With the dismissal of the #ExxonKnew lawsuits, climate alarmists are now in "bizarro world"

Clarification:  The “#ExxonKnew” conspiracy claim has been dismissed. The lawsuits by the San Francisco & Oakland city governments against the oil companies have not been dismissed (yet).

Yesterday we reported that the “conspiracy” basis of the #ExxonKnew lawsuit was dimissed by the federal judge, who saw through the smoke and mirrors complaint created by Al Gore, Bill McKibben and NY attorney general Eric Schneiderman, and said there was no evidence of a conspiracy to hide information on risks of AGW from the public.

But, something bizarre happened Wednesday after the U.S. District Court for the District Northern California held a “tutorial” hearing on global warming science.

Chevron agreed with the latest scientific assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC), which was released in 2013 and 2014, the oil company’s lawyer said.

California cities, environmentalists and some scientists argued Chevron’s use of the IPCC’s latest assessment was misleading since it was outdated. Effectively, those seeking to punish oil companies are throwing aside the oft-touted “consensus” on climate science.

The irony was not lost on University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke, Jr., who published peer-reviewed studies on climate science and policies.


That ruffled the feathers of some scientists and environmentalists, who immediately went on the offensive against Chevron, accusing the company of using the IPCC to discredit climate policies.

“Chevron’s lawyer plucked his strategy right from the climate-denier playbook,” environmental group the Center for Biological Diversity climate scientist Shaye Wolf told Earther.

Apparently, the “climate-denier playbook” includes citing the IPCC. Chevron agreed with the IPCC’s scientific assessment, while the company did not agree with policy proposals the international body suggests, the oil entity argued.

“He overemphasized and inflated narrow areas of uncertainty about global warming’s impacts. And he bobbed and weaved his way out of acknowledging the role of fossil fuels,” Wolf said.

Climate scientists Kate Marvel of NASA and Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech went on to argue the IPCC’s 2013 report was outdated and scientific studies in the years since have painted a more alarming picture of man-made warming.

We live in Interesting times.

More here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 22, 2018 11:52 am

Feel the Bern

March 22, 2018 12:01 pm

Climate “Deniers” Win Big in San Francisco Courts!!! Facts Trump Fake Science
San Francisco Judge Demonstrated a Real Understanding of Science; Vindicates CO2isLife

joe - the non climate scientist
Reply to  co2islife
March 22, 2018 12:21 pm

Daily Caller and others are incorrectly reporting that the motion to dismiss has been granted. That has not happened. The only thing that has happened is that a Motion to dismiss has been filed. The hearing on the motion to dismiss had not even been scheduled as of today. (it is anticipated to be scheduled within the next few weeks.
Below is a link to the motion that was filed
(hat tip to Bruce C)

Reply to  joe - the non climate scientist
March 22, 2018 12:59 pm

Based on the dismissal of the conspiracy allegation, one would expect a full dismissal of the case is likely.

Bryan A
Reply to  joe - the non climate scientist
March 22, 2018 2:12 pm

with prejudice…with prejudice…with prejudice???

Eric Simpson
Reply to  joe - the non climate scientist
March 22, 2018 2:12 pm

Jeff in Calgary – The judge is an Obama appointee. Even though there’s no obvious conspiracy the judge could still maintain that the oil company knew that climate change was very bad but still sold their deadly product to the unsuspecting masses. So yes it’s false to report that dismissal is a given. Far from it.

joe - the non climate scientist
Reply to  joe - the non climate scientist
March 22, 2018 3:17 pm

Eric Simpson March 22, 2018 at 2:12 pm
Jeff in Calgary – The judge is an Obama appointee.
FYI – the judge is a Clinton appointee

Reply to  joe - the non climate scientist
March 22, 2018 3:34 pm

“Even though there’s no obvious conspiracy the judge could still maintain that the oil company knew that climate change was very bad but still sold their deadly product to the unsuspecting masses. So yes it’s false to report that dismissal is a given. Far from it.”
There’s an important point of law that you’re overlooking. It is *not* illegal for any person, or company, to look out for their own best interest when selling legal products, so long as they comply with the existing statutory law in all respects. It IS actionable if a company can be shown to have conspired with other companies in order to unfairly game the market, to the detriment of consumers.
But if there is no conspiracy, then there is no case, no matter what the seller may or may not have known.
(Hint: That’s why the plaintiffs came up with the “Conspiracy” claims in the first place, even though as Judge Alsup pointed out they have absolutely no evidence that such a conspiracy occurred.)

Reply to  co2islife
March 22, 2018 4:54 pm

From what I’ve read, if there is a motion to dismiss, it won’t be on the science, rather the judges comments seem to focus on the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate that a conspiracy exists.

Reply to  MarkW
March 22, 2018 6:41 pm

The comments the judge made sounds like it is clear.

March 22, 2018 12:07 pm

If you don’t mind, where is a link to the story that the Exxon lawsuit was dismissed? I’ve been looking and I can’t find any reference to that anywhere.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 22, 2018 12:15 pm

thank you, I found your story from yesterday. fyi, the link in the first paragraph currently directs to the Robinson/depopulation story.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 22, 2018 12:40 pm

This is what I saw clicking on the dismissal link:
Kim Stanley Robinson: Empty Half the Earth to Save the Planet

Bryan A
Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 22, 2018 2:14 pm

the “In Story” link appears to go to a different place

Bryan A
Reply to  Anthony Watts
March 22, 2018 2:19 pm
joe - the non climate scientist
Reply to  wws
March 22, 2018 12:14 pm

Anthony – that was a motion to dismiss. The hearing on the motion to dismiss has not been scheduled as of yet.

joe - the non climate scientist
Reply to  joe - the non climate scientist
March 22, 2018 12:16 pm

Chevron on Tuesday filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit; Alsup is expected to rule on that motion next month.

