Morano on Fox Business with Stuart Varney: 'They are implying – this is where it gets so far off the charts of science – they are implying that a carbon tax will somehow alter global temperature and future storms. That we can -- through a carbon tax --impact the climate. This makes absolutely no sense -- because carbon taxes, EPA regulations and cap-and-trade -- not only would they not impact global temperatures, they would not even impact global CO2 levels in any way even if you buy their science.
It’s pure symbolism. There is no method by which you could gauge whether they would have an impact on climate.'
The lawsuit against the state of Montana was filed by 16 children who ranged in ages of two to 18 when it was filed in March 2020
The youngsters argue that Montana's continuous use of fossil fuels has contributed to the climate crisis
The children are not looking for a lump sum of money, but, if the court rules in their favor, the group wants defendants to 'bring the state energy system into constitutional compliance,’ the March 2020 filing states.
The file includes stories about each plaintiff that describes how the climate crisis has impacted them personally
The youngest of the group, Nathaniel, was two at the time of the filing - he is now four years old. Nathaniel has respiratory issues that cause him frequent illnesses and the document claims the climate crisis is increasing the length and severity of Montana’s wildfire season which poses a threat on the young boy’s health.
The trial will take place on June 12, 2023 and conclude on June 23
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: 'People who think that they can control the climate… It’s just a pipe dream.'
Curry: The basic facts of the situation are pretty clear. Global temperatures have been warming. Humans emit CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 has an infrared emission spectra which overall acts to warm the planet. But there’s a lot of disagreement about the most consequential issues. How much of the warming has been human caused? How important is human-caused warming relative to solar variability, ocean circulation patterns and so on? ... What we do object to is the idea of a manufactured consensus for political purposes. This is not a natural scientific consensus that has emerged over a long time. It’s a manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policy makers, which has been too narrowly framed. There’s too much politics in it. And that’s what I object to and there’s a number of other scientists that object to this as well. And we’ve also been critical of the behaviour of some of the more politically active scientists who are exaggerating the truth in the interests of a good story or political objectives.
Pre-industrial is held up as some sort of golden age that we’re supposed to go back to. Well [in] pre-industrial [times] the weather was horrible. This was at the end of the little ice age. It was the coldest period of the millennium. There were horrible famines, extreme weather and extremely, terribly cold winters and springs and things like that. That was not good weather. The weather now is much better.