Set back for warmies

A federal judge on Monday dismissed lawsuits by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland alleging that five of the world’s largest oil companies should pay to protect the cities’ residents from the impacts of climate change.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted a motion by the companies— BP PLC, Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp. , ConocoPhillipsand Chevron Corp. —to dismiss the suits, ruling that while global warming was a real threat, it must be fixed “by our political branches.”

“The dangers raised in the complaints are very real,” he wrote. “But those dangers are worldwide. Their causes are worldwide. The benefits of fossil fuels are worldwide. The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case.”

A sensible judgement.

Analysis here and here.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Set back for warmies

  1. Baldrick

    Speaking of public nuisances –

    Adam Bandt ✔ @AdamBandt
    Every day, more and more people see through this foul excuse for a gov.
    Turnbull’s minions can lie about #Greens all they want, but I’m here to stop bushfires by stopping global warming.
    Want a fight about climate change, you LNP bottom-feeders
    Bring it on.

  2. Percy Popinjay

    I’m here to stop bushfires by stopping global warming

    FFS, what an utterly delusional idiot.

    while global warming was a real threat

    Yeah, no. It’s bullsh*t.

  3. RobK

    Climate change is often conflated with CAGW attributed to CO2 in the atmosphere. The former is fact, the latter is conjecture based on unverifiable models.

  4. J.H.

    Huge win for Hydrocarbon use. The importance needs to be clearly understood… Despite any and all effects that CO2 emissions from hydrocarbons may cause to Climate systems…. We can go right on using them and never fear being prosecuted for it in a court of law, whether we be an oil producer, a fuel refiner or a car owner producing those CO2 emissions…. at least in America. The judge says that it is outside the scope of the judicial system to address.

    It was better that the judge “accepted” the hypothesis of Global warming because it allows no wriggle room in his ruling. He is absolutely clear… It matters not.

    The science of the Hypothesis of Global Warming is irrelevant to the court… So the only bit pertinent to anyone, is the ruling that Hydrocarbon use cannot be held responsible for the effects that its CO2 emissions cause to the environment. The court is not the place for the Greenies argument with Hydrocarbon use. 🙂

    Fantastic ruling. It couldn’t be better. Viva la coal fired power stations. Trump will be happy to hear it…

  5. jupes

    From the judge’s ruling:

    With respect to balancing the social utility against the gravity of the anticipated harm, it is true that carbon dioxide released from fossil fuels has caused (and will continue to cause) global warming. But against that negative, we must weigh this positive: our industrial revolution and the development of our modern world has literally been fueled by oil and coal. Without those fuels, virtually all of our monumental progress would have been impossible. All of us have benefitted.

    Excellent.

  6. Exit Stage Right

    The Arse Bandit reckons global warming is the causation of bush fires. No, you green creep, the main reason bush fires are so intense is the build up of combustible material on the forest floor that Green dominated councils won’t address with responsible burn offs. Bush fires will be with us always, that is the nature of this country, but we can limit their intensity. Fire buggers (usually people f****d in the head), cause much more damage than Gerbil warming. For chrissake, get out of your comfortable inner city office and go bush-easy to see where the problem lies and it is not your filthy lies about warming. I wish you bastards would grow up-you are just over age hippies.

  7. Genghis

    Just thinking off the coast at Anglesea Victoria Australia there is a fossil cliff which was the shore line in the last ice age. Bugger global warming has been happening that long?
    They live in a fools paradise.

  8. Herodotus

    while global warming was a real threat, it must be fixed “by our political branches.”

    Don’t leave it to those ratbags – they’ll make the situation worse, just as they have so far.

  9. Bruce of Newcastle

    Global warming still isn’t happening. Satellite temperature, which is the only global temperature dataset cross-checked against an independent source (balloons), shows the current temperature is below 2002.

    CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 10% since then, without effect.

    Waiting for Adam Bandt’s tweet explaining this data.

  10. JohnL

    I’m here to stop bushfires by stopping global warming

    FFS, what an utterly delusional idiot.

    A delusional idiot he may be but he is making quite comfortable living out of it. I wish I was that delusional earlier instead of working to earn a living.
    And he is not the only one. Malcolm is trying to push the shit up the hill for the same reason.

  11. C.L.

    It was a good judgement; I wouldn’t say it was entirely “sensible,” however.

    “The dangers raised in the complaints are very real,” he wrote.

    No they’re not.

  12. David Brewer

    Associated Press:

    The lawsuits said the companies created a public nuisance and should pay for sea walls and other infrastructure to protect against the effects of climate change — construction that could cost billions of dollars.

    The Oakland city attorney’s offices did not immediately have comment. John Cote, a spokesman for the San Francisco city attorney’s office, said the office was reviewing the ruling and would decide its next steps “shortly,” but the lawsuit had “forced a public court proceeding on climate science.”

    “We’re pleased that the court recognized that the science of global warming is no longer in dispute,” he said.

    New York City, several California counties and at least one other California city filed similar suits.

    What an appalling “public nuisance” these officials are themselves! It is clearly no part of city attorneys’ responsibility or expertise to go marching through the courts on global warming crusades. While they are grandstanding and showboating on this issue, they neglect their real jobs, which is to maintain their cities’ law and order.

    What possible benefit is it to the taxpayers of these cities to “force a public court proceeding on climate science” or have “the court…recognise…that the science of global warming is no longer in dispute”? What science? What part of a court’s role is it to rule on scientific questions in the first place?

    Laws should be introduced to prevent, and punish, such abuse of the legal system by its functionaries.

  13. egg_

    I’m here to stop bushfires by stopping global warming.

    Try the veal.

  14. Rob MW

    The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case.”

    The Judgement points to the main problem of an independent Judiciary based on the doctrine of the separation of powers, on the one hand western politicians insist on writing black letter law according “to what the science says” which most notably turns on a notion of fiction before factual validation called the ‘Precautionary Principle’ – think Minority Report – which in turn Courts are expected to interpret based of the black letter objects of the instrument, yet on the other hand, Courts have no ability whatsoever to interpret anything other than ‘Facts’ of the matter before them in real time.

    In Australia they get away from this problem through the deployment of so-called invalidated expert witnesses and reversing the onus of proof deferring natural justice to the whim of the lawmakers and completely fucking the separation of powers therefore binding the Judiciary to the writings or scribblings of their paymasters.

  15. Leo G

    The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case.”

    But not a bad local solution by a district judge to a vast-scale public nuisance complaint problem.

  16. Up The Workers!

    Adam Bandt talks about other people being “bottom feeders”?

    Crikey!

    Bandt has been feeding through his bottom for years!

    The clue-phobic Bandt and his fellow chronic Humpty-Dumptyists cannot name 10 genuinely-aboriginal people who were ever “stolen” from their families; Bandt cannot name 10 People who have ever been savagely “warmed to death” by that lethal killer poison-gas, human breath, and Bandt cannot name 10 people who have ever been drowned by the allegedly rising sea levels which have remained more or less static since the tide-gauges were first marked in the rocks at Pinchgut in Sydney Harbour and at the Isle of the Dead in Port Arthur, in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s.

    Why do members of the Brown Movement always behave as though stupidity is a virtue?

  17. Slim Cognito

    While it arrived at the right conclusion, the reasoning gives cause for concern. Despite being dismissed, “warmies” will now use it to say that even the judiciary believe AGW is real and presents a problem.

    Would have been much better had the decision dismissed the premise altogether or found no compelling evidence to support the theory.

  18. Habib

    Hope they go after those stinking hippies for costs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.