Even the courts have bought into a narrative.
Over at Anthony Watts blog, Watts Up With That, Guest blogger Dale Leuck talks about the change in established legal doctrine where defendants now have the burden of proof:
Importantly, the November decision states that the “…lawsuit is not about proving that climate change is happening or that human activity is driving it. For the purposes of this motion, those facts are undisputed.” The Court is concerned about “…whether defendants are responsible…and whether this Court can direct defendants to change their policy without running afoul of the separation of powers doctrine.”
The lawsuit shall continue winding its way through the Ninth Circuit Court system, with a heavy burden of proof now placed upon the defendants, seeming the reverse of usual court proceedings, in which plaintiffs bear the burden of proof.
This is a lawsuit filed by children who have made claims that their quality of lives have been affected by what they believe is man-made climate change. What kind of quality of life you ask? From the article.
Page 15 of the lawsuit describes the harm Defendant’s actions have caused 10-year old plaintiff Avery M, who herself has
“…worked to increase awareness in her community about climate change…and advocated for carbon dioxide reductions before her representatives at…municipal and state levels.” The harm done to Avery is related to her enjoying backpacking and “swimming in natural bodies of water.” Not only was Avery unable “…to participate in these recreational activities as frequently as past years due to warmer temperatures, drought, low water levels, forest fires, and algal blooms” but the “…increase of hungry bears in the (Yellowstone) area due to the decline in white bark pine trees forced postponement of a backpacking trip.
Then there is 13-year old plaintiff, Isaac V, who in the lawsuit expressed that summer 2015 was “…the hottest summer Isaac remembers, with temperatures at 100 degrees.” And 14-year old Miko V, an immigrant from the Marshall Islands, who “…fears she will never be able to travel back…as she intends…because the islands will likely be underwater in the future.”
Plaintiff Sophie K., a 16 resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania “…became passionate about climate science” from stories told by her guardian (representing her in the lawsuit) and grandfather, Dr. James Hansen.
“Extreme weather events…caused Sophie to miss school on many occasions; hailstorms have damaged her house; floodwaters often inundate roads by her house…” and she is “deeply concerned about the future.”
In essence, the effects of possible climate change in the future, where even current extremes do not have a clear link attributable to carbon emissions, can now be adjudicated and damages awarded, even if the calamities expressed in the lawsuit never happen, or the regional changes expressed in the lawsuit return to more favorable conditions during the life of the suit.
What is even more egregious is that the presiding jurist is going to let this go forward. Even if the judge manages to come to her legal senses, it may be too late as the left will undoubtedly find more child victims to bring into courts on this issue.
What could possibly go wrong?