Climate Suit Against Virginia Would Lose at Trial

Virginia January Average Temperatures, 1895-2022, NOAA Data reproduced by the Richmond-Times Dispatch. Click for larger view.

by Steve Haner

Less than one month after taking office, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) and other state officials are being sued by thirteen school-age defendants who claim the state’s long history of permitting the use of fossil fuels for various purposes is causing a climate crisis and harms them directly.

The petition in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond was filed last week and first reported by the Virginia Mercury. The development should be widely welcomed, and rather than seeking dismissal on procedural grounds, the state should mount an affirmative defense. It is time to put the climate crisis science deniers on the stand for vigorous cross examination under oath.

The plaintiffs are the science deniers? In a replay of the famous 1925 Scopes evolution trial, the climate catastrophe crowd would be the fundamentalists leaning on revealed truth and popular consensus rather than logic and evidence? Yes.

Exhibit A for the state’s defense was recently provided by a group of distinguished experts (no question about these credentials) in a report compiled by a group called the CO2 Coalition. They examine Virginia data where available and find few signs the state is seeing any significant changes to its climate, and zero evidence that fossil fuel use has produced a crisis in any form.

The plaintiffs are quite specific in their claims, all of which they now must prove in a court of law subject to discovery, interrogatories and sworn testimony under penalty of perjury.

The climate crisis, which Defendants’ permitting of fossil fuel infrastructure causes and contributes to, is already having profound impacts in Virginia and is causing grave harm to these Youth Plaintiffs. Increasing temperatures, sea level rise, more frequent and destructive extreme weather events, and increased incidences of vector-borne illnesses are among the climate impacts imperiling these children. Plaintiffs are experiencing significant physical and mental health injuries, significant damage to their homes and personal property…

The CO2 Coalition report doesn’t address “vector-borne illnesses,” but touches on most of those other claims.  The following points are from the opening summary on the report:

  • Severe Weather. Natural disasters worldwide have been in  decline for 20-years, a period of both rising temperature and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, countering claims of linkage with increasing natural calamities.
  • Temperature & Carbon Dioxide. Records since the early 20th century show periods both of increasing warmth and cooling, demonstrating questionable direct correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide levels.
  • Heat Waves & Droughts. Both have declined in recent decades. The most frequent and severe heat waves occurred in the 1920s and 1930s. A full 68% of Virginia’s record highs were set between 1922-41, with none being recorded in the last 20 years. The number of days in a heat wave have declined over the last 70 years.
  • Virginia Temperature in Future Context. Computer models on which Virginia’s climate programs are based have systematically over-predicted Virginia warming in recent decades. A methodology so flawed has no place in deliberating climate policies as it provides no reliable clues for near-term temperatures.
  • Climate Change & Agriculture. Consistent with global trends, Virginia crop yields have been increasing since the 1930s with the adoption of hybrid corn, greater use of fertilizers, and more efficient farming. In addition, modest warming and increasing carbon dioxide have turbocharged harvests.
  • Regional Sea-Level Rise. There is no acceleration in sea-level rise as recorded by tide gauges. However, local rises can have a strong geological component, as is the case in Virginia, where the rise is amplified by the well-documented isostatic 3 rebound along the eastern seaboard. This non-climatic phenomenon can account for 21st-century relative sea-level rises of nearly 20 inches in parts of the Atlantic Coast.
  • Conclusion. Clearly, there is no correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and the safety of Virginians. In fact, the weather has been relatively benign in recent decades as Virginia agriculture has benefited from modest warming and increasing carbon dioxide. Efforts to modify the climate are wasteful economically and meaningless in their effect.

The battle of the expert witnesses on those points under oath would be quite a teaching moment. It would also be nice to drag into court for a deposition some of the others in positions of influence who peddle pseudo-science in the popular media, most often baked into the weather reports in print and broadcast.

“Coldest January on Record since 2018 but Dramatic Cold is Becoming Less Frequent” spouts a recent Richmond Times-Dispatch headline. The story by former professional climate propagandist Sean Sublette included the chart reproduced above. There is no indication of significant climate change in that chart, yet it is offered as proof of such.

To the extent increasing greenhouse gases have an impact on surface temperature, it is mainly by trapping heat at night and increasing the low reading. Increasing the low reading raises the daily averages even if the high temperatures remain in the historical range.

Do those 13 plaintiffs really claim severe damage to their young lives because the low temperatures are a couple of degrees higher? Another data point ignored by the alarmists but which must be brought to the court’s attention is that cold kills more humans than heat.

The pending suit seeks only a declaratory judgement on various points, plus costs and “further relief as may be just and proper.” They are suing for show, not for dough. They should get the show.

The petition raises the most important questions of our time, as most of the western world’s economies are doing the same as Virginia, rapidly replacing cheap, reliable fossil fuels with unreliable and expensive wind and solar generation. The geopolitical ramifications are playing out in Ukraine today. Why not use a Virginia courtroom to ask if the entire premise is false?


