In a rare event, sanity prevails in California – Climate skeptics rule, alarmists drool.
A federal judge overseeing a lawsuit dismissed a core section plaintiffs brought in the case — oil companies conspired to cover up global warming science.
San Francisco and Oakland filed suit against five major companies, including Exxon and Chevron, demanding money for damages global warming allegedly caused. A core component of their suit is fossil fuel companies “engaged in a large-scale, sophisticated advertising and public relations campaign” to promote fossil fuels while they “knew” their products would contribute to “dangerous global warming.”
The cities’ suits against oil companies, however, do not show an industry conspiracy to suppress climate science from the public, U.S. District Judge William Alsup said, according to journalists who attended the hearing.
Alsup said plaintiffs “shows nothing of the sort” regarding some sort of conspiracy against science, Conservative journalist Phelim McAleer tweeted.
Judge slams California cities lawyers says they misled the court – says document they claim "shows conspiracy" shows nothing of the sort #climatechange tutorial @ClimateDepot
— Phelim McAleer (@PhelimMcAleer) March 21, 2018
In stunning end to #clmatechange trial tutorial judge dismisses claim that companies knew but conspired to suppress climate change science @climatedepot
— Phelim McAleer (@PhelimMcAleer) March 21, 2018
Alsup dismissing the idea that there was some sort of conspiracy amongst fossil fuel companies to suppress info on climate. Exxon discovery files tell a different story. #climatetutorial @ClimateLawNews
— Amy Westervelt (@amywestervelt) March 21, 2018
Cities and oil companies gave Alsup a five hour tutorial on global warming Wednesday, answering eight questions the California judge had given both parties ahead of time. A group of scientists skeptical of man-made warming also submitted amicus briefs for the hearing.
Via the Daily Caller News Foundation and Mike Bastasch
I predict they’ll try again with another angle, one even more ridiculous. It’s a mental issue with these #ExxonKnew people. They are self-brainwashed.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Lord Monckton certainly called this one correctly.
Imagine, judging a case on its merits not its politics.
Don’t mess with the Monck.
And this result makes me feel 😀 😃 😄 ☺️ 😁 😀 😍 all over
Hot Damn!
The first decision is rendered with swift justice.
‘One’ for the good guys!
“They are self-brainwashed.”
So true, and the worst kind.
But…but…but…does this mean Arnold can’t sue for CO2 murder (I mean, ignoring individuals cannot sue anybody for murder)?
Arnie’s lawsuit provides clear evidence that overuse of steroids shrinks the brain, as well as other vital organs.
He was able to get his wife’s maid pregnant.
Don’t think he used his brain for that…
I was thinking of those other vital organs.
The ruling seems to be about the conspiracy claim, not about the science. Some may be interested in the submission from Happer, Koonin and Lindzen to join in the tutorial. Their conclusion was supported by answers to Judge Alsup’s questions plus additional material
Summary
“To summarize this overview, the historical and geological record suggests recent changes in the climate over the past century are within the bounds of natural variability. Human influences on the climate (largely the accumulation of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion) are a physically small (1%) effect on a complex, chaotic, multicomponent and multiscale system. Unfortunately, the data and our understanding are insufficient to usefully quantify the climate’s response to human influences. However, even as human influences have quadrupled since 1950, severe weather phenomena and sea level rise show no significant trends attributable to them. Projections of future climate and weather events rely on models demonstrably unfit for the purpose. As a result, rising levels of CO2 do not obviously pose an immediate, let alone imminent, threat to the earth’s climate.”
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/03/22/cal-climate-tutorial-the-meat/
Though it does put a severe dent in the ‘merchants’ of doubt’ meme.
Too much importance attached to a comment by Alsup at the end of the hearing. Observers noted:
“The dismissal of the conspiracy allegation was not an official ruling, but rather an observation made toward the end of the hearing. Nonetheless, a federal judge’s opinion on such a core component of campaigns like #ExxonKnew and the municipal climate lawsuits could prove troublesome for activists, especially as they struggle to convince more state officials to launch investigations based on allegations of conspiracy and fraud.”
http://eidclimate.org/federal-judge-dismisses-claim-energy-producers-suppressed-climate-science/
Based on the paleoclimate record and the work doen with models, one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is plenty of rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. But even if adding CO2 to the atmosphere caused or enhanced global warming, there is no real evidence that such climate change resulted in any extreme weather events that are any different than what happens naturally. They have no evidence that any damages that they have suffered was not caused by Mother Nature. So the real party they should ge litigating against is Mother Nature and even if they could win a judgement against Mother Nature they will have no luck in collecting on a judgment against Mother Nature.