Kurt in Switzerland
Reply to  wws
March 22, 2018 1:48 pm

wws is right, the judge rejected the claim that the Exxon conspired.
The lawsuit itself has NOT been dismissed, though that does seem likely at this stage, given the rejection mentioned above.

March 22, 2018 12:12 pm

“The irony was not lost on University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke, Jr., who published peer-reviewed studies on climate science and policies.”
The irony is not that there is an apparent “cats and dogs lie down together” moment, but that there has never been anything in the IPCC reports that justifies the decade of hysteria and the trillions of dollars and billions of man hours squandered on a fools errand fomented by a fantasy.

March 22, 2018 12:14 pm

Excuse me, but once again we are having a hard time finding a definitive “dismissal” or “ruling” or “settlement” or…… about the events of Wednesday.
I saw no headlines in the Sacbee or Examiner or California sources asserting dismissal of the lawsuit. The energy and petroleum sites are the same.
The judge has not even set a date for the “motion to dismiss” procedures.
Only thing I can hang on to without an official transcript of what the judge said or the Chevron lawyer said is the that the judge implied he couldn’t see a “conspiracy”.
The motion to dismiss was linked to WUWT’s first headline and it is worth seeing the oil company defense.
It ain’r over until the fat lady sings, but got to admit the judge seems fair so far, and prepared just a little, ya think?
Gums sends…

Tom Halla
March 22, 2018 12:14 pm

Interesting tactic by Chevron. So even if one accepts the IPCC data, the green blob will still find fault.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 22, 2018 12:47 pm

Speaking as a lawyer, the Chevron tactic was brilliant. Commented on the previous thread. Accept IPCC. Clears the decks for the meat —has there been, will there be harm and damages?. The cities are claiming past and future damages based mainly on sea level rise. But there are no past damages since the Bay SLR hasnt changed since tide gauges began. So it has to be based on future damages (itself a dodgy legal construct EXCEPT when the comspiracy theory is dragged in). The only place future damages arise is in CMIP5 models. Chevron proved those run hot— see guest post Why Models Run Hot, and Christy’s 29March 2017 comgressional testimony. So, cities cannot prove future damages, plus the problem that their bond prospectuses disclosed no such risks. Plus absent a conspiracy, no present monetary damages for any future maybe stuff.
Marvel and Hayhoe attempted the feeble counter that those models are obsolete, better ones now exist. They can only be referring to Neren concerning SLR. But that paper has been shredded scientifically both at Climate Etc and at NoTricksZone.
As for the ExxonKnew conspiracy part of the suit essential for present monetary damges for possible future harm (idea is the damages arise from the conspiracy to hide future harm), motion to dismiss has been filed but no hearing and no adjudication yet.
Still and all, not going to end well for the People of California.

Reply to  ristvan
March 22, 2018 1:58 pm

Marvel and Hayhoe attempted the feeble counter …

Folks with PhDs have been known to gravely misapprehend the reality of the court system.

Reply to  ristvan
March 22, 2018 2:49 pm

“scientific studies in the years since”……how can they be held accountable for something that wasn’t even known at the time?….the girls gave them an out

Reply to  ristvan
March 22, 2018 5:20 pm

As a layman, the problem as I see it, is that the whole event has been almost whitewashed from a climate change perspective.
I guess what we sceptics hoped for was a comprehensive demolition of ridiculous claims of global catastrophe, supported by evidence from the likes of William Happer and Chris Monckton, laid bare in court.
What we now have is a dismissal of a people Vs commercial enterprise case that satisfies no one and denies we sceptics our day in court.
Whether Chris Monckton’s scientific revelation was truly a revelation, or not, he’s now shot his bolt, and frankly, I expect he’s pretty disappointed. He needed his day in court to sensationalise a scientific expose’ of concencus groupthink. I suspect it’s now a damp squib, consigned to the archive of sceptical attempts to discredit AGW alarmism, although I hope not.
In my humble, and ill informed opinion, this is an opportunity missed.

Dave Fair
Reply to  ristvan
March 22, 2018 8:20 pm

Rud, did Exxon, et al counter sue? Damages/costs?

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  ristvan
March 22, 2018 9:50 pm

Bondholders should be suing these issuing governments for fraud. Clearly they did not adequately communicate the risks. And this also seems like something that the CFPB and SEC should be looking into. I’m sure Bernie and Lizzie would agree.

richard verney
Reply to  ristvan
March 23, 2018 2:13 am

Speaking as a lawyer, the Chevron tactic was brilliant.

I am very surprised by that assessment. Why accept it?
Chevron could have argued that it is not necessary for the Court to decide whether the IPCC are right, or not, since even if the IPCC are right etc….
That type of argument is commonplace in legal proceedings, and is a far better tactic than an unqualified acceptance of a major point of position. In fact this type of approach (accepting for the purpose of argument only) is something which CoB frequently does on this blog when he posts articles.
I consider that Chevron’s tactics were badly wanting. It will make it more difficult for others to challenge the correctness of IPCC reports and conjecture.

