u/Illustrious_Pepper46

Even 'green' New Zealand is blocking Activists climate lawsuits.

WELLINGTON: New Zealand has passed hotly contested legislation to block lawsuits that seek to hold companies liable for climate change harm.

The right-wing coalition government's legal amendment cleared a final hurdle in parliament on Tuesday (Aug 18) night by a margin of 67 votes to 53.

The law aims to prevent civil litigation overriding its climate policy and undermining business confidence, the government said.

It was introduced in response to a lawsuit filed by Indigenous Maori climate activist Michael Smith against six prominent New Zealand companies for their contribution to environmental harm linked to climate change.

70% deliberate... that's a HUGE number.

Almost 500 people have been arrested on suspicion of starting wildfires in France since the start of the summer, authorities have said, as firefighters in half a dozen European countries tackle ferocious blazes amid a record-breaking heatwave.

About 70% of those arrested were suspected of deliberately starting fires and the rest of doing so accidentally. French media said a 15-year-old boy had been detained in connection with a fire near Bordeaux airport that killed two firefighters in July.

The Supreme Court will not be deciding if climate change is real or not. They are deciding on Tort law. He's my thinking why it will fail...in the context assuming climate change is in play as this is not the case.

- Everyone contributes. If Exxon must pay its “fair share,” shouldn't China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, other oil companies, governments, businesses and consumers also pay their share? If those others pay zero...then it's not "fair". Why should a few companies pay for a problem created by a global system involving governments, businesses and billions of consumers?

- Consumers make choices. Oil companies sell a legal product (like alcohol). People choose to drive, fly and use it (and drink alcohol). Why should the producer carry the blame for choices made by the person using the fuel? Who's responsible for consuming too much alcohol, the one making it, or the person?

- Governments allowed it. Governments have known about CO2 "dangers" for decades but still allow and regulate fossil fuels. If they want less use, they can make laws/regulations to reduce it...but they haven't. They would need to sue themselves first for knowingly selling it.

- Where does responsibility stop? Oil goes from producer to refinery to gas station or airline to consumer. Then comes emissions, weather and eventually damage. Which part of that chain makes one company responsible? They all knowingly make money & governments collect taxes on it.

- What if Exxon didn't sell it? If Exxon had not sold the oil, someone else probably would have. So how much damage would actually have been avoided? They do not have a monopoly on it. The consumer sets the demand.

- Many things cause damage. A wildfire, flood or storm can have many causes. Climate change may be one factor, but that doesn't automatically mean one oil company caused the damage. It may have been CO2 from China/Russia/Saudia Arabia. If governments allow imported fuel, then is the liability in the exporting or importing country?

Police said a man charged with starting a wildfire in Spokane, Washington, confessed to the crime, describing how he planned it for weeks and created a device to ignite a blaze that destroyed hundreds of buildings.

Aaron Farinacci researched the weather to predict a day that would have "high winds, low humidity, sort of high heat" for the Old Trails Fire, Spokane County Detective Michael Drapeau said in a court filing Wednesday.

Farinacci picked Aug. 1 to start the fire because he knew there would be strong winds — reaching 50 mph, the detective said.

Of course the researchers 'discover' the usual suspects.... conspiracy theories, "right wing", distrust in institutions, lack of media hyping CC every second, etc. It's the oldest playbook, rinse and repeat.

They list all the "outcomes" of skepticism. But no where do they tackle the "root cause", or why? People don't just wake up one morning and say..."I'm a Climate Denier".

They can't and don't ask those hard questions. As they would need to admit uncomfortable truths, the many failures that lead to those outcomes....but that would be verboten.

The problem is not them, it's You! After decades they still cannot figure it out. Very satisfying to watch...as more and more people leave the Church of climate change every day.

A new provision in the state’s 2027 budget prevents the state attorney general from “joining a multistate lawsuit or taking part of a lawsuit against the federal government or an oil or gas entity” without legislative approval.

“Republican and Democrat, we all voted for this,” Hall said. “We don’t want our attorney general filing these lawsuits against oil and gas companies for political reasons.”

Now injecting my opinion, these lawsuits are the last kick of the can by Greens. The DNC has gone silent on climate change, called "climate hushing". The only hope left is the courts.

Why will they fail? Winning a lawsuit against oil & gas for knowingly endangering people, a government regulated, sanctioned, and taxed industry, would also place the Government in jeopardy to the same lawsuits, for knowingly allowing the (continued) sale of the same goods.

It's dead on arrival, it won't happen. Even all strips of government can see the "political" motivation behind the lawsuits.

Longer read, but encapsulates 25 years of debate, ignored realities and real solutions, ideology overriding all else.

Ignorance or worse

How, then, could it be anything but time to question the accuracy, integrity and value of all the conclusions derived from such models – and to ask what factors, including the motivational, drove the catastrophising and made such failure not merely possible but inevitable?

This brings us back to the ideological. Politicisation of the climate debate meant that facts about atmospheric CO2 and its effects became less scientific observations than convenient proofs of a pre-existing position. Three partisan advantages accrued to those who cast such effects as catastrophic proof that industrial capitalism was irredeemably corrupt.

Just remember, Climate Alarmests blame climate change, and defend the people that have caused these fires as being somehow 'normal'...what side are you on?

