Post by NFA on Jun 7, 2022 15:10:22 GMT 8
[ He is looking for help ]
By Christopher Garbacz June 5, 2022
A class action against the climate changistas for the huge economic damage they have caused is doable. Not only is it doable, but we’re doing the groundwork to make it happen.
In several articles at American Thinker, I’ve proposed class action lawsuits against those who have used IPCC modeling as the basis to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy. The IPCC and its supporters say replacing fossil fuels is necessary by 2050 to save the planet and humankind from total destruction due to rising temperatures.
The proponents of this “climate change” action include federal, state, and local entities; universities; K-12 schools; the media; foundations; non-profit green activist entities; Hollywood; numerous pension funds; and many corporations. To end their demands for action, a case needs to be filed in a court of law challenging whether the anthropogenic climate change that the IPCC alleges will destroy life on earth is scientifically proven.
The case would force specifically targeted IPCC proponents to prove (instead of simply assert) that IPCC modeling proves that rising world temperatures, however defined, will destroy the planet and human life, unless fossil fuels are banned and replaced with renewable fuels? If the Climate Change Agenda is shown to be unsubstantiated, the court could determine what damages flowed from a specific defendant’s pursuit of that agenda.
What damages can be claimed? The present energy economy took 100 years to assemble. It is quite complex. The very idea of creating a new energy economy willy-nilly within a few decades is ludicrous. The damages are related to the destruction of businesses, industries, and associated jobs, not to mention implementing centralized control from DC and like. So, we are talking about freedom, markets and, basically, a complete transformation of America into a country that is no longer recognizable. The damages in dollars and freedom are astronomical.
Many different lawsuits are viable, but the initial lawsuit needs to be supported by the best science, data, and lawyers. This means an initial monetary commitment on the order of several million dollars. In some controversial court cases, the parties end up spending several million dollars.
The buildup to the lawsuit requires an extensive PR campaign. How to mount such a campaign? Billboards might be a starting point. Powerful billboards might have the following messages: Fossil fuels have raised incomes around the world and reduced poverty for billions of people. Rich countries help the environment. Poor countries hinder the environment. Markets and fossil fuels will save the planet. If you want to save the children, back fossil fuels. The Green Agenda is racist because it seeks to reduce economic growth in Africa and non-white countries in general.
I don’t know what the best brief slogan to promote is. Advertisers do!! Focus groups and so forth can be worked up. And at least for now, as long as Musk’s offer to purchase is still out there, there’s the possibility of real free speech on Twitter.
Fossil energy and markets have had an enormous impact on reducing poverty around the world and should continue to do so. Renewables and the collectivist Green Agenda have pushed the world in the opposite direction. Environmental advancement is driven by countries becoming richer, not by keeping countries poor. In effect, we believe that science will not support the IPCC and the green activist clamor. Clearly, fossil fuels and markets support the best interests of the world now and in the future.
Christopher Garbacz is a former professor of economics. Contact: cgarbo@protonmail.com.
In several articles at American Thinker, I’ve proposed class action lawsuits against those who have used IPCC modeling as the basis to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy. The IPCC and its supporters say replacing fossil fuels is necessary by 2050 to save the planet and humankind from total destruction due to rising temperatures.
The proponents of this “climate change” action include federal, state, and local entities; universities; K-12 schools; the media; foundations; non-profit green activist entities; Hollywood; numerous pension funds; and many corporations. To end their demands for action, a case needs to be filed in a court of law challenging whether the anthropogenic climate change that the IPCC alleges will destroy life on earth is scientifically proven.
The case would force specifically targeted IPCC proponents to prove (instead of simply assert) that IPCC modeling proves that rising world temperatures, however defined, will destroy the planet and human life, unless fossil fuels are banned and replaced with renewable fuels? If the Climate Change Agenda is shown to be unsubstantiated, the court could determine what damages flowed from a specific defendant’s pursuit of that agenda.
What damages can be claimed? The present energy economy took 100 years to assemble. It is quite complex. The very idea of creating a new energy economy willy-nilly within a few decades is ludicrous. The damages are related to the destruction of businesses, industries, and associated jobs, not to mention implementing centralized control from DC and like. So, we are talking about freedom, markets and, basically, a complete transformation of America into a country that is no longer recognizable. The damages in dollars and freedom are astronomical.
Many different lawsuits are viable, but the initial lawsuit needs to be supported by the best science, data, and lawyers. This means an initial monetary commitment on the order of several million dollars. In some controversial court cases, the parties end up spending several million dollars.
The buildup to the lawsuit requires an extensive PR campaign. How to mount such a campaign? Billboards might be a starting point. Powerful billboards might have the following messages: Fossil fuels have raised incomes around the world and reduced poverty for billions of people. Rich countries help the environment. Poor countries hinder the environment. Markets and fossil fuels will save the planet. If you want to save the children, back fossil fuels. The Green Agenda is racist because it seeks to reduce economic growth in Africa and non-white countries in general.
I don’t know what the best brief slogan to promote is. Advertisers do!! Focus groups and so forth can be worked up. And at least for now, as long as Musk’s offer to purchase is still out there, there’s the possibility of real free speech on Twitter.
Fossil energy and markets have had an enormous impact on reducing poverty around the world and should continue to do so. Renewables and the collectivist Green Agenda have pushed the world in the opposite direction. Environmental advancement is driven by countries becoming richer, not by keeping countries poor. In effect, we believe that science will not support the IPCC and the green activist clamor. Clearly, fossil fuels and markets support the best interests of the world now and in the future.
Christopher Garbacz is a former professor of economics. Contact: cgarbo@protonmail.com.
