Indeed Herb, indeed. Add to that, they have no facts to use as legal evidence. The scary part is, they refuse to prosecute cases where the DO have clear facts and data. Such as Hillary Beast...

It is in their world. That is the whole point here. They are trying to legislate and criminalize not accepting their dogma. I find that one part the most egregious bit of the whole thing, let alone they have no facts they can use in their case, just conjecture.

Go get 'em Prof....

Maybe I am not a nut case afterall

Exactly...and the sun drives those patterns.
Recently, we're beginning to learn that climate science has gotten wrong, some of it is bad science, poor conclusions, missing information when the "scientific process" should always adapt to new knowledge and not try to make that new information to fit the old knowledge.

Yes, the earth and it's natural systems is in fact amazing...those of us that just choose to look at whats there, what's happening are able to see just how amazing the nature of earth is.

Maybe I am a bit case, but, it seems like the earth temp at any given time is a result of many competing factors and self stabilizing processes. The temp would naturally rise and fall in some sort of natural oscillatory pattern

Interesting to note: This so called sea level rise is only on the east coasts of all continents and is a cycle that will cause sea level rise on the western sides of a continents eventually...

"it's a cycle...silly" is my response and laughing at all the "chicken littles".

We live in the Age of Cognitive Dissonance.

It's not wrong either.

Econazis are bad jokes more like things from the dark side of Halloween.

The true criminals are the Attorney Generals who wish to perpetrate such a blatantly evil law.

What further evidence is needed to prove that AGW is a massive political scam? There is just enough science in their argument to make it sound plausible to the scientifically illiterate. For example, the claim that the science is settled is utter nonsense. Even Newtonian dynamics and Einstein's relativity are not considered to be settled by competent scientists so how could someone claim that AGW is settled and maintain a straight face? Climate dynamics is extraordinarily complex, far more so than the models used to describe it. Failure to take vegetation response to increased CO2 levels is just one example of how short AGW falls from being rigorous research. AGW is maybe 10 percent science and 90 percent politics and I am being generous.

Too bad this wasn't an April Fool's joke.

Beautiful, put the argument and burden on proof in public and on the prosecutors and global warming zealots who have shown nothing but correlation.

The Econazis would argue that it government's first priority to protect the nation from "such things.".
Keep in mind that such rot comes from the same pinheads who think open borders is a good thing.

Progressivism is philosophical Dyslexia...everything the say is backasswards.

I missed the part about how it's government that should even worry about such things as climate change. Each of us can worry about it if we want to and evaluate the effects on OUR individual lives. I live at 3000 ft elevation so sea level rise of a few feet isn't significant to me. If I lived at the beach it might be different and I might need to move by 2050.

if it's illegal for oil producersto be wrong about climate change, then it should be illegal for organic food companies to demonize GMOs. It should also be illegal to promote homeopathy or to say vaccines are dangerous. But it's not illegal. It's not really fraud. There has to be some caveat emptor. It's not illegal to be wrong.

Good luck, let us know if it happens.

It would be a pleasure to get up in front of a kangaroo court like Hank Rearden did.

Well, JB, you may get a chance. I would even say you could be an example of either being "mislead" or feeling they kept you in the loop, which means you fall on one side or the other. I am pretty sure which side you are on here. i am amazed (not surprised) that they are wasting taxpayer money on this boondoggle, and if Oregon is in the crowd, may complain to state, for all the good it will do.

I think that as power of attorney for my father, who worked for Mobil and thus has plenty of ExxonMobil stock, I would have standing in such cases against the state attorneys general and the Feds.

Such a cross-examination would involve many questions from State of Fear by Michael Crichton, one of the books that should be on the Gulch reading list.

One would think whatever company they go after pools their money with the rest of the targets and makes sure all 18 are defeated next election. That would show them the power of money, and their supreme court says it's ok to do. Of course anyone fighting them should expose them to excruciating detailed questioning, and throw in all the possible factors causing climate change, as well as why they have not placed sanctions on countries cutting down all the rainforest, and China and Mexico for excessive pollution, CO2 contamination and just being pigs. I am so tired of the corrupt crap....

So, would we have the defense be able to challenge global warming in a court of law, and cross examine the AGW experts contrasting their public statements with subsequent events?