Then there is that the whole world has contributed to the increase in CO2 and not just the companies involved. If those burning fossil fuels did not get the fuel from the companies involved they would have gotten the fuel from other companies. The companies are not responsible for the improvement in our society that has been happening since the start of the industrial refolution. Everyone who makes use of goods and or services that involve the use of fossil fuels is responsible. The last I heard, the use of goods and or services that make use of fossil fuels is stil legal in all 50 states of the USA.
More greenhouse gas emmission can be traced to water companies than supplires of fossil fuels. Maybe they should be litigating agains H2O providers and to govenment agencies that have allowed H2O under their jurisdiction to evaporate back into the atmosphere. After all H2O is the primary greenhouse gas. Molecule per molecule, H2O is a much stronger absorber of IR radiation than is CO2.
Good news. How good TBD.
Even if it were true the oil company’s product resulted in some measurable harm to these cities, that harm would be negligible compared to the catastrophe that would have ensued for these cities if the oil companies had withheld sale of their product.
Now waiting for our Oakland city attorney to resign …
Being one of the fossil fuel companies, as a precautinary measure, i would stop providing any fossil fuel based products in these cities. Just not to increase a possible damage. Now.
No, that would frame them as the villains. However, I do think they should formally and publicly offer to do so. This would put the cities in a bind as they would look like utter hypocrites, trying to get reparations from a company for doing business while arguing that they need them to continue doing business. I doubt that it would trip up a good lawyer for long (they would just bluster through it), but it could provide some amusing logical loops.
Monckton of Brenchley you deserve that seat back in the House of Lords.
You called this one and likely gave the Judge food for thought and inspiration to study the CAGW scam.
The carbon cartel will need to stay well clear of Alsup by the looks of it.
I was negative and essentially wrong . . . my apologies (if you read this).
“… It’s a mental issue with these #ExxonKnew people. They are self-brainwashed.”
This is no mere figure of speech. In actuality, they are now incapable of recognizing truth, of separating fact from their Lysenkoist fantasy. This would be laughable if they were not planning to destroy our republic and our way of life, exhorting us to flee from an imaginary peril, shrieking and spewing spittle in self-righteous dudgeon.
Please find below a recent article abstract of mine titled “Role of climate change on Recent Weather Disasters”, published in Acta Scientific Agriculture, (Research Article), 2 (4): 22-29, 2018
Abstract
Keywords: Weather Disasters; Climate Change; Global Warming; Winter Storms; Summer Storms; Agriculture and Water Resources
Natural disasters such as earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, tsunamis, blizzards, floods, droughts, etc. can cause loss of life and damage to property and as well to nature that includes agriculture and water resources. The quantum of such loss or damage depends on several factors. In the case of weather disasters, humans play vital destructive role. For the past one decade world over
witnessed extreme weather events such as urban floods in India, hurricanes in southern USA, bomb cyclones in northeastern USA-Canada. All these received wide media coverage; and rulers of the nations and so-called scientific community started attributing such events to climate change, which is used as de-fact global warming. The historical pattern on the occurrence of such extreme weather events dispels this type of notion. Many a time they try to look at short period information and come up with sensational conclusions, which have serious repercussions’ on long-term planning for agriculture, water resources, etc. There is well-established data about
these matters. However, there is a limitation on such historically data in both space and time as the recording started around 1850s; and prior to that written descriptions and as folklores of the events and consequent disasters are only available. Surprisingly extreme weather events are not only confined to warmer weather conditions but also to colder weather conditions. It is a fact that magnitude of temperature is not a driving force but temperature gradient plays vital role on extreme weather events formation. Both in summer and winter India gets cyclones; and the same is the case in USA. Also, we should not look at extreme weather events as destructive events but they provide succor by increasing on land and in ground water and thus their impact on agriculture.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Here I was so worried the fix was in, and I was totally wrong. Sanity has indeed prevailed. Sorry for being so cynical on Lord Monckton’s amicus brief.
