Pirate's Cove

So far, the Cult of Climastrology has won very few climate cases, with courts quite often saying the plaintiffs often do not have standing, and that this is something that should be done in the legislatures, not the courts. They think they have a way to win now, though

Climate change: Courts set for rise in compensation cases

There’s likely to be a significant increase in the number of lawsuits brought against fossil fuel companies in the coming years, say researchers.

Their new study finds that to date, lawyers have failed to use the most up-to-date scientific evidence on the cause of rising temperatures.

As a result, there have been few successful claims for compensation.

That could change, say the authors, as evidence linking specific weather events to carbon emissions increases.

The article mentions a few cases that have worked, but, again, most have not.

This new study has assessed some 73 lawsuits across 14 jurisdictions and says that the evidence presented to the courts lagged significantly behind the most recent climate research.

Over the past two decades, scientists have attempted to demonstrate the links between extreme weather events and climate change, which are in turn connected to human activities such as energy production and transport.

These studies, called attribution science, have become more robust over the years.

For example, researchers have been able to show that climate change linked to human activities made the European summer heatwave in 2019 both more likely and more intense.

Sure it did. Of course, they have to first prove using actual Science that it was human activities involved in the first place. Which is seriously lacking. And, they might be saying that their attribution science is getting better and such, but, they’re also admitting

CLIMATE LITIGATION SUPPORTERS ADMIT THAT ATTRIBUTION SCIENCE IS FAILING IN COURT

Hey, they said it.

A group of academics – who are outspoken supporters of the climate litigation campaign – released a report this week that admits that the climate attribution science currently being deployed by plaintiffs attorneys has serious flaws.

The report states:

“We find that the evidence submitted and referenced in these cases lags considerably behind the state-of-the-art in climate science, impeding causation claims.”

Oops

The report explains how attribution science isn’t holding up in the courtroom:

“However, plaintiffs have been unable to overcome even the more flexible causation tests applied in several jurisdictions which ask if damages are ‘fairly traceable’ to defendants’ actions.  This is typically due to courts’ finding that the evidence provided does not substantiate the connection between individual emitters’ actions and plaintiffs’ losses.

“…Our analysis shows that when courts considered evidence on causation, they typically found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that defendants’ emissions caused the alleged impacts.”

Double oops. But, like the Coming Doom, Warmists are saying that the science will get better. This is the best they have after 30+ years

Attribution Science Was Designed to Support Litigation

While the fact that this report was published in the first place is noteworthy, its conclusions shouldn’t come as a shock. Attribution science is an area of research that’s not being used to gain a better understanding of climate change, rather it was designed solely to aid climate litigation. In the very first paragraph of the report, the authors acknowledge this is the goal:

“We conclude that greater appreciation and exploitation of existing methodologies in attribution science could address obstacles to causation and improve the prospects of litigation as a route to compensation for losses, regulatory action, and emission reductions by defendants seeking to limit legal liability.”

So, it is not really science. And the article highlights many other Warmists admitting this, that it is all about lawsuits. Because they cannot get their unhinged, Modern Socialist, cult ideas through the legislatures.

What is absolutely not a surprise is that this report was funded by the Foundation for International Law for the Environment (FILE), whose goal is “to accelerate legal action globally to address the climate and nature crises.”

Nope. Not at all. Lots and lots of big money Warmists and Warmist groups are involved. They won’t give up their own big carbon footprints, but, do want courts to force you to do so.