Climate Homicide

“Climate Homicide: Prosecuting Big Oil For Climate Deaths”

Climate Homicide: Prosecuting Big Oil For Climate Deaths by David Arkush, Donald Braman :: SSRN

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Climate Homicide

  1. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    My email to Donald Braman:


    To: donald [dot] braman [at] gmail [dot] com

    Greetings, Donald.

    In regards to your paper:

    The AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2) and CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2) hypotheses have been disproved… they do not reflect reality. They’ve been disproved via multiple avenues in the paper at the bottom of the linked page below.

    The takeaways:
    1) The climatologists have conflated their purported “greenhouse effect” with the Kelvin-Helmholtz Gravitational Auto-Compression Effect (aka the lapse rate).

    2) The climatologists claim the causative agent for their purported “greenhouse effect” to be “backradiation”.

    3) The Kelvin-Helmholtz Gravitational Auto-Compression Effect’s causative agent is, of course, gravity.

    4) “Backradiation” is physically impossible because energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.

    5) The climatologists misuse the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation, using the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon graybody objects, which manufactures out of thin air their purported “backradiation”, it is only a mathematical artifact due to that aforementioned misuse of the S-B equation. “Backradiation” does not and cannot actually exist. Its existence would imply rampant violations of the fundamental physical laws.

    6) Polyatomic molecules are net atmospheric radiative coolants, not “global warming” gases. Far from the ‘global warming gas’ claimed by the climatologists, water acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense) below the tropopause. CO2 is the most prevalent atmospheric radiative coolant above the tropopause and the second-most prevalent (behind water vapor) below the tropopause.

    Mathematical proof:


    Temperature is equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant (ie: the radiation constant), per Stefan’s Law.

    e = T^4 a
    a = 4?/c
    e = T^4 4?/c
    T^4 = e/(4?/c)
    T = 4^?(e/(4?/c))
    T = 4^?(e/a)


    The traditional Stefan-Boltzmann equation for graybody objects:
    q = ?_h ? (T_h^4 – T_c^4)

    [1] ? q = ?_h ? ((e_h / (4? / c)) – (e_c / (4? / c)))

    Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
    W m-2 = W m-2 K-4 * (?(J m-3 / (W m-2 K-4 / m sec-1)))

    [2] ? q = (?_h c (e_h – e_c)) / 4

    Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
    W m-2 = (m sec-1 (?J m-3)) / 4

    One can see from the immediately-above equation that the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation for graybody objects is all about subtracting the radiation energy density of the cooler object from the radiation energy density of the warmer object.

    [3] ? q = (?_h * (? / a) * ?e)

    Canceling units, we get W m-2.
    W m-2 = ((W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ?J m-3)

    You will note that ? = (a * c) / 4… the S-B Constant equals Stefan’s Constant multiplied by the speed of light in vacua divided by 4.

    [4] ? q = (?_h * ((a * c) / a) * ?e) / 4 = (?_h * c * ?e) / 4

    Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
    W m-2 = (m sec-1 * ?J m-3) / 4


    The Stefan-Boltzmann equation in energy density form ([3] above):
    ? / a * ?e * ?_h = W m-2

    ? / a = 5.67037441918442945397099673188923087584012297029130e-8 W m-2 K-4 / 7.5657332500339284719430800357226e-16 J m-3 K-4 = 74948114.5024 W m-2 / J m-3.

    Well, what do you know… that’s the conversion factor for radiant exitance (W m-2) and energy density (J m-3)!

    It’s almost as if the radiant exitance of graybody objects is determined by the energy density gradient, right?

    Energy can’t even spontaneously flow when there is zero energy density gradient:

    ? [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * ?e [J m-3] * ?_h = [W m-2]

    ? [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * 0 [J m-3] * ?_h = 0 [W m-2]

    … it’s most certainly not going to spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.

    Do remember that a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object:

    … so there is no physical way possible by which energy can spontaneously flow from cooler to warmer. ‘Backradiation’ is nothing more than a mathematical artifact due to the climastrologists misusing the S-B equation.


    The above completely destroys AGW and CAGW, because they are predicated upon the existence of “backradiation” (radiation spontaneously flowing up an energy density gradient) as the causative agent for the climatologists’ claimed “greenhouse effect”.

    You’ll get exactly nowhere suing any fossil fuel company, because the information above is being shared with the legal teams of the fossil fuel companies. You’ll be required to first prove physicality in order for your lawsuit to proceed. You cannot prove physicality. Thus, all climate-related lawsuits will be quashed.

    The courts wouldn’t allow you to sue a company because you believed that they are funding pink unicorns to fart rainbow-colored glitter throughout the atmosphere, causing warming… and for the same reason, they won’t allow any climate-related lawsuits based upon AGW or CAGW to proceed. A judge who does allow such a lawsuit to proceed puts themselves at risk of being removed from the bench for judicial activism.