It’s commendable that you — and a number of others here — should say so 🙂
Lord Monckton also has my apology (previously made but currently in moderation).
There is some confusion about exactly what was accomplished and what was ruled in court today and whether this really is a win or just a sorting of what each side presented with some admonitions. Claims are being made by the Plaintiffs that this was just the presentation of the tutorial and that the judge could reverse his decision during discovery during cross examination using alleged admissions of “conspiracy” in the Exxon records. Most critical is the assertion that “ALL PARTIES” agreed that the “science” is “settled” and in favor of AGW Alarmism. Can anyone clear the clutter?
If that is true Big Oil has proved that nothing matters except money. The truth be damned. Their lawyers laid out the business case and looked at the costs and benefits and came to the conclusion that it is too costly in the long run to insist on the truth. the problem is that by caving in to the falsehoods they just left the door wider open for others to claim non existent damages. This world has really become a world of Oz. i ask any greenie I come across what has ever been any bad consequence of global warming? Who or what has been harmed by global warming. They spout a bunch of lies which I easily refute and then they finally say but its gonna happen . I say Ive been waiting for it for 67 years and it hasnt happened yet. I just dont see what guys like Nick Stokes are afraid of?
The defendant’s are not disputing the science. In fact, as far as I know, all the defendants formally accept the IPCC’s view on climate change and its causes and have done so for years in most cases. For example, from Exxon’s official position on climate change:
The SF Examiner is quoting Chevron’s lawyer as follows:
There’s nothing new in the oil companies’ acceptance of the IPCC position on climate change.
DWR54, the very reason why Oil Companies can’t lose the case.
Big oil has set out to win this case, not lose the argument on whether man is causing climate change. By adopting alarmist positions on human influence they’ve drawn the sting of the main alarmist weapon being used against them – that they covered-up the damage their products were causing.
That then shifts any responsibility for any consequences of using fossil fuels back to the end user, not the oil companies. ‘You used fossil fuels, you embraced the benefits of fossil fuels, you’re responsible for any consequences of using fossil fuels.’ Checkmate right there.
If it were not for fossil fuels you would be living at the same standard as your great-grandparents if you had the good fortune to have survived infancy. And he environmental problems would be how to cope with the manure of 100 million or so horses and the flies as well as the task of allocating enough land to feed them.
Wake up. Read some economic and social history. Learn at least a little about the economic and technical basis for the vast improvement in well-being of people now living compared to 125 years ago.
Then apologize to the unsung heroes who toiled to produce the fossil fuels on which our modern civilization depends.
Absolutely. The case is absurd for those reasons in particular. FF have been the single greatest advance in human history, as *everything* has flowed from our initial discovery of releasing stored energy to heat and light our lives. Any downsides, and there’s always some, are miniscule compared to the upsides.
How about tectonic movements in the San Francisco Bay area.
The same attribution game is played on the US east coast where continuing post-glacial isostatic subsidence of the fore-bulge is ignored.
See page 13 in Atwater, Hedel and Helley, Late quaternary Depositional History, Holocene Sea Level Changes and Vertical Crustal Movement, Southern San Francisco Bay Area, California Geological Survey Professional Paper 1015, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977 (Accessed on Google Books. Search string: “san francisco bay” isostatic adjustment””)
I would just cite 30 years of the planet and deserts greening to the greens.
The Associated Press is carrying a report on the “tutorial” that fails to
mention any information Drs. Happer, Koonin and Lindzen submitted,
or that they submitted anything at all:
https://apnews.com/47127ac8fd2f4328a1835e24ab9ecc2c/Court-as-class:-Judge-gets-climate-change-lesson-in-oil-suit
Full PDF of the DEFENDANTS’ MPA ISO MOTION TO DISMISS:
https://www.eenews.net/assets/2018/03/20/document_gw_20.pdf
Wired published more description of what happened in the courtroom. Excerpts and links:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/03/22/inside-the-climate-tutorial/
Yep it reads like courtroom theater which was its only intent to begin with. Outcomes don’t matter in playacting. It’s all about the experience. The same is often true of billable hours and consultants.
Old joke: Why are lawyers like Nuclear Weapons?
Answer: 1. If the other side has them, you have to. 2. Mostly they stay in their towers running up charges for their readiness. 3. When they get involved, everything is destroyed.
Sanctions for court costs and defendant legal expenses. Referals to bar for discipline.