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

32 responses to “Climate Suit Against Virginia Would Lose at Trial”

  1. Warming alarmists refuse to debate the so-called “deniers” on the grounds that the science is settled and that holding a debate would confer undue legitimacy upon the deniers’ point of view. By this logic, one might as well debate with a flat earther.

    I agree with Steve that a courthouse venue, a la Scopes, might be the only place to conduct a debate. Let people decide for themselves if the so-called science denier are in fact anti-science. Let people decide for themselves if there is a “consensus” that global warming poses an existential threat.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      I admit I recently re-watched Inherit the Wind and it inspired me. I cast myself in the H.L. Mencken role…

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Uh, yeah. Sure.

    2. David Wojick Avatar
      David Wojick

      Debate is available if you want one. First, I have a collection of around 350 skeptical videos and there are a number of debates between leading skeptics and warmers.

      http://ccdedu.blogspot.com/

      Second, Judy Curry’s ongoing blog is populated by both sides and the science debate is fairly advanced.

      Third, if you just want to see the counter arguments to our skeptical arguments go to John Cook’s misnamed SkepticalScience blog, which I think does not take comments.

      (My field is the logic of complex issues and I have studied the climate debate for 30 years, this year being the 30th anniversary of the UNFCCC Rio treaty.)

  2. vicnicholls Avatar
    vicnicholls

    Greta Thunberg wanna be’s are being manipulated. Time to make sure these kids understand don’t play in the adult sandbox or you’ll get why kids should be kids and shut up until you learn the real world.

  3. DAMN those FACTS! We need more emotional Greta/Al/Leonardo/Sean dribble to base our policies upon for future generations!

  4. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    Careful what you wish for. (One of my favorite legal maxims is that litigation is a crap shoot.) You might lose.

    For example they will have NASA climate scientists testifying on their side. Who you got? There are counter arguments to every argument you list.

    1. Those who are not panicking will have every weather expert testify about how ‘accurate’ the path forecasts for hurricanes are…. if they can’t guess five days out – how can they guess fifty years out……

      One major aspect NEVER covered in these ludicrous so called ‘models’ —— what technological advancements are fed into the models? Oh — NONE…..so every model is assuming nothing new will be invented in the coming years!

      1. David Wojick Avatar
        David Wojick

        The counter argument to the weather forecasting argument is that weather is chaotic hence unpredictable but 30 year averages, which is climate, are stable unless perturbed. The counter argument involves nonlinear dynamics which I would be happy to go into.

        Technological progress only affects climate models via the emission scenario and a range of these is considered. Damage models are much more sensitive to technology and there is a real problem there, since they go out 300 years to get the damages from SLR.

    2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      …and the “Blue Wall” to contend with

    3. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      David, the nice thing about courts is along with arguments you have to use facts. I’ve looked for the facts, the data, that backs up the catastrophe narrative. I’ve seen very little, just as KLS mentions models, and they are highly contentious. The real data never matches them.

      The problem with really taking this to trial is that so many of those with their industries on the line, the big boys with the big checkbooks, are all lined up with the false narrative, the new Fundamentalism. All dug in on ESG. What did I see, one motor vehicle ad in the whole Super Bowl for a gas powered vehicle?

      1. David Wojick Avatar
        David Wojick

        Ah but with courts you have to have judges and jurors and a lot of both believe the alarmist narrative. Hence the decision against Shell in the Netherlands. I studied the judge’s decision and it was straight alarmism. I have an article on it if you are interested.

        Note too that the models are facts and they are claimed to embody the best science we know. Arguing that the models should not be believed is a hard case to win. A true crap shoot.

        The narrative is false but it is widely honestly believed. That is the real problem.

  5. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    Here is Curry’s blog if you want to see the debate in action. Back when she was chair of Georgia Tech’s Atmospheric Sciences dept she posted several articles a week and the science debate was hot and heavy. Since she quit in disgust to run her forecasting company it is down to several a month and a lot of us have more or less dropped out. Still the real deal.
    https://judithcurry.com/

    She is a lukewarmer, so thinks we are causing the warming but there is no emergency. Many skeptics are such. I am a hard liner arguing that all the modest warming is natural. Happy to elaborate on that.

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Judith Curry is my “go to” on these issues…she has a consulting business on this so she got involved with NJ business council and could assist Va. too…

      1. David Wojick Avatar
        David Wojick

        Yes I think she is involved in NJ’s ridiculous sea level rise projections. 5 feet in 50 years or some such? I forget. There are literally thousands of distinct arguments in the climate debate. I would love to catalog them.

        1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
          energyNOW_Fan

          Her presentation on NJ is not too far back on her blog, pretty good. I think she is OK with 3-ft rise worse case as a planning basis.

  6. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Part of the problem is the idea of associated pollution. Obama EPA ruled that pollution associated with CO2 (or any pollutant) can be added into the assessment. Obama EPA also ruled that particulates should be assigned super extreme human toxicity. So even though CO2 itself is completely non-toxic, I’ve heard organizations like American Lung Assoc say CO2 is toxic killing thousands of Virginians, at public meetings. Not true in reality but you can possibly derive that from the EPA assumptions. Guess we have to rely on China to make everything since we need to ban it here.

