The facts remain that Greenpeace did in fact attempt to slander (legal definition) the big oil corp.

Maybe you support "win at all costs" in this fight, but don't pretend one side is pure and honest.

https://youtu.be/DOWTDDy6wlg?si=hZsk4likxTi9nC-E

They did tell me that we should oppose gas and "climate denial" because oil companies funded some studies backing their position. If they funded them, or if any author was ideologically biased, we're to dismiss everything in them as dogma or manipulation. Why don't climate alarmists apply the same rules, "follow the money" and "counter institutional bias," to their own beliefs and studies?

Could it be this is more dogmatism and economics than scientific and selfless consensus? If so, shouod we reject it by default until the stuff was all checked by provably-neutral sources with no incentives favoring eithet answer? (Spoiler: Yes!)

The hyper-local point of that is how my buddies haven't taken grinders to the flock cameras because there is a local de-flocked group who is trying to exhaust legal actions before moving on to other options. But it's not like that kind of direct action is thought of as unethical by a lot of us, even if it's legibly illegal.

And regardless of what a person thinks about the direct action, the (very separate) idea that these larger, legal, above-ground groups are what keep folks who have very strong "feelings" from acting is a position held by folks on all sides of these things. That strategy seems central to the neo-liberal method of dealing with social unrest.

In that ecosystem, if you kill off the big NGOs you might see a thousand tiny and headless ELFs bloom.

If the post-neo-liberal (god what a shitty turn of phrase, sorry) strategy looks like "ICE", then good luck to them; the 3000:100000 ratio didn't go well in Minneapolis and as more folks start looking at how we didn't have a winter at all where I live (it's 65 degrees this week at almost 7000' in SW Colorado and the ground frost has broken) then that strategy might be subjected to reality.

I loved the winters. I loved the people. I loved how its natural beauty was subtle and rewarded the patient, unlike El Capitan or the Black Hills. The economy was fine before oil appeared.

Overall, they could not make the showing necessary.

I read the motions and responses, and was not particularly impressed with their arguments for change of venue.

Contrasting specific technological and social artifacts with a form of economic organization and legal structures without noting how different they are is a cheap and weak form of argument.

If you want to insist that only greedy corporations could have made portable hand-held network connected computing devices possible, then make that point. If you want to insist that there could be no automobile or refueling system without a system in which corporate profits primarily are directed towards capital rather than labor, then make that point. If you find it impossible that powered flight would exist at a price where most people could afford it without specific laws controlling corporate liability and legal fiduciary responsibility, than make that point.

But "ah, so you use human-created technology while criticizing the organizations that make it" isn't really the winning argument that you appear to think it is.

(Disclosure: I was on the team that won the appeal against J&J on this issue. My comment above is about the public record.)

He repeatedly contorts himself into pretzels trying to defend it (why?) and into equal pretzels avoiding exploring the two elephants in the rule:

1. He (and those involved) claim that the process is "actually, truly, intended to be solely for the benefit of the plaintiffs suing us", and that defendants are doing them a favor, going out of their way to spin off these entities that are flimsy houses of cards.

2. Is it just a coincidence that of the firms who've gone through the Texas Two Step process, that they've managed to get away with not having to pay ninety per cent of court-ordered liabilities, and in at least one case, ninety-eight per cent?

Why on earth would these companies bend over backwards to do something that they claim has zero benefit for them, and is only truly intended to help streamline and optimize plaintiff's efforts in suing them?

Why is it even called the Texas Two Step? Is it because:

1. it assists claimants and plaintiffs (their adversaries) to bond together and present one solid unified case against you, or...

2. because it assists them to elegantly dance around their liabilities?

Levine and the firms and companies he's carrying water for insist the name has nothing to do with the second point.

In the JJ case, Levine's apologism of "they weren't bankrupt enough, yet" is horseshit.

JJCI was funded to the tune of $2B. Slightly less than the $61.5B of liability, you'll agree.

After the bankruptcy was rejected, the Judge had said that the bankruptcy might be necessary at some point in the future, but "now wasn't the time".

