Cult of Climastrology Judge Blocks Oil Drilling In Montana Over ‘Climate Change’

Someone in D.C. should find out what kind of fossil fueled vehicle the judge drives

U.S. judge blocks oil, gas drilling over climate change

A judge has blocked oil and gas drilling on almost 500 square miles in Wyoming and says the government must consider the cumulative climate change impact of leasing broad swaths of U.S. public lands for oil and gas exploration.

The order marks the latest in a string of court rulings over the past decade — including one last month in Montana — that have faulted the U.S. for inadequate consideration of greenhouse gas emissions when issuing leases and permits for oil, gas or coal production.

But U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras in Washington, D.C., appeared to go a step further than judges have previously in his order issued late Tuesday.

Previous rulings focused on individual lease sales or permits. But Contreras said that when the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) auctions public lands for oil and gas leasing, officials must consider emissions from past, present and foreseeable future oil and gas leases nationwide.

“Given the national, cumulative nature of climate change, considering each individual drilling project in a vacuum deprives the agency and the public of the context necessary to evaluate oil and gas drilling on federal land,” Contreras wrote.

I’ve scrolled through many, many, many articles on the subject (unfortunately, a goodly chunk are just the AP story above), and the rational seems to be included in the Reuters article

The lawsuit by WildEarth and Physicians for Social Responsibility alleged that the government, under former President Barack Obama, failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to account for emissions generated by oil and gas development when it leased parcels in the Western states of Utah, Wyoming and Colorado.

NEPA is a Nixon-era statute that requires officials to weigh the environmental effects of proposed projects and is widely regarded as a bedrock federal environmental policy.

But, NEPA never included greenhouse gases in terms of ‘climate change’, especially since people were worried about a coming ice age when Nixon signed it. This ruling seems to be resting upon a bedrock made of sand, it is really, really weak. The ruling seems a major stretch by the judge, and you can bet that it will be appealed. As we go back to the AP article

The case was brought by two advocacy groups, WildEarth Guardians and Physicians for Social Responsibility.

WildEarth Guardians climate program director Jeremy Nichols predicted the ruling would have much bigger implications than a halt to drilling in some areas of Wyoming — assuming the government does what Contreras has asked.

“This is the Holy Grail ruling we’ve been after, especially with oil and gas,” said Jeremy Nichols, WildEarth Guardians climate program director. “It calls into question the legality of oil and gas leasing that’s happening everywhere.”

They, like the rest of the Warmists, want to destroy oil production and cause energy costs to skyrocket, which means the cost of living will skyrocket. I guess they’d prefer we have to rely on Middle Eastern or Russian oil. Now, when will all Warmists give up their own use of fossil fuels?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

22 Responses to “Cult of Climastrology Judge Blocks Oil Drilling In Montana Over ‘Climate Change’”

  1. alanstorm says:

    Put people who agree with this decision on a watch list.

    They would not be able to buy gasoline or propane, natural gas would be disconnected from their houses if attached, and their electricity rationed based on the percentage produced by fossil fuels.

    Let them walk the walk, or STFU.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      You can’t be serious. Are you really advocating that the US government punish citizens for agreeing with a federal judge’s decision? Would this be a government controlled watch list?

      What would be your criteria for deciding who could or could not have gasoline, propane or natural gas? What would be the source of your information? Voter registration – just cut off registered Dems?

      Covian regulars: Do you oppose this obviously authoritarian proposal or do you agree that the US government should ration energy based on beliefs?

      Should the government be able to punish Americans who express ideas contrary to the party line?

      • Kye says:

        “Should the government be able to punish Americans who express ideas contrary to the party line?”

        It already does or haven’t you heard of “hate speech” or “hate crimes”? Or are you unaware the IRS harassed conservative groups trying to get 503 designations? I guess you haven’t read about the “weaponizing” of government agencies like the DoJ and FBI by Obama to use against political opponents. Did you hear about Nixon’s “Enemies List”? Our government has been doing that for decades.

        “Covian regulars: Do you oppose this obviously authoritarian proposal or do you agree that the US government should ration energy based on beliefs?”

        I don’t know what a “covian” is but other than you I don’t think anybody thinks this sarcastic piece by alanstorm is meant to be taken seriously. Do you take everything someone says seriously? I figure it’s meant to drive home a point, one you obviously missed. But keep on trollin’.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          OK. That’s 1 who agrees with the authoritarian proposal.


          I get it, it was just a joke. But understand it’s a proven fact that conservatives have no sense of humor.

          • formwiz says:

            No, he just understands

            it’s a proven fact that conservatives have no sense of humor.

            You mean like Jews in Germany had no sense of humor after Kristallnacht?

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            You’re comparing the current plight of conservatives in America to Jews in Hitler’s Germany in 1938?

            Let’s see… Cons have the SCOTUS*, the White House, the Senate, most statehouses, and are murdering Jews in synagogues. Yeah, you’re the victims here.

            There are so many Repubs on the Supreme Court it is now called SCROTUS.

      • formwiz says:

        No, alan is flying without his /sarc tag today.

        He just want the Lefties to live with the consequences of their pronouncements.

        PS Notice you bailed yesterday after I mentioned Blexit, Lexit, and Jexodus.

        Troll massas couldn’t come up with a snappy comeback?

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          My apologies, I only read your comments occasionally.

          What did you say about Blexit, Lexit and Jexodus?

      • alanstorm says:

        Sorry, Elwood, you are wrong. I am not advocating that people be punished for agreeing with a judge. I am advocating that people who oppose the use of fossil fuels by others be prohibited from using them themselves. Why would that not be apt? Furthermore, it needn’t be government action. Why shouldn’t companies be able to refuse to sell products to people who oppose the use of those products?