Reply to  ristvan
March 23, 2018 2:20 am

I am an unsure how anybody can argue that “better models now exist”? The future remains the future, and we can have no idea at this moment whether an old model predicting the climate in 50 years time is less accurate than a new model doing the same.
Simply adjusting models based on recent events does not mean they will have greater accuracy in the future.

Reply to  ristvan
March 23, 2018 6:31 am

ristvan, do you know if they add GIA to the San Francisco tide gauge data?
Whatever, the defendants could probably prove future damages from the city’s attorneys having spent taxpayer money on idiotic lawsuits.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 22, 2018 3:25 pm

Of course. You think they’ll ever be satisfied?

Jim Heath
March 22, 2018 12:22 pm

Has it finally rained on the Lawyers picnic?

Reply to  Jim Heath
March 22, 2018 12:48 pm

The skies are about to open and downpour. See my just above lawyerly comment to TH.

Reply to  ristvan
March 22, 2018 1:17 pm

As of the moment I hit the reply button it hasn’t appeared.

richard verney
Reply to  ristvan
March 23, 2018 2:21 am

See my response to your lawyerly comment.
In any legal proceedings, it is always open for the Defendant to argue that irrespective of the merits of the claim, there is simply no causative loss, or no loss that is recognised or recoverable at law.
In my opinion, the concession by Chevron was a very major tactical blunder which will likely impact upon others.

Joel O’Bryan
March 22, 2018 12:37 pm

“Climate scientists Kate Marvel of NASA and Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech went on to argue the IPCC’s 2013 report was outdated…”
The academic ivory tower self-licking ice-cream cone rolls on. It exists for its own benefit with no value-added or external customer satisfied.
IOW, keep the grant money flowing so we can keep making our payroll. Science long-ago departed the rationale for academic climate science studies.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
March 22, 2018 1:17 pm

By recent Newfoundland ice trips being delayed by ice, a warming less carbon field update to new testament IPCC 2020 is being delayed also. It shouldn’t contain any of those above mentioned discrepancies and also contains new data for what impact studies have concluded already and climate cannot change no more from.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
March 22, 2018 1:33 pm

The two lady scientists seem to be unaware that it’s hard to judge past conduct to be wrong using newly acquired information the accused couldn’t be expected to have accessed.
Another issue I like to bring up is that IPCC RCP8.5, designated Business as Usual, is sheer baloney. We simply lack the fossil fuels to burn to generate those emissions.

Reply to  fernandoleanme
March 23, 2018 2:39 am

Exactly the point I was going to make. If Exxon “knew” in the 1970s (or whenever) yet the science now says something different, then Exxon obviously didn’t “know”.

John Darrow
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
March 22, 2018 7:32 pm

Help me here please. Did you just state that two ‘climate warmests’ argued that the IPCC’s 2013 report was outdated. Then the science isn’t settled? but, but I thought…………….

March 22, 2018 12:53 pm


Kurt in Switzerland
March 22, 2018 1:24 pm

Possibly the most damning aspect, from the Daily Caller article:
“Exxon also pointed out that cities claiming climate catastrophe failed to mention those dire predictions in bond offerings, potentially committing fraud.”
LOL! You couldn’t make this stuff up.

Reply to  Kurt in Switzerland
March 22, 2018 6:01 pm

Oh that’s gonna hurt. I smell more lawyers getting ready to sue the cities. Be careful what you wish for.

Reply to  TRM
March 23, 2018 12:36 am

They either have to admit that by omitting the risk of sea level rise to bond holders, they didn’t think it was a future threat, or that they knew the risks and withheld that information for financial gain.
Quite a quandary indeed.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  TRM
March 23, 2018 12:52 pm

@Grant – Better – They either have to admit that they committed fraud in their bond offerings, or admit that their lawsuit against the oil companies is fraudulent. Oh what tangled webs we weave…

Bill J
March 22, 2018 1:27 pm

You’re jumping the gun here. The lawsuit was not dismissed. Another article, by a climate activist, quoted Judge Alsup saying “From what I’ve seen—and feel free to send me other documentation—but all I’ve seen so far is that someone went to the IPCC conference and took notes. That’s not a conspiracy.”
Obviously that doesn’t bode well for the plaintiffs but it’s far from summarily dismissing the lawsuit.
The scientists called by the plaintiffs seemed to focus on the idea that the IPCC report is not the latest and greatest science. But this case isn’t about the latest science it’s about the science over the last 30 or 40 years when supposedly Big Oil knew and tried to hide the impact of global warming. Quoting the IPCC reports was a brilliant strategy (made obvious by the howls from the left).
BTW the link is to the wrong article.