JJCI re-filed bankruptcy proceedings three hours later.

All these apologists are taking the piss.

There’s some debate in “the science” about how quickly we’ll reach that point. Limiting warming to +2°C was not a scientific position; it was political, based on what people thought was achievable. Before the Paris Agreement, 2° was not considered “safe”.

Anyway, it turns out we’re going to zoom past 2° in the next couple of decades.

I meant something more precise. And more unforgiving.

You say there is no magic cliff. No point of no return. Just one day after another, each fractionally worse or better. That sounds reasonable. It sounds adult. It sounds scientific.

But it quietly assumes that all damage is reversible if we simply act hard enough and fast enough.

That assumption is already false.

We have warmed the planet by roughly 1.2 to 1.3 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. That is not a projection. That is measured reality. The last time Earth was only 4 to 5 degrees cooler, mile thick ice sheets covered large parts of North America. A shift of a few degrees defines geological eras. We have moved a quarter of that distance in a century.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide now exceeds 420 parts per million. For hundreds of thousands of years before the industrial era it oscillated between about 180 and 280. We have pushed the system into a concentration not seen for millions of years. During the last time CO2 was this high, sea levels were dramatically higher than today. That future rise is not optional. It is delayed.

So what did I mean by too late.

I meant it is too late to preserve the climate of the Holocene, the stable envelope within which human civilization developed.

It is too late to save most tropical coral reefs. At around 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, scientists project that 70 to 90 percent of coral reefs will disappear. At 2 degrees, more than 99 percent. We are already seeing global mass bleaching events at current warming. Entire reef systems are dying now. Not in some distant scenario. Those ecosystems evolved over millions of years. They will not regrow on any human timeline.

It is too late to avoid long term sea level rise measured in meters. Greenland is losing on the order of 280 billion tons of ice per year. Antarctica is losing over 150 billion tons per year. Even if we halted emissions tomorrow, thermal expansion of warming oceans and destabilized ice sheets would continue raising sea levels for centuries. Coastal cities built for twentieth century shorelines are living on borrowed time.

It is too late to prevent large scale permafrost thaw. Permafrost contains nearly twice as much carbon as the atmosphere. As it thaws, it releases carbon dioxide and methane, amplifying warming. Once thawed, it does not politely refreeze into its prior carbon locked state.

It is too late to prevent entire species from disappearing. Extinction is not a gradient. When a species is gone, it is gone.

You are correct that every tenth of a degree matters. That mitigation still matters. That 1.8 degrees is better than 2.4. That 2.4 is better than 3. That is absolutely true.

But that is not the same as saying we have not crossed tipping points.

Complex systems do not respond like thermostats. They contain thresholds. Ice sheets thin until their grounding lines retreat beyond stable positions. Forests lose resilience until drought and fire push them into new states. Reefs bleach repeatedly until recovery becomes impossible. These are not dramatic cinematic cliffs. They are physical thresholds beyond which return is no longer feasible on meaningful timescales.

When I say too late, I mean too late to keep the world we inherited.

Too late to avoid irreversible losses already locked in by accumulated greenhouse gases. Too late to spare entire ecosystems. Too late to guarantee that future generations inherit coastlines, fisheries, and seasonal stability anything like what we knew.

We are no longer in the phase of prevention. We are in the phase of damage control.

The remaining carbon budget for a fifty percent chance of staying below 1.5 degrees is on the order of a few hundred gigatons of carbon dioxide. At roughly 40 gigatons per year of global emissions, that budget is effectively consumed within this decade under current trajectories. That is not hysteria. That is arithmetic.

So no, there is no single theatrical moment when a siren sounds and the planet declares defeat.

Instead there is a ledger.

Energy added. Ice lost. Species erased. Feedbacks activated.

You can call that one day after another.

I call it a series of doors closing.

Not all of them. Not yet.

But enough that saying it is never too late feels less like science and more like comfort.

Too late does not mean hopeless.

It means the window to preserve the old equilibrium has closed.

What remains is how much more we are willing to lose.