Nature Paper Claims to Pin Liability for ‘Climate Damages’ on Oil Companies

[rangerrebew]

Nature Paper Claims to Pin Liability for ‘Climate Damages’ on Oil Companies
by Tilak Doshi 9 May 2025 11:09 AM

The drumbeat of climate litigation has grown louder in recent years, fuelled by activists and dubious science. In this crusade against major oil and gas companies, ‘attribution science’ has been a fast-growing field of climate research which is explicitly meant to serve legal ends. According to the World Weather Attribution initiative, “Unlike every other branch of climate science or science in general, event attribution was originally suggested with the courts in mind.”

According to ‘Carbon Majors and the Scientific Case for Climate Liability‘, a paper published in Nature last month, it is now possible to quantify the climate damages caused by each of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies. Christopher Callahan and Justin Mankin, co-authors of the peer-reviewed paper, argue that “the scientific case for climate liability is closed”. In their paper, they claim to link oil and gas companies’ CO2 emissions to specific weather events and trillions in economic damages.

This audacious attempt to pin tort liability on oil and gas giants like Saudi Aramco and ExxonMobil rests on shaky economic and scientific grounds and ignores the immense benefits of fossil fuels.

Given the high stakes in the litigious turn of climate change alarmists, this paper’s assertions, flawed assumptions and the embedded activist machinery deserve a thorough debunking

https://dailysceptic.org/2025/05/09/nature-paper-claims-to-pin-liability-for-climate-damages-on-oil-companies/

[Smokin Joe]

Well, Nature boys (and girls, and whatevers), the oil companies would not exist if people didn't use their products or products made from oil.

They wouldn't even risk the CAPEX to get a drop out of the ground without a market for the oil.

IF there is environmental damage done, it is done in pursuit of a product in demand, and those who demand and use it are the ones doing most of the alleged damage, but oil companies don't like dumping money on the ground, or in the water, so spills are something we strenuously try to avoid, even little ones (an ounce is too much to waste).

Now they might find someone out there who has never worn a synthetic fabric, never used anything made of plastic or taken a drug whose origins were in a barrel of oil or piped in natural gas, or even just shipped using motor fuels, but those folks are likely few in the world, compared to the "guilty".

So, with billions of small contributors to any claimed 'damage', why single out the people who merely provide the means to live comfortably, to transport people and goods, and even manufacture those goods, versus the ones who use them?