The sunset of reason

“Every additional ton of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions exacerbates plaintiffs’ injuries and risks locking in irreversible climate injuries.”

The above is a quote, per the AP, from the ruling of District Judge Kathy Seeley in the Held vs Montana case, in which plaintiffs, all but one legal children, claimed the state’s energy policies were causing them harm by causing climate change.

I wrote about the case in June when it was given the green light to proceed. Now, the ruling is a fact and if it stands, it could make for a precedent that Our Children’s Trust, the organisation orchestrating the case, as well as many others in other states, has been waiting for. Eagerly.

If the ruling stands, it could — no, it will — unleash a veritable wave of similar lawsuits challenging states’ energy policies and effectively forcing them to join the climate crusade on hydrocarbons and, consequently, energy security.

Some law professionals have dismissed the ruling as not really important. Per the AP, ““The ruling really provides nothing beyond emotional support for the many cases seeking to establish a public trust right, human right or a federal constitutional right” to a healthy environment, said James Huffman, dean emeritus at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland.”

Yet not all agree. Also from the AP report, “To be sure, it is a state court not a federal court and the ruling is based on a state constitution and not the U.S. Constitution, but it is still clearly a major, pathbreaking win for climate plaintiffs,” said Harvard Law School Professor Richard Lazarus.

These plaintiffs are going to multiply significantly after that ruling. And it’s not because there’s money to be made, although there is, for the organisations that lead these lawsuits. There may be a lot more money down the road when plaintiffs begin demanding compensation for their “injuries” and I will not apologise for putting that in quotes.

But besides the financial motive, the increase in lawsuits would be because these climate plaintiffs have embraced the idea of being tragic victims and are putting it to good use, in total honesty.

Here’s a quote, still from the righteous AP report: “The plaintiffs said those changes were harming their mental and physical health, with wildfire smoke choking the air they breathe and drought drying out rivers that sustain agriculture, fish, wildlife and recreation.”

Wildfires everywhere and not a river left in Montana. In case that doesn’t drive you to desperation of apocalyptic proportions, here’s some more: “Native Americans testifying for the plaintiffs said climate change affects their ceremonies and traditional food sources.”

Leaving the embrace of victimhood as a way to find meaning in life aside, the court order contains some seriously interesting information. For example:

Also:

Now, you may wonder who’s that MJ that gets cited so copiously in these two paragraphs. Well, that would be Professor Mark Jacobson, a prominent climate figure who claims we can power the planet with wind, solar, and hydro alone, and it would totally work. That’s it. One man.

You might have heard the name with relation to a lawsuit he filed against 21 scientists who questioned his study about the 100% wind/solar/hydro energy system. Just how sound the lawsuit was is evident from the fact that even the LA Times called it “ridiculous”, after Jacobson dropped it. Sure, this was back in 2018 but still.

So, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs based on, among other things, the questionable claims of one man who doesn’t like to be criticised. I don’t know about you, but it doesn’t seem wholesome to me. Oh, and in case anyone was wondering about those “number of countries around the world”, here’s a list, courtesy of Ralph Schoellhammer.

So, what’s next? An appeal, definitely, but even if the appeal is successful, the fact remains that Our Children’s Trust scored a win, and it may well be the first of many, both for that, and for other similar organisations.

Another conclusion I draw from the development of that case is that science, true science is, if not dead, then on its deathbed. So is reason. The prognosis does not look too rosy, because when science and reason get infected by propaganda, the prognosis is never rosy. The only known cure is a harsh one. Suffer the consequences of the infection. All of the consequences. See how you like that.

Even worse than science, at least to me, is the fact that language seems to be in the throes of the disease. “Wildfire smoke choking the air they breathe”? How can anything choke the air, for goodness’ sake? The alarmist opera has reached such fever pitch that semantics no longer matters.

What matters is how the words sound. What matters is that they evoke as intense an emotion as realistically possible and let me tell you, when it comes to using language for the purposes of evoking an emotional response, what’s “realistically possible” is a lot.

Five years from now, there will probably be many more states getting sued, some successfully, by children claiming wildfire smoke chokes their they breathe and droughts dry rivers, even if no such thing is happening in reality.

Five years from now, few will remember that the claims of this July being the hottest ever were rebuked by actual hard data. In fact, it’s very likely every following July will break this record because data doesn’t matter any more. What matters is what you can do with bits and pieces of it.

Five years from now, a lot of people, including a lot of young people, will wonder what happened and why climate change hasn’t “stopped”. Also, why is there no electricity to charge the phone to be used to share red maps on social media. Because this is what happens when you kill science and reason, and forget the meaning of words.