Climate chaos claims continue causing consternation

From the Oakland v. oil company lawsuit to ridiculous “research,” the onslaught never ends

Guest essay by Paul Driessen

Anyone who thought “manmade climate cataclysm” rhetoric couldn’t possibly exceed Obama era levels should read the complaint filed in the “public nuisance” lawsuit that’s being argued before Federal District Court Judge William Alsup in a California courtroom: Oakland v BP and other oil companies.

The allegations read at times like they were written by a Monty Python comedy team and a couple of first year law students. Defendant companies “conspired” to produce dangerous fuels, the complaint asserts, and “followed the Big Tobacco playbook” to promote their use, while paying “denialist front groups” to question “established” climate science, “downplay” the “unprecedented” risks of manmade global warming, and launch “unfounded attacks on the integrity” of leading “consensus” scientists.

“People of color” and other “socially vulnerable” individuals will be most severely affected, it continues. (They’ll be far more severely impacted by climate policies that drive up energy and food prices.)

Oakland’s lawyers excoriate astrophysicist Wei Hock “Willie” Soon for committing the unpardonable sin of suggesting the sun might have something to do with climate change. They couldn’t even get his PhD degree right. They call him an “aerospace engineer,” and claim he personally received $1.2 million that was actually paid to Harvard University (as multiple, easily accessible documents make clear).

They don’t even mention the billions of taxpayer dollars that have been divvied up year after year among researchers and activists who promote alarmist views on global warming and renewable energy.

Oakland and its fellow litigants expect the court to accept their claims at face value, as “established” science, with no need to present real-world evidence to support them. They particularly emphasize rising seas and the resulting “imminent threat of catastrophic storm surges” that are “projected” by computer models that assume carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is now the primary or sole driver of climate change, replacing the sun, cosmic rays, ocean currents and other powerful natural forces that did so “previously.”

In suing the five major oil companies, they ignore the fact that the companies burn very few of the hydrocarbon fuels they produce. It is the plaintiff city governments and their constituents who have happily burned oil and natural gas for over a century, to fuel their cars, heat, cool, light and electrify their offices and homes, and make their industries, communications, health and living standards possible.

In the process, it is they who have generated the plant-fertilizing CO2 that is allegedly causing the unprecedented global warming, melting ice caps and rising seas. Hydrocarbons also fuel essential backup electricity generators for California’s wind and solar facilities – and provide raw materials for fabrics, plastics, paints, pharmaceuticals and countless other products the litigants use every day.

Equally problematical for the plaintiffs, the “established, consensus” science asserted throughout their complaint and courtroom presentations is increasingly uncertain and hotly debated. As Heartland Institute scholar Joe Bast points out, even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change now expresses numerous doubts and uncertainties about rates of sea level rise, the role of CO2, the cause and duration of a global warming “pause” that has now lasted some 23 years. Indeed, the temperature spike caused by the 2015-16 El Niño has now almost disappeared, as the oceans and atmosphere continue to cool once again.

The oil companies decided not to present much climate science in the courtroom. However, expert materials prepared by Christopher Monckton, Will Happer, Richard Lindzen and colleagues addressed questions about equilibrium climate sensitivity and related issues in amicus curiae filings for the court.

Oakland’s claim that the oil companies “conspired” to hide and misrepresent “the science” on global warming and climate change is on thin ice. Some reports say Judge Alsup dismissed the claim or ruled that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that there was a conspiracy. In any event, a decision on the merits will eventually be made, the losing party will appeal, and the case will likely end up in the US Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, climate chaos claims continue causing consternation in some circles. Too much money, power, prestige, control and wealth redistribution is at stake for anything else to happen.

Indeed, many in the $1.5-trillion-a-year Climate Industrial Complex are determined to use this issue (and equally malleable “sustainability” mantras) to replace free enterprise capitalism with totalitarian one-world governance; fossil fuel and nuclear power (the source of 85% of US and global energy) with expensive, land-intensive wind, solar and biofuel energy; and the hopes and dreams of poor people everywhere with policies that permit their living standards to improve only minimally, at the margins.

