The #ExxonKnew hearing – court transcript in full

People send me stuff. We’ve recently reported on the #ExxonKnew court case held in San Francisco on March 21st, 2018. I have received the entire transcript as recorded by the court stenographer.

Presented without comment.

Exxon-Chevron-3-21-18globalwh (PDF)

 

 

Advertisements

69 thoughts on “The #ExxonKnew hearing – court transcript in full

  1. Wow how lame, first comment LOL

    [The mods recommend, then, that you a more useful comment. .mod]

    • Page 188 appears to be what was referred to in prior articles. He dismisses the conspiracy in the casual sense of the word, not the official. He states flat-out that he saw no evidence of a conspiracy to hide evidence and that the IPCC knew all there was to know. People misinterpreted what was said.

      • He didn’t use that con.. word. But the main thing was, he said to the plaintiff lawyer:, about that remark by the defence lawyer Boutrous:
        “If you want to respond, I’ll let you respond. But I don’t know if that had as much to do with today, but if he wanted to respond okay.”
        IOW, he says that he doesn’t think it affects the case, and the plaintiff lawyer doesn’t need to respond. And he didn’t.

      • Nick Stokes: IOW, he says that he doesn’t think it affects the case, and the plaintiff lawyer doesn’t need to respond.

        I think he meant that it didn’t affect the science presented “today”, which was a science tutorial. Plaintiff’s lawyer did not dispute the interpretation agreed upon by the judge and defendant’s attorney that there was no secret document defendants had, just the IPCC report that everyone had.

        It seems that a bunch of people, including me, gave too much weight to the interpretation reported by a single reporter. That said, it does seem like an important comment by the judge.

      • ” That said, it does seem like an important comment by the judge.”
        If it was an important comment, he should have actively sought, rather than discouraged, a response from Oakland. And Oakland would have responded.

        The most explicit of the WUWT headlines
        “With the dismissal of the #ExxonKnew lawsuits, climate alarmists are now in “bizarro world””
        now has a clarification, which starts
        “Clarification: The “#ExxonKnew” conspiracy claim has been dismissed.”
        But that isn’t true either. All that happened was that Boutrous raised an objection to para 67 in the Oakland complaint, which was a report of a meeting in 1996. The para 67 went
        “In February 1996, an internal GCC presentation stated that a doubling of carbon dioxide levels over pre-industrial concentrations would occur by 2100 and cause “an average rate of warming [that] would probably be greater than any seen in the past 10,000 years.” The presentation noted “potentially irreversible” impacts that could include “significant loss of life.””

        Now that seems to be true. Boutrous argued that it gives a wrong impression, in that the presentation was just summarising the IPCC report, and did not represent any kind of secret knowledge by Chevron. The judge agreed. This seems to be part of the normal to and fro where lawyers try to get the facts in some sort of order. Nothing is dismissed, except probably para 67.

      • Nick Stokes
        March 26, 2018 at 7:51 pm

        Well, just three days ago we had a “Postmortem on the rejected #Exxonknew case”, via the DailyCaller.
        ———–

        With all do respect to you Nick, and anyone else, I think you guys miss the “meat” of the matter in all this affair, or otherwise I just have got it very wrong, as far as my understanding permits…

        The main point that I think is impossible to dispute, is that the court and the judge in this case have to take a “verdict”, in the stage of a hearing, meaning whatever that be is not disputable or defaulted under any circumstances, unless is overturned and dismissed by a decision of the court of appeal. a higher court so to speak. (and this is still a hearing stage)

        Whatever way the decision of this court goes, it is not going a be disputable by any other court of the land, and it has to be taken as given in the way it stands, unless overturned by a court of appeal decision.

        That what I think in main so far is the position, in the point of the “conspiracy” clause….A verdict taken by the court and the judge in this case, as otherwise not possible to dispute or default unless overturned by a higher court, in the case of an appeal court.

        That what I think all this about, a court and a judge are subjected, with no any choice there, to be taking a stand in a hearing, as required by the legislation, when that actually happens to be an unavoidable position of giving a verdict in the hearing stage as per this application of be subjected at…

        As far as I can tell, the judge and the court are in a taken position not only of bravery consideration, but also of a position of a very extraordinarily goodness, taking the pain of consideration of fairness at out most.

        Nick, a case of conspiracy in a court is a dead case by default if no indisputable proof offered by the plaintif,,,,,and in this case the judge and the court have being arching backwards to offer the plaintif the best chance to amend, against any merit there…

        Any way, what I am trying a say here is, that from my point of understanding, the clause of conspiracy seems with no any value at all in this case, as there no any actual valid proof offered, and the court and the judge are subjected to go with a verdict in this case, whatever that be, but which stands and is indisputable and standing any where in the land, unless defaulted and dismissed by a higher verdict of a court of appeal.

        It is a case of a court and a judge taking a verdict at the hearing stage, because the proof required in this case, the proof of conspiracy not only missing, but also the clause of conspiracy also seems to be overly abused in this case, and clearly misleading…

        And there is one thing in context of law, fairness and justice, in it’s spirit, in essential it suppose to apply in the means of individuality and the merits and circumstances of individual circumstances, not in collective means, of persons being judged collectively, like in Stalin’s “justice” courts,,,, meaning also, that when the case against multiple ‘persons” at once has to be considered,,, the proof, the main one, better be indisputable….otherwise, maybe the “hell will break lose”, if this given condition abused.

        All this said Nick, maybe you should consider, that any way this particular case goes, it is a case when a court has to take a “verdict” in the hearing stage of the case….a condition that “iron” the main point of the case, regardless of any science, as per the subject of science….the hypothetical or otherwise science means not much here, only as a means for the court and the judge to see the position and the merit of the “conspiracy” value as per the ground play around this silly subject…as that happens to be the only silly ground that the “conspiracy” claim stands at, for the best or worst…against any rationale expectation…

        The ppl are not reading the “verdict” in this case as far as I can tell,,,,, which ever way it goes, it happens to be a verdict of this court, of this brave and good judge, that it could only be overturned by a higher court in a case of appeal…..ppl have to consider to leave with this, whatever the case be, I for once am standing in the position of faith….thus far.

        cheers

      • I am very seriously checking my moderated comment for any “f” words, but still failing to find one!!!!!

      • Warren Blair: The case has not been dismissed; everyone knows that . . .

        I fell for one of the third-order reports and thought that the case had been dismissed. Nick Stokes alerted me that I was wrong. There might have been others.

