Court Dismisses Anti-Big Oil Climate Change Case

These cases against "Big Oil," noting NO state run companies (top 16 worldwide) included, are flawed at so many levels it's hard to know where to begin. The idea that somehow the evidence is "clear cut" that these named corporate defendants had definitive scientific evidence their products would create catastrophic climate change is BASELESS. In the heralded "Exxon Knew" campaign that prompted litigation by the NY attorney general, to date, my understanding is over 2 MILLION pages of documents have been submitted by Exxon-Mobil. The result? In full context, Exxon scientists were aware of the potential of CO2 in the atmosphere but NO DEFINITIVE conclusions were reached. Much the same as the "scientific consensus" continually trotted out by activists. YES, the scientific community recognizes the phenomenon of CO2, but there is FAR from "consensus" on those impacts. When your modeling consistently does not match your observed temperature data, then there is PLENTY of room for continued scientific analysis & reasoned debate.

I'm not a lawyer, but the judges decision looks sensible. The fact (again) that climate change is recognized DOES NOT necessarily mean it is catastrophic in nature. An issue of worldwide scale is NOT suited as a nuisance matter in a local court, period. This is NOT a tobacco or lead case, so STOP that nonsense as well! No comparison between a cigarette and a gallon of gasoline or MYRIAD of other useful petroleum products that ENHANCE our modern lifestyle. The judge rightly observes the MANY benefits brought to modern civilization by fossil fuels. Everything man does has an impact and most often, involves complex tradeoffs. So instead of the ongoing vilification program foisted by the environmental activists against ENERGY PROVIDERS, why don't we as citizens CHANGE the discussion. Try this simple question: What do you (insert favorite Environmental NGO) propose that is CLEAN, SUSTAINABLE & SCALABLE to replace 65% of the current U.S electric generating capability and 95% of our transportation fuels? Don't say "100% renewables by 2050" because that is a SLOGAN, not a potential reality supported by ANY creditable peer reviewed scientific analysis.

Let's go to work! The coming energy transition away from fossil fuels in the decades to come will require a rational & sensible debate. The key is COLLABORATION (not confrontation) among government agencies, energy providers, concerned citizens and YES environmental groups if they can (somehow) outgrow the ongoing "fossil fuel extinction" campaign. A coherent national energy strategy is LONG OVERDUE. This is no different than any number of other challenges our nation has faced during it's history. I've said it on several blogs and it bears repeating. ENOUGH political science, drama & "theater" and more focus on constructive dialogue, PHYSICAL science and results. Otherwise, when it comes to energy, our nation will continue to be done a terrible disservice...