The climate Know-Nothings won a court case in Montana. Their victory is likely to be short-lived because their case's foundation in the data is frail-to-nonexistent. The realists' counterpunch will not be long in coming. Climate Change Misinformation Wins in Montana By Gregory Wrightstone A group of young people in Montana won a landmark lawsuit on August 14, when a judge ruled as unconstitutional the state’s failure to consider climate change when approving fossil fuel projects. The judge accepted as fact allegations made by plaintiffs in the suit, which we will systematically show to be patently false. Just some of the catastrophes accepted as fact by the judge included: More heat waves and extreme summer heat Days above 90 degrees increased by 20 days between 1970 and 2015 Increased drought and lower precipitation We will soon have a complete rebuttal to the Montana lawsuit. First, the plaintiffs cherry-picked the time frame of 1970 to 2015 to select days above 90 degrees Fahrenheit when the full data show that there has been no discernible trend since the 1920s. In fact, the period between 1920-40 looks remarkably similar to the most recent several decades. Increasing drought and lack of precipitation? That isn’t what the data show. According to Judge Kathy Seeley of Montana District Court, Montana is a “major emitter of greenhouse gas emissions in the world.” She added that the state’s emissions “have been proven to be a substantial factor” in affecting the climate. Is that the case? Montana’s CO2 emissions are 0.6% of the total U.S. emissions. If Montana had gone to zero emissions of CO2 in 2010, it would only avert 0.0004 degree Fahrenheit of greenhouse warming by 2050 and 0.001 degree by 2100, according to the MAGICC simulator, a tool created by a consortium of climate research institutes including the The National Center for Atmospheric Research. These numbers are far below our ability to even measure and certainly not the “substantial factor” as claimed. Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist; executive director of the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, VA; and author of Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know.
Montana Climate Decision No Big Deal Guest Blogger The kids asked the Court to require Montana to make and implement an emissions reduction plan, all under Court supervision. The Court properly rejected that monster request. . . .
Annals Of Crazy Climate Litigation: Held v. Montana August 16, 2023/ Francis Menton Out in the real world, use of fossil fuels continues to grow, and will with 100% certainty continue to do so. In places like India and Africa, people are just getting their first taste of things like cars, computers, and air conditioning. They are not going to turn back. Meanwhile in the fantasy world of the climate cult, it’s only a matter of enough government decrees, subsidies, and maybe a few court orders, and the whole functioning and inexpensive fossil-fuel-based energy system will suddenly be replaced by something yet to be invented. In the court order department, various pie-in-the-sky lawsuits seek to find a judge willing to take the big leap and order the end to fossil fuels. Hey, why not? In 2015 a group of adolescents in Oregon (orchestrated by an environmental zealot group called Our Children’s Trust) brought a case called Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana, et al. v. United States, seeking to get a federal judge to decree the end to all use of fossil fuels. In 2017 that case earned a Manhattan Contrarian nomination as the “stupidest litigation in the country.” After two trips to the Ninth Circuit and one to the Supreme Court, that case now finds itself back in the Oregon District Court, where the Biden/Garland Justice Department is once again trying to block it on grounds of justiciability. Even Biden and Garland aren’t this crazy. Yet even as the Juliana case continues to languish, another very similar case has leapt ahead of it, and has gotten the coveted first sweeping anti-fossil-fuels court order. The case is Held, et al. v. Montana. READ MORE
We can't improve our environment because we can't make it perfect - therefor, why try ...? What happened to the Republican Party - once they were interested in improving the environment and water quality - now, it's all about "owning" the libs. They are literally cutting off their nose to spite their face. When did, "clean water" become only a pipe dream of "communists"? Why does the "perfect" have to be the enemy of "diversification"?