  2. THE COURT: All right. I see your point there. But let me quiz you about that. You have started off with a large
    number of blue dots. Right? Looks to me like a large number of blue dots. But the things that I’ve been reading say that the actual amount of carbon dioxide is trace elements. It’s like 400 parts per million. But the way you’ve got it diagrammed there, it looks like 10,000 parts per million. So is it — would that make it — in other words, if you started with just two dots there, and then you doubled it to four dots you would still see a lot of red.
    DR. ALLEN: Your Honor is quite correct there. But, of course, even though it’s only 300 parts per million, that’s still an awful lot of molecules in a cubic meter of air, and crucially, a lot of molecules relative to the wavelength of infrared energy. So infrared, infrared radiation has a wavelength much, much longer than the size of these molecules. And so the actual sort of — the actual absolute number of molecules is not
    important. It’s the opacity of the atmosphere in the infrared, which is entirely driven in this example by the amount of CO2 in it. Because the oxygen and nitrogen molecules, as far as the infrared radiation is concerned, might as well not be there, because they can’t interact with it.
    THE COURT: What you’re saying is even if there were just a small number of dots, as the infrared comes off the Earth the wavelength is long, so much longer than the molecule — is that right, or something that —
    DR. ALLEN: Yes.
    THE COURT: — that even though it doesn’t hit it smack on, it just has to get close.
    DR. ALLEN: Exactly.
    THE COURT: Okay.
    DR. ALLEN: So, in fact, it’s the scale of the radiation that actually sets the chance of it hitting a molecule
    rather than the scale of the molecule itself. You know, the molecules are tiny. But the wavelengths we’re talking about of infrared radiation are of the order of, you know, 10 microns or so. So that sounds like a small number. But compared to a molecule it’s actually a huge number. So that’s why there’s very little chance of a photon of infrared radiation emitted from the surface actually making it all the way through the atmosphere to space. It’s around less than a sixth of a chance.
    THE COURT: The point you made, the ones that are higher up are the ones that would emit radiation into space as opposed — but wouldn’t the ones that are further down, once they absorb, and then they re-radiate, wouldn’t it progressively go up and still go out into space? Or is there some sort of diminishing returns problem?
    DR. ALLEN: Oh, the atmosphere is being heated from below, for sure. But the crucial point which determines the net rate at which the planet as a whole can radiate energy to space is determined by the temperature of the molecules from which photons finally escape all the way out into space. It’s that sort of last emission that matters, because photons are bouncing around in the atmosphere all the time. But it’s the ones that make it out into space that determine the rate of energy lost to space by the planet as a whole. And so by adding more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we thicken this sort of foggy blanket of greenhouse gases around
    the planet. We force the planet to emit from a higher altitude, and, therefore, we reduce the rate at which the planet is shedding energy to space.
    THE COURT: How would that affect what you showed me about what Tyndall said about what you said was the logarithmic relationship? How would it affect that?
    DR. ALLEN: Let me show you what happens next. So we now have an imbalance. One of the crucial insights of Fourier and Tyndall was that carbon dioxide does not interact with solar radiation. In fact, the Court asked:
    “Does carbon dioxide reflect solar radiation?” The answer is: “It doesn’t, and/or to a negligible
    degree.” And, therefore, this increase in carbon dioxide has no impact on the amount of energy received from the sun. So no additional energy is reflected away because of the increase in carbon dioxide.
    And, therefore, as a result, there’s an imbalance now between the incoming energy from the sun and the outgoing energy to space, because the outgoing energy to space has been reduced as a result of the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations. Because of that imbalance, the Earth has to warm up
    because it’s accumulating energy at the surface and in the lower atmosphere. And that’s shown here by the warming, more red colors appearing. And it has to keep warming until the color in the lower left — in the lower right is the same color as it was before, until it’s releasing energy to space at the same rate
    that it was before. Again, thinking back to the home insulation example, if you put more loft insulation — if you put more insulation in your loft, then if you look at the house with the camera from outside it looks — you see a bluer color because it’s losing energy at a slower rate. If you leave the heating on at the same rate, the house gets warmer, and the house will keep getting warmer until it’s losing energy at the same rate. You might wind up uncomfortably hot. So that’s how the analogy — it’s not a bad one. It’s not a great analogy, but it makes the point. So this is why we get to this point about the logarithmic relationship. Suppose now after the warming I double carbon dioxide concentrations again. You’ll notice that it has the same impact as the first doubling on the reduction in radiation into space. Because of the way temperatures fall off with height
    and the density of carbon dioxide molecules falls off with height, every doubling of carbon dioxide has the same impact as the last on outgoing energy into space. So that’s, in essence —
    THE COURT: Okay. Say that last sentence again.
    “Every” —
    DR. ALLEN: Every doubling of carbon dioxide has roughly the same impact on the reduction of energy released to space as the last.
    THE COURT: Well, give me a numerical example so that I can see that.
    DR. ALLEN: So the first doubling might reduce outgoing radiation to space by 3.7 watts per square — let’s say 4 watts per square meter, for sake of the small number. The second doubling, even though it requires twice as much additional carbon in the atmosphere to do it, would reduce outgoing radiation into space by an additional 4 watts per square meter. And third doubling, which would require even more carbon, would also reduce radiation to space by 4 watts per square meter. So the reduction in energy to space goes up four,
    eight, twelve, while the amount of carbon in the atmosphere goes up two, four, eight, sixteen.
    THE COURT: Okay. I see what you’re saying. I think I see what you’re saying. All right.
    DR. ALLEN: Crucially — so this is the point here about if we compare that reduction with the impact of the first
    doubling, we see the same reduction in energy. Crucially, you don’t need to take my word for it. I do
    appreciate you’re taking the time to understand this, this element of the basic physics. But we have seen this effect happening in observations made of the planet from space. In a truly impressive sequence, series of observations, NASA flew an interferometer on the Nimbus 4 spacecraft in 1970. And a very similar instrument was flown by a Japanese satellite in 1997. And by comparing these two spectra, by comparing the
    outgoing infrared radiation measured by these two satellites 27 years apart, John Harries, and his co-workers, in 2001 was able to identify the reduction in outgoing energy resulting from the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases over the intervening 27 years. So we’ve observed this effect that was predicted by Svante Arrhenius almost a hundred years earlier, we’ve observed it directly in satellite observations made of the planet as a whole.
    THE COURT: Could you explain that graph?
    DR. ALLEN: The graph at the bottom shows the spectrum of outgoing radiation. If you look very closely you can see there are two. The difference between the two spectra’s very small. This is a very fine and precise observation. It was only possible because of the extraordinary precision of those NASA engineers building that interferometer back in the late 1960’s. But we can actually see the reduction in outgoing
    energy to space, the change in the spectrum in outgoing energy to space that we would expect because of the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
    THE COURT: I still don’t get it. Is one of these — is there a 1997 line?
    DR. ALLEN: There’s two lines there. One of the lines is 1970. The other line is 1997.
    THE COURT: Are you sure? On mine it says “IMG” and “IRIS.”
    DR. ALLEN: Sorry. Yes. Yes. So the IRIS instrument was flown in 1970. The IMG instrument was flown in 1997. So they are 27 years apart.
    THE COURT: But I don’t see any — they are so close together some people would say there’s no difference. Where is the difference that you’re pointing out?
    DR. ALLEN: Well, the difference — so I could — I could give the Court a more detailed zoom-in on the figure from the Harries, et al paper. And I’d be happy to do so. I was just showing this spectrum as an illustration.
    But there if you — if you look carefully, as John Harries and co-workers did, at these two spectra, and also
