So the lawyers threw in the towel on (1) the existence and extent of climate change, (2) the government's responsibility for climate change, (3) man's effect on any climate change, and (4) the deleterious effects of climate change as opposed to the benefits of climate change.
I would have preferred a court proceeding to establish the facts of the case. Climate advocates don't like to go head to head with climate change deniers. The facts aren't on their side.
1. Climate change exists. It’s anthropogenic climate change which does not.
The opposite of climate change would be climate stagnation. I do not believe that there has ever been climate stagnation.