As wildfires blazed in southern Italy this week, authorities probing for arson found a grisly clue: cats “with flammable-soaked rags tied to their tails.”

“These animals were released into the fields, running around and spreading the fire,” said Domenico Costarella of Calabria’s Civil Protection Agency in a video posted on Facebook on Tuesday. He added that other pieces of evidence also pointed to arson, including candles lit among flammable rags and delayed ignition devices.

These incidents reflect a broader reality. In France, nine out of 10 wildfires are of human origin. Since the beginning of 2026, according to Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez, around 60 people have been arrested as part of investigations into intentional or accidental fires.

Investigators believe the fire started when heavy machinery was used without authorisation in a forested area near Burgohondo. Since then, the flames have devastated large parts of the Alberche Valley, the Sierra de Gredos, Tierra de Pinares, the Tiétar Valley and the area around the El Burguillo reservoir.

Who's in Denial? If a camp fire starts a Forest fire, when there's a fire ban for good reason? Is that climate change too?

In the climate argument, pro-CC circles always state the importance of peer-review. Weather attribution (WA) research is intended to bypass peer-review (IPCC), as they don't like the IPCC's inconclusive (low confidence) findings.

If skeptics did the same thing, the first weapon against similar reports or studies would be "it wasn't peer-reviewed". Yet when they like the results, peer-review is not required, even when the intended use of WA is highly biased towards litigation by admission.

Read the full article linked...

First, event attribution research is a form of tactical science — research performed explicitly to serve legal and political ends. This is not my opinion, but has been openly stated on many occasions by the researchers who developed and perform event attribution research

Friederike Otto, explains, “Unlike every other branch of climate science or science in general, event attribution was actually originally suggested with the courts in mind.”

The IPCC’s inability to reach high confidence in detection and attribution of most types of extreme events has been viewed by climate advocates as politically problematic.

As I recently argued, tactical science is not necessarily bad science, but it should elevate the degree of scrutiny that such analyses face, especially when they generally are not subjected to independent peer review.

I'll let people read the full article. Why this is important? I asked AI to estimate how many studies were based on the old (impossible) 8.5 scenarios....

- If you combine the two generations (RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5), a reasonable estimate is 15,000–25,000+ scientific papers that either used or referenced the highest-emissions scenario in some way.

The IPCC has just nullified or obsoleted 15 years of research, thousands of papers, even more researchers. And this does not include many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands "scary" news stories based on this research.

...and to anyone reading, the changes were not due to green policies. The CO2 records only show it increasing. It's the fact 8.5 was impossible in the first place.

If any of these events happened today, it would be blamed on Climate Change.

Climatologist Van Engelen made a list of "scorching summers" since the 14th century, here are some of them:

- Summer 1636: all over France, more than 500,000 people died of infectious diseases (the mud and water were infected).

- Summer 1705: it was 39°C in Paris for several days, even hotter in the south of France... This heatwave killed between 200,000 and 500,000 people.

- Summers 1718 and 1719: a particularly deadly period. 700,000 deaths were recorded, including 450,000 in the summer of 1719. The waters were unfit for consumption due to drought, most of the victims died of dysentery. Crops were poor and prices rose sharply, the state intervened to control grain prices and banned exports. The summer of 1719 was also marked by an invasion of locusts from North Africa to Languedoc which devastated crops. The Seine reached a historic low level: just over 26 meters above sea level.

- Summers 1747 and 1779: 200,000 victims for each of these periods, mostly infants and children.

- Summer 1788: it was not the heat that caused devastation, but the impressive storm on July 13. Wheat crops were destroyed, a period of famine was on the way...

- Summer 1846: the country was still facing the potato blight of 1845, hundreds of thousands of people died, and France experienced poverty and unemployment in the textile and construction sectors.

- Summer 1859: July was the hottest month in history. 100,000 deaths were recorded, including 60,000 children under 5 years old...

UNITED NATIONS — Europe risks destroying its industrial base unless its leaders retreat from aggressive climate policies and respond to voters demanding economic results, Czech Environment Minister Igor Červený warned in an interview with Fox News Digital.

"If you look at the market at this moment, mostly in European countries, there is a very bad situation," he said. "We see many companies leave our territory and leave for China or another place in the world."

Červený said resistance to the current approach was spreading beyond the Czech Republic, citing Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Germany and some Scandinavian countries.

"We have to change the course," he said, "because we don’t want to lose our industry, our economy, our benefits for society and the environment as well."

Previous modelling studies generally estimated that the regulations produced a global effective radiative forcing of around +0.10 W/m². The new study finds that this result depends heavily on how models represent the size and number of sulphate particles produced by ship exhaust.

When the researchers represented shipping sulphate as smaller particles, the estimated IMO2020 forcing increased to +0.19–0.31 W/m². Under an additional high-primary-sulphate assumption, it reached +0.41 W/m²—roughly two to four times the recent modelling consensus.

A total of 59 people have been arrested across France over suspected deliberate or accidental arson, including two in connection with the wildfire still sweeping through the Fontainebleau forest southeast of Paris, Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez has said.

The minister said on Monday evening that the arrests included 30 adults and 29 minors "with very different profiles". Seven suspects have been remanded in custody pending trial after admitting to deliberately setting fires.

... remember when they blamed the Palisades California Fires on Climate Change...then Jonathan Rinderknecht was arrested...rinse and repeat.