Kiddie Court
Judith Curry, an American climatologist, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and now president of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN) writes an illuminating article on the case of “Held v The State of Montana”. I have written about this lawsuit twice previously – here and here. In the legal action, 16 children are suing the State of Montana, claiming victimhood and harm resulting from failures by State Government to impede or terminate carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. These children range from the age of 2 through 18. Miss Curry while deposed by the state, and providing written testimony, was not called as an expert witness during the trial.
In a general grasp and understanding of her story, it would seem Miss Curry was somewhat displeased, not at her absence in being seated in the witness chair, but a general deficiency of arguments made by the state. She watched the case, and the plaintiff’s testimony was done, for the most part, by academic ecologists, who the plaintiff labeled “climate experts”. She maintains that none of the Plaintiffs’ climate “experts” had “any expertise that related to actually understanding the crucial points in the case which she says are:
attribution of extreme weather events that the youth Plaintiffs have encountered in their lifetimes (e.g. wildfire, heat wave, hail storm, drought, early snow melt).
projections for 21st-century warming (several of the Plaintiffs seem to be suffering from pre-traumatic stress syndrome)
the contributions of MT’s emissions to global warming and severe weather/climate events in MT
Miss Curry, says of their evidence, had she been the cross-examiner, she “would have shredded their testimony.”
Naturally, this brings into question why the State’s defense did not have an opposing climate expert, like Curry, viewing witness statements and providing accurate veritable questions to contest the accuracy and veracity of the plaintiff’s attestant or testifier. While this would have added to increased costs for Montana taxpayers it would certainly be less expensive, with resulting negative connotations, for all, should the government lose the case.
Curry writes that many of the plaintiff’s witnesses were the litigant children (all Native Americans) and several adults from the state’s Native American community. This naturally brings the case into the environmental realm of woke social justice and hiding behind the buffer and armor of children and indigenous people. It is essentially asking the court for minority and racial mercy. Curry further understands how the legacy media, irrespective of truth and accuracy stands prejudicially, yet firmly behind the climate movement. The media is more entrenched in the court of public opinion than the legitimacy of climate change; they will unequivocally support “Our Children’s Trust”, the plaintiff’s law firm and climate advocates, using the youth for their own political deception.
While the state of Montana opted for a private legal team, they also opted for procedural law claiming, “that the Plaintiffs did not adequately make a case that Montana’s emissions were harming Montana’s citizens nor contributing to global warming in a measurable way”. Regardless of how this court action is resolved, I believe the opposition needs to attract and hire an environmental legal team fluent in climate change with enough resources to engage superior global warming intellects like Judith Curry.
Miss Curry is always a good, knowledgeable read – I recommend reading the full article here.