Juliana vs. United States was heralded as a victory by both climate realists and alarmists. So how can this be?
Realists considered it a victory that the American people are once again protected from climate alarmists trying to circumvent the constitution.
Climate alarmists like to point to the summary of the judge's decision as a victory claiming that they won in a court of law to prove that the climate disaster is coming. This is far from the truth. There was no hearing on climate change with both sides bringing evidence, only the children or the alarmists did. The lawyers for the government didn't argue climate, they argued constitutional law and that the children and the court had no authority to legislate from the bench. The court agreed.
So when only one side argues climate change, it is more a presentation not court.