Bacon’s Rebellion: Climate lawsuit
Boy, would it be fun to have the climate alarmists testifying under oath in a court of law, unprotected by their Facebook and AP “fact checkers” and subject to perjury.
(Dream courtroom sequence)
“Do the CMIP-6 climate models accurately predict current temperatures when seeded with past measured data?” “Er, um, in a general sense in that they do not assert we are on fire, yes”
“Is the temperature record as recorded in the US for the last 100 years accurate, or was the 2009 revision the correct one, or was it the 2015 revision, or the 2018 revision?” “The 2018 revision is correct.”
“Why?” “Because it fits the models better than the actual measurements,”
“Why is that?” “Because we used the models to make the revisions.””
Yeah, it would be fun.
7 thoughts on “Oh, please let this go to trial”
This story sounds to me like the last gasp of the environmental movement. Once a political faction starts exploiting children, it has lost relevance.
I certainly hope not. I’ve been a passionate environmentalist for more than 50 years.
A Libertarian Remembers Earth Day
But the environmental movement went astray, getting obsessed with fossil fuels and infiltrated with socialists. I hope the coming embarrassment will turn its focus back to the real threats to the environment.
Right now, the movement is just making the real problems worse.
I take your point. There is a difference between rational and irrational environmentalism.
So, to reconfigure: The irrational environmentalists have lost relevance, as evidenced by their exploitation of children.
“. . . obsessed with fossil fuels”
As responsible adult human beings we ought to all stand behind efforts to lower our dependence on them. You can pretend they don’t matter to the environment, but they do. The only open question is just how soon will the damage they are doing become catastrophic. Besides that, they are finite, and people running around in tanks that get 15 MPG are literally stealing from future generations. It needs to stop. We have the technology to do much better and we should. IMHO.
“. . . infiltrated with socialists?”
Remarkable nonsense! Of course, to you “socialist” has a special meaning – ANYBODY who sees a role for government addressing problems.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree that we should conserve fossil fuels for uses that require energy density like airplanes and small boats. But that’s not the same thing as blocking them off forever.
Regarding how long “catastrophe” would take. there is an article in the WSJ on that today. Melting the Greenland Ice sheet, if it were possible at all, would take 10,000 years.
And yes, environmentalism in many cases provides a fig leaf for socialist advocacy. which is truly odd since truly socialist countries are universally environmental toilets.
“And yes, environmentalism in many cases provides a fig leaf for socialist advocacy.”
Uh, you just made that up. If I am wrong, please provide an example of “socialist advocacy” disguised as “environmentalism” IN THIS COUNTRY.
As for Greenland, I will see your WSJ and raise you Nature.
which sees a far less rosy future with 4x as much rise in sea level this century. And then there is this. . .
LikeLiked by 1 person
My time is limited but briefly, the Guardian mixes Ice Sheets and Ice Shelves, they are not the same thing.
Note the Koonin article. There is great variability in ice loss from Greenland’s coastal glaciers, It is currently trending downward. CO2 is not. That decoupling clearly indicates cyclical influences overriding CO2. The AMO and NAO are larger influences.
In any case, the central ice sheets of both Greenland and Antarctica are 2 miles thick, They are above the snow lines at their latitudes, and cannot melt.
Melting around the edges does not mean the ice sheets temsleves are in peril.