I refer you to an article, Missoula judge dismisses federal climate lawsuit, plaintiffs plan to appeal, which you will find in the Billings (Montana) Gazette, or any of the other related Lee Newspaper outlets. Unfortunately, the article is paywalled. At one time I subscribed to the Gazette, paying $1.00 for three months. I thought the price was a bit excessive, but only modestly so. More recently, I have subscribed for one year for $26.00, wildly overpriced, but still, affordable.
The article is centered on a lawsuit brought by “Our Children’s Trust”, a group of naive and poorly educated kids used as fronts in a cynical maneuver to bypass science and legislatures and make “Climate Change” an actionable offense. By that means misanthropic morons can take legal action against our society. The judge, U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen, bent the knee before the CC crowd, but said in conclusion that “… while this court is certainly troubled by the very real harms presented by climate change and the challenged [executive orders’] effect on carbon dioxide emissions, this concern does not automatically confer upon it the power to act.”
That’s a fair conclusion, I admit, that a mere district court cannot bind a nation, but what is missing from the whole affair is reference to any science behind Climate Change. The people using the kids as sock puppets are as devoid of scientific rigor as the kids themselves.
I recall a 2015 lawsuit in Germany brought by scientist and (former) virologist Stephan Lanka. He offered a €100,000 reward to anyone who could provide a scientific paper proving the existence of the measles virus. The case brought to fore the usual suspects and a 1954 paper by Nobel Laureate* John Franklin Enders in which he supposedly isolated the virus. Lanka knew this was coming, but his objective was not to win in lower courts, but rather to take the case to the the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany’s highest court. There science prevails, and there Lanka won. Dr. Enders, and every virologist since, ditched the scientific method and relied on scientific experiments that neglected to include a control experiment sideboard. This needs to be done to ensure an isolated and falsifiable result. “Proof” has no place in science. It is the absence of falsifiability that establishes (currently) accepted science. Science is so corrupt that this is not done anymore.
If you Google this case, perhaps even Chatbox it (AI never runs counter to the prevailing power structure**), you’ll find mention of lower case outcomes, and only perhaps a fleeting reference to the higher court outcome. There, it will claim that the case did not disprove the existence of the measles virus. All the case did was demonstrate by scientific papers that existence of the virus was never shown to exist. That is the case to this day.***
Back to the kids and their silly and unfounded lawsuit. The fact that they are being taken seriously, and that our future holds the potential for damages to our way of life based on non-science, only points to the power behind the Climate Change movement. It is both anti-scientific and political, that is, powerfully political. Not only this judge, but almost every public figure alive who wants to stay a public figure bends the knee. That’s everyone down the line from judges, actors and musicians, college professors and even lowly elementary school teachers. [And, no surprise, Pope Leo XIV.]
Finally, the profession of journalism here should not pass without notice. I’m not giving them a pass. Journalists are trained in our finest institutions in the art of not thinking properly. They pride themselves on it, claiming their raison d’état is “objectivity”, or the ability to merely restate the positions taken by authority figures without ever having to question them or bear any scrutiny for failure to do so. Just as Climate Change is a scam, so too is journalism.
_______________
*As I recall, the motivation behind the Lanka offer was a mandatory measles vaccination, which may have become law anyway.
** Chatbox (AI) does not run counter to prevailing propaganda, which would be off-subject to mention. I’ve not checked, but assume AI says Climate Change is real too.
*** Nobel Prizes often enough reward genuine scientific and literary work, but too often are politicized, as with the 1954 Enders award, and a 2007 award to IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and to Al Gore based on An Inconvenient Truth, certifiable horseshit. Then there was the 2009 Peace Prize to Barack Obama, who’d yet to do anything worthy of such a prize. To this day. This was nothing more than a gesture done to validate his credentials. That’s by definition “politicization of the prize.”
Piece of Mindful 
I was thinking about what the problem with journalists is, and the problem is actually with “professional” journalists. Mark is journalist as far as I am concerned, but critically (as far as we know!) is not paid for it – and runs no advertisements, and does not charge to post on this site. Once someone does something for a living, you can toss honesty out the window – you have to do what the man tells you to do or you’re gone. So therefore no professional journalist is ever going to be honest, its not in their contract.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My words may be short, but I’ll say them all the same… “I agree with what you said!”
LikeLike
It is said (how would I know?) that journalism is one of the easiest degrees to attain. Well. OK, but has the person who said that ever heard of a Masters degree in outdoor recreation?
The thing I have noticed about the profession is that they hand out awards (to each other) like candy at Halloween. I would be like football players, removed from having to actually perform on the field and secure wins over opponents, gave each other trophies for, say, best block away from a play, nicest catch out of bounds, getting laid out flat but TRYING really hard. Journalists internalize the art of obsequious, and their superiors, for instance publishers who golf every day with the people the are supposed to report on, or editors who are only promoted because they know the lay of the land, choose their rank and file based on that submissiveness. Ben Bagdakian wrote a book about that.
The good ones leave, do something better for a living, like plumbing or electricity or carpentry, genuinely difficult professions only learned by doing, and only by doing well since mistakes are on public view. Journalists use their award system to hide behind one another.
Damn! Did not see that coming.
LikeLike
A correction, because I’m familiar with the Stefan Lanka measles lawsuit:
The inferior court (Landesgericht = state court) basically dismissed the scientific inadequacy of the publications (like Enders paper) and handwavingly declared that existance/pathogenicity of viruses is widely known in science. He did not even consider that the expert clearly stated in court that the publications indeed are missing (negative) control experiments.
Lanka did appeal the decision, but it went to next higher instance, which is Oberlandesgericht (upper state court, middle instance) Stuttgart, not the Bundesgerichtshof (highest instance). This court did indeed confirm that all six scientific papers presented as evidence for the measles virus are scientifically valid.
Then the media came in to completely misrepresent the case (save virology) and declared Lanka won because of a technicality. Which is the claimant could not fulfill Lanka’s specific requirements, instead of the truth that the science could not fulfill scientific requirements.
Because of it being a middle court decision and this media reaction, this is not a widely known case in Germany. Which is sad, as indeed measles “vaccination” is mandatory for children to be allowed into Kindergarten (not all of them afaik) and school. Keep in mind that homeschooling is almost completely outlawed in Germany. However I’ve heard that a vaccination exemption is not that hard to come by, you just have to find a doctor willing to declare that it’s dangerous for the kid because of allergies or whatever. Other european countries are far more strict concerning vaccinations.
LikeLike
Sorry, I made a silly mistake.
This should of course say: all six are scientifically INvalid. They are missing controls, among other shortcomings. The court confirmed they do not constitute scientific evidence of the measles virus.
LikeLike
Thank you! I run this blog for such comments.
LikeLike