        It has nothing to do with party lines, either. I’m sorry your reading comprehension is so poor. Are you a liberal, by chance? I note that liberals are generally able to misunderstand even the simplest sentences.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          I may not understand much but I do understand that sellers who refuse to sell to customers are at a business disadvantage. Should all the fossil fuel companies coordinate this? That way none of the companies would be at a competitive disadvantage. Otherwise, one company could sell to everyone and get more business. They could even all agree on setting prices!

          And how will the fossil fuel sellers know to whom to sell? Maybe, “No Trump Sticker, No Service!!” Or maybe they could play it safe and only sell to white men, knowing that 60% of them are Cons.

          My reading comprehension may not be as good as decades ago, but I think you need to rethink your plan a bit. It’s been my experience that refusing to sell your products to customers doesn’t end well for a business.

          I’m just trying to refine your business model.

          • alanstorm says:

            …and once again, missing the point. I conclude you are a liberal.

            For the simple among us, i.e. you, the concept being broached is that those who oppose the use of fossil fuels should put their money where their mouth is. How could they possibly object to being restricted if that is indeed their opinion?

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    TEACH typed: Cult of Climastrology Judge…

    Since there is no Cult of Climastrology, there can be no Cult of Climastrology Judge. Even if such a Cult existed how would it apply to a judge? Why not call him a Mitch McConnell, Brett Kavanaugh or John Roberts judge (see below).

    Regarding Judge Contreras:

    In April 2016 Chief Justice John Roberts appointed Contreras to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a term starting May 19, 2016.

    On November 17, 2016, Contreras threw out a lawsuit against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell seeking to compel a vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland.

    • formwiz says:

      You mean like Choom Gang judges or Ozark Mafia judges?

      And Lord knows Climastrology is a Cult.

      As Harvey proves continually.

  3. Jl says:

    Even if you’re of that persuasion, it seems clueless of the judge to halt the gas part of the drilling. The natural gas that has allowed the U.S. to decrease, or at the least, minimize, their emissions.

  4. Bill Bear says:

    Porter Good wrote:

    “But, NEPA never included greenhouse gases in terms of ‘climate change’, especially since people were worried about a coming ice age when Nixon signed it.”

    What “people”? Good has long been pushing the myth that the scientific consensus in the 1970s was that another ice age was imminent. This is a lie.

    What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

    1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.

    Mainstream Media

    What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article “The Cooling World” that suggested cooling “may portend a drastic decline for food production.”

    “Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.”

    A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

    “When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.”

    Peer-Reviewed Literature

    However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

    Scientific Consensus

    In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…”

    This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences: “…there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring… It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities… The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.” This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

    In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming.

    Reasoning Behind Cooling Predictions

    Quite often, the justification for the few global cooling predictions in the 1970s is overlooked. Probably the most famous such prediction was Rasool and Schneider (1971):

    “An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K.”

    Yes, their global cooling projection was based on a quadrupling of atmospheric aerosol concentration. This wasn’t an entirely unrealistic scenario – after all, sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions were accelerating quite rapidly up until the early 1970s (Figure 2). These emissions caused various environmental problems, and as a result, a number of countries, including the USA, enacted SO2 limits through Clean Air Acts. As a result, not only did atmospheric aerosol concentrations not quadruple, they declined starting in the late 1970s. Similarly, if we now limit CO2 emissions, we can also eventually get global warming under control.


    So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of peer reviewed studies. The small number of papers predicting cooling were outweighed by a much greater number of papers predicting global warming due to the warming effect of rising CO2. Today, an avalanche of peer reviewed studies and overwhelming scientific consensus endorse man-made global warming. To compare cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading. Additionally, we reduced the SO2 emissions which were causing global cooling. The question remains whether we will reduce the CO2 emissions causing global warming.

  5. Bill Bear says:

    UQx Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

    What were climate scientists thinking and publishing in the 1970s, before there was empirical evidence that the globe was warming? Daniel Bedford explains.

    • Mangoldielocks says:

      When people like you stop calling me names because I dont believe what you believe then I might start looking more closely at climate change. Until that day you can count me a denier if for only one reason. Because I despise people like you who sit on their high horses and declare all deniers as miscreatins and neandrathals.

      Your opinion is no more important than mine. What you have to say is meaningless to me and the video you posted. I would not click on that if I was getting paid to do so. Why? Because anything you say is meaningless to me because you are a school yard bully shoving people around verbally who disagree with your assessment of climate change.

      Fingers in ears, humming loudly and jumping up and down….That is how I greet elwood and bill and Jeffery and whomever else he muses to write under on this website.

      • Bill Bear says:

        “When people like you stop calling me names because I dont believe what you believe then I might start looking more closely at climate change. Until that day you can count me a denier if for only one reason. Because I despise people like you who sit on their high horses and declare all deniers as miscreatins and neandrathals.”

        Many thanks to Mangoldielocks for explicitly declaring that his views on climate change have absolutely nothing to do with the facts of climate science.

        Now that we know that he is deliberately cultivating his own ignorance, we can safely disregard anything he has to say on the topic.

        I wonder… On how many other topics does Mangoldielocks pride himself on his abysmal ignorance of the facts?

  6. Mangoldielocks says:

    Again you have a judge in Washington DC telling states in Montana, Wyoming and Utah what they can and cannot do with their lands. The prevailing opinion is that co2 is pollution yet none of the oil drilling produces CO2. It is only the end result of the oil that produces co2.

Pirate's Cove