Trial of the Century: Classifying a Grand Solar Minimum - Official ADAPT 2030 Website (Keeping Your Families Reset Prepared)

New litigation in Australia will require companies to create risk assessments for climate change and how companies are going to respond to the changing climate. This will give a chance to risk assess the Grand Solar Minimum or CO2, both will be acceptable as the wording is not clear on what risk for the planet or companies operating. The new laws are targeting company officers and governments themselves, at least it can be an A or B choice.

Trial of the Century: Classifying a Grand Solar Minimum

This video was originally published 10/6/2019

(Juliana vs US) climate change lawsuit is considered the trial of the millennium in the United States; and now organizations are trying to bring something similar to this in Australia.

It is not an easy task to set a meaningful legal framework adopted as legal consensual at the federal level. Environmental groups are doing their utmost effort to pressure politicians with guilt, threat and other tactics to pass such legislation. Groups want to bring this as ‘Climate Change 2.0’, to target companies; and ‘Climate Change Litigation 3.0’, to target the government.

They have a very supportive cheerleader, Al Gore, who strongly supports that a price tag has to be implemented on carbon in the markets. Does everything have to be about money? Can we not do something, just for the good of humanity? Then he added, “and a price on denial in politics”, which is again about money or coercive control.

The point is, this lawsuit against the US government, which seemed to be the precedent for climate change legislation, is said to have stemmed from a group of 21 young plaintiffs, aged 8 years old, who ‘know’ exactly what they are talking about, up to 19; along with the advocacy organization Earth Guardians, and the ‘favorite’ runaway Global Warming hockey stick creator, Dr. James Hansen.

I am still waiting for runaway Global Warming. Perhaps it’s behind Dr. Hansen’s desk somewhere, or maybe under his office carpet? Anyway, the whole legal issue covered was whether the defendants, companies or governments, are responsible for some of the harm caused by climate change.

We really are down on a slippery slope. Remember, whenever you are heading down the rabbit hole into Mad Hatter land, anything is possible.

Also, legislation that Earth Guardians is trying to fit into the books and bring to fruition, is to force companies to assess and report the risks they may contribute to climate change and set out potential plans in mitigating those risks.

If these companies and their directors fail to address risks related to climate change, they could soon face company, as well as personal liability. I am in favor of this risk assessment thing, but I hope they will consider the effect of the Grand Solar Minimum, as they would CO₂.

As a company, they should be able to choose which risk to assess. Science is not settled; it is always supposed to be debated.

So, if we are going to get into this whole assessment of risks, cover all the bases and assess them also from the effect of the Grand Solar Minimum intensification. Also to argue claims of mitigating risks is a distraction, because there are no action-plan clauses in their legislation. It is just companies study it, verify its existence, then basically, do nothing. So, what or who are they going to bring the litigation to?

Climate groups claim to have all these stacks and mounds of paperwork up to the Himalaya, and then what? Chopped down more trees that could have absorbed more CO₂ to put in all these reports about the mitigation of climate change?

Some of these risks are caused by changes in the Sun’s activity. Sadly, the Sun cannot be taxed, so the Grand Solar Minimum won’t be talked about.