March 22, 2018 1:33 pm

Let’s call Bizzaro World by it’s more descriptive name: post-modern Marxism.
Post-modernism holds that nothing really matters…except power, specifically the power of your tribe. Reason, logic, conversation, science, history, facts and people outside of your tribe don’t matter, unless they can be used as a weapon to gain power. Post modernists hold that the patriarchal structure of human culture is the result of a power grab of angry white males, and has nothing to do with millions of years of biology or thousands of years of trial and error or has anything to do with competence. To them, the heirarchy is completely arbitrary, and it is time for their tribe to be on the top.
Marxism is fundamentally about equal outcomes. This is impossible unless you force all people to be no more than the least among us. It is an argument for equal incompetence and abject misery across the entire population.
As science minded people, we continue to engage our opponents as if science and rationality mattered to them. We scratch our heads when they continue to say things we logically categorize as bizarre. While we win one logical argument after another, we may be losing the battle, because we do not recognize what the war is about.
Everything the warmests say is as consistent with a battle for power as it is inconsistent with science and logic. It is time to expand our understanding of the battlefield. It is time we reveal the enemy and their real motivation with every scientific discussion. The health of the human race is at stake.
I am reminded of a brilliant lecture Professor Bill Gray gave back in the 1990s. He started with a language and history lesson, describing the fall of Rome at the hands of a people’s that had no collective culture or history. The collective word for these people was Barbarian, which literally means ‘without history’! Then he pointed out that the warmests were ultimately relying on computer models for their position. He made note that the models were built on current knowledge and assumptions about the atmosphere. They started in the present and moved forward. They had no history. Hence, the warmests were essentially barbarians. I am only just realizing how correct he was.
The goal of the post modern Marxist is to do away with the current human paradigm, that has developed organically over millions of years, and replace it with something that has no real history, other than a brief hundred years of suffering and genocide. If the barbarians win, we will certainly face a new Dark Age, just like 2,000 years ago.
It’s that important.

Reply to  jclarke341
March 22, 2018 2:08 pm

“Barbarian” comes from the Greek https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian and implies being unable to speak- much the same way that Russian refers to Germans as nemitsky, the people who can’t speak, though that may have been a reference to the gutteral tones of germanic languages. The Romans, though technologically advanced, were in many regards very nasty people. The Gauls whom they conquered are now revealed to be much more compassionate and “civilized”. However, I take your point.
Weather reporting is perhaps an extension of climate science, where predictions are updated every few hours and the previous, usually incorrect forecasts are gone forever and nobody is ever held to account. And who the heck knows what a “40% chance of rain”means anyway?
I keep hearing how evil post modernists are and have tried several times to read about their beliefs. All have found so far is babble talk, the kind of randomly generated jargon that you can publish in the social signsays. I was beginning to think post modernists were just silly but when I see the power of the faithful warmistas, I fear that silliness is no deterrent to power.

Al Tinfoil
Reply to  BCBill
March 22, 2018 7:32 pm

Postmodernism was the hot new philosophical paradigm when I went to grad school law in the 1990s. Postmodernism is rewarmed Solipsism – the idea that we cannot experience anything of the World outside our heads on a first-hand or direct basis because all our appreciation of everything in the World is filtered through our senses and our brains’ interpretation of stimuli received. In other words, everything we think and see is a product of our brains’ filtering, and we have no objective information or standard to use as a gauge of what is real and what is imaginary or false. Rather they argue that the “reality” that we experience is the product of our brains taking information received, via our eyes, ears, nose and skin, and running it through “scripts” or “algorithms” in our heads – and we have no or little way to ascertain whether the scripts we use are common to all or unique to one individual.
Thus the postmodernists say “There is no such thing as empirical evidence”. Postmodernists say that all thought and reality exist only in our heads, and are thus necessarily subjective. This allows the postmodernists the freedom to say that all is imagination, and two people will see or understand an event or idea to mean the same thing only if those two people filter the information using the identical script in their heads. This is a great excuse for narcissism – “I need concern myself only with myself since I am the only person that I can be sure actually exists”. Postmodernists are not even sure that the physical world and other people exist. Nihilism anyone?
Thus postmodernists can maintain that there is no such thing as a “universal truth”, or any “universal moral principle”. Postmodernists can thus dismiss virtually any idea or philosophy, and invent their own “reality” at will.
I am rather amazed that more postmodernist academics are not killed by wandering into traffic, falling from high balconies, or dying of starvation, since they maintain that such ideas as traffic, lethal heights, and hunger are mere subjective impressions.

Stevan Reddish
Reply to  BCBill
March 23, 2018 12:09 am

” In other words, everything we think and see is a product of our brains’ filtering, and we have no objective information or standard to use as a gauge of what is real and what is imaginary or false. Rather they argue that the “reality” that we experience is the product of our brains taking information received, via our eyes, ears, nose and skin, and running it through “scripts” or “algorithms” in our heads – and we have no or little way to ascertain whether the scripts we use are common to all or unique to one individual.”
If anyone actually thought that was true they should thereby think it impossible to communicate that thought (or any other) to anyone else. That they try reveals they don’t actually believe the premise they are spouting.
My response to a professor making the statement that we have no way of knowing whether others’ are sensing what we sense would be: “If You hear me saying I disagree, how do you know whether I am disagreeing or whether you just misperceive my agreement?

Reply to  BCBill
March 23, 2018 6:56 am

I don’t think they are postmodernists; they are just ordinary people. I bet most never read a line of Western philosophy in their lives; and pomo is right out of the Western philosophical tradition. Many of these alarmists just have low standards and a bad education in debating. One thing about Marxism that stays the same is how they try to justify their ideas with respect to some ‘science’. For example, Marxism used to tout itself as “scientific socialism“. The claim that Socialism’s opponents are science deniers and flat earthers is over a century old now. They are still throwing accusations of ideologue, racist, fascist, flat earther out in all directions; just like decades ago.
People doing that are, paradoxically, unreflective on their own ideas and their belief in scientific roots of those ideas. Confidence in scientism bolsters one’s own ignorance. They don’t do much skimp on the science as befuddle themselves with the pseudo-science. This comes out in their debating style: preferring argument from authority, and various ad hominem‘s (‘shill’, ‘denier’, ‘flat earther’) to ‘win’ a debate.