    account for the various changes that have happened over the intervening 27 year periods, you can see directly the reduction in outgoing energy due to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and in precisely the wavelengths you would expect to. You would expect to find that.
    THE COURT: Which part of the wavelength is infrared?
    DR. ALLEN: The infrared spectrum is — this is — by the way, this is the near infrared. This is only part of the
    infrared spectrum because it wasn’t possible to measure the full infrared spectrum with the interferometers they were able to fly in 1970. But it shows for the wavelengths that they could observe the reduction expected due to the increase in greenhouse gases. So the crucial point here is that we don’t just have a
    theory that rising CO2 opaques the outgoing spectrum of radiation, but we have direct observations from space of that theory.
    THE COURT: I have to take your word for it because this diagram, to me it looks like it was very — the only place I see a reduction is on 1300. It looks to me like there there is a reduction but —
    DR. ALLEN: Okay. I would —
    THE COURT: My eyesight gone bad or what?
    DR. ALLEN: Okay. I would happily — there is a — I would happily furnish the breakdown which they give in their paper. I just put the spectrum in because —
    THE COURT: You are the one that came up with the chart, and I just don’t think your chart demonstrates what you’re telling me. And I take your word for it that that’s what they concluded. Okay. Good. I accept that point. But this chart doesn’t convincingly show it.
    DR. ALLEN: I’m sorry. I’m having to sort of take figures from scientific papers and sort of show illustrations of
    what we’ve done. And you are absolutely right. This doesn’t, in itself, demonstrate the answer. And there are further diagrams in the paper which I could —
    THE COURT: Forget the chart for a minute. When they did these satellite comparisons over the 27-year difference, what did they measure was the infrared reduction being emitted off the Earth in that twenty — what was the reduction? Was it 10 percent, a hundred percent? What order of magnitude?
    DR. ALLEN: In the wavelengths — in the wavelengths that were being affected, I mean I’d have to get the numbers. But they were seeing over that period — a useful way of thinking of it is in terms of the equivalent temperature of those molecules. That’s a useful unit to use. They were seeing a reduction of several degrees in the equivalent temperature of the molecules they were observing at those particular wavelengths.
    So it was a substantial change relative to the sort of warming we talk about in terms of — so they were seeing a substantial reduction in the wavelengths that are affected by these particular gases.
    THE COURT: Okay.
    DR. ALLEN: And, crucially, it was the reduction of the size and in the frequencies that we would have expected to see that reduction as a result of the increase in greenhouse gases. So we’ve observed this effect directly from space monitorings.
    THE COURT: All right. So you jumped from Tyndall to the space satellite, but there must be something in-between. I’m interested in the history, too.
    DR. ALLEN: Yes. I’m just coming back to the history. So I was also going to stress that the models we use
    for weather forecasting incorporate this basic physics of how carbon dioxide and other constituents of the atmosphere interact with infrared radiation. And these are tested millions of times per day in performing the weather forecasts. But to get back to the physics, Gilbert Plass, in 1955, during the sort of early part of the 20th century, he noted that there had been some criticism of this CO2 theory, because people
    had observed — other scientists had observed that water vapour also absorbed strongly in the infrared wavelengths that were absorbed by carbon dioxide. So in his paper in 1955, Gilbert Plass noted correctly
    that at the altitudes in the regions and also in the wavelengths that matter for carbon dioxide, the air was relatively dry because they were above the moist lower atmosphere, and therefore carbon dioxide was the dominant greenhouse gas. So even though people had noticed the water vapour absorbed strongly at the surface, as those diagrams illustrating the outgoing radiation to space actually emanates from further up
    in the atmosphere above the moist lower troposphere above the moist region near the surface where water vapor is less important. It’s still an important greenhouse gas, but carbon dioxide plays a big role because the radiation is emerging from these dry regions of the atmosphere where water vapor doesn’t get in the way.
    THE COURT: So okay. I’ll save my questions. Go ahead.
    DR. ALLEN: Near the surface — I mean, near the surface, so in the conditions in this room the main absorber will be water vapor because, you know, the surface, you know, is warm. It can hold a lot of water.
    And so because of the enormous amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, the actual amount of attenuation by CO2 between one side of this room and the other would be less than the attenuation by water vapor.
    However, Gilbert Plass’ crucial insight was it doesn’t matter what is happening in this room. What matters is what is happening at the emission level, at the level at which the planet is actually radiating energy to space.
    And at those altitudes, because we’re higher up in the atmosphere and the air is colder, it can now hold less water. The air is dryer and CO2 plays a dominant role.
    THE COURT: Is CO2 lighter than oxygen and nitrogen, or does that even matter, the relative weights?
    DR. ALLEN: A CO2 molecule is heavier than nitrogen and oxygen, but it is — that doesn’t affect the fact that it is well-mixed through the atmosphere. The individual molecular weights only matter when you get right up into the fringes of the —
    THE COURT: So the concentrations 10 feet above the Earth are about the same as at 10 miles above the Earth?
    DR. ALLEN: In CO2, yes. But in water vapor absolutely not.
    THE COURT: Right. Okay.
    DR. ALLEN: Because water vapor, as we know, as soon as the air cools, condenses and so on. So there’s much less water vapor around as you go up through the atmosphere.
    THE COURT: So Gilbert Plass, his point again was what?
    DR. ALLEN: Oh, his point was he picked up Arrhenius’ work. He noted that over the intervening decades Arrhenius’ work had been criticized by people observing strong absorption by water vapor. And he then made the point, yes, there is strong absorption by water vapor at the surface, but at the altitudes
    that matter for the planet’s energy budget, CO2 is still the dominant greenhouse gas. So he — I mean, it’s interesting. It’s been very interesting for me as going back over these papers, one tends to
    find the papers which are right, because they survive. And so it’s only in the sort of asides in these papers
    that you learn about the papers that were wrong. And so evidently there were a bunch of papers published
    in the 1930S’s, or so, sort of poo-pooing the carbon dioxide theory, because there were a lot of them that were talking about water vapor. And so Gilbert Plass was pointing out yes, that absorption happens at the surface, but it doesn’t — it’s not happening at the rate to interfere with CO2 at the altitudes that matter for the energy lost to space.
    THE COURT: Okay.
    DR. ALLEN: So coming home from this, Plass also emphasized the need — having sort of reidentifying carbon dioxide as a very important greenhouse gas. I sense you checking the time, but don’t worry. That
    was the longest component of my talk.
    THE COURT: I’m absorbed by this, but I want you to know that I am going to keep a clock on both sides.
    DR. ALLEN: I do appreciate the constraint, and I will do my best. So — and so but the next — but the question was still open in the 1950’s, up to the 1950’s: How much fossil fuel emissions were likely to affect the global atmosphere? One thing which people had noticed was that there was 40 times more carbon in the oceans than in our total fossil fuel reserves, even if you burnt the lot. And so that might have made you think, well, you know, if we release all this carbon, it would just get diluted by the oceans, and it wouldn’t really make very much difference in the long run. Roger Revelle, in 1957, made the crucial observation that some simple high school chemistry, sort of buffer chemistry, limits the amount of carbon dioxide that the ocean can take up. Carbon dioxide — well, carbon exists in the ocean in three forms. If we — if you’ll bear with me and we ignore biology for the time being. The three forms are dissolved carbon dioxide, the hydrogen carbonate ion, HCO3- and the carbonate ion.
    THE COURT: Say the last one again?
    DR. ALLEN: The hydrogen carbonate ion, HCO3-, single minus, and the carbonate ion, C032 ions.
    Every molecule of carbon dioxide that dissolves into the ocean, requires the conversion of a carbonate ion to a hydrogen carbonate ion in order to preserve charge. It’s a simple — the operation of a buffer, the kind of
    things that one uses at school to maintain a constant pH. It’s a good thing this is happening, because otherwise the oceans would have acidified much more than they have done as a result of the solution of carbon dioxide into the oceans. But what it does mean is it’s that store of carbonates in the oceans that actually determines the capacity of the oceans to take up CO2 from the atmosphere. And only 10 percent of the carbon in the oceans is in the form of carbonate. So Revelle’s insight was that actually the oceans were
    ten times smaller than you might think as a carbon pool. And that, therefore, we couldn’t count on the oceans to simply dilute away all the carbon we have been releasing from fossil fuels.
    THE COURT: Is it true that Revelle initially thought that the oceans would absorb all of the excess, and that he came to this buffer theory a little later around 1957?
    DR. ALLEN: You may know more of the history of this than I do in that case. I’m aware, as I say — I read the right papers. I read the final papers, so to speak. So this is the paper. Actually, I suspect it probably was the case in the sense that he was thinking about the problem.
    THE COURT: He was an oceanographer. Right?
    DR. ALLEN: He was an oceanographer. He was thinking about the problem.
    THE COURT: Scripps.
    DR. ALLEN: Exactly. He was at Scripps. And in the process of thinking about the problem he came to this crucial insight. And it was a good insight at the time. Up until that time, you know, the community, they
    weren’t sure how long it would take for the carbon to be taken up by the oceans. But the community were just aware there was this vast carbon store in the oceans. And, therefore, there was some
    doubt in the community as to whether fossil fuel emissions would actually make any difference.
    So having made this observation, Roger Revelle, he emphasized — and I think he used the phrase:
    “We’re conducting geophysical experiments.” And he emphasized the importance of measuring CO2 in the atmosphere to see if it was actually going up. Which brings us to the next crucial step in our story.
    Charles David Keeling, also at Scripps, measured — started measuring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Mauna Loa in Hawaii, very precisely in the late 1950’S. And he saw the famous Keeling Curve, this annual cycle of carbon dioxide resulting from the, in effect, the respiration of the northern hemisphere. And — but on top of that, a steady increase which could you not account for by respiration. The Court asked essentially about what happens to carbon dioxide breathed in by humans and, indeed, by animal life
    and so forth. That does play a role in determining this annual cycle. So the annual cycle shows the sort of annual growth and the annual growth and decay of forests in the northern hemisphere taking up and releasing carbon. But it cannot account for the upward trend. And, in fact, we’re seeing carbon dioxide levels rising to levels that have not been seen for over 20 million years. They are now past — well past 400 parts per million, around 410 parts per million. THE COURT: Keep that chart there.
    DR. ALLEN: This —
    THE COURT: Explain the ones you have on the screen, please. DR. ALLEN: Yes. So this chart shows the combination of David Keeling’s observations in blue on the right, and ice core measurements of carbon dioxide going back over much longer period, back to zero on the left. So those two different time scales here, the left-hand panel has almost ten times longer time scale. And because, of course, we can measure carbon dioxide contained in bubbles in ice very precisely back over many thousands of years, and we see that carbon dioxide concentrations have been relatively constant throughout the Holocene period.
    THE COURT: This is — that’s like a 2000 year?
    DR. ALLEN: Two thousand year record. Almost no change. In fact, I could take that record a few thousand years beyond that, it would also be flat.
    THE COURT: You said 20 million at the top, but it’s really only 2000. Is that right or am I —
    DR. ALLEN: Yes. I’ve got another figure addressing that in a minute.
    THE COURT: But let’s pause on this one. Let’s see. It starts down at 280. I can’t read that.
    DR. ALLEN: The preindustrial concentration’s around 280 parts per million, and we are now at 400, 410.
    THE COURT: All right. So that is — that’s not a doubling, but what is that?
    DR. ALLEN: Well, we’re about in the units we need to use, which are, of course, logarithmic, we are just over halfway to doubling.
    THE COURT: Say that again about logarithmic?
    DR. ALLEN: Sorry. But you remember our discussion earlier about the fact that —
    THE COURT: I do, but —
    DR. ALLEN: So because there’s a curve — in fact, there was a paper my colleague just pointed this out. We crossed the halfway mark to doubling last year.
    THE COURT: But when Arrhenius said “doubling,” he wasn’t talking logarithmic, was he? Or is that something you’ve added to it?
    DR. ALLEN: No, he was — I mean, the point about the logarithmic relationship is the fact that every doubling —
    THE COURT: Did he use the word “logarithmic”?
    No.
    DR. ALLEN: Yes.
    THE COURT: No.
    DR. ALLEN: Logarithmic? Well, he was writing —
    THE COURT: Did he use — in his paper did he use the word “logarithmic”?
    DR. ALLEN: I’m not sure. He was writing — THE COURT: Arrhenius, I’m talking about.
    DR. ALLEN: Yes. No. He talked about the logarithm of carbon dioxide. He talked about the fact that —
    THE COURT: No. No. That doubling thing.
    DR. ALLEN: Yes.
    THE COURT: Did he say that would be a logarithmic function?
    DR. ALLEN: Well, it is a logarithmic function. If we go back to that quote —
    THE COURT: No. I’m asking: Did he say that?
    DR. ALLEN: Whether he used the word “logarithmic” in his paper, I mean, I don’t know.
    THE COURT: Okay. Don’t answer. It’s okay. But I don’t want you reading modern day politics into this. I’d just
    like to know did he say it was a logarithmic relationship?
    DR. ALLEN: So whether said — whether he used the word “logarithmic,” mathematically, if he said something equivalent, mathematician wouldn’t care what word he used.
    THE COURT: Yes, but the two examples he gave are not necessarily — it could also be linear.
    DR. ALLEN: Yes.
    THE COURT: The doubling and quadruple thing.
    DR. ALLEN: Yes. Yes.
    THE COURT: If you look at those, that part if it’s both linear and logarithmic.
    DR. ALLEN: If a double — if a doubling has the same impact as the last doubling, then it’s logarithmic. If a
    doubling — if the second doubling has twice as much impact as the first doubling, then it’s linear.
    THE COURT: Okay. I’m not sure I agree with that.
    DR. ALLEN: Can I use the board?
    THE COURT: Well, first go back to — if we are going to argue about this, go back to the very first chart where you quoted him.
    DR. ALLEN: Arrhenius.
    THE COURT: I want to see the Arrhenius chart. Here we go. Right there. So he says any — so 2X
    equals 4C. Right?
    DR. ALLEN: Yes.
    THE COURT: And 4X equals 8C. All right? So I readily agree that that would fit a logarithmic, but for just two data points which is all we got here. Doesn’t it also fit a linear function?
    DR. ALLEN: You also have the third data point, which is preindustrial equals 0C. So 1X equals 0C. So there are three data points, because if you have no increase in carbon dioxide, then you have no warming.
    So that’s why there are three points.
    THE COURT: Wait. So you’re saying 0X. All right. Let’s say 0X would equal —
    DR. ALLEN: 1X. 1X. 1X equals 0C, meaning same as preindustrial.
    THE COURT: All right. So I have to think about whether or not that’s right. But I’ll that your word for it that
    that is a logarithmic. Okay. All right. I’m using up your time with my dumb
    questions. Okay. Go ahead.
    DR. ALLEN: Okay. So where do we go to. Keeling and what’s happened to carbon dioxide. So confirmation that this carbon dioxide was being created by combustion and not, for example, just being released by the oceans because of the warming was provided by some observations by Ralph Keeling, also Scripps,
    Charles Keeling’s son, who showed that oxygen concentration in the atmosphere was falling at the same rate that CO2 concentration was rising, because, of course, to create a molecule of CO2, you need a molecule of oxygen, if you are creating that CO2 by burning carbon. So that confirmed that this increase in CO2 in the atmosphere was being — was caused by burning something, if there was any remaining doubt about that question. We could also see from the lower panel here the isotopic signature. That’s the ratio of carbon 13. Carbon 13 means it’s a form of carbon which has 13 nucleons rather than the normal 12.
    That isotope of carbon was declining again at precisely the rate we would expect if this additional CO2 in the atmosphere was appearing there because of combustion.
    THE COURT: I haven’t — explain this upward chart here that has the green line going —
    DR. ALLEN: The green line going up is this CO2.
    THE COURT: I got that. What is the blue line then?
    DR. ALLEN: The blue line are observations of the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere. Now, oxygen is almost 29 percent of the atmosphere . . .

