental law, administrative and criminal law. He is also a member of various international environmental law committees and advisory boards.
https://climateprinciplesforenterprises.org/members-of-the-expert-group-2/brian-j-preston/
Judge Preston said that the mine would be in the wrong place at the wrong time and the project would have significant and unacceptable planning, visual and social impacts. He added that the mine would be a material source of greenhouse emissions and this would contribute to climate change, even though atmospheric carbon dioxide has never driven global temperature at any time over the last 500 million years.
No empirical evidence was cited in support of Judge Preston’s claim and one wonders if empirical evidence showing a lack of correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature appeared in Preston’s book or the fact that there are no hard data to show that atmospheric carbon dioxide is anything other than beneficial to the environment.
Judge Preston added that “pollution” from the coalmine would increase global emission levels at a time when what is now urgently needed, in order to meet “generally agreed” climate targets, is a rapid and deep decrease in emissions.
This judgement led Perry Williams from The Australian to write:
“An unprecedented court ruling that links Australia’s coalmines to global climate change may place a $100 billion pipeline of fossil fuel developments in peril.”
https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/02/10/australia-court-rules-it-wrong-time-coal
Journalist Andrew Bolt also noted that no empirical evidence was cited in support of Judge Preston’s comments, saying:
“The judge, by the way, took no evidence from a single climate scientist about the positive effects of what small warming we’ve seen so far, whether natural or man-made. We’ve actually had fewer cyclones and bigger crops, for instance.”
Numerous coal, oil and gas developments have been opposed (often successfully) by groups such as Groundswell Gloucester in New South Wales:
http://groundswellgloucester.com
Billionaires with vested interests and well-funded activist groups continue to fund “lawfare activists” with Chris Morrison pointing out that Greenpeace and Client Earth funded a recent case involving a number of Swiss ladies. In 2024, a group of elderly Swiss women had a climate case victory in the European Court of Human Rights where they said that their age and gender made them particularly vulnerable to the effects of (imaginary) heatwaves linked to climate change.
76 year old Elizabeth Stern told the BBC news how she had seen Switzerland’s climate change since her childhood.
The judge commented that Switzerland’s efforts to meet its emission reduction targets had been “woefully inadequate.”
Without investigating any evidence to the contrary, it was ruled by the court that Switzerland had “failed to comply with its duties under the Convention concerning climate change.” The court also ruled that it had violated the right to respect for private and family life.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68768598
However, the ruling received widespread criticism in Switzerland, especially from Andrea Caroni, a lawmaker on the committee. The legal affairs committee of the upper house of parliament voted to oppose the ruling.
Another recent (almost laughable) case in the UK involved Kevin Jordan from Hemsby, Norfolk. He is suing the government, through lawyers for Friends of the Earth, since he has lost his beach house as a result of natural coastal erosion. He said that he had lost everything and:
“I am now what you call a climate refugee. I lost my home with no compensation. I am now in local authority accommodation. My lovely sea views are reduced to a ground floor flat looking at cars going past.”
Jordan’s lawyers, claim that the Government’s failure to protect Mr Jordan from the sea is a breach of section 6 of the Human Rights Act, which covers “unlawful” policies by a public authority that damage people’s rights.
There is no empirical evidence to show that coastal erosion in Norfolk is worse now than during the past several hundred years and there is none to show that sea level is rising any faster than it was 100 years ago. The British Geological Survey noted:
“The coastal frontage at Hemsby comprises a narrow zone of vegetated sand dunes of very loosely consolidated sand, situated behind a narrow beach. Its weak geology makes the coastline susceptible to this erosion.”
And:
“The team reviewed historical evidence, which suggested that the annual recession rate of UK coastlines can vary from almost nothing, if the beach is wide and thick enough, up to as much as 25 m in a single year if the beach is narrow and thin.”
It is not unusual for judges to ignore (or fail to receive) empirical evidence showing that the trivial increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has not led to an increase in severe weather such as heatwaves, cyclones or tornadoes.