Actually, climate chaos hype-potheses now blame not just carbon dioxide and methane for runaway global warming, but also asthma inhalers and meat diets. The results aren’t just rising seas, warmer and colder weather, wetter and drier seasons, forest fires, nonexistent mass extinctions and the other oft-cited pseudo-cataclysms. They also include shrinking animals, a worse opioid crisis, and the endless litany of often amusing afflictions and disasters chronicled in The Warmlist and its video counterpart.

The “solution” isn’t just keeping fossil fuels in the ground. It also includes accepting profound lifestyle changes and dining on climate friendly insects (not ruling elites; just the rest of us).

And the real effects of manmade climate cataclysm fears are not just soaring prices for less available, less reliable, grid-destabilizing “green” electricity. They also include having to rescue adventurers who try to sail, snowmobile or trek across supposedly melting Arctic and Antarctic ice packs – only to become stranded and frostbitten or have their ships trapped in rapidly freezing ice.

So, what should climate disaster stalwarts do, when temperatures and sea levels refuse to cooperate with Al Gore speeches and computer model “projections” and “scenarios”? Or when forecasts of more hurricanes are followed by a record 12-year absence of any Category 3-5 storms hitting the US mainland?

One strategy is refusing to debate anyone who challenges the dire hypotheses, data or conclusions. Another involves “homogenizing,” “correcting” and manipulating original data, to make Dust Bowl era temperatures less warm – and this year’s long and bitterly cold winter not nearly so frigid, by adjusting records from local temperature stations by as much as 3.1 degrees Fahrenheit (1.7 Celsius).

As to the numerous articles and studies published on WattsUpWithThat.com, DrRoySpencer.com, ClimateDepot.com, ClimateChangeReconsidered.org and other sites that focus on evidence-based climate studies and research, and challenge assertions like those relied on in the Oakland complaint – the increasingly preferred strategy is to employ algorithms and other tactics that relegate their work to the bottom of search engine results. Long lists of alarmist claims, articles and perspectives appear first, unless a student or other researcher enters very specific search terms. Even the major shortcomings of wind power are hard to find, if you don’t know precisely what you are looking for.

Google, Facebook, You Tube and other search, information and social media sites appear determined to be the arbiters of what information, facts and realities we can access, what our children can learn. They help stigmatize and bully scientists whose research or views do not hew to accepted liberal perspectives, and have even enlisted corporate advertisers into policing the speech of political opponents.

All this from the champions of free speech, tolerance, diversity and inclusion. Just bear in mind:

The issue is not whether our planet is warming, or whether climate and weather are changing. The issue is what is causing those fluctuations, how much is due to fossil fuels versus to natural forces, and whether any coming changes will be as catastrophic as natural forces have caused multiple times in the past. (Imagine what would happen to cities, farms and humanity if we had another Pleistocene ice age.)

All of this once again underscores why America and the world need “Red Team” climate science exercises, more evidence-based climate education, and a reversal of the Obama EPA’s unsupported finding that carbon dioxide emissions somehow endanger human health and welfare.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy and environmental policy.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
lee

Re: Willie Soon
“They call him an “aerospace engineer,”
That’s what you get for relying on Wiki. There are2 links provided. One comes up not found and the other comes up astrophysicist.

Mike McMillan

Hey, don’t pick on Wikipedia. It is unrivaled on minor third world airstrips.

MarkW

If you want to know what year the War of 1812 was fought in …

oeman50

Or who is buried in Grant’s tomb….

RoHa

Don’t keep me in suspense. Who is buried in Grant’s tomb?

Robber

The Paris Agreement’s aim is to keep the global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius. However what is the agreed pre-industrial temperature that somehow is the “utopian” global temperature? By various accounts we are somewhere around 1 degree above that undefined starting point. But given that action is demanded because 1.5-2.0 degree rise is considered catastrophic, shouldn’t we already be seeing the disastrous impacts as we are two thirds of the way to a 1.5 degree increase? Yet all the evidence suggests that the world is supporting far more people and the present climate is allowing far greater crop yields than in pre-industrial times. Is there some magical “tipping point” with just another 0.5 degree rise?

