Pirate's Cove

Thirty Five years of spreading awareness and they cannot convince everyone to give up their modern lives, elected lawmakers mostly won’t go as far as they want, so, the climastrologers will sue to force compliance

Ask A Scientist: How Can Scientists Drive Change Through Climate Lawsuits?

As the climate crisis deepens, so does the urgency to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for decades of deception. Governments representing more than a quarter of the US population have filed lawsuits against major corporations including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP, seeking justice for the harm caused by their lies about the dangers of their products. And especially on the cusp of a new Presidential administration that has vowed to support the fossil fuel industry and nominated appointees with a blatant disregard for science, the courts will become an integral arena to advance climate justice—and a pivotal space for scientists of all disciplines to make an impact.

These lawsuits hinge on the best available science to uncover the truth and inform the courts. UCS is already working with social scientists and economists, civil engineers and health practitioners who can bring extensive expertise to multi-faceted litigation. As the fossil fuel industry spares no expense to obscure these truths, the work of scientists who engage with climate litigation is increasingly vital. They bring clarity, evidence, and credibility to a high-stakes fight where lives—and the planet—are on the line.

In other words “our arguments that Mankind is evil and has caused a slight uptick in global temperatures has failed in the public domain. Henceforth we will try to get courts to force you peasants to comply. Us? Hell no, we need fossil fuels to travel to climate conferences.” Going much deeper into this article

AAS: First and foremost, like many of our readers, you are a researcher. Can you tell us a little more about those existing gaps in current scientific research that, if addressed, could further support climate litigation?

DM: As a researcher, I see significant opportunities for science to further inform climate litigation by addressing critical gaps. Our recent report on research areas for climate litigation highlights several key needs. For instance, attribution science remains a priority—establishing causal links between emissions, climate impacts, and specific events is essential for many cases. However, there’s a pressing need to expand this research to underrepresented regions, particularly in the Global South, where baseline data is often lacking. Developing new methods to suit these contexts can help ensure justice is accessible to all communities impacted by climate change.

In other words, they really do not know if there are rock solid links between Other People using fossil fuels and the slight uptick in temperatures since 1850. Mind you, this is from the Union Of Concerned Scientists, who never tell us how they made their own lives carbon neutral.

AAS: And I’ll close with this: it’s a new year, a fresh start, and folks are making resolutions. What is something concrete that you’re working on? 

DM: This year, I’m focusing on communicating the value and potential impact of scientists informing climate litigation. It’s crucial for scientists to understand that this work is about ensuring that courts have access to accurate, robust evidence to make informed decisions. Upholding the integrity of our research while making it actionable is essential to bridging the gap between science and justice.

What evidence? He just said that there are no rock solid, scientific links, essentially, just supposition from a doomsday cult.

Read: Ask A Cult Scientists: “We Can’t Convince People To Comply, So, We’ll Sue” »