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environmentalists and some scientists argued Chevron’s use of the IPCC’s latest assessment was misleading since it was outdated.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.
https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/976509751751135232
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Climate scientists Kate Marvel of NASA and Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech went on to argue the IPCC’s 2013 report was outdated and scientific studies in the years since have painted a more alarming picture of man-made warming.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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
When science gets twisted into hyperdimensional pretzels by antiscientific zealots and ideologues paradoxes are inevitably going to abound.
“When science gets twisted into hyperdimensional pretzels …”
What a great description, I may have to borrow that quote for use in future discussions.
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…
cheers
I’ve used IPCC AR5 (2013) many times to refute the claims of alarmists.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
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.
Got that backward. Alarmists are half-empty kind of people.
Just wondering what’s in their other half?
here I thought that they were just full of it.
Alamrist are half-full? nah, they are 100% full of it from what I’ve seen 🙂
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.
Study this . . .
http://eidclimate.org/about/
Some background particularly regarding the role of billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer:
http://eidclimate.org/secret-memo-reveals-tom-steyer-may-be-behind-exxonknew-climate-lawsuits/
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.
Oh, I just realized various photos cycle.
Never mind.
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.
The case has not been dismissed.
Where did you get that idea from?
Headline above may be a tad confusing; ExxonKnew is a different matter to the case before Judge Alsup.
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.
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….
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:
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:
http://sealevel.info/9414290_SanFrancisco_2018-01_since_1906-05.png
(Aside: note the prominent sea-level spikes associated with the 1941, 1983 & 1998 El Niños.)
Here’s an interactive version of the same graph:
https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=9414290&c_date=1906/5-2019/12&lin_ci=0&linear=0&quadratic=1&quad_ci=1&boxcar=1&boxwidth=3&thick
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:
http://sealevel.info/9414750_alameda_noaa_2018-03.png
The same thing is true all around the world. Here are a couple of additional sites with very high-quality measurement records:
http://sealevel.info/120-022_Wismar_and_1612340_Honolulu_vs_CO2_annot1.png
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:
http://sealevel.info/acceleration_primer.html
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:
http://sealevel.info/050-141_Stockholm_Sweden_1889-2015_smoothed_vs_CO2.png
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.
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.
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.
We have yet to hear from the wise.
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.
Whilst they are not the cause, why make the concession? Foolhardy.
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.
summarilarly? I don’t think that’s a word….
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.
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.
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.
http://climatecasechart.com/case/people-state-california-v-bp-plc-oakland/
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.
http://www.bdlaw.com/news-2201.html
This is a good, clear explanation of the different strands in these cases. Its quite confusing until you understand the different jurisdictions and players.
I’m still looking for the actual ruling, in the meantime….
Chevron’s Slides:
http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20180321_docket-317-cv-06011_na.pdf
Monkton Of Brenchley AC Brief
http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20180316_docket-317-cv-06011_amicus-brief.pdf
Happer Koonin and Lindzen AC Brief :
http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20180319_docket-317-cv-06011_na.pdf
Plaintiff Presentation 1 :
http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20180312_docket-317-cv-06011_na-2.pdf
PP2 :
http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20180312_docket-317-cv-06011_na.pdf
Plaintiff’s motion to have AC briefs deleted:
http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20180320_docket-317-cv-06011_response-2.pdf
Concerned Household Electricity Consumers CouncilAC Brief :
http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20180321_docket-317-cv-06011_amicus-motion.pdf
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?
“Center for Biological Diversity climate scientist Shaye Wolf ”
As is usual in reports like this, she is not of course a climate scientist:
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/about/staff/
“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.
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.’
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.
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.
Then I would strongly urge you to cease posting to it lest it grow even longer
I’m disappointed that this post hasn’t been corrected since the case was clearly NOT dismissed.
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.
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.