Is that what is meant by "the debate is over?"
Tobacco road [Chris Horner]
A little birdie recently chirped about some usual-suspect state attorneys general preparing a litigation strategy document for/with environmental pressure groups, providing a roadmap for cooperatively replicating the tobacco litigation of a decade ago in the "global warming" context, substituting that projected catastrophe for cancer and "big energy" for tobacco companies.
The point of such exercise would not be to litigate the matter to conclusion — ever more challenging what with forced corrections of the temperature record, recent exposure of the woeful reliability of our own world's most reliable surface measuring network, and of course no global warming in a decade (or, we now know, since 1900 for that matter) — but to extract massive settlements from the energy industry to further fund the trial lawyers, greens and the greens' pet projects. Just imagine the anti-energy campaign that this model would yield! And at no cost, really, except to anyone who uses energy and/or invests in these sleepy "granny stocks". Oh, and the economy.
Given that at least two of the seven requests for information under state freedom of information laws have been received electronically, I am comfortable revealing that a version of the following inquiry has been sent to activist state AGs in California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, Washington and Massachusetts.We'll see how what we know squares with what is produced, and go from there, though I have little doubt that some stonewalling will make this a more energy-intensive effort than it should be; but as the tobacco AGs learned, there's usually one party who coughs up the documents at which point the games must come to an end.
You have to remember that in law and politics, "proof" means something entirely different from science.
Apparently there is a lot of fog in California and a few other states, too.