Climate Litigation Boosted by IPCC Report

Climate Litigation Boosted by IPCC Report

IPCC report a 'call to arms' for climate science in courts, legal experts say (climatechangenews.com)

Climate Litigation Boosted by IPCC Report News and Research - Scientific American

The report says lawsuits filed against governments and fossil fuel companies have the potential to influence climate policy

The IPCCreportis by the world’s leading climate scientists and focuses on how society can curb greenhouse gas emissions and stem the worst effects of global warming. It notes that “outside the formal climate policy processes, climate litigation is another important arena for various actors to confront and interact over how climate change should be governed.”

The report says that since 2015, nearly 40 cases have been initiated against governments that challenge their efforts to mitigate or adapt to climate change. And it says the litigation has the potential to “affect the stringency and ambitiousness of climate governance.”

“If successful,” the report notes, “such cases can lead to an increase in a country’s overall ambition to tackle climate change.”

“You can have folks questioning the importance of litigation or minimizing the impact of litigation, but having it in the IPCC, having all this consensus, having all these nations sign off on it — it brings an important, established voice that justifies the prevalence of the cases,” said Delta Merner, lead for the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Science Hub for Climate Litigation, which provides scientific evidence for climate litigation cases.

Cases that have already been filed but haven’t passed some of those legal hurdles could benefit from the latest scientific assessment to strengthen their evidence to the courts, Higham said.

“There is an argument that this report will be useful in cases similar to the Milieudefensie vs Shell case in showing that emitters have a responsibility to reduce emissions going forward because we know that these emissions will contribute to climate harm,” she said.

That case, which resulted in a Dutch court ordering Royal Dutch Shell to cut its emissions 45% by 2030 compared with 2019, was the first time a company was held legally responsible for its role in causing the climate crisis.

So these reports are always further confirming Climate change and Anthropogenic Global Warming are very very real. But this time around it goes into even more detail of climate litigation and also highlights climate disinformation for the first time. We know it's real now, so it's good to know what potential things can be done to help.

Same old song and dance. Scientists verify things, conservatives dismiss it by lying and paying politicians in power to do nothing. Rinse and repeat. At this point I only see change happening with the dying off of the silent and baby boomer generations.

Awaiting the usuals to arrive and deflect though.

I like to ignore the general and scientific consensus because all you do is copy and paste others opinions. Personally, I go with my own conclusions that happen to always happen to align with my narrative (how convenient). Maybe find some youtuber to reinforce what I say.

I am an independent smurt thinker.

I agree, and I say this having a parent from each of those generations. The funny thing is they know how much their respective generations have contributed to this problem.

Not judging; who knows what hindsight will make us ashamed of when we're in our 60's, right? Just gotta be better than them.

There is still a younger demographic to the GOP though.

There is only one thing to know about climate change it is the only constant in the history of the planet.

And there is one thing I know about the IPCC, they've been wrong in pretty much every prediction to date.

@eoten: This ones going to be right though, I can feel it! Nope, that was just gas, nevermind they're going to be wrong yet again.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

In a study accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley, conducted a systematic evaluation of the performance of past climate models. The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017. The observational temperature data came from multiple sources, including NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) time series, an estimate of global surface temperature change.

The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.

“The results of this study of past climate models bolster scientists’ confidence that both they as well as today’s more advanced climate models are skillfully projecting global warming,” said study co-author Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York. “This research could help resolve public confusion around the performance of past climate modeling efforts.”

The IPCC Report (in the OP), NCA assessment, and other reports cite 1000's of published peer reviewed studies that state you are directly wrong. With zero doubt. Unequivocally with tons of data.

Where is your counter-citation?

This is objectively false. What are you talking about?

IPCC models have been accurate

For 1992–2006, the natural variability of the climate amplified human-caused global surface warming, while it dampened the surface warming for 1997–2012. Over the full period, the overall warming rate has remained within the range of IPCC model projections, as the 2013 IPCC report notes.

IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think | Climate crisis | The Guardian

Global surface temperature measurements fall within the range of IPCC projections.

The figure below from the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change(IPCC) report compares the global surface warming projections made in the 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports to the temperature measurements.

IPCC global surface warming projections have been accurate (skepticalscience.com)

Also - In general, the most trusted and used climate models are pretty accurate.

• Climate models reliably project future conditions | National Academies
• How reliable are climate models? (skepticalscience.com)

• Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

Not sure where you are getting your false information from. Care to link the study or report? It appears you have been feed false information.

This appears to be common for you when it comes to anything science related. Hell even when it comes to simple law.

Being a climate denier in 2022.🤦‍♂️ Oh god, our education system has really failed us.

Tell me you're just a satire account. 😂

The fossil fuel industry is a plague. It would be best to transition from it as fast as possible.

Dude, wanting me to die is not cool.

Also, everyone I know well...which are baby boomers...they all believe in doing something about it and disagree only in the extent vs timing ratio.

Except 2 of my cousins who are nutjobs about everything.

Hyperbole. It's not a call to cull the older generations, merely me lamenting that required change would only come about through protraction. I just generally feel that younger generations take a more nuanced approach to the issue since it will affect them more.

You are trying to convince me the climate has never changed. Climate change is based on models. Have you ever seen a model of a hurricanes predicted path. They are all over the place. Why has the name changed from global warming to climate change? Could it be the science when the change took place no longer supported global warming. This has become political. In science who ever pays for the science get the answer they are paying for.

It was global cooling initially, they changed the name at least 3 times now whenever their predictions failed to pan out. Our cities still aren't under water, polar bear levels are increasing when they told us they were going exinct. Ice caps were supposed to be gone by now. Storms haven't gotten worse. Their "97% agree" bullcrap was debunked. They got caught passing emails back and forth discussing faking data in order to make it seem like the reality actually fit their predictions.

Seems the alarmists have been trying to convince of us many things for several decades, most, if not all of which have failed to pan out, or was happening regardless of human influences. Once you start following the money though, it quickly becomes clear that alarmism is all about $$$.

Honestly, the only thing to be alarmed about at this point is we actually have people in this country in 2022 who believe we should live in a dictatorship ran by men in lab coats.

@zaryia: Well at least we see you learned how to copy and paste in school, not much else but hey it's a start.

Reading isn't that difficult.

You could have at least attempted to refute my claims and citation, but you ran straight to being a child. Trolling this much and this often makes you look really bad.

@zaryia: Refute what exactly, I directly responded to what you posted towards me. Seems your the sad little kid who can dish out but can't take the heat back. Not surprised by that in the least.

It is called presenting evidence, the strenght of a claim is backed by how strongly it is backed by evidence.

You @eoten and @vfighter will never be convinced of anything, I'm just fact checking your lies so people are not mis-informed. Mopping up the trash.

You think an entire field of science is wrong because of your political affiliation. This is beyond sad. Our education system has failed us.

The climate has always changed. The rate is currently different.

6. Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now? | Royal Society

Not just models. Actual results and recordings as well, which match up with some of the models. Among other things.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

This is a semantics debate, not a scientific one.

Whats in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change | Precipitation Education (nasa.gov)

All of the science supports the earth is warming.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

It has, for decades. The people brainwashing you into thinking this is either fake or not a real problem made it political.

This anti-science weirdo trying to take back his first and second post. You embarrassingly agreed with Eoten's original post which was blatantly false. Something only a climate denier or someone with a poor education would agree with. I literally debunked it in the same post I @'d you. You even cried about "muh copy paste" in a direct reference to my citation in the second post.

Take the L.

@zaryia: See this is the problem when you can't copy and paste, you just fall apart and can't understand anything at all. Reread everything that's transpired and try again, I'll even get you a tutor if needed.

This is fake.

How the "Global Cooling" Story Came to Be News and Research - Scientific American

This is fake.

