All errors should be reported to

Monday, June 25, 2018

Global warming lawsuit tossed

A federal judge appointed by Clinton tossed the lawsuit filed by a bunch of California municipalities against oil companies.

"Judge William Alsup said Monday that Congress and the president, not a federal judge, were best suited to address fossil fuels' contribution," the Associated Press reported.

In his decision, the judge said, "The issue is not over science. All parties agree that fossil fuels have led to global warming and ocean rise and will continue to do so, and that eventually the navigable waters of the United States will intrude upon Oakland and San Francisco. The issue is a legal one — whether these producers of fossil fuels should pay for anticipated harm that will eventually flow from a rise in sea level."

Hmm, should the oil companies also reap the benefits of the good the rising level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does?

The judge ended his decision: "In sum, this order accepts the science behind global warming. So do both sides. The dangers raised in the complaints are very real. 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. While it remains true that our federal courts have authority to fashion common law remedies for claims based on global warming, courts must also respect and defer to the other co-equal branches of government when the problem at hand clearly deserves a solution best addressed by those branches. The Court will stay its hand in favor of solutions by the legislative and executive branches.

"For the reasons stated, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED."

I no more believe in global warming than I do the tooth fairy, but the oil companies decided it was an argument they cannot win. Instead, they argued -- successfully -- that a worldwide problem requires more than six fools in California to decide.


Please enjoy my books in paperback and on Kindle.

Trump the Press covers the nomination.

Trump the Establishment covers the election.

Fake News Follies of 2017 covers his first year as president.

For autographed copies, write me at


  1. I am sure the United Nations or the World Court will be picking up the pieces and attacking big oil.

    1. I sincerely hope they’ve carbon-offset their Molotov cocktails.

      And don’t even get me started on the petrochemicals those Antifa S.O.B.s are wearing.

      “Okay, you planet-destroyin’, yogurt-eatin’ Commie creep ... hand over that nylon-blend ski-mask!”

    2. The Ninth Circus will re-instate the suit on appeal.

  2. All parties agree that fossil fuels have led to global warming and ocean rise and will continue to do so

    Depends on what the meaning of "all" is.

    1. It means all the ELITES, of course.

  3. fossil fuels have led to global warming and ocean rise and will continue to do so? Sea level at both Manhattan and San Francisco is approximately where it was 75 years ago, with Manhattan maybe a little lower -- according to NOAA not me. Temperatures for most US stations are lower than temps in 1930s and record Dust Bowl era heat. Sorry judge

  4. Yeah we can't let the Californians decide EVERYTHING, can we? Yet, here we are.

  5. Legal point about the judge's comment about "all parties accept the science behind global warming."

    The matter was before the Court on a motion to dismiss. That means the Court is assessing whether the plaintiff has even pled a claim upon which the court has the power or authority to grant relief. In moving to dismiss a complaint, the allegations pled in the complaint are "accepted" as true. In other words, the defendant filing a motion to dismiss a complaint is saying to the Court, "even if we accept everything pled in the complaint is true, the plaintiff has no case."

    Therefore, and this is the lawyering point here, the defendant and the Judge accept as true for the limited purpose of ruling on the motion to dismiss that there is science behind global warming, that the oceans are rising and that San Francisco and Oakland will be flooding. In other words, even if we accept all that is true, the plaintiff still has no case. Neither the court nor the defendant are declaring any of that to be true.

    It's a lawyerly point, but it's crucial to understanding what the Judge, and what the defendant, actually said about anthropogenic global warming.

  6. He should have assessed penalties on the plaintiff for filing such frivolous crap to begin with.

  7. Perhaps the judge stared into the abyss, contemplated the possibility a decision of his in favor of the plaintiffs would cause the stock market to drop 10,000 points, and so he wisely pulled away from the edge.

  8. Maybe the seas *should* rise in SF/Oakland. From what I read the streets could use a good rinsing off.

  9. For a good example of how phony a lot of science is and has been:

    --In the 1960s, the sugar industry funded research that downplayed the risks of sugar and highlighted the hazards of fat, according to a newly published article in JAMA Internal Medicine.

    The article draws on internal documents to show that an industry group called the Sugar Research Foundation wanted to "refute" concerns about sugar's possible role in heart disease. The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did just that. The result was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding.--