{"id":391894,"date":"2025-07-31T11:15:47","date_gmt":"2025-07-31T09:15:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=391894"},"modified":"2025-07-31T11:16:19","modified_gmt":"2025-07-31T09:16:19","slug":"no-right-to-a-stable-climate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=391894","title":{"rendered":"No Right to a Stable\u00a0Climate"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"A<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Judges in high courts are all claiming a \u201cHuman Right to a Stable Climate,\u201d 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 )<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 234-page<\/a> IACtHR advisory opinion<\/strong> sets out the court\u2019s 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 \u201curgent and effective\u201d action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, to adapt, to cooperate, and to guard against climate disinformation and greenwashing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Question to perplexity.ai:<\/strong> Could courts\u2019 emphasis on human activity overlook natural climate variability evidence?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Answer: <\/strong>(my bolds) Courts\u2019 emphasis on human activity as the primary driver of recent climate change is based on<\/strong> the strong scientific consensus reflected in assessments by bodies like the IPCC<\/strong>, and courts have generally accepted these conclusions as beyond reasonable dispute<\/em> when adjudicating climate law<\/strong> cases2<\/a>3<\/a>. This approach often involves taking \u201cjudicial notice\u201d of mainstream climate science, meaning courts regard anthropogenic climate change as an established fact,<\/strong> obviating the need to litigate scientific basics repeatedly2<\/a>3<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, this legal methodology can, in practice, result in
underweighting evidence of natural climate variability<\/em>:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n