    • Can someone explain why IR energy, photons, etc, behave differently than fission neutrons in a reactor? How can just passing by, as explained above, transfer appreciable energy? As a Nuclear Engineer, I have always assumed they were the same. Seems to me they would behave the same as in a nuclear reactor. Where there is a vast distance between the molecules and the protons, neutrons and electrons making up the nuclear fuel, that the molecules of CO2 that would behave similarly to interaction as the neutrons ejected by an atom as it fission in striking another Uranium atom thus creating the chain reaction. .

      • Usur, according to the “Dead Earth Alarmists” STFU You aren’t a Climate Scientists. How can a Nuclear Engineer possibly understand. You are an idiot with an untrained eye, too stupid to understand the complexity of climate propa…aahhh science..

      • @Bill Powers – I was unaware that Climate Science was a new science and ignored the knowledge of Classical Physics, Quantum Mechanics and common sense.

      • A neutron has to strike the nucleus to have an impact.
        The photon just has to strike the electron cloud around the nucleus. A much bigger target.

  3. I skimmed through, looking only at the Court’s remarks. For a layperson trying to come to grips with what was being presented, the Court asked good questions. And all that talk a few days ago of any part of this being “dismissed” was a gross mischaracterization of what was said in court; as best I can tell that talk was started by the Daily Caller.

    Nothing has been decided, nothing has been dismissed so far. It’ll be next month some time before the next step in this case.

  4. Case not dismissed, Nick.
    Numerous comments on other threads about this.
    However, the judge does not seem impresses about a “conspiracy”, and he also called for o task a chart by one of the expert presenters.

    We shall see.

    Gums sends…

  5. I suspect the judge was hoping for a great definitive battle over the truth of AGW, but the oil companies won’t give him that. I’m disappointed too.