Reply to  jclarke341
March 22, 2018 8:39 pm

This is the first that I’ve heard that Barbarian means ‘without history.’ I was told by a scholar of ancient Greek that it was an onomatopoeic word for how all speakers of foreign languages sounded to the Greeks — namely “bar-bar-bar-bar-…” Maybe the word has since taken on the meaning of a people ‘without history,’ but originally it was just a mocking of the way their foreign language sounded to them.

Sceptical lefty
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
March 23, 2018 9:07 am


Reply to  jclarke341
March 22, 2018 9:12 pm

Hierarchy. Warmists.

Reply to  jclarke341
March 23, 2018 1:26 pm

Excellent points!

March 22, 2018 1:38 pm

My understanding is that only a part of the lawsuit was dismissed, not all of it.

Reply to  JON R SALMI
March 22, 2018 2:27 pm

JS, none of it yet. But if the conspiracy stuff fails, so does the rest as a matter of law.

Reply to  ristvan
March 22, 2018 5:28 pm

ristvan, do you have an opinion as to how will effect the EPA’s new plan to reverse the endangerment finding.
I take it that the judge did not comment on the tutorials, did he accept the amicus briefs. Kip Hansen’s recent essay on tidal gauges really strikes at the heart of these lawsuits, my opinion.

Reply to  ristvan
March 22, 2018 7:18 pm

JS, yes, but is much,more complicated than here. See my last major comment tomMomcktons recent guest post for current thoughts..

March 22, 2018 1:40 pm

Much like NOAA’s temperature set adjustments that only change the slope of temperature change up; climate science can only be unsettled by papers that make it worse than it was.

March 22, 2018 1:46 pm

Climate change does exist. Period.

Reply to  Keith
March 22, 2018 4:51 pm

Of course, but the Earth is self sufficient in doing its own climate change. It doesn’t need man for any of it.
(I’m not even convinced that this additional CO2 is attributable to man’s burning of fossil fuels.)

Reply to  Keith
March 22, 2018 4:57 pm

Of course climate change exists, as constant change is the climate’s natural state. The climate has never remained stable as long as there has been a climate. But human-caused climate change is the issue at hand, and it does not exist in the way it is being stated. Period.

Reply to  Keith
March 23, 2018 2:11 am

We here applaud all self-evident clauses. Yes. Period.
‘all thought and reality exist only in our heads’, so according to solipsism, my head and climate change exist in my head. It is a crowded place, my head.

Kurt in Switzerland
March 22, 2018 1:54 pm

This happens to all the alarmists and activists: eventually they believe their own fear-mongering bee-ess.
They’ve been reading and repeating the “Oil Companies are like Tobacco Companies” line so many times over and over, that they can’t possibly conceive how this might be a flawed argument.

March 22, 2018 2:05 pm

There was no dismissal. Very sloppy.

March 22, 2018 2:05 pm

Regardless of how it is arrived at, any official decision that f**** the Green Blob right where it hurts is fine with me.

March 22, 2018 2:22 pm

Climate scientists Kate Marvel of NASA and Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech went on to argue the IPCC’s 2013 report was outdated and scientific studies in the years since have painted a more alarming picture of man-made warming.
This is because Exxon knew, and the plaintiffs forgot, that the lawsuit was about #ExxonKnew not Exxon knows.

Reply to  Neo
March 22, 2018 2:45 pm

So if the 2013 ipcc report is out of datd, ie not alarmest, then where do the alarmest get their ” facts” from ?
Is i t perhaps from the very polotical summery” in which case a possible counter would be for the noipcc, usong the same data from the ipcc report, to issue their own summry.

Warren Blair
March 22, 2018 2:27 pm

The plaintiff has not sought injunctive relief from the activities of the oil companies.
The case will be dismissed.

Reply to  Warren Blair
March 22, 2018 2:35 pm

Correct on the first point. They asked for billions in monetary damages despite there presently being no damage. Only way that flies is ‘damaged by the ’Merchants of Doubt’ Conspiracy theory. Alsup said yesterday had seen no evidence of same. (You know plaintiff lawyers are scrambling today to manufacture some.) So dismissal will eventually come based on the motion Chevron has filed, plus the evidence Exxon already submitted in Texas federal court to rebut Schneiderman and Healy ‘ExxonKnew’ lawsuit based on the infamous Schneiderman presser with an Al Gore cameo.

Reply to  ristvan
March 22, 2018 3:04 pm

And the second half of the motion to dismiss looks a lot like the Oil defense.
Highly recommend folks here read that document.
Gums sends…

Bruce Cobb
March 22, 2018 2:46 pm

The Alarmist Climate Liars are the ones with the playbook. Lying can be quite tedious, and you have to remember your lies. Therefore, the playbook. Truth-telling Skeptics/Climate Realists don’t need one.

March 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Does anyone have a link to the Myles Allen misleading graphic? That will be worth its weight in gold.

March 22, 2018 3:02 pm

In an almost identical situation, I was labelled a denier last week, by an alarmist, for quoting the IPCC AR5 report to her word-for-word. It was in order to put her straight on the solar contribution. You couldn’t make this up, their thought processes are so scrambled.

Reply to  Scute
March 22, 2018 4:03 pm

Plus many. Another fact bomb ovwr warmunists belief target.