  2. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:

    Mheh… some of the symbols didn’t show properly… strange. They show properly on other websites. Anyway, go to the patriotaction website link to see the full data.

    • Good stuff. But you don’t seriously think sound scientific argument will affect the discussion, it will simply be censored and the proponents vilified. Back in the days I posted on YouTube, I got people who claimed to be ‘real’ climate scientists declaring the First Law of Thermodynamics to be ‘pseudo science’. That taught me all I needed to know about the technical standard of the community. If the 1st law is ignored, what chance does the 2nd Law have?

  3. Gamecock says:

    Habeas corpus.

  4. Michael Abbott says:

    First of all you they have to prove that CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas. Where is the science for that apart from an experiment in 1859 by a guy called Tyndall? Everything else flows from that.

    • Richard E Fritz says:

      it does not THAT is the funniest part the dip sticks believe CO2 is a death gas on a Carbon based planet – CO2 death is from bad science and bad echo chambers like Al Gore

  5. arn says:

    Interesting CONclusion when we consider that the number of environmental catastrophy victims went down by 90% during the last 100 years
    and that amongst weather related victims 3 out of 4 die from Hypothermia.

    But it does not matter anyways as ,once 100 % renewable is reached , the number of green homicide victims of a single week will be higher than any hypothetical number oil is said to have killed in any decade as result of no energy – and this was always the plan.

  6. Abraham's Kid says:

    Under their presumption aren’t we all guilty if we have used vehicles or electricity in the past 15-20 years? I understand the motive of the lawyer looking for a payday in some class action suit supported by the “I’m a Victim”, morally bankrupt army of stupidity. I’m just wearing thin on patience for the lack of personal accountability and responsibility from these leaches on society who live at the pinnacle of the materialistic quality of life in all of human existence.

    Hard Times make Hard Men
    Hard Men make Easy Times
    Easy Times make Easy Men
    Easy Men make Hard Times

  7. Richard E Fritz says:

    LETS see if we STOPPED all oil tomorrow whats a good estimate of deaths?
    in 4 weeks 2 Billion dead from starving & from lack of heat
    8 weeks 4-5 Billion dead from starving & lack of Medical
    500,000,000 dead in wars over food 6 months later – war ends when they run out of oil to fuel the war machines
    8 billion dead in less than 1 year from lack of food, medical & wars

    WHO will survive the same ones that survived after the last ice age 12,000 years ago- hunting gathering tribes of Africa and S America- some in North America who know how to plant and life off land

    now explains that to a PhD who cannot function without and I Phone & a Star bucks

  8. Billyjack says:

    This legal project just confirms that the legal profession is a major contributor/creator of government theft and corruption. It is like getting a $2.3 million judement for spilling hot coffee in your lap. If the legal profession can commit that scam and others then they can continue their corruption with impunity, since they created the corrupt “legal” system.

  9. Dan A Sinema says:

    What is a ‘public citizen?’

  10. Russell Cook says:

    Regarding the lead author of that paper, David Arkush, he’s the guy I mentioned in my WUWT guest post on April 25, 3rd paragraph ( ), concerning how he just recently jumped on the bandwagon of regurgitating talking points about a pair of industry disinformation campaign ‘evidence items,’ namely leaked memos of fossil fuel execs directing skeptic scientist shills to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” and that this was part of a PR campaign featuring an advertorial titled “Who told you the earth was warming, Chicken Little?” Problem is, no industry people ever directed anybody to reposition anything, the ‘memos’ in question were a proposal rejected outright ( ) by the people it was sent to; thus the memo set is worthless as evidence proving any industry-led disinformation campaigns exist. The “Chicken Little” ad was never published anywhere, meaning it is equally useless as evidence of deception campaigns. Meanwhile in Arkush’s Harvard Environmental Law Review article (PDF pg 28-29), he referred to a particular memo from the American Petroleum Institute, and while he did not name it specifically, it is the notorious “victory will be achieve” memo set that enviros touted for many years as ‘evidence’ of disinformation campaigns. That memo set was also never implemented anywhere. I covered that problem back in March 2023, in the second half of my GelbspanFiles blog post about this paper ( ).

    I emailed the editors of Harvard Environmental Law Review in March 2023 with the suggestion that they do careful fact-checking to see if what Arkush said about the API memo held water – it was a subtle suggestion that they might consider rejecting the paper for publication. I emailed the editors again two days ago – a little less subtle this time – politely suggesting that the paper be retracted because Arkush has now become a far bigger embarrassment to HELR by now advocating for criminal charges against people based on TWO sets of never-implemented memos, and an advertorial that was never published.

  11. Conrad Ziefle says:

    Is it fair to discipline a child mentality, even if it is in Harvard Law School?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *