I recall being deeply discouraged when I heard the outcome of Held v Montana, the children’s lawsuit where a judge ruled that kids were indeed protected under the Montana Constitution from greenhouse gases. “Where is science in all of this?” I wondered, along with wanting to know who put the kids up to it. Montana has a constitutional provision that its citizens are entitled to a “clean and healthful environment.” That’s a bit like saying that we are also entitled to a healthy diet, quality health care, intelligent public officials and really good school teachers. The problem with all of that is definitions. People of sound mind will disagree on all of it, and the conflicts that arise can only be called “irresolvable.”
Nonetheless, the constitutional language is there, and District Court Judge Kathy Seeley rule in favor of the kids, or I should say, the people that put them up to it. Later, the Montana Supreme Court went along, so now we are dealing with precedent.
Back in 2011 German (former) virologist Stefan Lanka wanted to fight a rule that all Germans would be forced to be inoculated with a measles vaccine. He offered a prize of €100,000 to anyone who could prove the existence of the measles virus. A man stepped forward with scientific papers to that effect, and the lower court ruled that it had “no doubt” as to the existence of the virus, and told Lanka to pay up. Lanka claims to have expected this outcome, and that his true objective was to raise the level of the lawsuit to the The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), aka Bundesgerichtshof, the highest civil court in Germany. That court, he says, is bound by the scientific method, and so must be called in to judge the case.
He won. Experiments “proving” existence of viruses all suffered a fatal flaw, the absence of controls. Take, for example, Covid, where viral “isolation” involves introducing human sputum into a host of other ingredients, and then waiting to see if a cytopathic (cell death) effect results. When it does, it is attribute to the virus that the scientists are searching for. The problem is that they do not run the same experiment without human sputum to see if they get the same effect. Lanka has done so, and has indeed shown the same effect, rendering virus isolation to the realm of pseudoscience.
AI, now our constant companion, tells us that the Lanka case proved nothing, and that the “scientific community” does not agree with the outcome. In other words, there’s no consensus, and these days consensus has replaced the scientific method. However, and this is critical, Lanka was allowed to keep his €100,000.
Back to the kids’ lawsuit. I regard it as shameful pandering, and child abuse. Kids know nothing and are easily influenced by adults who want to use them for nefarious ends. We are seeing it now. The Manhattan Contrarian, aka Francis Menton, recently wrote about the “endangerment finding”, wherein it was determined that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are a danger to human health. That rule is absurd on its face, and malevolent in intent. It is part of a much larger and very powerful movement called Climate Alarmism, also a farce. But with that movement, politics takes center stage, and all science and good sense goes out the window.
The EPA did away with the endangerment finding on 2/13/2026. Predictably, there is a flurry of lawsuits, and also predictably, those lawsuits are in the District of Columbia at various levels. That place is noted for liberal judges, and Menton fears, rightfully so, a slow walk on the cases. What is needed is a quick ruling and appeal to the US Supreme Court, where it is likely that the end of the EF would prevail.
I do not trust Donald Trump, though I know that presidents are merely actors and that behind them are real players with substance and power. Trump’s movements in the area of climate change have been sensible and welcome, but I am quite certain that our next presidential selection process will bring in a group of people intent on pressing forward with the Climate Change hoax. Think … President AOC, or Gavin Newsome. These are not stupid people. They are cogs in a machine, but intent on destruction of science and order. At its roots, climate alarmism is nothing but misanthropy writ large.
I am going to close with two passages from Menton’s piece on the Endangerment Finding, What’s Up With the Endangerment Finding Litigation?, a couple of arguments currently winding their way through the judicial process in DC:
The Repeal Rule Violates Petitioners’ Fundamental Free Exercise Rights Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Repeal Rule substantially burdens Petitioners … sincerely held religious beliefs. “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless it can demonstrate the burden furthers “a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” . . . The Repeal Rule pressures [victims of the EF recission] to modify their behavior in a way that seriously violates their sincerely held religious beliefs by forcing a choice between adherence to their religious tenets, and protecting their health and safety. Petitioners … are observant Jews whose religion requires them to walk to synagogue on the Sabbath. . . . M.D. is an observant Muslim whose religion requires her to fast during Ramadan. . . . Each Sabbath that is made too hot for … petitioners … to walk safely to synagogue, and each day of Ramadan that is made too hot for M.D. to safely fast and wear hijab, is a day they are prevented from observing important requirements of their religions.
The Repeal Rule Violates Petitioners’ Rights to Life and Liberties Under the Fifth Amendment. . . . Petitioners may not be “deprived of life . . . without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. . . . GHG emissions from the Repeal Rule further disrupt Earth’s energy imbalance [sic] in a way that increases heat, wildfires, and wildfire smoke that injures Petitioners’ lives and health. . . . More wildfire smoke exposure exacerbates … petitioners’ …asthma and Elena’s serious infections, which are life-threatening conditions.
As Menton notes, you can’t make this stuff up. My questions, where is science? Where is hard data? Where are the physical records of temperature? Does the U.S. have in its judicial structure a Bundesgerichtshof, where the rules of the scientific method are enforced?
It appears not.
Piece of Mindful 