Robber:
You ask a good question. The other good question that needs to asked is: What will be the global temperature in 2100 due ENTIRELY to natural influences.? Will it be above that of this perceived optimum or below?
Once this estimate is known (in terms of probability), then by adding in the influence of CO2 we should get some idea of the future climate temperature. It could well be the case that this temperature will be below the current values, which, if so, would suggest that increases in CO2 would be beneficial.
I seems to me that the flawed logic of the Paris Agreement lies in the assumption that the natural influences will remain constant over the period; which is total nonsense.
Overall, if you add in the confidence levels due to the chaotic system under review, you wind up with a return to the crystal ball!
Meanwhile the Tower of Babel expands. ( or being Paris; do we call it the Waffle Tower?)

Tom in Florida

A better question is does a “global temperature” actually have real meaning?

Tom
Indeed another good question.
Temperature only has meaning when it is combined with the total amount and it enthalpy of the body under consideration; for it but one of a number of factors of state that sum to the total enthalpy involved. Some of the others being: velocity, potential, latent, pressure, strain, volume etc. etc.
It is perhaps a valid measurement when considering objects in space from a distance; but in no way provides in itself information on the energies/enthalpies involved within the object.
Consider a jet engine: A parcel of air enters a sudden divergent nozzle with enthalpy X . The velocity is reduced and the temperature therefore rises.
Enthalpy is then added by fuel burnt and the temperature rises further. The velocity is then increased markedly via the divergent nozzle providing thrust via acceleration with again a drop in temperature.
On may well ask here what the temperature of this jet engine is; but taking the average would not provide much useful information, however sophisticated your statistical manipulations.
So I suppose the answer to your question is simply NO. For the answer depends on the fractal level at which you measure it; just like measuring the length of the U.K. coastline.

Mike McMillan

cognog2: Consider a jet engine: A parcel of air enters a sudden divergent nozzle with enthalpy X . The velocity is reduced and the temperature therefore rises.
Pressure rises through a divergent inlet. The temperature is constant

Sorry Mike; but you are misinformed.
The following is a direct copy from my engineering notes from student days:
“ In the entry duct of a jet the KE of the air at entry is used to initiate compression. From the steady flow equation: KE1^2/2 – KE2^2/2 = Cp(T2 – T1)”
Here the KEs squared divided by 2 are the respective kinetic energies and the Ts are the Temperatures with Cp being the specific heat.
The resulting pressure can then be calculated using this difference in temperatures; but I won’t bother to provide the equations here; as it gets complicated by the irreversibility of the the process.
My regards

The answer to your first question is impossible to determine because all known, and unknown conditions that affect climate are impossible to predict. Climate is a random, chaotic, uncoupled system and all attempts to predict climate beyond spring, summer, fall and winter are a fools errand. The best we can do is study the past record and assume the future will be similar, but only similar…and that may be wrong also. The climate hucksters are the ultimate snake-oil salesmen that roamed the old West swindling people out of their money.

The best argument against warming harm is right outside your window. Things change, but the more they change the more they stay the same. I had been complaining about our long winter and all the snow we have at the end of March. Then I looked at some photos I had taken on March 31, 2014. They were nearly identical to the scene outside my window right now. Two mild winters and early springs had changed my expectations. How short our memories are. We seem to adapt very quickly to the reality of the moment.

J Mac

RE: “The Paris Agreement’s aim is to keep the global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels…”
Robber,
No. The Paris Climate Accord’s aim was to financially rape the US taxpayer, impoverishing the USA while lining the pockets of the New Socialist World Order that is the United (sic) Nations today.

Barbara

Isn’t this about implementing the Kyoto Protocol in the U.S.?

wws

ironically even the Paris accords didn’t go as far as the Kyoto agreement did. The legacy of Kyoto is that NO ONE lived up to anything they claimed they would do under it, except for those who promised to do nothing. And then it expired. (Germany looked good under it because they were still closing Communist era eastern industrial plants, and France looked good because they were mostly Nuclear)
But no one even on the Green side talks about Kyoto anymore because it was a farce of a fraud of a bad joke.