It is not unusual for judges to ignore (or fail to receive) empirical evidence showing that the trivial increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has been beneficial in increasing global vegetation, including farm crops whilst decreasing desert areas.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is often quoted as an authority on climate science whilst ignoring the fact that the IPCC is a political/ideological group that has committed scientific malfeasance since its inception in 1988. When Dr. Jason Johnston, former Professor of environmental law at the University of Pennsylvania, in a paper entitled: Global Warming Advocacy: A Cross-Examination, looked to see if the IPCC reports actually represented “an unbiased and objective assessment.” Johnston concluded:
When they examined research by “scientists at the very best universities” who are of “unimpeachable credibility” they found “facts and findings that are rarely if ever mentioned by the IPCC.”
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1612851
When facts are presented and alarmist claims are shown to be unsupported by empirical evidence, it is hoped that courts will always follow those facts and rule accordingly. This happened when Queensland flood victims won a class action in 2011 over dam negligence and the resulting catastrophic flooding.
Hedley Thomas from The Australian noted:
“There was growing hysteria before January 2011 because bureaucrats and politicians had heeded the alarmist predictions of climate warriors that floods were unlikely to trouble Australia in future. Tim Flannery’s dire warning that “even the rain that falls isn’t going to fill our dams and river systems.”
Thomas added:
“For contradicting the official line being peddled across the media, we [Hedley Thomas and engineer John Craigie and Mick O’Brien] were ostracized and branded conspiracy theorists.”
An additional problem has emerged where oil, gas and mining companies have scored an “own goal” by going along with carbon dioxide-related climate alarmism. They rarely refer to expert witnesses and empirical evidence to show there is no climate crisis. Rather, they often publicly vow to reduced their emissions wherever possible to appease climate alarmists and politicians.
Such an admission plays into the hands of the climate alarmists and may influence the court’s decision although, should any company directors openly reject the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate change for which there is no empirical evidence, they would likely be condemned by many politicians, the media and environmental activists, backed by wealthy vested interests.
Thus, it appears some companies in the mining and other energy markets may have painted themselves into a corner.
Companies brought before the courts to face climate litigation need to have their lawyers provide empirical evidence, backed by climate/paleoclimate experts, to convince judges that:
Atmospheric carbon dioxide has never driven global temperature at any time over the last 500 million years and there is no correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperature:
Historical Global Carbon Dioxide Concentration Levels
When carbon dioxide levels were 10 times current levels (during the Ordovician Period) the Earth was in the depths of an ice age:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/appalachians-triggered-an/
Human activity worldwide produces a mere 3% of the carbon dioxide which enters the atmosphere each year. If all human emissions of carbon dioxide stopped tomorrow, it would have no impact on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels or global temperature:
Computer models, programmed to show that carbon dioxide drives temperature have been shown to be spectacularly wrong:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/08/the_blunt_truth_about_global_warming_models.html
Current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are amongst the lowest they have been over the last 600 million years:
Carbon dioxide is plant food and more carbon dioxide leads to increased crop yields:
https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-production
Increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is greening the deserts:
https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mueller-sahel.pdf
Claims that sea level rise is threatening coastal cities, ignores the fact that sea level is not rising dangerously whilst a number of coastal settlements are threatened due to land subsidence, removal of ground water and coastal erosion:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/31/sea-level-rise-hockey-stick-or-roller-coaster/
More than 1,300 peer-reviewed, published papers do not support the “unprecedented” global warming narrative:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Temperature data from numerous countries show no unprecedented global warming:
Arctic sea ice, predicted to disappear by numerous “experts” remains, with no indication that it will disappear in the near future:
https://rclutz.com/2023/07/01/arctic-ice-in-surplus-june-2023/
There is no increase in global hurricane activity:
There is no increase in global droughts:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/16/is-the-dry-getting-drier/
There is no increase in global wildfires:
https://nypost.com/2023/08/01/climate-change-is-not-the-reason-for-the-rise-of-wildfires/
There is no increase in global floods:
There is no increase in extreme weather:
There is no ocean on the planet that is acidic with no prospect of that happening:
https://co2coalition.org/publications/ocean-health-is-there-an-acidification-problem/
A world without minerals, coal, oil and gas would be a world few would want to live in. Judges need to be made aware of the many products, so essential to us all, that would disappear should coal, oil and gas production be stopped:
Those companies under attack by green activists need to draw on the expertise of the many climate scientists at their disposal who can bring empirical evidence into the courtroom to show there is no climate emergency and no carbon dioxide – global temperature link.
