Skip to comments.Montana Supreme Court Rejects Global Warming Petition (EPA-Obama-Soros Hogwash Thrown Out)
Posted on 01/31/2012 11:56:25 AM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE
Montana Supreme Court rejects the Global Warming petition by Our Childrens Trust
by Ed Berry
In a precedent-making decision, the Montana Supreme Court dismissed yesterday the Petition for Original Jurisdiction by Our Children�s Trust saying unsettled factual issues related to limiting emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) must first be addressed in a lower court.The Montana Supreme Court followed the recommendations of the Montana Attorney General, and rejected the claim made by Our Childrens Trust in its May 4, 2011, Petition, that a scientific consensus exists that increasing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) are affecting the Earths climate. The ruling forces those filing future GHG-emissions lawsuits to first prove the scientific credibility of their global warming claims by means of legally competent evidence.
As the Montana Supreme Court stated the case:
Petitioners ask us to enter judgment in this original proceeding to declare that the State of Montana (State) holds the atmosphere in trust for the present and future citizens of the State of Montana. Petitioners further contend that this trust imposes on the State the affirmative duty to protect and preserve the atmosphere, including establishing and enforcing limitations on the levels of greenhouse gas emissions as necessary to mitigate human-caused climate change.
But, the Court wrote, it was persuaded by the Attorney General�s arguments that the evidence Our Childrens Trust offered for human-caused global warming is in legally substantial doubt:
This disputed record is just one example of the factual determinations this Court would need to make to rule for Petitioners. In addition, it would need to address, among other issues, the current state of climate change science; the role of Montana in the global problem of climate change; how emissions created in Montana ultimately affect Montana�s climate; whether the benefits of energy production must be balanced against the potential harm of climate change; and the concrete limits, if any, of the alleged affirmative duty [to restrict CO2 emissions.]
Dr. Ed Berry, Director of Climate Physics Institute (CPI), said The Montana Supreme Courts decision was influenced by CPIs Motion to Intervene which included 118 Intervenors, 13 minor children, 15 state representatives, 7 state senators, and 8 elected state officials.
The full legal exhibits may be viewed on www.climatephysics.org. See 1000 Scientists Climate Physics Institute
Also: Climate Physics Institute 29/01/2012 18:38 Dissent and Climate Change Reconsidered.)
Remember: A UK court previously threw out (made it illegal to use in any UK classroom) Gore's terrible propaganda piece a few years ago due its inaccuracies and falsehoods.
“In before steely” ping.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
” The ruling forces those filing future GHG-emissions lawsuits to first prove the scientific credibility of their global warming claims by means of legally competent evidence. “
A ‘burden of proof’ that was not, it should be noted, required by the USSC when it permitted the EPA to exceed its legislated mandate and regulate CO2 as a GHG ‘pollutant’...
Can’t access the link.
"I've got your climate change right here, Pal."
Well, there you have it. Hot in the summer (global warming), cold in the winter, with interludes (climate change). You've just proven the plaintiff's case. Those judges are nothing but thinly disguised anti-normal-climate activists. Somebody should take the bodies of all the drowned polar bears and dump them on their front porches.
Lettuce assume I typo’ed the blasted thing.
Ping to #12.