The Democrats’ “lawfare” strategy of using lawsuits to persecute former President Donald Trump is the same strategy that the Green Left is using to attack an entire industry: Oil and gas (O&G). Dozens of cities and states have filed lawsuits targeting Big Oil — in all of these lawsuits, plaintiffs claim that consumption of the fossil fuels that Big Oil has produced has changed Earth’s climate for the worse, resulting in various harms suffered by various people. Therefore, the plaintiffs in these suits are demanding billions of dollars in compensation from major O&G companies.  We can readily concede that Earth’s climate is changing. It always has and always will. But has it changed for the worse? No court trial can definitively prove or disprove this hypothesis. One may believe that the partial evidence they have gathered proves their case, but the only honest and just determination is that everyone has a subjective opinion about it. (READ MORE from Mark Hendrickson: The Secret Democratic Cabal’s Openly Anti-American Agenda) Sadly, judges can predetermine the outcome of a case by controlling what evidence (or purported evidence) is admissible. If a judge decides that only the “official science” promoted by government agencies and multilateral organizations such as the UN’s IPCC is valid, then the green plaintiffs may win these cases.  Climate Change Has Been Beneficial, Not Harmful, for the Planet But is climate change more harmful than beneficial? Defense attorneys in these cases could marshal a strong case that the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1800s has been a net positive due to longer growing seasons and increased agricultural productivity. Global deaths from cold in today’s modestly warmer temperatures outnumber deaths from heat by nearly 20 to one.  Another positive development is that the CO2 enrichment of Earth’s atmosphere in recent decades has led to a significant greening of the planet (i.e., more plant growth over larger areas). CO2 is not a pollutant, but plant food upon which life on Earth depends. Everyone, except perhaps desert nomads, should be grateful for this flourishing. (READ MORE: Paris Olympics Show Futility of Sustainability) What about the allegation that Earth is worse off today because there are more violent weather events (hurricanes, floods, fires, etc.)? You can’t find support for that allegation in the data accumulated by the IPCC, the UN agency spearheading much of the climate alarmist movement. But even if such events were more common, the fact that overall deaths from bad weather events have declined by well over 90 percent in the past century can hardly be characterized as “the situation is getting worse.”  Another problem for the green lawfare plaintiffs: How can anyone prove whether any particular destructive weather event in recent and future years would or would not have happened if humans hadn’t consumed huge quantities of fossil fuels and Earth’s climate hadn’t warmed over the past two centuries?  Perhaps some green lawfare lawyers will argue in court that continued warming will prove to be massively catastrophic in the coming years. Problem: How can one “prove” the future (especially when computer climate models have shown abysmal predictive accuracy)?  This Is What Justice Would Look Like Even if one believes that CO2 from fossil fuels is the major cause of the world’s modest warming after the Little Ice Age (a viewpoint that is becoming increasingly less tenable) why single out Big Oil for prosecution? Where is the justice in that? China emits more CO2 than the rest of the world combined. And as those bringing the suit against Big Oil in Hawaii have helpfully pointed out, “it is not possible to determine the source of any particular individual molecule of CO2.” The motivation of those pursuing green lawfare amounts to: We don’t like bad weather, Big Oil companies have deep pockets, and because they are in our jurisdiction, let’s go after them. There is another legal point to consider: Do not today’s Americans who have prospered so greatly because of earlier generations’ massive consumption of fossil fuels, and who have benefited from fossil fuel consumption in their own lives (e.g., comfortable home temperatures, automotive mobility) bear some responsibility for the alleged negative effects of fossil fuel consumption? (READ MORE: Kamala Supports a Radical Climate Agenda — But Will Her VP?) Green lawfare lawsuits remind me of attempts to sue gun manufacturers because certain individuals commit crimes with guns. But it remains a principle of American justice that those who perpetrate harm are the ones legally liable for the harm. That would suggest that the very people suing Big Oil, by having consumed fossil fuels, are the ones who, if anyone, should pay the damages.  If the greenies suing Big Oil want true justice, they should sue themselves. That may sound ridiculous, but it is no more ridiculous than suing Big Oil because Mother Nature gets nasty from time to time. It is time for those waging green lawfare to look in the mirror. How many of them are consuming fossil fuels in their road vehicles, yard tractors, gas-powered weed-whackers, traveling by air to see loved ones, heating their homes, powering their workplaces, etc.? The greenies and their green lawfare strategy are hugely hypocritical. The post If Greenies Want Justice, They Should Sue Themselves appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

At DNC, Voters Won't See the Real Kamala Harris

University Propaganda

Sen. Warren’s Undemocratic Plan to Reinstate Chevron

America's Banking Priorities Shouldn't Suffer FDIC's Credibility Crisis

When Veterans Needed Help, Tim Walz Abandoned Them

Wait, Wait…Don’t Tell Them

The Cycle of Lies Surrounding Tim Walz

U.S. Afghanistan Vets Still Demoralized After Disastrous Withdrawal

Government Control of Retirement Is Not the Answer