• Climate models reliably project future conditions | National Academies
• How reliable are climate models? (skepticalscience.com)

• Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

This is fake. (See the above links)

The specific 97% was called into question. It's over 90%. The person who called the specific 97% into question even agrees it's likely over 90%. He's just a stickler for accuracy.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

Link? All data shows most predictions were accurate. Are you referring to this?

'Climategate' - FactCheck.org

In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:

They aren't alarmists if it's true. Most predictions have been accurate. Global warming is real, and Humans are one of the primary causes. This is going by most of the research on this, with too much evidence to even link here.

But I'll put some of the more comprehensive reports,

Fourth National Climate Assessment (globalchange.gov)

Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (ipcc.ch)

How about all of their evidence? An entire field of science can't be wrong. Who is telling you they are wrong? Where is the citation where you figured out they were wrong? link?

What on Earth are you talking about, here's your QAnon first post:

If you don't want to get dunked on by facts don't say wrong stuff like that. Every single link and paragraph I cited debunking the above sentence was also @ you for agreeing with Eoten. Hence you complaining about copy and pasting in the second post, instead of refuting them like an adult.

Debunk the citation or leave, you're just further digging your troll grave.

A tutor from a climate denying anti-vaxxer? Sounds great.

Do they even try anymore?

people definitely need to sue the government more and force action but I noticed that the courts here are very weak to business interest and defer to congress when something based on scientific fact like global warming conflicts with that.

But since its getting warmer, the government will have no choice but to take action. Just sit back and enjoy the show.

Reimburse businesses for lost revenue due to building close to the shoreline when they at the time of building it, the water level will rise and make that area unfit for business?

what? why should tax payers reimburse business for that? They have insurance, or they don't. Though to be honest I wouldn't trust slimy insurance providers either. They have so many gotchas in the small print, to avoid paying out in the case a flooding does happen.

The climate scientists on the firat earth day said 90% of the earths population would di from starvation because of global cooling in ten years. The scientists were trying to figure out how to melt the polar ice caps to warm the planet. That was in 1970 the year I got out of the navy. Climate change is a one and a half trillion yearly business. Whit that much money at stake these reports and models have to be suspect.

The global cooling that happened in the 70s was referring to a smaller event. Not a greater phenomenon. Climate Change, which global warming is a part of. has been around since the 19th century.

It was referring to the same smaller cycles that they used to predict warming once that cycle changed, and it's the same ones you people have been using ever since every time you draw out a stupid little hockeystick graph to try to suggest a sudden rise that's going to lead to the end of the world. Predictions were also made that much of our coastal cities would be underwater not 100 years ago, not 50 years ago, but 20 years ago, and today. This clearly has not happened because again, they were looking at smaller cycles and exploiting your ignorance of the fact they were just smaller cycles to spread fear and panic that has been used to dump trillions of dollars into green energy corporations.

Alarmism is about corporate and political interests. None of the predictions have come true yet, it's pretty safe to say that after 50 years of being patently false, it's not surprising more intelligent people begin to view their predictions with the same grain of salt as the homeless guy on the street corner predicting the rapture. Some of you have certainly tied a level of religious zealotry to the scientific community, that's for sure, with some of you no doubt agreeing with those who think scientists should run the country. But it's a good thing I live in a country where people elect representatives to do that, and if the people don't want to slit our own throats economically, industrially to chase your windmills, then there's nothing you're going to do about it.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-coastal-flooding

Key Points

• Flooding is becoming more frequent along the U.S. coastline. Every site measured has experienced an increase in coastal flooding since the 1950s (see Figure 1). The rate of increase is accelerating at most locations along the East and Gulf Coasts (see Figure 2).
• The East Coast suffers the most frequent coastal flooding and has generally experienced the largest increases in the number of flood days. Since 2011, Boston, Massachusetts, has exceeded the flood threshold most often—an average of 13 days per year—followed by Bar Harbor, Maine, and Sandy Hook, New Jersey. At more than half of the locations shown, floods are now at least five times more common than they were in the 1950s.
• Flooding has increased less dramatically in places where relative sea level has not risen as quickly as it has elsewhere in the United States (for example, Hawaii and the West Coast, as shown by the Sea Level indicator).

