Judges in high courts are all claiming a “Human Right to a Stable Climate,” as though any court, parliament or government can make it happen. The latest proclamations come from the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ( IACtHR )
The 234-page IACtHR advisory opinion sets out the court’s perspective on the climate emergency and human rights, recognizing that states have legal obligations under international law to protect current and future generations from the impacts of climate change, to take “urgent and effective” action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, to adapt, to cooperate, and to guard against climate disinformation and greenwashing.
Question to perplexity.ai: Could courts’ emphasis on human activity overlook natural climate variability evidence?
Answer: (my bolds) Courts’ emphasis on human activity as the primary driver of recent climate change is based on the strong scientific consensus reflected in assessments by bodies like the IPCC, and courts have generally accepted these conclusions as beyond reasonable dispute when adjudicating climate law cases23. This approach often involves taking “judicial notice” of mainstream climate science, meaning courts regard anthropogenic climate change as an established fact, obviating the need to litigate scientific basics repeatedly23.
However, this legal methodology can, in practice, result in
underweighting evidence of natural climate variability:
-
The dominant legal standard centers on whether human-caused disruptions introduce new or heightened risks to rights, rather than parsing the specific historical roles of natural versus anthropogenic drivers6. Thus, courts sometimes set a lower bar for causal linkage, assuming risks to rights where types of harm are deemed foreseeable consequences of climate change, even if local variability or confounding natural factors exist65.
-
Defense arguments in litigation, such as those in Juliana v. United States, have challenged the ability of current science to disentangle anthropogenic from natural variability (especially for region-specific impacts), but such arguments are usually overruled or considered less compelling compared to the broader trend evidence53.
-
Some court rulings have acknowledged the complexity and multiple contributors to climate outcomes, yet uphold state obligations for mitigation and adaptation, reasoning that even where natural variability exists, the unprecedented pace and scope of human forcing is sufficient to establish state duties under rights frameworks6.
In summary, while courts do not categorically ignore natural climate variability, their emphasis on human activity is guided by prevailing scientific consensus and the precautionary principle. This can lead to less rigorous scrutiny of the full extent of natural variability’s contribution, particularly where the focus is on the foreseeability and scale of rights-endangering risks from ongoing anthropogenic change. Legal recognition of these risks typically does not require natural and human factors to be weighed equally—potentially overlooking specific nuances of natural variability in individual cases653.
Caveat: There are exceptions, and courts have dismissed some claims where causal links to human activity were too indirect or not supported by sufficient evidence, especially in jurisdictions with stricter standards for standing or causation6. However, the overarching trend is to defer to consensus science prioritizing human-driven change as the principal legal concern.
Ignoring natural climate variability in assessing climate damage could indeed lead to misjudging the extent and nuances of that damage. Scientific and assessment literature on climate impacts and natural resource damage emphasizes that both natural variability and human-driven climate change influence climate-related hazards and ecosystem responses, and failing to account for natural variability can complicate accurate attribution and magnitude estimation of damage.
Key points synthesized from relevant sources include:
-
Baseline Challenge and Detection Difficulty: Climate change increases variability and the frequency of extreme events such as droughts, floods, and storms, but natural variability also influences these patterns. This complicates establishing a stable baseline for comparison. Ignoring natural fluctuations can lead to an under- or overestimate of true climate-related damages, as it is harder to detect how much harm is caused specifically by human activity versus natural cycles5.
-
Attribution Complexity: Natural variability introduces uncertainty when attributing specific events or damages to human-caused climate change. Explicitly considering natural variability in event attribution studies increases uncertainty ranges but still supports the conclusion that human activity raises the likelihood and severity of some events. Neglecting natural variability risks oversimplifying cause-effect relationships and could distort the assessment of climate risks and damages6.
-
Changing Reference Conditions: The selection of appropriate reference or baseline conditions for assessing injury to natural resources needs to factor in both long-term trends and natural fluctuations altered by climate change. Static references ignoring natural variability may mischaracterize damage extent or recovery needs5.
-
Implications for Risk and Damage Assessment: Failure to incorporate natural variability may lead to misjudging vulnerabilities, underestimating risk likelihoods, and misguided policy decisions. Accurate modeling and impact assessment require analysis frameworks that integrate historical variability alongside anthropogenic warming influences27.
In summary, rigorous climate damage and risk assessments seek to integrate natural variability to improve accuracy and avoid misjudging the scale or cause of damage. While natural variability is not a reason to dismiss anthropogenic climate impacts, acknowledging it refines understanding and strengthens attribution and legal or policy responses.
