Climate science and Litigation do not mix
I’m replacing my previous revision with this more appreciative version, adapted from a submission to a newspaper which I’ll link to if they publish as well. Climate Science and Litigation Don’t Mix thanks!! On Feb 26 2020 3:55 PM, mwa wrote:
Along with nine other states, New Mexico will be a host for climate-change related litigation to be pursued at the discretion of the Attorney General’s office. The developing capability is leveraged through an NGO and presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg .
I know that many NGOs can add a great deal of value for a relatively poor state like New Mexico. Yet there appears to be no filter. I’m writing to share the growing climate litigation development through my own lens as a hydroclimatologist. Several years ago, the attorneys general of Washington, D.C, Delaware, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Oregon and New Mexico began a climate change lawsuit journey against Exxon. While they were in full swing, on my own mainly commercial path, I developed a multi-year (average and span) hydrological forecast of streamflows for the Santa Fe River. I delivered that for the water utility of our capitol city.
My paid-for prediction has been remarkably accurate so far , and an email from that utility recently confirmed and congratulated me. If my forecast had been based on fossil fuel emissions, it would not have been accurate. It is turning out that some explorations of the time lag between Solar cycles and moisture circulation patterns, achieve the most accurate long term forecasts of any technique for many regions, especially New Mexico . I’ve shared through resource-relevant communities, the value proposition that this new breed of climatological forecasts is also less expensive and more transparent than the climate-change predictions we all currently pay for in rates or taxes.
I introduced those innovations as a business incubator tenant of Science and Technology @ UNM and as a part-time graduate student in the nanosciences program at UNM. From those experiences I have a concern that the logical extensions of this now commercially-proven forecasting product run counter to the climate change litigation direction of the AG.
For what it may be worth, experiments are a great way to prove out a notion. Yet the greenhouse gas theory does not appear to have been demonstrated in any laboratory . On the other hand the now proven solar driver notion rests solidly upon everyday practical thermodynamics. Clearly the AG and I both cannot be right, and they in tandem with Mr. Bloomberg are somewhat larger than my small business. In this lopsided face-off, the commercial, academic and further research prospects currently appear to be squashed.
Finally, I wonder what might happen when this climate change litigation approach inevitably backfires. Will Mr. Bloomberg pay the costs of defending NM against lawsuits? Will he pay the monetary damages? Would he have enough funds of his own to do so? My guess is three nos. I think that also means that the fiduciary risk of this association between New Mexico and the climate-change-litigation-primed NGO has not been explored with sufficient due diligence, If I’m right about proven forecasts.
 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bloomberg-network-climate-lawyers-ag *The Fox News report attributes Energy Policy Advocates for the scoop.
 Wallace, M.G., 2019, Application of lagged correlations between solar cycles and hydrosphere components towards sub-decadal forecasts of streamflows in the Western US. Hydrological Sciences Journal, Oxford UK Volume 64 Issue 2. doi: 10.1080/02626667.2019.
1696total visits,6visits today