Sources say that the cities of Oakland and San Francisco were looking to force Big Oil to pay for rising oceans -- though what the cities intended to do with the money was not specified. Ultimately, a judge has decided that their case doesn't have legs to stand on -- at least not in his court room.
Lawsuit-happy liberals sue over 'climate change'
The primary argument being presented by the California lawsuits is that Big Oil has created a "public hazard" by producing and selling oil. Under this premise, they allege that oil companies have acted similarly to Big Tobacco, profiteering from campaigns to misinform the public about the dangers of their products.
The difference is that tobacco didn't build our society -- oil did. This distinction is key to where we lay blame and whom who we hold accountable for the environmental costs of oil production. There are many things that oil production does that can be hazardous to the planet and living things (oil spills, destruction of natural habitats and so on) -- these are things the industry could actually be held accountable for.
But climate change? Not so much; and as U.S. District Judge William Alsup noted, it is impossible to ignore the fact that both these two cities and the rest of the world have benefited immensely from the use of fossil fuels.
Judge Aslup wrote, “Having reaped the benefit of that historic progress, would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded?”
“Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?” he continued.
But climate change is actually just a hoax
It's fair to say that Big Oil has had its fair share of scandals, particularly regarding damage to the environment. Oil spills have devastated land and sea. But that doesn't mean they're responsible for global warming -- which is actually nothing more than a massive hoax.
Earlier this year, climate-change crazy scientists tucked their tails between their legs and finally admitted they were wrong about their predictions. U.S.-based climatologist Judith Curry and U.K. mathematician Nick Lewis, found that the future impact of human activity on climate had been overestimated by nearly 50 percent.
“Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the IPCC, and highly unlikely to exceed that level,” Lewis explained.
Further, in 2017, it was revealed that the “scientists” behind global warming had been altering the recorded surface temperatures to show warming when there was, in fact, none to report.
In an article disclosing the massive fraud, Natural News founder Mike Adams contended:
The purpose of the widespread fraud has been to achieve “consensus” by exposing scientists to fake data that appear to show a catastrophic rise in average global temperatures. It’s all being done to support the moneymaking scam of carbon taxes that enrich fraudulent science hoaxers like Al Gore who are raking in billions of dollars from carbon tax schemes and oppressive government regulation of carbon emissions.
Perhaps this same kind of money-hungriness is what prompted the cities of Oakland and San Francisco to hedge their bets with an unsubstantiated lawsuit against the oil industry? It's awful hard to believe these officials actually care about the environment when they're walking around with their hands out, looking for a quick payday.
The climate change narrative is unraveling so quickly, its no wonder California politicians are trying to cash out now, before its too late.
Learn more about climate truth at Climate.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
