{"id":404267,"date":"2025-09-23T08:39:55","date_gmt":"2025-09-23T06:39:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=404267"},"modified":"2025-09-23T08:39:57","modified_gmt":"2025-09-23T06:39:57","slug":"climate-lawsuits-in-montana","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=404267","title":{"rendered":"Climate Lawsuits in\u00a0Montana"},"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

Ed Berry provides an update and background on climate lawfare in his home state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate Lawsuits in Montana<\/strong><\/a><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

There have been three climate lawsuits in Montana from Our children\u2019s Trust:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. \u00a0Barhaugh v Montana in 2011.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. \u00a0Held v Montana in 2022-2023.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. \u00a0Lighthiser v Trump in 2025.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    There has been little change in the wording of these climate lawsuits. HvM still has AG Bullock\u2019s name in it even though Montana elected him Governor as of 2012. The science argument in these three climate lawsuits has not changed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    They all claim the government is damaging the physical and mental health of children by allowing human CO2 emissions to continue.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    But the schools and parents are damaging their children\u2019s mental and health brainwashing them to believe human carbon emissions are destroying the planet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The fundamental science issue in all climate lawsuits is whether these unstated hypothesis are true or false:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    (1)   Human CO2 causes all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    (2)   This CO2 increase causes global warming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    (3)   This global warming causes the plaintiffs claimed damages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The plaintiffs assume these three hypotheses are true, and they will admit it in court. Otherwise, they would have no basis for their claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    To prevail, the defense needs to prove only one of these hypotheses is false. In fact, it is easy to prove all three hypotheses are false in a court of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Here\u2019s a critical point that few people understand:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The scientific method says it is impossible to prove a hypothesis is true so the alarmists cannot prove these hypotheses are true. The plaintiffs have the burden of proof.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    However, we can prove these hypotheses are false by showing they make one false prediction or contradiction with data. This is the key to science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This is what parents and teachers and media should be teaching the kids.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1.      Barhaugh v. Montana<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Barhaugh v. Montana: Petition for Original Jurisdiction, Montana Supreme Court, 2011, was the first climate lawsuit in Montana.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    To justify its petition to the Montana Supreme Court, BvM says on page 5:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n