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

[Billy_Bob]

CASE DISMISSED – Federal Judge puts the final nail in the coffin of California’ ‘Global Warming Lawsuit’ against oil companies

This is hilarious.... The plaintiffs fail to make a scientific case that shows causation of harm. They fail to rule out natural variation.. They fail to rule out OTHER COUNTRIES ACTIONS... Yet they are positive evil oil is the cause...

They have no proof and they don't have a damn clue... They were given a judge with a brain who saw through the feel good crap and he slammed the door closed...

CASE DISMISSED.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is just like the alarmists here... They don't have empirically observed evidence yet they scream "your hurting me" like a four year old....

The order dismisses with prejudice... DOOR SLAMMED!


But will they learn or just do more judge shopping?

 

[skookerasbil]

Do these people ever win?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Do these people ever win?

 

[Billy_Bob]

This Judge created a bit of case-law in doing what he did... Now courts around the US can follow suit, shutting down frivolous law suites right from the beginning.. Show me your proof of causation and consensus doesn't make the grade... You don't have it, no harm can be determined... case dismissed..

I can see some very unhappy law suit junkies... The future of law suits like this one, is now very bleak..

 

[Missourian]

But, but, but scientific consensus!?!?

 

[Billy_Bob]

But, but, but scientific consensus!?!?

I was reading case notes and the "consensus" is considered hearsay.... Ooooooop's.... Got to have verifiable observed facts.... Pesky facts get in the way of a socialist power grab...

 

[toobfreak]

CASE DISMISSED – Federal Judge puts the final nail in the coffin of California’ ‘Global Warming Lawsuit’ against oil companies

This is hilarious.... The plaintiffs fail to make a scientific case that shows causation of harm. They fail to rule out natural variation.. They fail to rule out OTHER COUNTRIES ACTIONS... Yet they are positive evil oil is the cause...

They have no proof and they don't have a damn clue... They were given a judge with a brain who saw through the feel good crap and he slammed the door closed...

CASE DISMISSED.

Gee . . . . you'd think with all the climate EXPERTS on this board, at least ONE of them would have lent a hand in giving these po folks the clear, undeniable and irrefutable proof of man's evil! I mean, if you can't win a global warming case in California, well, that really SUCKS!

 

[Billy_Bob]

CASE DISMISSED – Federal Judge puts the final nail in the coffin of California’ ‘Global Warming Lawsuit’ against oil companies

This is hilarious.... The plaintiffs fail to make a scientific case that shows causation of harm. They fail to rule out natural variation.. They fail to rule out OTHER COUNTRIES ACTIONS... Yet they are positive evil oil is the cause...

They have no proof and they don't have a damn clue... They were given a judge with a brain who saw through the feel good crap and he slammed the door closed...

CASE DISMISSED.

Gee . . . . you'd think with all the climate EXPERTS on this board, at least ONE of them would have lent a hand in giving this po folks the clear, undeniable and irrefutable proof of man's evil! I mean, if you can't win a global warming case in California, well, that really SUCKS!

The court simply asked for evidence of causation and the ability to cross examine it.. The plaintiffs could not produce..

They plead "the consensus says" and the judge ask them to bring them in as witnesses to be cross examined and for them to bring the facts supporting their claims.. They failed to produce even one of their 'consensus' people nor did they have supporting scientific evidence...

No other way the judge could rule... Frivolous law suit dismissed with prejudice.. Guess who is now responsible for all court costs? The plaintiff... LMAO...

 

[westwall]

This Judge created a bit of case-law in doing what he did... Now courts around the US can follow suit, shutting down frivolous law suites right from the beginning.. Show me your proof of causation and consensus doesn't make the grade... You don't have it, no harm can be determined... case dismissed..

I can see some very unhappy law suit junkies... The future of law suits like this one, is now very bleak..

We need one more decision like this to really put them out of business.

 

[karpenter]

Frivolous law suit dismissed with prejudice.. Guess who is now responsible for all court costs? The plaintiff... LMAO...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Frivolous law suit dismissed with prejudice.. Guess who is now responsible for all court costs? The plaintiff... LMAO...

That's The Gravyest Part

Me thinks the Judge was sending a message.. Just my opinion...

 

[Sunsettommy]

The Judge saved the State of California from going through with their lawsuit stupidity. they could have been legally cut off from Oil and Gas if they had won.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Judge saved the State of California from going through with their lawsuit stupidity. they could have been legally cut off from Oil and Gas if they had won.

That was one aspect I didn't really pay attention to. It could have been a real train-wreck for them..

I was looking at the legal ramifications of the Judges rulings... The judge made it perfectly clear that if you want to make claims you had better be able to support them.. Consensus no longer works as a "legal precedent". Its hearsay.. A defendant must be able to cross examine all evidence. When they could not produce he threw the case out..

 

[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.

 

[JLW]

These kids should continue their work and activism. Climate change will increasingly be the issue that will consume all other issues in this country and the world. The planet is burning. A new normal is now in play. Denialists will soon be relegated to the trash heap of history. They will be known as obstructers and anti -science nuts who stopped the world from enacting responsible legislation to halt or alleviate the consequences of climate change when he had a chance. All because of greed.

Children and young people should be angry. We have completely fucked them over. They know it. And you do too.

 

[Billy_Bob]

These kids should continue their work and activism. Climate change will increasingly be the issue that will consume all other issues in this country and the world. The planet is burning. A new normal is now in play. Denialists will soon be relegated to the trash heap of history. They will be known as obstructers and anti -science nuts who stopped the world from enacting responsible legislation to halt or alleviate the consequences of climate change when he had a chance. All because of greed.

Children and young people should be angry. We have completely fucked them over. They know it. And you do too.

LOL

Your activism is showing..

Please produce the empirically observed physical evidence of your assumptions, which rule out natural variation and other causes.. I'll wait...

You make the same fatal failure the law suit did, you assume from a position of ignorance and belief in consensus..

 

[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...

 

[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?

 

[Sunsettommy]

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."