Judge Guirola: Murphy Oil Did Not Cause Katrina

In a lawsuit filed as Comer vs. Murphy Oil, the plaintiffs sought to hold energy companies responsible for Katrina. The case was dismissed in 2005, resurfaced in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal in 2009 and now Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. has refused to hold Murphy Oil and others responsible for “unsafe levels of carbon dioxide,” which it is apparently convenient to blame when seeking monetary damages – big monetary damages. It gets sillier everyday, especially since Obama told us he would stop the rising seas. Apparently he did?

 

For the property owners to be able to claim damages, the court would have had to accept some vast logical leaps. First is the highly speculative argument that carbon-dioxide emissions contribute to cataclysmic weather. There is no statistical evidence that hurricanes, tornadoes, cyclones or other extreme weather events have been increasing in frequency. Nevertheless, after every disaster, climate alarmists exploit the suffering by claiming it is an example of “global weirding.” Because warming has stopped, this vague notion – which can encompass just about any weather fluctuation – is all they have.

Second, the court would have to link Hurricane Katrina specifically to carbon-dioxide emissions. It would have to accept that the timing, intensity and route of the hurricane were caused by – or at least unduly influenced by – emissions enough to have caused the disaster. This would be speculative to the point of absurdity. Hurricanes have always been with us. Climatologists still have an incomplete understanding of what causes them and the factors that determine their life cycle. Even uber-alarmist Al Gore said days after the Katrina tragedy that “no single hurricane can be blamed on global warming.” This may be the only thing about the climate he has gotten right.

Third, the court would have to be able to assess exactly how and to what degree the defendants contributed to Katrina. The alarmist argument rests on the presumption that warmer ocean temperatures will create more destructive storms. If that is true, it would be unjust to hold a group of American energy companies solely responsible. The plaintiffs might as well have sued everyone in the world who drives a car, uses a dry cleaner or breathes because all those activities emit carbon-dioxide. Source: Washington Times – read it all here.

The good news is, this suit was not in the purview of the 9th Circus Court of Appeals.

Linked at Grumpy Opinions – thank you!

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie’s Notebook