R. Shearer

In actuality, the world is too cold by about 10C. The acknowledge best climates have a range of about 20-30C with an average around 26C being viewed as highly desirable.
https://internationalliving.com/the-best-climates-in-the-world/

AGW is not Science

To continue your point, since we know from *empirical evidence* (tree lines being higher, specifically) that each of the previous warm periods was both warmer than today’s, and warmer than those which occurred after it, so that we have the Medieval Warm Period, The Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period, and the warmest of all, the Holocene Climate OPTIMUM, all of which (considering that they were that much warmer than the current warm period) probably exceeded the alleged “red line” of supposedly “catastrophic” warming, and all WITHOUT the supposedly “catastrophic” consequences, we once again have ACTUAL evidence that their HYPOTHETICAL “catastrophe” will be NON-EXISTENT.

knr

Not to mention there us no wide spread agreement on what ‘pre-industrial’ even means there in in reality a wide scale of things that could be called ‘industrial ‘ from different eras , and some spread out over time so where not ‘wide-scale ‘ for a quite a period .

Is there a way to get this info to the judge?
https://chaamjamal.wordpress.com/human-caused-global-warming/

Bill J

Why would you possibly rely on “some reports” about what Judge Alsup said or ruled when the transcript from the tutorial was posted right here? Very sloppy.

Hokey Schtick

Burning down the house.

tom0mason

Surely all that the cAGW want is more climate chaos in the media by pumping chaos into the legal system. They don’t want a result, they wish for coverage!

davidsimm

This time last year in the UK, we had 22C (72F) on this day.
This year its 7C (45F)….
We call it…. ‘weather’….

Doug

We could use some global warming in WI. Snow yesterday and a forecast for weeks of cold below normal temps 🙁

It was just snowing in my backyard. The weather gurus are say it will be mid April before a semblance of Spring begins. Meanwhile the green side up brigade say these conditions are caused by AGW. Who knew??

Tom in Florida

Time to sue Punxsutawney Phil!

Earthling2

It’s time for President Donald J. Trump to step up and demolish this pseudo climate science. With one tweet, he could start the end of this religious cult of CAGW, and let the world know that he and his administration don’t buy into the tactics of this lying, bullying cartel of scamsters stealing Billions and the misappropriation of Trillions of dollars globally of precious wealth that should be better spent on fixing the real problems that we have on the good Earth. Not imaginary tales of some climate disaster by 2100 AD unless we abandon fossil fuels, the energy source that has enabled the world to become what it has. Most people know now that CO2 can’t be blamed for everything wrong with the world and there is no real solid evidence that the sensitivity of CO2 is more than the laws of physics already allow for, which is a fairly small temperature rise of maybe 1.2 C with a doubling of CO2 that may never even happen. And warming is better than cooling anyway, in case anybody has noticed this winter in the northern hemisphere.
Pick the fight specifically with Al Gore, since he is the high priest of this political maleficence, along with some of his minions in the scientific academia like disgraced Professor M. Mann who malign the truth in science. There is currently a vacuum in the Democratic Party Leadership that is unfilled, and Al Gore is likely to take another kick at the cat in 2020 for the office of President. Al Gore just turned 70 yesterday, and President Trump will turn 72 this June, in a few short months making Al Gore only a year and a bit older than when Trump announced his run for President. Loser Al Gore never got over his loss in the 2000 election, and my bet is he makes his announcement after the mid term elections this fall when the Democrats will probably win back the House and maybe even the Senate. He will be emboldened and think that he can use climate science to destroy President Trump, and win the White House in 2020 and be the hero to save the world.
Kick Lying Big Al and the climate cult religion to to the curb right now, and you will kill 3 birds with one stone. Which is 1.) stopping the CAGW wrecking ball that it is turning out to be, 2.) getting science back on track with honest skeptical enquiry into the facts of climate science without extortion against honest skeptical scientists and 3.) disabling the Democratic Party in advance of the 2020 election. Tens of millions of voters will come out of the woodwork if it is politically and socially allowable for all members of society to question whether the science is correct or not. Currently we are on very thin ice between a type of science that is producing political and academic fascism, and threatening to derail much of the stability that democracy has brought around the world the last 75 years. C’mon President Trump, do it, this is what people elected you do, which is to curtail the Marxist Leftist agenda of destroying western civilization through limiting and curtailing energy policy at large.

HotScot

Earthling2
Very scary.

R. Shearer

To who?