  6. #KeithBriffaKnew

    The first disquieting note, the first thing that causes the novice to this to frown with unease or hang his mouth open with alarm, and the experienced skeptic to laugh bitterly, comes ten mails in, text document 0842992948. Two scientists – one cajoling the other to try to wring more from his data than the latter thinks it warrants, to try to turn some mildly interesting samples into a reconstruction of past climate – share a joke about a third who appears to have been notoriously fastidious about jumping to conclusions: ‘Are you not being (in the time honoured Don Graybill fashion) too demanding of the response function results when you say deriving a transfer function is not justified? We all strive for perfection but does it exist? Seriously, it would be easier as regards publication policy to get the Editor to accept a reconstruction…’

    Keith Briffa to one Gary Funkhouser. Funkhouser laughs but declines the suggestion:

    http://michaelkelly.artofeurope.com/cru.htm

  7. i read the whole thing.
    it’s actually a rather decent synopsis of the state of play.
    wobbles gets pretty weaselly with his sales pitch but the judge is rather clueful.
    boutros won a point about the alleged ‘conspiracy’ for which there is no evidence
    boutros also won a point by bringing up the city of wackland’s prospectus which explcitly states it can not predict sea levels of the future.
    shockingly, tho, ‘ring of fire’ was something a california attorney claimed to not have heard about…

    it does look to me like there’s not just a dearth of justification for he suit but also that the judge has noticed it.

    • In pages 74 and 75 the witness misrepresents RCP8.5 when he says “(RCP8.5) means we just continue as we are”. RCP8.5 goes way beyond continuing as we are, it assumes oil production increases to an impossible rate, and recarbonizes the economy. The asumptions built into this case are irrational because the model was forced by IPCC fiat to achieve 8.5 watts per m2 in 2100. The case is garbage, and I’m still scratching my head seeing the way this continues to be ignored. Most of the “research” and impact studies based on RCP8.5 is garbage, and I’m getting tired of seeing tax dollars used to fund work like this.

  8. Much went wrong here! Mention was made of Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” where he showed separated temperature and CO2 readings. What was missing? The fact that if you placed each over their respective years, it would be clearly obvious that both rising and falling CO2 trailed temperature increases and decreases. The clear conclusion would be that it was temperature that drove CO2 up or down – not CO2 forcing temperature. Makes sense that a warming ocean would eventually drive dissolved CO2 into the atmosphere, and the slowing molecular motion of a cooling ocean would provide room to absorb CO2, but the ocean would have to cool first,

    The perfidy of Gore’s charts is that he separated the two, so that one could not see how temperature was the prime mover of CO2, and not the other way around.

    The other completely missed point was that tide gauges all over the world – without exception, have shown sea-level changes at a straight-line linear direction. Where land was subsiding, the rise shown was more severe, but still linear in direction. Where land experienced uplift, the tide gauge showed local sea-level to be falling, and in a linear direction. Where the shore was tectonically inert – neither rising or falling, sea-level increased between 1 to 1.4 millimeters per year – no more, and straight-line linear too, for over a century. Since 1880, CO2 has accelerated massively (39% as of today), and since the 1960s, at an exponential (quadratic) rate. Sea-level in tectonically inert areas have shown NO signal whatsoever of any change in their straight-line linear progress. Even in areas of heavy subsidence, such as coastal Virginia, the tide-gauge readings do not show ANY recent or historical acceleration when juxtaposed against the severe acceleration of CO2. The same is true for San Francisco, New York, Boston, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

    These points should have been made and driven home by the defendants. The point that the plaintiffs hypocritically (and accurately) declared the unknowns in bond offerings was well taken, but missed the climate mark entirely!

    Some of this is available on a 2017 New Hampshire TV broadcast here:
    http://www.hudsonctv.com/Cablecast/Public/Show.aspx?ChannelID=1&ShowID=6880

  9. I read the whole thing, and it was interesting. I feel the “scientists” took it as a science lesson, whereas the lawyers were very much treating it as a trial by proxy. It was good that the judge took so much interest and asked lots of questions. I’m surprised that no one seemed to know about the Ring of Fire as a general knowledge topic though, and that the definition of RCP had to be repeated several times throughout. I also felt the Chevron lawyer could have done a better job in that he used the unknowns in the IPCC report as a defence, rather than focusing more on knowns as above commenters have mentioned (tide gauges etc). It did feel a little like a cop out, but Chevron couldn’t very well say hey look at this science when they’d be accused of fabricating results as part of Big Oil. Overall, very interesting proceedings.

  10. At page 177,Line 20:
    “THE COURT: Well, but a nuclear would not put out any
    CO2. Right?

    MR. WUEBBLES: That is correct.

    THE COURT: And that would be — we might get some
    radiation as we drive by, but we don’t get any CO2.

    MR. WUEBBLES: Right.

    -THE COURT: So that would have been — in retrospect,
    maybe we should have taken a harder look at nuclear to reduce
    some of this CO2.”

    I can’t tell from the transcript if the Judge was attempting to inject some humor here or not. If not, this is concerning. Get some radiation while driving by? He probably shoudn’t fly cross country where he will receive some exposure to low level radiation.

    • I can’t tell from the transcript if the Judge was attempting to inject some humor here or not.

      Some judges have a sense of humor. In this case the question about nuclear power has a real sting.

      There is no evidence that the defendants knew more about the science than did the plaintiff. If the plaintiff (the People of the State of California) knew that they would be damaged by human emissions of CO2, they had a duty to mitigate the damages.

      We may be able to paraphrase the Judge’s line of questioning, “If fossil fuels are so bad, why didn’t you mandate more use of nuclear power?”

      Recently, China has been the biggest emitter of CO2, and that makes it easy to forget that California used to be one of the biggest emitters in the world. Its emissions are still pretty hefty.

      By its consumption of fossil fuels, and given that there appeared to be a viable alternative, California can be seen as the author of its own misfortune (if we assume that CAGW is real, which I don’t). That’s real poison to its case.

      The other question that occurs to me is this: Given that China’s CO2 emissions are huge, shouldn’t California be suing China? If a plaintiff is being damaged by more than one party, does it have a duty to go after the most serious offender? Shouldn’t California be suing Australia because it supplies coal to China?

      • And California has shut down at least eight with two more on the way. Some of those eight were not significant power plants, but helped in the Nuclear Power knowledge, which is now being transferred to China. Seem to me our next reactor will be built by China.

