The Near Impossibility Of Defending Yourself Against Charges Of Climate Change

I was recently pre-fired from a job helping with the defense of a very large company in its fight over being charged with the same non-crime detailed below.

My point has nothing to do with myself, per se, but on the increasing difficulty, and even impossibility, of defending oneself from non-crimes when people like me are prevented from helping with the defense.

Which sounds confusing. Let me explain.

The non-crime is “climate attribution”. That somehow companies not publicly wringing their hands over “climate change” caused the public not to care, which in turn caused “climate change” to grow worse, which in turn caused “climate change” to cause bad weather.

Which in turn gave dark-souled unscrupulous midwits something to sue over.

I was “pre-fired” (and not for the first time), because the defense was concerned my thought-crimes unrelated to climate attribution studies would become the focus of any cross examination or deposition. Thought-crimes such as my public writings on covid, transgenderism, Equality, race, and so on. And thus all my cogent, and damning, arguments against climate attribution would be ignored.

The defense was sad about this, because they wanted me. And they wanted me because I am one of the only people making certain criticisms of climate attributions, and I can make them stick.

But this is politics and not science—science has scarcely anything to do with The Science today—and they were right not to hire me. (As sad as that is to my bottom line.)

I put this here in case somebody else who is involved in the defense against these kinds of ridiculous charges can benefit from reading (at least) my two papers on the subject, both found at the Global Warming Policy Foundation: “The Climate Blame Game: Are we really causing extreme weather?” and “How the IPCC Sees What Isn’t There“. The first in particular contains (what I think) are damning arguments to any attribution claim. See also this post (blog, Substack) for gross over-certainties in “climate change”.

And now for a real-life example. I want to emphasize that this is not the case which I was pre-fired from. It’s just a typical one.

The only thing to admire about the Attorney General of New York Letitia James is her vicious conscienceless ruthless political instinct. She knows how to manipulate the Regime to get ahead.

She cares nothing for the law. She ravages Truth like Lindsey Graham his boyfriends. And she is as open in her grafting as, well, as a New York politician.

She recently tweeted:

I’m suing @JBSFoodsUSA, the world’s largest beef producer, for misleading the public about its environmental impact.

The beef industry is one of the largest contributors to climate change, and JBS has falsely advertised its commitment to sustainability and endangered our planet.

JBS knows that people are more likely to buy products that will not harm the environment, so it has spent years advertising fake sustainability efforts to boost sales.

In reality, JBS is increasing its beef production and its carbon footprint.

Since the words were spelled correctly and the grammar passable, this was surely composed by a staffer. But whatever. It’s under her name, and she is responsible.

Her claim is absurd, and anti-scientific. But that does not mean she won’t win. Absurdity has long passed as The Science in the Regime. The Wall Street Journal has an article detailing the many facets of the case, many of which have nothing to do with the “climate”.

Obviously, I certainly would never be asked to assist in this case. But here’s the twist: very few can.

The defense has to find somebody, likely in academia, who has only written or spoken publicly on this one narrow subject. There are two problems: finding somebody in academia or the equivalent, and finding a person who has never taken an anti-Regime view on any subject.

Both are near impossibilities. The first because being in academia very likely means espousing a Regime view. And the second because so many anti-science positions taken by the Regime are correlated (as we say), such that being critical in one area very quickly becomes being critical in another area.

Whereas the prosecution in these cases is free to pick from Experts galore. They can grab a Harvard professor who says “A man can transform into a woman and climate change will kill 12 billion people”, and he will be celebrated by the courts. But his opponent who says “A man is ever a man and climate change will not kill 12 billion people” will be asked, “Why are you a transphobe?” by the courts.

This is why Broken Science is so important.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.