California Court Kills AGW Case... Plaintiffs fail to show how they are harmed..

[Coyote]

The case said nothing about AGW itself, just that the plaintiff couldn’t prove direct harm from the defendant to the plaintiff...which is true. It noted...

The question is therefore whether or not plaintiffs’ alleged harm — namely, the effects of global warming-induced sea level rise — would have occurred even absent each defendant’s respective California-related activities. It is manifest that global warming would have continued in the absence of all California-related activities of defendants. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to adequately link each defendants’ alleged California activities to plaintiffs’ harm.

It says nothing about being able to examine the evidence nor does it cast doubt on AGW itself, in fact it affirms it. In other words, AGW is larger than any one defendants activities. Not sure this is worth the circle jerk.

The defendants could not cross examine the plaintiff's claims. The defendants showed the plaintiff failed in actual evidence and scientific facts to be unable to prove their case.

As accusers they failed to make a credible case based on empirical fact and science that could be cross examined.

What do you call someone who has no facts and files a case?

Epic FAIL...

Where does the article state that?

Will this from the Judge help?

"The question is therefore whether or not plaintiffs’ alleged harm — namely, the effects of global warming-induced sea level rise — would have occurred even absent each defendant’s respective California-related activities. It is manifest that global warming would have continued in the absence of all California-related activities of defendants. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to adequately link each defendants’ alleged California activities to plaintiffs’ harm.

As earlier orders have pointed out, plaintiffs’ nuisance claims depend on a global complex of geophysical cause and effect involving all nations of the planet. Ocean rise, as far as plaintiffs contend, would have occurred even without regard to each defendant’s California contacts.

Lacking, however, is a causal chain sufficiently connecting plaintiffs’ harm and defendants’ California activities.

Finally, plaintiffs advocate for a less stringent standard of “but for” causation in light of the liability rules underlying public nuisance claims. Such an argument has been rejected by our court of appeals, which has instructed that “liability is not to be conflated with amenability to suit in a particular forum.”

For the same reasons discussed above, however, plaintiffs do not satisfy this third requirement. Even taking plaintiffs’ allegations as true, they have failed to show that BP or Royal Dutch Shell’s national conduct was a “but for” cause of their harm.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motions to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(2) are GRANTED."

Yes. It does. It does not question the authenticity of AGW at all. It merely points out causation of harm BY the defendent to the plainfiff can not be proved. As is appropriate when you are looking at something as complex and multi-factored as AGW. No one act is causative.

If you're looking for a denial of the science or of AGW...this ain't it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The case said nothing about AGW itself, just that the plaintiff couldn’t prove direct harm from the defendant to the plaintiff...which is true. It noted...

The question is therefore whether or not plaintiffs’ alleged harm — namely, the effects of global warming-induced sea level rise — would have occurred even absent each defendant’s respective California-related activities. It is manifest that global warming would have continued in the absence of all California-related activities of defendants. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to adequately link each defendants’ alleged California activities to plaintiffs’ harm.

It says nothing about being able to examine the evidence nor does it cast doubt on AGW itself, in fact it affirms it. In other words, AGW is larger than any one defendants activities. Not sure this is worth the circle jerk.

The defendants could not cross examine the plaintiff's claims. The defendants showed the plaintiff failed in actual evidence and scientific facts to be unable to prove their case.

As accusers they failed to make a credible case based on empirical fact and science that could be cross examined.

What do you call someone who has no facts and files a case?

Epic FAIL...

Where does the article state that?

Will this from the Judge help?

"The question is therefore whether or not plaintiffs’ alleged harm — namely, the effects of global warming-induced sea level rise — would have occurred even absent each defendant’s respective California-related activities. It is manifest that global warming would have continued in the absence of all California-related activities of defendants. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to adequately link each defendants’ alleged California activities to plaintiffs’ harm.

