Actually, I would love to see them try this: they’d have to pony up actual science (well, mostly. John Edwards’ junk science lawsuits, which made him one the uber rich the Left supposedly hates, was possible by sympathetic juries)
From being a marginal and even mocked issue, climate-change litigation is fast emerging as a new frontier of law where some believe hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake.
Compensation for losses inflicted by man-made global warming would be jaw-dropping, a payout that would make tobacco and asbestos damages look like pocket money.
There’s only one problem
But legal experts sound a note of caution, warning that this is a new and mist-shrouded area of justice.
And it would be tough to actually prove
“The number of suits filed has increased radically. But the number of suits claiming damages from climate change that have been successful remains zero.” (snip)
“There are billions of potential plaintiffs and millions of potential defendants,” said Gerrard. “The biggest problem, though, is causation.” (snip)
Then there is the business of distinguishing between weather and climate. For instance, hurricanes, droughts and floods have always occurred in human history. Can one, or even several, of these be pinned to human meddling in the climate system?
Usually, when one gets to court, pesky things like “facts” and “evidence” are required. And the facts and evidence are not on the side of the Warmists, which is why they keep losing. And a good defense lawyer can ask a simple question of the witnesses and prosecution: “have you yourself changed your behavior? No? Well, obviously, globull warming isn’t actually a big deal to you.”
In a sane world they lose every time because the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs. But sooner or later they’ll find the right judge or more likely the right jury. That’s why they’ll keep trying if the eco wackos get a couple wins and then the corporations start settling.
If there are judges that are willing to make rulings based on Sharia Law, then there are judges willing to rule for the plaintiffs in a global warming case.
“In a sane world” they would have to prove the defendant’s specific actions caused the specific damage. There is no way to prove that. But, as we have seen in recent court cases… proof and evidence and the US rule of law don’t mean much to today’s judges.