Oil, gas and mining companies should make a stand against those who seek to block their valuable work and their products that have brought about our excellent standard of living, improved longevity and quality of life, reliable transportation, secure food supplies and affordable energy.
It is unfortunate that some energy companies have opted for appeasement by not having experts present climate change facts more forcefully in court. Those companies that vow to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions can only expect further court action against them.
One would hope that, in a court of law, empirical evidence would trump climate alarmism. Unfortunately, the lack of empirical evidence in support of a climate crisis is so often not pointed out and explained to judges. Consequently, some plaintiffs will continue to get sympathetic hearings if facts don’t convincingly challenge climate dogma and propaganda inside the courtrooms.
*****
Dr. John Happs M.Sc.1st Class; D.Phil. John has an academic background in the geosciences with special interests in climate, and paleoclimate. He has been a science educator at several universities in Australia and overseas and was President of the Western Australian Skeptics for 25 years.
John has published the following books:
Climate Change: A Politicised Storm in a Teacup.
Climate Change: How Politics and Self-Interests Have Debased Science
Annie Apple
Carl
Dave the Sage
Ditzy Dee
Doc'
Grumpy Old Man
marlin6
mjmotley
Nick Anaxagoras
Aussie
PA Pundits - International
Guest Contributor
patpacer
petervburrows
Joe from PA
Jehanne
spanishbride
steevesna
T Lee Humphrey
T. L. Jenkins
TonyfromOz
Turtle
PA Pundits International 
Nick Anaxagoras
Wed 06/19/2024
Rev 6
“the Inconvenient Skeptic”
John Kehr
Chapters 11 and 12 contain serious errors and misconceptions.
GHE theory says Earth w or wo atmos/GHE/30% albedo: 288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler, -18 C, is rubbish.
Nobody agrees 288 K is the GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896.
255 K (240 W/m^2) is the spherical ToA (not surface) equilibrium OLR consequence of a 30% albedo not the result of a GHE.
Without GHG water vapor there is no 30% albedo.
30% albedo = spherical ToA calculated equilibrium OLR of 240 W/m^2 & 255 K.
Lunarific 10% albedo = spherical ToA calculated equilibrium OLR of 308 W/m^2 & 271 K, 16 C warmer.
Black magma covered Earth 0% albedo = spherical ToA calculated equilibrium OLR of 342 W/m^2 & 278 K, 23 C warmer.
288 K is a measured surface temperature.
255 K is a calculated equilibrium OLR at ToA.
These two numbers cannot be compared.
396 W/m^2 upwelling LWIR is the theoretical “What if?” BB calculation for a 16 C surface that fills the denominator of the emissivity ratio. (emissivity=radiation from system/radiation from system as BB at temp) This 396 up/333 “back”/duplicate 63 GHE radiative forcing loop is “extra”, not real and has no business even being on the GHE balance graphics.
And, no, it is not measured.
IR instruments do not measure flux directly. They are designed, fabricated and calibrated to deliver a relative, comparative, referenced temperature assuming the target is a black body. If the target is not a BB the operator is advised to paint it or tape it black to mimic such or insert the known emissivity. In the case of the K-T graphic that emissivity is: 0.16 = 63/396. SURFRAD & USCRN also incorrectly assume BB.
There is no such thing as “air flux.” This requires energy flow from cool to warm w/o work violating LoT 2. (page 229 “radiative fluxes” is LoT nonsense!)
This cooling is actually produced by the kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous air molecules. (conduction+convection+advection+latent)
More kinetic action produces cooler temperatures and lower radiation.
Less kinetic action produces warmer temperatures and higher radiation.
Temperature is a function of the kinetic processes, radiation is a function of temperature, radiation is a function (inverse) of the kinetic processes.
The kinetic and radiative heat transfer processes are inversely joined at the hip as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
There is no GHE, no GHG warming and no CAGW.
LikeLike