The lawfare doesn’t stop—it merely limps forward, wounded but not dead. The latest case may have been dismissed, and yes, that’s a small victory for those of us who still believe in something as old-fashioned as reality. The fact that the dismissal came from an Obama-appointed judge only adds a faint whiff of irony to the air. Still, before we open the champagne, let’s look at what the judge actually said.
Because buried in the legalese was an opinion that sounded suspiciously like yet another sermon from the Church of the Model. What, exactly, was the “evidence” the judge referred to? More simulations, more conjecture, more graphs conjured from assumptions stacked on assumptions? Opinions by other “experts” who cite each other in a perfect circle of self-referential certainty, all without a single data point that could survive a harsh look from reality itself?
I welcome the outcome, yes—but I question the scaffolding. Since when did the judicial branch start basing rulings on vaporware and wishful thinking? Decisions should rest on cold, hard facts—the kind you can weigh, measure, and not just imagine. Personal convictions and fashionable fears are not substitutes for evidence.
If you want to know what reality thinks, Your Honor, open a window. Let the air in. Feel that chill crawling up your arm? That’s not “climate denial.” That’s the weather reminding you that models don’t warm your bones. The planet is stubbornly refusing to behave according to prophecy—and no amount of judicial pontification can make it comply.Where is this apocalyptic warming you’re so concerned about? Out there, somewhere between the pixels and the press releases, in a simulation that never has to step outside.