Lmfao, reminds of the time some of you people used pictures of New Orleans after Katrina to claim the sea levels were rising and consuming the city. I mean, anyone with two braincells to rub together has known New Orleans has actually been sinking for years, but most people dumb enough to buy into the alarmist's propaganda didn't know that, and probably still don't.

Secondly, I've seen no evidence that flooding is more frequent at all, or that said flooding could even be attributed to any kind of rise in sea level, or that any rise in sea level that does exist is even human caused when the level of sea rise that has actually been recorded over the past century has been consistent with what has been recorded for centuries prior.

Trying to use floods and images of flood to push the narrative of sea level rise which was supposed to consume many of our coastal cities fucking decades ago is just a really, really sad deflection, and you would have to have an extremely weak ego to not man up, and admit the predictions were flat out wrong. So wrong, you could even say the people who made those predictions were outright dishonest about it.

I hate to break it to you, but people driving SUVs aren't bringing about the apocalypse.

The current bullshit peddling Nostradumbass types are predicting our coastal cities are going to be gone by 2050, since predictions for 2000 and 2020 worked out so well, you're going to sit there and try to tell me that this time... this time they're going to be right for a change? I guess we'll see in 28 years.

Is this something you check yourself? Or do you just ask passersby?

As someone who has frequented both Pensacola and Charleston my whole life (family) it's pretty obvious. in the 80's I didn't have to worry about floating my car downtown. Just Google 'King Tide Flooding' and have at it.

Trying to use floods and images of flood to push the narrative of sea level rise which was supposed to consume many of our coastal cities fucking decades ago is just a really, really sad deflection

I would like to see you give me a source for this 'decades ago' line. When we first started seeing predictions of coastal flooding they were all 100-year predictions. I'm calling for your source here. Bet you won't give one.

some of you people

wtf is this?

anyone with two braincells to rub together

most people dumb enough

fucking decades ago

you would have to have an extremely weak ego to not man up

bullshit peddling

More attitude than substance.

Also, here's the IPCCs first ever report in 1990 (see figures 9.6 and 9.7): https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_09.pdf

And you can see how well that holds up 30 years later here:

https://sealevel.colorado.edu/

I'm so confused as to why the right has to be so anti-science like it's a primary part of their platform. When did this start and why?

He's been given all the data for every lie. His next post is essentially a "nuh uh" word salad of lies with zero sources. Just made up garbage. Like talking to a brick wall.

Some people are removed from reality and nothing will alter this almost cult like mentality.

There are three things that are in the way of the whole climate debate. First, China and India are, by far, the global leaders in environmental pollution and they have shown no indication of wanting to reduce their emissions. We're kidding ourselves if the US thinks that we are going to have any noticeable impact on the globe.

Next, we don't actually know how much of what we do is impacting the climate and to what extent. Any scientist worth their salt would stress that there is a lot more that we don't know than what we do. To blindly "follow the science" is more of a cult-like attitude than being objective.

Lastly, politics gets in the way. There are plenty of great things that both left-wingers and conservatives can do that could benefit each other's agendas but it seems like we've become so divided in recent years that any agreement can be seen as a submission by their party loyalists. Though I do see some problems in that area coming from Republicans, I've never seen so much hate coming from Democrats since back when they had created the KKK.

@sergio_pires: alot of nonsense. But first point is that the US is the second largest polluter in the world, not India. India not even half the amount of pollution as us.

And the only reason we're second is because we moved our manufacturing to China so they could make our shit for us. Make no mistake, those are our smoke stacks.

This troll though.

Pretty transparent trolling. It's like JimB wrapped up with a little bit of eoten.