HotScot

R. Shearer
Anyone that isn’t on the loony left.

Peter Campion

What Earthling2 said +1

Alan Tomalty

The 1st thing that Trump needs to do is to fire Gavin Schmidt Director of the Goddard Space Institute of NASA.
Schmidt is an avowed believer in global warming and has corrupted his agency just as badly as James Hansen did before him. Better yet Trump should dismantle the Goddard Space Institute entirely because it is duplicating the work of NOAA. NASA should get back to its prime purpose of space exploration and leave the earth atmosphere to NOAA.

Sara

I disagree the they need to be kicked to the curb. This has to play itself out. It is becoming more and more loaded with lies, incorrect information, irrational, hysterical arguments that have no basis in reality – all of these begin signs of desperation.
The major influence is how much money any of The They can get out of this phony dog & pony show that they’ve built out of whole cloth. End the funding, end the cash flow and the entire thing goes spiraling down the drain. Countersuits are better, but not many people have the money for countersuits, therefore the best and most reliable way to stop this utter nonsense is with FACTS, Show that they are lying, show that they are fabricating evidence, show that they are without backup. Provide correct information.
Just kicking them in the teeth will not work.

Sara

Man, I need to edit before I click. “all of these begin signs” should be “all of these BEING signs”.
Sorry about that.

waterside4

Plus mega +++

hunter

+10. Very well stated.
Thank you.

Peta of Newark

If Mr Trump was to ‘Tweet’ to put an end to this insanity, and many others of which this is one, his tweet would simply say:

Add half an ounce of saturated fat to every meal you eat

Reason:
Coming to be accepted is that there is now something called Type 3 diabetes.
Me, you and probably our parents & grandparents will know it as Alzheimer’s Disease.
The thing starts when small children are introduced to sugar..
Small children.
Pizza. Pasta. French Fries. Soda pop etc
Ancel Keys is responsible for the biggest and most horrible disaster that there ever has been, so far, in human history.
He has destroyed the nervous systems, brains, minds and thinking of an entire generation.
This climate thing is a symptom of that.

Tom in Florida

Pizza has very little sugar.

Hell_Is_Like_Newark

I believe he is referring to carbohydrates in general, which spike insulin. Low carb – high fat diets (ketogenic) have been a savior for many (me included) who have struggled with weight. For others, it reversed type 2 diabetes.
Per Ancel Keys epidemiological study on the consumption of fats, keto diets should kill. The opposite happens.

Keitho

Starch converts to sugar inside the human body.

Tom in Florida

“I believe he is referring to carbohydrates in general”
The post said “sugar” not carbs. So your interpretation is just that, yours. This is an ongoing problem on blogs everywhere. People don’t read what is written they just assume what the poster meant. That’s why Willis always demands that you quote him if you disagree.

HotScot

Tom in Florida
To be even more pedantic than you.
Pizza’s often contain considerable amounts of sugar, specifically, refined sugar, added to marinades and sauces included in toppings. There are also natural sugars in tomatoes and other vegetable, and fruit toppings such as pineapple.
You might, perhaps, be more specific in your interpretation of Peta of Newark’s post yourself before condemning Hell_Is_Like_Newark.
Not that I imagine any of us are either nutrition or culinary experts.

Sara

You can make your own pizza sauce, which is better for you than the commercial junk on the store shelves. You only need tomatoes, olive oil, a bit of salt, some garlic (unless you’re allergic) and a bit of basil. Cook the tomatoes slowly and keep mashing them down to less pulpy. They will thicken naturally.
Canning companies put sugar in things that NEVER had them when I was in grade school. A prime example is peanut butter. Unless you buy the peanut butter with the “naturals” label (peanuts and salt), you will get sugar in your peanut butter which should NOT be there.
There is NO reason to add sugar to canned tomatoes, other than to meet corrupted taste testing results. If you can find green beans canned with low or no salt, you can find canned tomatoes with no sugar.

AGW is not Science

Pizza has a ton of sugar – it’s called BREAD. Which will be turned into sugar by your body when you eat it.

