The Legal Analysis of Climate Change, By James Reed
Another great post by small farmer and lawyer John Klar, who uses evidence theory from law to compare and contrast, first the hypothesis of man-made global warming, against that of chemical pollution by persistent organic pollutants, microplastics and some 12,034 PFAS that potentially threaten human and ecosystem health. His argument is that the climate change hypothesis does not reach the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt, let alone the balance of probabilities used in civil cases. There are other stands of evidence as well, and it may be of interest to give a summary, as most people do not know this:
1.Clear and Convincing Evidence:
oThis standard is higher than the preponderance of the evidence but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. It is typically used in certain civil cases, such as those involving fraud, termination of parental rights, or civil commitment hearings.
oIt requires that the evidence presented must be highly and substantially more likely to be true than not.
2.Probable Cause:
oThis standard is typically used in criminal law, particularly during the process of obtaining search warrants or arrest warrants. It requires that there is a reasonable belief, based on facts, that a crime has been committed or that evidence of a crime can be found in a particular location.
oIt is a lower standard than both clear and convincing evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.
3.Reasonable Suspicion:
oA lower standard than probable cause, reasonable suspicion is the basis for brief stops and searches, such as in a Terry stop by law enforcement officers. It requires that a law enforcement officer has specific, articulable facts that suggest a person may be involved in criminal activity.
4.Preponderance of the Evidence (Civil Standard):
oAlthough this is commonly used in civil cases, it can also be referred to as a "balance of probabilities" standard. It means that one party's version of the facts is more likely than not to be true (i.e., greater than 50% likelihood).
5.Substantial Evidence:
oThis standard is sometimes used in administrative law proceedings. It refers to enough evidence that a reasonable person could rely upon to make a decision. It is used to review decisions made by administrative agencies in cases involving issues like worker's compensation or social security claims.
6.Equitable Standard of Proof:
oIn some equitable actions (such as injunctions or specific performance), courts may use a standard of proof that takes into account fairness and justice rather than strict factual findings, though this can sometimes overlap with other standards like preponderance of the evidence.
Klar's point is that climate change alarmist, that the world is heading to catastrophic climate change, was not proposed by the actual IPCC scientific reports which only gave probabilities for certain scenarios. The media and activists cherry picked this to push their desired result, as did the UN General Secretary. On the other hand, the evidence of the ill-health effects of persistent organic pollutants and hormone-disrupting chemicals is now overwhelming, clearly at the beyond reasonable doubt stage. Klar believes this conclusively shows that humanity should be acting to deal with the issue of chemical pollution rather than hypothetical, largely computer model generated problems of climate change. Thus we, "must aspire toward net-zero in forever chemicals, not the absurd, vapid illusion of net-zero carbon. This is now clear beyond any reasonable doubt."
https://johnklar.substack.com/p/a-legal-anaylsis-of-climate-science
"With few exceptions, the common law upon which US jurisprudence is based employs one of two "burdens of proof" in litigation: the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal prosecutions, a very high bar requiring compelling evidence; or the "preponderance of the evidence" standard employed widely in civil cases, a sort of 51% test that the claims of a party are "more likely than not" true. These standards are usefully transferred to environmental issues including global warming and ecotoxins.
In science, there was once a logical process built on the idea of hypothesis, graduated to theory, and accepted as "law" when proved by repeated evidentiary experimentation. In our current climate cult, the so-called climate science is treated as "law" by "consensus" – not by scientific proof. At best, science can be said to have surmounted the lesser legal burden of proof of preponderance: surely not "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Yes, I expect many will howl that "We don't have the luxury of waiting for the proof," but I here propound the very opposite – beyond all reasonable doubt, we do not possess the luxury of this toxic cult any longer. In pursuit of the dubious, unscientific claim that greenhouse gases are warming the planet, humanity is releasing ecotoxins that kill plant and animal (including human) life, and that remain in the environment essentially forever. There may be equivocal science about how toxic or dangerous these various chemicals are (largely because they go untested and loosely regulated – even subsidized!), but there is now no question that they persist for generations, even thousands of years, and that they accumulate in the human body. The scientific evidence of microplastics in the human brain, the human heart, and human reproduction systems is now established beyond any reasonable doubt.
We lawyers study facts because we are responsible for ensuring evidentiary integrity in litigation – otherwise, we lose (embarrassingly). The facts of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Reports are easy to assess. IPCC's Reports do not claim the world is ending in twelve years, or even fifty: they provide a range of possibilities for future outcomes based on a series of a priori assumptions about global warming, themselves dubious. Yet assuming we humans are warming the globe, the current anthropogenic response takes us in the opposite direction if our goal is to save our earthly environment. I will here prove this unequivocally, beyond any possible shadow of doubt.
Renewables manufacturing – the proposed solution to the unproved warming hype – is without any question toxic. Lithium and cobalt mining, especially in the Democratic Republic of Congo and other less developed nations, is irrevocably toxifying vast swaths of soil, water, and human bodies with forever chemicals. Rubber tire dust is the main contributor to ocean microplastics: EVs increase tire wear by 30-40%. Silicon for solar panels, and EV aluminum, are mostly smelted in China using coal-fired plants. Plastic wind turbines and heat pumps join the pack of polluting industries touted as climate-saving but which are without doubt climate-polluting in their manufacture. All these chemical-spewing products end their lives in landfills or toxic storage. There is a lot of lobbyist money here to skew policies – that, too, is beyond any doubt.
The EPA has thus far identified 12,034 PFAS that potentially threaten human and ecosystem health. The Biden Administration has invested billions of borrowed funds in so-called "renewables" manufacturing but has not implemented any legislation to reduce or eliminate PFAS generation, only a multi-year plan to collect data about them. What is beyond any reasonable doubt, and is both a legal and scientific conclusion, is that the manufacture of EVs, wind turbines, solar panels, and heat pumps all require the proliferation of massive amounts of these PFAS and other environmental toxins – without sequestering a single molecule of carbon.
Before Al Gore's divisive Inconvenient Truth barrage, there was widespread bipartisan agreement that certain manmade chemicals could be harmful to wildlife, soils, water, and humans. The result of the shady climate cult shifting focus onto carbon dioxide and methane instead of PFAS, phthalates, and a myriad of endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, and obesity-causing toxins is that Americans are becoming sicker while industry profits on their borrowed renewables manufacturing tab.
It is beyond any reasonable doubt that renewables manufacturing is guilty as charged for toxifying our environment forever, an environment-polluting enterprise justified using sloppy ideological pseudo-science that has abandoned both the scientific method and any sense of logical proof. Americans are waking up to the fraud of the climate cult. MAHA is only achievable by pivoting to combat ubiquitous toxins in our food and ecosystem, and that cannot be accomplished while the toxic renewables spigot remains open full bore. Reduce toxic pollution, and greenhouse gases will be reduced in the bargain (including all that coal burned in the name of net-zero.)
Comments