    Who can deny use of fossil fuels creates mental health issue for those who are terrified about it? When I was kid we had to hide under our desks for nuclear attack practice. Kids today have a climate change burden to worry about due to the Code Red for the planet, which many advocate is true.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      The idea of CO2 being a pollutant is the most silly claim of all. It disappears and all life fails. It is plant food. Is there now too much of a good thing? Maybe, but I’d like somebody to prove it.

    1. Actually, the way it is written it is alarmist.

      I will agree that “Sea Level to Rise up to a foot by 2050, Interagency Report Predicts” is not alarmist.

      1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        I would say *may* rise up to a foot. If this happens it would be important indication. 1971 I wrote a high school term paper predicting (copied from science books) catastrophic sea level rise by 2000.

        1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
          energyNOW_Fan

          also note what they are saying is sea level has always been rising in recent centuries (about 8-10 inches per century) so they are predicting this background increasing trend of sea level, may get worse. In the best case scenario, even without climate change, we will still see this increase of sea level. Yes we should consider that the sea level rise could come quicker than past history, because CO2 levels are indeed rising due to burning fossil fuels. And of course, states like Virginia are sinking due to groundwater extraction and IceAge rebound of the earth which was deflected by the ice.

          1. Merchantseamen Avatar
            Merchantseamen

            People forget. Water is a closed loop, Gas, Liquid or Frozen state. The earth is expanding and contacting all the time. Beach erosion all the time. These are all variables that you might as well roll a couple of dice to determine if the “Oceans Rise Or Recede”. The environmental crusade came on strong with the fall of the Soviet Union. Even tho the movement became radical prior to that. The Communists had no where else to go. Patrick Moore former activist, and past president of Green Peace

            Since leaving in 1986, Moore has criticized the environmental movement for what he
            sees as scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental
            movement “abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and
            sensationalism”. I tend to agree. They are driving a tack with a 2 pound mall with out regard to the consequences. Also follow the money. Always follow the money. Someone is getting rich and it sure is not you or I.

    2. Actually, the way it is written it is alarmist.

      I will agree that “Sea Level to Rise up to a foot by 2050, Interagency Report Predicts” is not alarmist.

  7. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Nice January chart. So the coldest month hasn’t changed. What’s July’s chart for the same period?

  8. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    If I get a chance I will look at the specific arguments, but there are two general alarmist arguments that apply to them.

    1. Past data is irrelevant. The rapid increase in human forcing is changing the physics so we are not projecting past trends. Only the models can say what will happen.

    2. This is not about protecting Virginia. The problem is global and everyone has to do their bit. For example, the damage models say that 90% of the damage from Virginia’s emissions will occur outside the USA. Poor countries are most vulnerable.

    Of course there are good counter arguments to these, but these exist.

    By way of background, back in ’73 I discovered the fundamental logical structure of complex issues. It is a tree so I called it the issue tree. Here is my crude ’75 text.
    http://www.stemed.info/reports/Wojick_Issue_Analysis_txt.pdf

    I left CMU that year to go commercial so never published anything to train possible competitors. I see structure and dynamics that no one else knows exist.

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Generally the Virginia enviro argument is that catastrophic damage predicted for Virginia as one of the most vulnerable states (not saying I agree). In order to attain the degree of global urgent action needed to save Virginia from disaster, Virginia needs to be a global leader in scaring the bejesus out of the whole world to get them to do something, along with our own dire emergency measures. (Of course, states like Virginia are already sinking due to groundwater extraction and IceAge rebound of the earth which was deflected by the ice…that is a given)

      1. David Wojick Avatar
        David Wojick

        What cat damage is predicted? I would think mostly SLR, flooding and hurricanes. RGGI money is already going to flooding. We have a new SLR acceleration scare pitch from NOAA and NASA:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/15/sea-level-alarm/

        Generally speaking there seems to be relatively little specifics re the coming catastrophe, anywhere in the world. Of course the models disagree profoundly on regional droughts and floods.

  9. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Well, given that it will ultimately be decided by 6 justices who would have been right at home deciding the fates of Copernicus and Galileo, no better time. Same inputs, same knowledge base – Domini, Domini, Domini — same outcome.

  10. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    “Hail Hydrocarbons! We, who are about to die, salute thee!”

  11. Settled Science, kind of —- Ethanol Gas worse for the climate than real gas……. I guess all those environmental wachos were wrong even back then…. https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-corn-based-ethanol-worse-climate-than-gasoline-study-finds-2022-02-14/

    You have just gotta laugh at these ‘expert’ idiots, and NOT believe anything they say; like that CNN artist rendition of sea level rise [why didn’t they use Barry Obama’s Martha’s Vineyard house?]

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      science is often wrong – in the early stages of something new but over time , with multiple researchers, peer-review and replication , they calibrate over time.

      The mistake that folks makes is trying to hold science to a standard where from the get-go they utter the truth that will never vary. That’s just an ignorant way of perceiving science in the first place IMHO.

      And yes, if we want to and many do, we can make up all kinds of excuses and perceived wrongs such that we can then ‘deny” the science or accuse science of lying.

Leave a Reply