Michael Jankowski

The climate change scare is due to too many carbs in diets?
Speaking of people showing signs of dementia…

kaliforniakook

Tom will be irritated with me hear, but I think he was saying climate change fanatics are displaying signs of dementia.
i think that is too simplistic, but I’m not dismissing the idea out of hand. Some sugars are almost as rough on the liver as alcohol – maybe as rough, according to biochemists. Thing is, when you over drink, everyone can tell – within a few minutes. When you’re killing your liver with sugar, the results take time – years.
Most carbs break down into sugars – and have the same effect on the liver.

Peter Morris

Some day I wish someone here would do an article on the 500 million number. I’ve seen that number pop up a lot in lunatic environmentalist circles, and I’ve always wondered where it comes from.
I know it’s chiseled on the Georgia Guidestones, and that can’t be a coincidence. But since those were anonymously erected it’s kind of a dead end; not much more than an interesting factoid.
Anyway all the caterwauling seems pointed at eventually squeezing earth’s population back down to that “sustainable” number. It seems to be at the bottom of everything.
But again, whence it came?

Auto

Peter,
Probably, I suggest, from the same dark orifice that the +2 degree number was allowed to pass.
Some one makes up a number, and – bingo . . . .
There might be a post ex facto justification drifting about the internet, but it is likely to be just that.
Auto – not at all a cynic.
Not at all.
Honest, Guv!

AGW is not Science

Since the Climate Fascists believe that they constitute the majority, they should, in a showing of their commitment to the “cause,” be the first to self-immolate as part of the supposedly “necessary” human “population reduction.” When we get through all of the REAL “true believers” in this fashion, then the rest of us can get on with our lives without being constantly attacked by their endless bleating about non-existent (at least in the way that THEY mean) climate doom.
Human beings can do exactly TWO things about “climate.” ADAPT to it, or DIE. That’s it. WE are NOT in CONTROL of the Earth’s climate, and we never will be. WE do NOT have ANY *measurable* impact on the Earth’s climate, and we never will.
“The arrogance of man is believing that man is in control of nature, and not the other way around.” – Classic line of Ken Watanabe, Godzilla

coolclimateinfo

“Oakland’s lawyers excoriate astrophysicist Wei Hock “Willie” Soon for committing the unpardonable sin of suggesting the sun might have something to do with climate change.”
They, the warmist hoards, can and do lie every day, abusing all people and the truth.
Their methods of deception and subterfuge are much like the Obama-Clinton campaign styles.
The democrats have a fifth column now in the warmist climate brigade. Some of that brigade is always here disrupting your learning of the truth btw.
The truth is weather and climate variability is fundamentally reducible down to daily 1AU TSI.
The brigade is ignorant of the truth, and refuses to look at it.
You know what they say about the truth, it can set you free.
It’s time for skeptics to free themselves of the shackles imposed by imposters and liars.
I am giving you the one weapon you need this week, the truth about the 100% solar influence.
Use it or lose to liars.

Latitude

“People of color”……so they are not equal after all……the same people preaching equality

beng135

Climate chaos claims continue causing consternation
Certainly:
https://youtu.be/VlH7h-_QQw4

Californians Created Collective Carbon Conundrum Called CACA.

“They couldn’t even get his PhD degree right. They call him an “aerospace engineer,”
Mr. Driessen
Willie Soon’s PhD is in aerospace engineering. (See number 6 – Dr. Soon’s biography)
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/willie-soon

Edwin

“Actually, [Beijing] has operated, as Moscow has since the days of Lenin, on a number of principles which taken together can be called the technique of the “great lie.” Among these are: 1) make it big enough and people will believe part of it; (2) repeat it often enough and you will convince some people; (3) say it in enough different ways, and you will convince others…” From the book China Danger 1966. Geobbels said something similar. Progressives, and their environmental allies, operate on these techniques for a variety of subjects, although CAGW is the most prominent. They also, thanks to our over abundance of attorneys, now do it in court. Some judges then operating outside their prescribed duties feed these monster lies and even try to set legal precedent. Combine it all with the news media and we then have serious problem.

R. Shearer

The prosecution/government in China wins 99+% of its cases in China, not sure about Russia. The first and second amends are the first impediments to the U.S. becoming like China.

Mike McMillan

Obviously the Chinese only bring guilty people to trial. And they probably provide the defendants’ lawyers, too.