As earlier orders have pointed out, plaintiffs’ nuisance claims depend on a global complex of geophysical cause and effect involving all nations of the planet. Ocean rise, as far as plaintiffs contend, would have occurred even without regard to each defendant’s California contacts.

Lacking, however, is a causal chain sufficiently connecting plaintiffs’ harm and defendants’ California activities.

Finally, plaintiffs advocate for a less stringent standard of “but for” causation in light of the liability rules underlying public nuisance claims. Such an argument has been rejected by our court of appeals, which has instructed that “liability is not to be conflated with amenability to suit in a particular forum.”

For the same reasons discussed above, however, plaintiffs do not satisfy this third requirement. Even taking plaintiffs’ allegations as true, they have failed to show that BP or Royal Dutch Shell’s national conduct was a “but for” cause of their harm.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motions to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(2) are GRANTED."

Yes. It does. It does not question the authenticity of AGW at all. It merely points out causation of harm BY the defendent to the plainfiff can not be proved. As is appropriate when you are looking at something as complex and multi-factored as AGW. No one act is causative.

If you're looking for a denial of the science or of AGW...this ain't it.

What is a hypothesis that can not be verified by facts? This does indeed place a huge shadow on the veracity of AGW..

 

[Coyote]

The case said nothing about AGW itself, just that the plaintiff couldn’t prove direct harm from the defendant to the plaintiff...which is true. It noted...

The question is therefore whether or not plaintiffs’ alleged harm — namely, the effects of global warming-induced sea level rise — would have occurred even absent each defendant’s respective California-related activities. It is manifest that global warming would have continued in the absence of all California-related activities of defendants. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to adequately link each defendants’ alleged California activities to plaintiffs’ harm.

It says nothing about being able to examine the evidence nor does it cast doubt on AGW itself, in fact it affirms it. In other words, AGW is larger than any one defendants activities. Not sure this is worth the circle jerk.

The defendants could not cross examine the plaintiff's claims. The defendants showed the plaintiff failed in actual evidence and scientific facts to be unable to prove their case.

As accusers they failed to make a credible case based on empirical fact and science that could be cross examined.

What do you call someone who has no facts and files a case?

Epic FAIL...

Where does the article state that?

Will this from the Judge help?

"The question is therefore whether or not plaintiffs’ alleged harm — namely, the effects of global warming-induced sea level rise — would have occurred even absent each defendant’s respective California-related activities. It is manifest that global warming would have continued in the absence of all California-related activities of defendants. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to adequately link each defendants’ alleged California activities to plaintiffs’ harm.

As earlier orders have pointed out, plaintiffs’ nuisance claims depend on a global complex of geophysical cause and effect involving all nations of the planet. Ocean rise, as far as plaintiffs contend, would have occurred even without regard to each defendant’s California contacts.

Lacking, however, is a causal chain sufficiently connecting plaintiffs’ harm and defendants’ California activities.

Finally, plaintiffs advocate for a less stringent standard of “but for” causation in light of the liability rules underlying public nuisance claims. Such an argument has been rejected by our court of appeals, which has instructed that “liability is not to be conflated with amenability to suit in a particular forum.”

For the same reasons discussed above, however, plaintiffs do not satisfy this third requirement. Even taking plaintiffs’ allegations as true, they have failed to show that BP or Royal Dutch Shell’s national conduct was a “but for” cause of their harm.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motions to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(2) are GRANTED."

Yes. It does. It does not question the authenticity of AGW at all. It merely points out causation of harm BY the defendent to the plainfiff can not be proved. As is appropriate when you are looking at something as complex and multi-factored as AGW. No one act is causative.

If you're looking for a denial of the science or of AGW...this ain't it.

What is a hypothesis that can not be verified by facts? This does indeed place a huge shadow on the veracity of AGW..

Not at all. It's a court case and the case is not on the legitimacy of AGW or it's science. It's on being able to prove actual damages caused by the defendent's activities, in one state and it's a ridiculous case - not surprised it was tossed.