Reply to  Scute
March 22, 2018 4:18 pm

Mind you, I wouldn’t have linked my tweet if I’d known Twitter/Wordpress were going to tag hers in with it along with her picture. These social media platforms are way too blasé and presumptuous as to what they think I/we want to present. I linked my tweet and mine only and yes, anyone could’ve clicked on it then scrolled up to see the conversation as usual on Twitter. Plastering her pic into a thread on WUWT without being instructed to just isn’t on. It also makes me look vindictive. I don’t do vindictive, I do facts. Not WUWT’s fault. I’m just making it clear I don’t think this behaviour from Twitter/Wordpress is fair play. Do what you’re told by the poster and don’t be so freaking incontinent with other people’s info.

Reply to  Scute
March 22, 2018 7:21 pm

You just learned a large lesson. Why I neither Twotter nor Facebook.

Reply to  Scute
March 27, 2018 2:04 am

“IPCC AR5 models assumed that this current solar cycle would be more similar to previous ones, and thus they overestimated the solar irradiance input from about 2008 to 2013.”

Reply to  Mark M
March 27, 2018 9:33 am

Thanks, put in Bookmarks for future reference

4 Eyes
March 22, 2018 3:10 pm

Many alarmists just hate “big oil” for reasons known only to them but mainly profit envy IMO – CAGW is just a way to attack. These fanatics will not give up and they’ll just look for another weapon so fossil fuel companies need to be careful what they say.

Gunga Din
Reply to  4 Eyes
March 23, 2018 4:04 pm

Hating “Big Oil” is nothing new. “They” were against it decades or more before CAGW reared it’s ugly head.

March 22, 2018 3:19 pm

WUWT, if you can get ahold of the misleading graphic from Dr. Myles Allen, please publish it. That graphic will be worth its weight in gold. Also, if you can dig up the Bond Issuance where they discount the risk of climate change, that would also be great cannon fodder. I’ve been trying to find them but have not been successful.

Reply to  co2islife
March 22, 2018 4:07 pm

CO2,posted many places elsewhere. Use some googlefu: ‘Oakland and San Fran bond issuance disclosures’. Internet will wisk you to several discussions. Go tomthe credible legalmones for enlightenment, as the skeptical echo chamber has much wrong. The source is Exxon counterfilingf in Texas Federal court.

March 22, 2018 3:27 pm

Chevron agreed with the IPCC’s scientific assessment, while the company did not agree with policy proposals …

Many have noted the disparity between the scientific content of the IPCC’s reports and their associated Summary for Policymakers (SPM). example You could drive a battle tank between them and Chevron appears to be doing just that.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  commieBob
March 22, 2018 9:23 pm

That huge discrepancy exists solely because the member governments want it that way. The summary is the special sauce that gives license to governments to tax and spend and assault industry and Capitalism. It is in fact the direct proof that the whole thing is a massive non-scientific political conspiracy. The words of Christine Figueres are the simple revealing truth of this. The fact that she could say it out loud without consequence is staggering and an incredible indictment of the attitude and nefarious machinations of the U.N. elites.

March 22, 2018 3:40 pm

When science gets twisted into hyperdimensional pretzels by antiscientific zealots and ideologues paradoxes are inevitably going to abound.

Reply to  cephus0
March 22, 2018 5:47 pm

“When science gets twisted into hyperdimensional pretzels …”
What a great description, I may have to borrow that quote for use in future discussions.

March 22, 2018 3:42 pm

It is amazing, yes, as even per WUWT position and consideration, which contemplates a “silly” still position of this consisting as a mater of science, when it is more than that….
Ppl have to consider the actual verdict, when it will be signed and date it…..It will not consist as a science matter verdict, wake up, please……for God’s sake….which I am sure not many care much!
It is not a science based verdict, what so ever, it is a verdict based in Law and order as per respect and acknowledgment, acknowledgment – acceptance of the fairness and justice as per the constitution of the Land.
Upholding fairly the main mean of a Republic concept, as forwarded by the constitution and the Law of the land…
regardless of any hocus- pocus of science matter.
Stop considering it any other way….science in concept is simply a servant, not a “Lord” of the land of men, what so ever.
Please start to consider that a concept of a Republic happens to be far much more than simply science or a SJW mingling grounds,,,,,, if it happens to be considered as strong enough to provide a fairness and balance in social matters and social bettering…
I am somehow still contemplating that this is not maybe good enough grounds to persuade, but please do read the f@ckng thing of that verdict….is not a joke….is very very very important…not maybe so much when considering some one like me, but very very much so to any one that cherishes the thought of being an American…regardless of the creed affiliation stand…

March 22, 2018 4:38 pm

I’ve used IPCC AR5 (2013) many times to refute the claims of alarmists.
There’s actually a lot of good data in there that often contradicts not only the conclusions in the Summary for Policymakers (written by politicians) but also in the science chapters too. Funny how alarmists can come to starkly different conclusions than skeptics using the same data. Glass half-empty or half-full. Alarmists are half-full kind of people.

Reply to  stinkerp
March 22, 2018 4:39 pm

Got that backward. Alarmists are half-empty kind of people.

Reply to  stinkerp
March 22, 2018 4:54 pm

Just wondering what’s in their other half?

Reply to  stinkerp
March 22, 2018 6:36 pm

here I thought that they were just full of it.