George V

Too bad the energy companies in California can’t just say “California certainly has strong feelings about fossil fuels, and we don’t want to push something on them that they obviously don’t want”. Then shut down the refineries, shut down the wells, close the gas stations (buy out the owners of the franchises), stop shipping in coal, close the valves on the nat. gas pipelines, and just leave. There’d have to be new refineries and pipelines to supply states that get fuels from California, but this would let California reap the benefits of their policies.

R. Shearer

It’s a money/power play at its core. Like the war on tobacco, it has more to do with taxes taking a larger slice of the pie. At the same time, fossil fuel companies want to stay in business. In some regards, they enjoy the higher prices in California.

TRM

So what are the predictions for the next 20 years from both camps? I will make only one prediction that I’m fairly certain of. I predict that CO2 will continue to increase at roughly 1 PPM/year.
According to the IPCC there should be a 0.5-1.5 C rise in temps over the next 20 years and according to the natural cycles camp there should be a 0.25-1.0 C drop in temps over the same time period.
They both can’t be correct but they both could be wrong. It could stay at a flat plateau for 20 years.
Always ask both sides for predictions with dates and degrees. The scientific method is all about predictions (falsification and replication).

R. Shearer

CO2 is increasing at closer to 2 ppm/y on average. Anyway, I will bet anyone that the Arctic is not ice free this year. I would wager up to $100,000.

TRM

“roughly 1 PPM” … what is a 100% error amongst friends? 🙂
And no I won’t take your bet on arctic ice either. 🙂

knr

but they are not doing science and do not need to follow the scientific method, this is ‘find the lady’ , or heads you lose tails I win ‘ so no worries about ‘ falsification

climatebeagle

Does anyone know of a contact e-mail for the defendants’ (Chevron, Exxon, etc.) lawyers?

Mike McMillan

Write Chevron and claim you were harmed by them. The lawyers will contact you.

Milton Suarez

El Calentamiento Global es REAL y según nuestra hipótesis lo producen las GRANDES ERUPCIONES VOLCÁNICAS que se dan a fin de siglo.La placa marina que subduce debajo de la placa continental llega al manto y se hace magma, el manto se satura de magma y este “busca” por donde escapar y lo hace en forma de erupciones volcánicas,que calientan la corteza terrestre y se produce el deshielo de los glaciares. El Calentamiento Global empieza 15 – 20 años antes de fin de siglo y termina en los primeros 20 años del nuevo siglo.El Calentamiento Global del próximo fin de siglo, tiene que ser mas caliente que el que esta terminando. Hay que prepararse para que afecte menos a la humanidad.
La gran “equivocación” fue CULPAR a los seres humanos del Calentamiento Global…..el hombre CONTAMINA y el daño que causa es peor que el daño causado por el Calentamiento Global.

Is this an April Fools story?

Gary Pearse

One thing I did a long time ago was move to browsers (Firefox) and search engines (Duck duck go) to get away from the Davos global gov mainstream data manipulators. I use Wiki if I want to check the atomic weight of Scandium or the capital of Malagasy but not for items likely to be curated by ‘progressive’ thought inquisitors.

Herbert

My personal favourite for peak climate alarmism is President Obama’s remarks to the Glacier Conference in August/September 2015.They are archived at the White House Presidential records.
The usual litany of catastrophism includes the claim that unless we combat global warming Alaska will experience temperature increases by 2100 of the order of 6 to 13 degrees Fahrenheit.
The temperature increases since 1979 for the Alaskan districts could only be described as trivial but no recognition of this is evident in the President’s comments.

waterside4

‘Percisely’ Forrest Gardener, throughout this farce, it is notable that none of the so called defendants are bothered to offer a defence.
With my long knowledge and association with BP I can assure you that they long ago bought into the global warming scam.

knr

There is far to much money at stack for them to give these ideas up .
In this way it is contacted to the Tobacco cases , in that law firms by taking 20% made ‘billions’ out of the settlements. That type of money will attract some world class sharks and firms willing to spend a lot in order to get a great deal more .
Combine this with the green fanatics and the fact they are losing what little public interest they had and you are only going to see more of these types of cases.
Lets hope the oil firms release that if they give in ‘once ‘ they will spend the rest of their short and poor lives paying out again and again . The greens want them ‘dead ‘ and do not care what that would mean .