The most bizarre line of reasoning, to me, is the argument that "Montanans can’t be blamed for changing the climate", since their contributions aren't big enough. The only logical extensions of this is that nobody anywhere is responsible for climate change, since you could look closely enough and say that "this part of the city doesn't have too many dirty, polluting factories" or "well there's still this part of the rainforest that hasn't been cut down yet, so this district is carbon-neutral." No individual person is emitting so much carbon to change the global climate, so nobody has to change their behavior, everything is fine.

Montana called the ruling "absurd," but it's so much more absurd to take a stance like "it's okay if we keep polluting, it's a global issue" as if they aren't currently or will never be affected by climate change. And then then what balls to mock the judge as if this ruling is just for 15 minutes of fame, as if they wouldn't get some kickbacks or preferential treatment from various dirty industries if they had won...

I sometimes find it so difficult to comprehend the mindset of people making these sorts of anti-climate-activism arguments. Do they think they're separate from the issue, that they're just so special? Is it even still possible to pretend there isn't an issue? It all gives off the same antisocial vibes as roommates who leave a pile of dirty plates in the sink and deny they made a mess. But they even get in the way of the nicer roommate who would go out of their way to clean up someone else's mess so could be nicer for everyone....