  11. An example of a professor teaching at a world-class top university…

    …its ground state is sort of like this: Straight (indicating).
    Okay? And if a photon interacts, comes, as it were, close enough
    to it to interact with it, it sets it vibrating. Yeah? Like a chicken dance (indicating). Yeah?
    Alternatively, sets it vibrating like an asymmetric
    stretch. I don’t know what the name of that dance is….

  12. Funny how CO2 doubling produces 4 degrees of putative warming from a baseline of 280 ppm but nobody, goes backward by halving the CO2 for 10 times to see how cold we would be-. – 40 C colder?
    We could theoretically go back to 1 molecule of CO2 and double that and get 4 C of warming.
    I do not think so.
    Bunkum.
    Hence the CO2 doubling is logically wrong.

  13. My personal favorite was when the expert talked about the land carbon sink and the judge asked what was the best evidence available of an effect of global warming on the land carbon sink. The response was something like ‘we just know if soil warms it has an effect’. Then he reiterates that they don’t know anything about the magnitude of this effect. Word salad.

  14. We’ve recently reported on the #ExxonKnew court case…

    Hardly anybody else has. I’m pretty certain that had the result gone the other way the MSM would be yelling it out from the rooftops.

    An inconvenient judgement.

  15. I thought one of the more telling sections, to my untrained layman’s eye, pages 126 -129 wherein the demand for energy world-wide but especially India, China & USA appeared to blame the burning of coal.
    Could some-one tell me just where does this fit with blaming the oil companies?

    “Yes. And it really goes to the global
    nature of this. Their economy has been expanding. That leads to
    more activities. That creates a demand for more energy. They
    are burning coal, more coal than the U.S.
    The U.S. has been using other sources of energy:
    Natural gas. That has been one of the contributing factors to
    the levels you see comparing the United States and China”

  16. I’m struck with how much the transcript resembles a Platonic dialogue, with the Court playing the part of Socrates.

  17. Interesting read. The SF 20 Year bond risk warning argument was genius. That would have done it on its own and would have saved a lot of time: “The Plaintiffs, when accepting money elsewhere, admit that they are unable to prove their claim, yet ask for money here on the same claim, saying, in the exact reverse, that they are able. One thing laughs in the face of the other. I rest my case.”

    Wuebbles was equally laughable – it might as well have been Al Gore beclowning himself on the stand: amongst many other things recorded tornado frequencies are not increasing and even if they were it might well be an artefact of increased observation, not occurrence.

    Well done the Judge.

  18. It might only be an adjournment but the judge is clearly signalling his doubts about the claim.

    That is what judges do when they think a misguided plaintiff needs to be warned off at as early a stage as possible in order to avoid wasting court time and building up unnecessary costs.

  19. In the transcript Dr. Allen maintains, per the standard thinking, that CO2 IR opacity leads to radiation from colder regions of the atmosphere, and hence more insulation of the atmosphere. But is this insulation really happening? Does it matter from whence the earth radiates?

    Let’s imagine that there are no GHGs in the atmosphere. Would the atmosphere then be at 255K near the surface?

    The sun is heating the surface and it warms the surface well above 255K and in fact likely closer to 288K, if we assume this is the average warming of the solid surface. This heat is conducted to the atmosphere; the density of the atmosphere near the surface keeps most of this heat near the surface (i.e., the average translational energy of the molecules of N and O, which per unit volume register as “temperature,” is concentrated at the surface.) There is no way the atmosphere near the surface would average to 255K. In fact, this would be impossible: it would mean there is no atmosphere to conduct heat.

    Now assume GHGs, with a twist. What would happen if the earth radiated at 10 meters up from the surface? If we had a thick cloud of CO2 10 meters up, does that add any heat? It intercepts LWIR but it does not amplify this LWIR. The cloud of CO2 would not interfere with conduction/convection: warm air will still rise. What would that cloud of CO2 be doing, besides transposing some/most of the radiation from the surface and moving it up 10 meters?

    • Don 132

      What Dr Allen and the consensus science miss is that conduction and convection also add to total atmospheric (radiative) opacity by diverting surface heat that would otherwise radiate to space to the continuing process of convective overturning. That process needs an additional source of energy at the surface to sustain it otherwise the atmosphere would fall to the ground.

      I have explained the entire process here:

      https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/stephen-wilde-how-conduction-and-convection-cause-a-greenhouse-effect-arising-from-atmospheric-mass/

      • Stephen, that sounds about right except that would we say that conduction and convection add to atmospheric radiative opacity? It seems that convective overturning would transfer atmospheric heat back towards the surface, but I don’t think that strictly speaking this adds to radiative opacity.

        It seems that the simple fact that atmospheric pressure holds surface heat in solves a lot of problems, and I would say that this fact is– to borrow a word from the alarmists– “incontrovertible.” No work need be done to accomplish this; it’s merely a matter of gas density, conduction, and contact with a heated surface, and this simple mechanism accords with the science of gas temperature as determined by average translational energy as well as with the gas laws.

      • Don 123
        The radiative opacity created by conduction and convection is set up as a once and for all phenomenon when the atmosphere is first formed. During the first convective overturning cycle energy that would otherwise have been radiated to space is diverted to conduction and convection. That delay in radiation to space is effectively an increase in the atmosphere’s radiative opacity.
        Once the atmosphere is in place the continuation of convective overturning locks that delayed radiative emission into a constant cycle that remains for as long as the atmosphere remains in place suspended off the surface against gravity.
        More atmospheric mass increases the amount of radiative throughput delayed from emission to space and thus increases surface temperature above S-B.
        Venus is a prime example.

      • Stephen,

        It seems to me that a lot of concern with radiative effects is overdone.

        It also seems to me to be indisputable that a pressure gradient leads to a temperature gradient, all else being equal, so that those who dispute this are just plain wrong, and a simple consideration of elementary physics will prove this. If this is so, then it seems to be a very short way to overturning the entire idea of the prominence of radiative physics in determining surface temperature.

        Occam’s razor: if near-surface atmospheric temperature can be determined wholly by atmospheric density and conduction, then there’s no need for radiation as a determinant of that temperature. There must be some math somewhere that works this out but I haven’t found it. And, I don’t know if the near-surface atmospheric temperature can be wholly determined by atmospheric density and conduction.

      • Don132

        All the math you need is found in the calculations relating to the US Standard Atmosphere which works perfectly without any adjustments for atmospheric radiative capability.

        The same calculations also work for those planets with atmospheres that we have been able to measure. Venus is the prime example where the temperature at the same pressure is similar to that of Earth after adjusting solely for distance from the sun.