John Endicott
Reply to  stinkerp
March 23, 2018 5:45 am

Alamrist are half-full? nah, they are 100% full of it from what I’ve seen 🙂

Steve Case
March 22, 2018 4:58 pm

With the dismissal of the #ExxonKnew lawsuits, climate alarmists are now in “bizarro world”
Anthony Watts / 5 hours ago March 22, 2018

Uh huh, must be a fiction because it doesn’t come up on a Google News Search, Not in this morning’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. In fact the only place I see mention of it is here and a few other blogs. I’m guessing the average person who doesn’t follow the Climate Wars doesn’t know it happened. Or did it happen?
Paint me confused.

Warren Blair
Reply to  Steve Case
March 22, 2018 5:32 pm

Study this . . .

Warren Blair
March 22, 2018 5:21 pm

Some background particularly regarding the role of billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer:

March 22, 2018 5:21 pm

Non-related question:
Why does WUWT have a photo of the aurora on its banner?
I thought any links between Electric Universe views and climate was verboten.
Just curious.

Reply to  Max Photon
March 22, 2018 5:24 pm

Oh, I just realized various photos cycle.
Never mind.

Rattus Norvegicus
March 22, 2018 5:22 pm

Uh, according to the coverage on KQED radio (from San Francisco where this case is) this morning there was no indication that this suit was dismissed. Later in the morning today, there was a long discussion on the Forum program about the case. No hint that it had been dismissed.

Warren Blair
March 22, 2018 5:59 pm

The case has not been dismissed.
Where did you get that idea from?

Warren Blair
Reply to  Warren Blair
March 22, 2018 6:15 pm

Headline above may be a tad confusing; ExxonKnew is a different matter to the case before Judge Alsup.

March 22, 2018 6:15 pm

so ripe for rumor cuz it fulfills a cherished narrative.
no persuasive evidence has been produced.
be patient, sober and wise. impulsivity makes you a lolcow.
anybody who doesn’t want to hear this is who most can benefit from the reminder.

Reply to  gnomish
March 22, 2018 6:46 pm

One interesting assertion by the plaintiffs I gleaned from the motion to dismiss had to do with the “polar icecaps melting”, thereby raising sea level and eventually causing their beautful waterfront cities to flood. Much media focuses upon the Arctic sea ice coverage. You know, becasue of the bears.
So I propose the following when the plaintiff lawyers show up for the next session:
Glass of water with many ice cubes placed on the Chevron desk, and marked with basic “sharpie” to show the level of liquid/ice. After lengthy legalese and breaks have all note the level of water in the glass after all the ice cubes melted.
Gums sends….

March 22, 2018 7:47 pm

My understanding — correct me if I’m wrong — is that the damages claimed by San Francisco and Oakland are for causing sea-level rise, which will necessitate building seawalls, etc. The San Jose Mercury News reported that Jessica Wentz, a lawyer with the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, said that Chevron’s attorney admitted in court that mankind’s fossil fuel use causes sea-level rise:

“It could be the first time such a clear admission” that sea-level rise is linked to human activity was presented in a court setting, [Wentz] said.

If anyone “admitted” that, he misled the court. There’s no evidence that coastal sea-level rise is linked to manmade climate change. Here’s the sea-level measurement record for San Francisco (with trend calculated starting the month after the 1906 earthquake), juxtaposed with CO2:
(Aside: note the prominent sea-level spikes associated with the 1941, 1983 & 1998 El Niños.)
Here’s an interactive version of the same graph:
As you can see, the 100 ppmv increase in CO2 level has caused no detectable increase in the rate of sea-level rise at San Francisco.
The same thing is true at Alameda/Oakland; here’s NOAA’s graph of sea-level there:
The same thing is true all around the world. Here are a couple of additional sites with very high-quality measurement records:
The claims by Oakland and San Francisco that anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are causing accelerated sea-level rise are untruthful, and the data proves it.
If there’s anyone reading this for whom it is not obvious from those graphs that sea-level rise is not significantly accelerating, here’s a very brief primer that might help:
Sea-level is rising, on average, but very, very slowly. San Francisco’s rate of 2 mm/year is just 8 inches per century. That’s so slow that it’s often dwarfed by shoreline processes like erosion and sedimentation — and at Alameda/Oakland the rate is even slower.
In fact, sea-level isn’t even rising everywhere. The trends vary from place to place, mainly because the Earth is not solid, and the land very slowly sloshes. The global average rate of sea-level rise is so slight that in many locations it is exceeded by local vertical land motion, as is the case at Stockholm, Sweden:
Unfortunately, we live in an extremely unscientific age, in which the chattering classes take seriously nonsense like “science without intersectional feminism is white supremacy,” “science is a social construct rooted in colonialism” and “assemblage criticism of argument expressions within a post-dialectical framework,” and such gibberish is sometimes even taught in the universities. I hope Judge Alsup has not been poisoned by such mind pollution.

richard verney
Reply to  daveburton
March 23, 2018 2:34 am

Good to see you post this. I saw that you had posted the top plot on another article.
It is quite clear that as far as San Francisco is concerned, there is no correlation between the rate of sea level rise and CO2.

Reply to  richard verney
March 23, 2018 3:33 pm

Thanks, Richard. San Francisco is perfectly normal in that regard.
We’ve done the experiment, and we’ve seen the result: A >30% increase in CO2 level (from ~310 ppmv to ~407 ppmv), including increases every single year for 2/3 of a century, has caused no detectable increase in the rate of coastal sea-level rise.
To any real scientist, that is iron-clad proof that CO2 level has little or no effect on sea-level, which means the SF & Oakland lawsuits are meritless. The sort of people who believe “science requires intersectional feminism,” and who take seriously “assemblage criticism of argument expressions within a post-dialectical framework,” might not understand it, but real scientists do.