This nuanced view aligns with the legal and scientific approaches courts rely upon when considering climate damage claims: they defer to comprehensive scientific consensus but remain mindful of uncertainties introduced by natural climate variability.
My Comment:
Not seeing much of that nuance from judges blindly following IPCC nostrums. The right to a stable climate ignores the fact the modern era is full of both warm and cool periods, including many times without any possible human influence.
A coincidental positive correlation is considered evidence of human causality, ignoring periods of weak or negative correlation.
Science Matters 
The argument probably cannot be won in courts even if heard if based on uncertainty and variability. Judges and juries are not trained in appropriate statistics. Thus, they must default to expert testimony. Billions of dollars are paid to keep experts in line with the so-called consensus AGW narrative.
If you are in a debate and you allow your opponent to frame the argument, most likely you lose.
One argument outside the consensus frame is: many reputable scientists report by different methods that there is no correlation between the trend of estimated CO2 emissions due to so-called fossil fuels combustion when compared to the trend of measured net atmospheric CO2 concentration, e.g. NOAA GML Mauna Loa. If you want some of these references they are on my blog or I can send them to you. To attribute climate change or global warming causation to human-produced CO2 requires a positive correlation between these two trends.
Since CO2 from burning fossil fuels is not causing or even detectable within the ongoing trend of measured net atmospheric CO2 (i.e., the Keeling curve at GML Mauna Loa), therefore human-produced CO2 cannot be causing any significant global warming or climate change.
The argument has been framed and many decades of students even at the highest levels have been trained that the addition of trace gases to the atmosphere increases the concentration (or partial pressure) of those gases in the atmosphere. They have conveniently ignored that our atmosphere has 4 physical phases of matter, not only gas phase. The IPCC et al have framed the argument within the gas phase of the atmosphere. A trace gas, defined as a gas less than 1% in the matrix, exists in temperature dependent dynamic equilibrium with each phase. Dominantly important is the equilibrium of a trace gas with all liquids with which the gas is in constant contact. This equilibrium derive from Ideal Gas Law. Henry’s Law then defines the partition ratio of a trace gas between the gas phase and liquid phase. This has been conveniently ignored in climatology literature, even though the concentration of trace gas CO2 in ocean is more than 10 times higher than air; even IPCC et al acknowledge that ocean is a sink for CO2, that is on average CO2 absorption from ocean exceeds CO2 emission. Ocean is the dominant CO2 sink, but not the only CO2 sink, and also not the only CO2 emitter.
I did a thought experiment with the AI engine Grok 3 beta to show that when CO2 is doubled from 400 ppm to 800 ppm, then the added 400 ppm are 100% absorbed in 24 hours. https://budbromley.blog/2025/04/18/henrys-law-proof-experiment-for-judge-and-jury-and-scientist-with-grok-3-beta/ Also separately with Grok, we did did and checked all of the math involved in that though experiment. ClimateCite is raising the funds to do the actual experiment, live in front of scientists, judges and juries.
Trace gases, e.g. CO2, do not accumulate in the atmosphere. Some other condition must exist for the trace gases to increase, the dominant condition is increased surface temperature, which causes increased trace gases (not only CO2) in the atmosphere.
The legal debate must be recast to real science, that is science that can be demonstrated by experiment. There has been more than sufficient opportunities for expert witnesses to debate and the result is the side with the most money and media win.
LikeLike
Thanks, Bud. There are many angles for attacking the “consensus” argument. In any case, the point is to prove the mistakes in IPCC climate science to discredit the false climatist claims. In fact history shows that cold is bad and warm is good for humanity and the biosphere. The warming since the LIA has been a boon for nature and civilization. The hypothethical warming from CO2 would be a good thing. We should have the courage to do nothing about hydrocarbon emissions.
Based on the above, a common sense legislative resolution should be like this:
Whereas, Extent of global sea ice is within the range of historical variability;
Whereas, Populations of polar bears are generally growing;
Whereas, Sea levels have been slowly rising at the same rate since the Little Ice Age ended 150 years ago;
Whereas, Oceans will not become acidic due to buffering from extensive mineral deposits and marine life is well adapted to pH fluctuations that do occur;
Whereas, Extreme weather events have not increased in recent decades and such events are more associated to periods of cooling rather than warming;
Whereas, Cold spells, not heat waves, are the greater threat to human life and prosperity;
Therefore, This chamber agrees that climate is variable and prudent public officials should plan for future periods both colder and warmer than the present. Two principle objectives will be robust infrastructure and reliable, affordable energy.
LikeLike