        The entire radiative hypothesis is a house of cards.

      • But it’s claimed these calculations involve a circular argument, which is correct.
        What is missing is that the assumption that GHGs warm an atmosphere has not been proved.

  20. USCRN SUR_TEMP and SURFRAD uw_ir are surface upwelling infrared measurements from instruments that appear configured to apply ideal S-B BB equations, emissivity of about 1.0.

    Consequently, in some cases the upwelling power flux readings produced from these instruments can be as much as twice the amount of the measured downwelling solar irradiation power flux delivered to the surface. Energy from thin air by a misapplied equation is a rather clear violation of thermodynamic conservation of energy.

    An ideal S-B BB configuration works fine at the surface of the sun or earth’s ToA radiating out into the non-participating vacuum of space.

    But at the surface of the earth, submerged under 32 km of molecules participating through the thermal processes of conduction, convection, advection and latent, is an entirely different scenario.

    Applying an emissivity correction of 0.16 appears to bring these surface upwelling measurements into reasonable balance with the solar, convective and latent surface down and up welling power fluxes.

    ‘twould be more than a little bit disconcerting to discover that RGHE/GHG loop/CAGW are all based on a handful of improperly configured IR instruments.

  21. I have discussed this by e-mail with the clerk to the court, and there has been no disposition, motion granted, or order made with regard to the plaintiff’s case, arguments or evidential exhibits. It will proceed to arguments on the outstanding motions to dismiss and then to trial.

    • TNX, Mike.

      I looked at the Court schedule and cannot see another hearing/presentation for at least another three or four weeks.

      After reading the actual words of the judge, I am becoming a “fake news” believer. Not completely, but the climate folks here and elsewhere junped upon a vague “feeling” by the judge that he interpreted one parafraph of the plaintiff submission the same as the defense lawyer. So I quote the actual words:

      “I think Mr. Boutrous is correct.
      I read that paragraph 67 the same way; that there was a conspiratorial document within the defendants about how they knew good and well that global warming was right around the corner.
      And I said:
      “Okay. That’s going to be a big thing. I want to
      see it.”
      Well, it turned out it wasn’t quite that. What it was
      was a slide show that somebody had gone to the IPCC and was
      reporting on what the IPCC had reported, and that was it.
      Nothing more.” end quote from the transcript.

      Where did several folks here get the impressoin that the judge actually uttered words such as
      “Judge slams California cities lawyers says they misled the court – says document they claim “shows conspiracy” shows nothing of the sort ”

      “nothing of the sort” is hard to find in the transcript that I have.

      Lots of stuff ahead, and we prolly won’t have another court appearance for a month or more.

      Meanwhile, I am very disapponted by the conclusions of many stalwart contributors here that a judge had “dismissed” so-called “conspiracy” aspects of the defendants actions 20 years ago that the plaintiffs asserted. It looks like all he did was “feel” that one document the plaintiffs referenced did not indicate a “conspiracy”.

      Maybe one of our lawyers could see the transcript and provide an opinion.

      Gums sends…

  22. THE CASE

    Judge Alsup knows the plaintiff and defendant equally desire consumers should pay more for the defendant’s products. Both openly advocate for carbon taxes, carbon trading and renewable energy levies to fund subsidies and grants etc.

    Judge Alsup could have invited ‘sceptical science’ to join the tutorial. Happer, Koonin & Lindzen submitted a detailed amicus curiae brief and offered to participate in the tutorial.
    Alsup clearly did not want tutorial data presented that may contradict data presented by the plaintiff or defendant.

    The plaintiff’s case is improper.
    Only three options were available to it:
    1. In a court, seek injunctive relief to halt the sale of the defendant’s products in Cal.
    2. By regulation, ban the sale of the defendant’s products in Cal.
    3. By regulation, impose a nuisance levy on the defendant’s products in Cal.

    Judge Alsup will dismiss the case upon commencement.
    This is a Nuisance case (Cal. Civ. Code § 3479).
    To prove loss or damage (loss under nuisance can be interference with a right), the plaintiff must plead the existence of a duty and causation.
    The plantiff must, by expert witness, show an event causing loss or damage was caused by the defendant.
    The event can only be an event occurring between 19xa and 19xb.
    19xa is the date on which the defendant was made aware (or became aware) by a ‘qualified’ scientist that the combustion of their hydrocarbon products may cause a nuisance.
    19xb is the date on which the plaintiff was made aware (or became aware) by a ‘qualified’ scientist that the combustion of the defendant’s products may cause a nuisance.
    Any reasonable person would expect the University of Cal (University of Cal, Berkeley; Cal State University; Cal University of Pennsylvania) would advised the State of any risk of nuisance from the combustion of hydrocarbons given UC was involved in AGW research from its earliest days.
    At 19xb, the plaintiff had but three options (set out above) which it failed to exercise.

    Judge Alsup will likely dismiss this case based on the defendant’s dismissal motions.
    There are three further grounds for dismissal:
    1. Invalidity by The Statute of Limitations (19xb).
    2. The plaintiff was aware of the nuisance risk prior to the defendant or at a date so close as to make the assessment of a quantum of damages impossible.
    3. The defendant is fractionally responsible for any nuisance and the plaintiff is unable to separate the defendant’s emissions from Worldwide CO2 emissions from coal and hydrocarbon combustion.

    • Salute Warren!

      Looks as you are a lawyer.

      I question references to California code.

      I thot this case was being heard in U.S. Federal court.

      Make no mistake, my opinion is that green attorneys from several states can sniff the billions like better lawyers than they did over 20 years ago with “big tobacco”.

      I was not a tort lawyer after retiring from the Air Force, but seeing all the local cases and waching my Mom’s broken knee case gave me cause to revise my feelings.

      Gums sends…

  23. or of al franken’s famous air grab. judge got right up close to some vulnerable spots but stopped shy of poking them

  24. Does anyone have this exxon-chevron-3-21-18globalwh.pdf transcript file translated to a nicely formatted word processor file (.doc, .docx, .odt, .rtf, etc.), please?

    I made a .txt version (with page numbers, but no line numbers), and saved a copy here:

    http://sealevel.info/Calif_v_BP_et_al/exxon-chevron-3-21-18globalwh_v07.txt
    (Each page begins with an indented page number and ends in an underscore followed by an ASCII FormFeed character.)

    But I’d rather have a word processor file.

Comments are closed.