Gerald Machnee
March 22, 2018 8:19 pm

We have yet to hear from the wise.

Dennis Sandberg
March 22, 2018 8:40 pm

The whole basis of the case hinges on one key point: Chevron states that yes, there has been anthropogenic caused global warming and climate change but that it was caused by economic activity not the production and processing of “fossil fuels”. Don’t blame the oil companies they are not the cause.

richard verney
Reply to  Dennis Sandberg
March 23, 2018 2:35 am

Whilst they are not the cause, why make the concession? Foolhardy.

Reply to  richard verney
March 23, 2018 3:46 am

My take was that it pulled the sting of AGW alarmists. By ‘agreeing’ with alarmists on AGW (for the purpose of the court case rather than agreeing definitively) they effectively removed any chance of a row over AGW causation, which would’ve easily have morphed into a row about AGW itself, which is gospel ‘settled’ science, which on current thinking they’d almost certainly lose, which as a consequence means they’d stand a much higher chance of losing the case.
So they ‘pretended’ to accept AGW, thus showing they had nothing to hide, thus showing they DIDN’T hide any alleged AGW side-effects thus they win their case.

March 22, 2018 9:38 pm

summarilarly? I don’t think that’s a word….

March 22, 2018 9:49 pm

That’s why in the ideologues universe, the science is settled but it’s also much worse than it was last week, and it’s basic physics and incredibly complex and hard to understand at the same time.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Will
March 23, 2018 8:08 am

Demagoguery is inherent in this particular ideology.
It’s there to hide any critical thought of the near-total contradictions across the board. It’s also why they target the young – they simply believe what they’ve been taught, and haven’t started to question yet – if they ever do.

March 23, 2018 12:26 am

Napoleon stated “Do not disturb the enemy whilst they are making mistakes” a very wise utterance.
My preferred saying would be “give them enough rope and they will hang themselves”
Your good president started the ball rolling by slowly getting rid of the AGW stuff out of government agencies, the more true believers with deep pockets that put their dodgy science on the line especially in court the more they will end up behind the eight ball.
One must always remember these true believers have no shame and to be outed as li.rs in a public hearing is something to look forward to.

March 23, 2018 1:57 am

This is the best source for events and documents surrounding the case.
There has been no dismissal. Repeat, there has been no dismissal. This story should be revised to explain that the previous post was wrong. I do not know why the Daily Caller said there had been a dismissal. Its fake news.
There has been a filed motion to dismiss, and it is worth very careful reading, in many respects seems to be quite devastating. Lindzen’s amicus brief is also worth reading. We must see what the counter arguments are.
But it is quite wrong to claim there has been a dismissal when it is obvious to everyone who looks that there simply has not been one. Anthony, you have got this one wrong. Man up to it and include a correction.

March 23, 2018 1:58 am

This is a good, clear explanation of the different strands in these cases. Its quite confusing until you understand the different jurisdictions and players.

March 23, 2018 5:19 am

There is nothing the IPCC produces that “proves” global whargarble climate whackadoodle. They do not have the mandate to do research as to whether it exists, they only produce “response” guidelines to an assumed global catastrophy which is just about as real as a fungal zombie apocalypse.
Maybe we should cross-genre that one and shoot anything that stumbles around mumbling “glooo ball waarrrmmm innnnng” in the head with buckshot and salt?

March 23, 2018 5:37 am

“Center for Biological Diversity climate scientist Shaye Wolf ”
As is usual in reports like this, she is not of course a climate scientist:
“She graduated with a bachelor’s in biology from Yale University and received a doctorate in ecology and evolutionary biology and a master’s in ocean sciences from the University of California, Santa Cruz, where she examined the effects of ocean climate change on seabird populations.”
This is one well-funded organisation.

Joel Snider
March 23, 2018 8:05 am

Well, if they appeal, it goes to the 9th Circuit – which is by no stretch of the imagination even slightly concerned with facts or law.
Isn’t it ironic – it’s always the progressives that put their ideological sensibilities above law… and then they call it ‘principals.’

Reply to  Joel Snider
March 23, 2018 8:31 am

very difficult to appeal a summary judgment, because the ruling will be that there was no evidence provided that would enable the case to proceed. To overrule the summary judgment, the appeals court would have to rule that sufficient evidence *was* provided. But it isn’t there, and even they won’t embarrass themselves by trying to claim that it is.

Reply to  Joel Snider
March 23, 2018 8:37 am

There is nothing to appeal. There has been no ruling. This is fake news.
If you really think there has been a ruling, point to it.
The longer this thread goes on without a retraction, the more damaging it gets.

Bryan A
Reply to  michel
March 23, 2018 10:00 am

Then I would strongly urge you to cease posting to it lest it grow even longer

March 23, 2018 1:26 pm

I’m disappointed that this post hasn’t been corrected since the case was clearly NOT dismissed.

Warren Blair
Reply to  BillJ
March 23, 2018 4:03 pm

Everyone knows the case before Judge Alsup has not been dismissed.
ExxonKnew (referred to in the headline of this post) is a different matter.
It is a tad confusing.

March 24, 2018 7:28 am

Claiming that Exxon should be using more current data to explain past business decisions seems a bit odd to me. Not that the current data has that much less uncertainty. It was a good move by their attorneys to cite the actual report detail and not the policy summaries.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights