SURPRISE: Missing Climate Litigation Industry Slides Turn Up at UCLA

By Chris Horner, Climate Litigation Watch

CLW readers recall Oregon State University’s (and State Climatologist) Phil Mote writing not once but twice about a “secret meeting at Harvard” at which he presented, along with other academics, activists and plaintiffs lawyers advancing their case for “potential state causes of action against major carbon producers.”

Earlier open records litigation had established that participants also included officials from numerous, politically activist state attorneys general offices, as well as municipalities. A recent production from Los Angeles confirmed that it had an attorney present.

What made this event even more shocking was other Mote correspondence confessing the event was also briefing for “prospective funders”. The context in the emails made it clear that this meant funders of the Climate Litigation Industry.

In OSU’s public records production, we also see Union of Concerned Scientists’ Peter Frumhoff write about points “I’ve made in previous talk to AG staff”, specifically that he was “happy to share” with Mote slides he had used. Mote accepted, and Frumhoff did send slides, on April 20, 2016, writing, “Hi Phil, I find these work well as a backdrop to making these points”. However, OSU did not manage to produce those (or other slides attached to other responsive emails).

In response to challenge, OSU wrote, “Oregon State University no longer has the original email.”

Indeed, we only learned of these deleted slides inside a larger “thread” (OSU explained the deletion of Mote’s own Harvard presentation slides by noting he deletes things over 1 MB in size. Ah, yes, public records custodianship in action).

This was disappointing for reasons other than the poor optics it presents. Frumhoff played a key role in bringing about the use of AGs to use the courts to advance, and target opponents of, the failed “climate” political agenda. As we learned in docs obtained in Horner v. George Mason University, Frumhoff told GMU communications prof Ed Maibach in July 2015:

Just so you know, we’re also in the process of exploring other state-based approaches to holding fossil fuel companies legally accountable – we think there’ll likely be a strong basis for encouraging state (e.g. AG) action forward and, in that context, opportunities for climate scientists to weigh in.

It would be interesting- and perhaps very useful – to consider how calls for legal accountability will play out in the court of public opinion in different states/with different subsets of the American public- something perhaps we could work with you all on as this unfolds.

All that was a prologue to a Friday discovery response by UCLA, releasing more public records, illuminating how they processed two open records requests made by GAO’s Chris Horner on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). Those requests were made of UCLA’s law school, which runs a climate litigation center, like Harvard’s and indeed underwritten by the same donor.

Therefore, with Los Angeles counsel James Hunter, GAO is suing on behalf of CEI.

UCLA was a logical place for public records requests after we obtained an agenda — litigating as a predecessor organization against the Vermont Office of the Attorney General — showing that its Law faculty also presented at the “secret meeting at Harvard”. The Vermont OAG fought us for 18 months to avoid releasing that one and, as wrong as it was, their own and the other participants’ obvious anxiety about that document was well-founded. See, e.g., “Law Enforcement for Rent”, and “State AGs for Rent”.

You may have seen one of these UCLA profs recently on 60 Minutes, as an apparently disinterested academic observer commenting on the Juliana v US litigation. It does turn out that she consults for the Climate Litigation Industry. She also had admiring things to say about plaintiffs’ lawyer Vic Sher running the municipalities’ lawsuits, with whom she apparently works in the course of that consulting relationship — more on that later.

These documents are in response to a discovery “Request for Production of Documents” relating to UCLA’s handling of the requests. GAO is pressure-testing UCLA’s claims that it handled these in due course and was not actually stonewalling over the past year. Although this is a limited set of records, what UCLA did release indicates the slow-walking was not the result of delays in the IT department, as the school has suggested. More on that, as well, in a bit.

The email records production nonetheless contains various slides sent to Prof. Ann Carlson for her presentations, including from Frumhoff and Sher. These lay out, for her use, the Climate Litigation Industry’s “ExxonKnew” theory and assignments of individual industry targets’ historic market share liability for, e.g., sea level rise 1880-2010.

You may have seen some of these slides; some were part of two public or quasi-public presentations, in LA and Bonn. A third — Frumhoff’s — was given privately “to AG staff”, according to those OSU emails. One email in the UCLA production states that Frumhoff’s contribution to Carlson’s public UCLA slide show constitute pp. 2-25 of her presentation beginning on the attachment PDF page 240. It seems that these represent some of Frumhoff’s slides that OSU deleted or otherwise could not manage to produce.

These, and other pages to be discussed in coming posts, add further texture to our understanding of how this organized assault on opponents of a political agenda took shape — along with the targeting of Golden Geese to underwrite political constituencies via a new mega-settlement that would be passed on to consumers. It helps further reveal the anatomy of the weaponization of our law enforcement institutions against political opponents (in this case, we’re talking about state attorneys general).

UCLA’s actual production of records it has been withholding, and the privilege log attendant to that, are still to come. Even Friday’s production of certain records about the school’s handling of the requests showed there is much more there to be learned that is valuable about this industry.

The entire email dump (and slides) are here:

Response to 1st RFP (18-5367 and 18-5666) – PRODUCE (PDF)

74 thoughts on “SURPRISE: Missing Climate Litigation Industry Slides Turn Up at UCLA

  1. Wow! Scanning through those slides I didn’t see a single one with a provable scientific fact. That takes real talent.

    • GeoNC wrote:
      “Wow! Scanning through those slides I didn’t see a single one with a provable scientific fact. That takes real talent.”

      I agree with you Geo. But the radical greens do not care about scientific facts – they fabricate their “facts” as needed. Deceit and intimidation are their tools of choice.

      Some thoughts on the topic:

      3. There is NO credible scientific evidence that climate is highly sensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2, and ample evidence to the contrary. Catastrophic humanmade global warming is a false crisis.

      Competent scientists have known this fact for decades. In a written debate in 2002 sponsored by APEGA and co-authored on our side by Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Dr. Tim Patterson and me, we concluded:

      “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

      “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

      Many scientific observations demonstrate that both these statements are correct-to-date.

      The current usage of the term “climate change” is vague and the definition is routinely changed in the literature, such that it has become a non-falsifiable hypothesis. It is therefore non-scientific nonsense.

      “A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.” – Karl Popper

      Climate has always changed. Current climate is not unusual and is beneficial to humanity and the environment. Earth is in a ~10,000 year warm period during a ~100,000 year cycle of global ice ages.

      The term “catastrophic human-made global warming” is a falsifiable hypothesis, and it was falsified decades ago – when fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2 increased sharply after ~1940, while global temperature cooled from ~1945 to ~1977. Also, there is no credible evidence that weather is becoming more chaotic – both hurricanes and tornadoes are at multi-decade low levels of activity.

      Even if all the observed global warming is ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2, the calculated maximum climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only about 1 degree C, which is not enough to produce dangerous global warming.

      Climate computer models cited by the IPCC and other climate activists employ much higher assumed sensitivity values that create false alarm. The ability to predict is perhaps the most objective measure of scientific competence. All the scary predictions by climate activists of dangerous global warming and wilder weather have proven false-to-date – a perfectly negative predictive track record.

      Based on current knowledge, the only significant impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 is greatly increased plant and crop yields, and possibly some minor beneficial warming of climate.

      Excerpted from:

    • Correct. I did see blatant cherry-picking, appeals to authority, strawman arguments, obfuscation and irrelevancies in one slide after another.

      When can we start a class-action lawsuit against the people promoting these class-action lawsuits. We are suffering irreparable harm from their actions.

    • Law suits are rarely about facts. They are about perceptions and which side can make the best perceived case to the jury. In my experience, facts are often not even allowed since they “prejudice” the jury.

    • Found this tremendously funny statement on page 292 of 328 of the above article-referenced full download PDF, on the slide with title “Thomson v New Zealand [2107]”:

      “The IPCC reports provide a factual basis on which decisions can be made.”

      Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, . . .

  2. Phil “A Mote in Someone’s Eye” is a “State Climatologist”? Really? He’s a state apparatchik, in the old Soviet sense.

  3. “poor optics it presents”

    Can we PLEASE stop using this idiotic millennial word? What’s wrong with “visuals”? “Optics” isn’t even appropriate, because optics are things you look through, like glasses or telescopes. It does NOT mean “how something looks”.

    • According to the dictionary:
      (typically in a political context) the way in which an event or course of action is perceived by the public.

      Sorry you don’t like it, but it’s a legitimate usage of the word in a political context and has been for many years now.

      • When a reader doesn’t understand what is written, it is the writer’s fault.
        If everyone lived in a “political context” — raise your hand if you do? —
        for many years, the term might register.
        It doesn’t.

        • When a reader doesn’t understand what is written, the fault can lie with either the reader or the writer. A reader’s ignorance is not the writers fault just as much as a writer’s esoteric word choice isn’t the fault of the reader. The term has been used in political context since the 1970s, as such it has appeared in public newscasts for decades. Your ignorance of the words usage isn’t the fault of the people using the word.

        • Also, there’s these things called dictionaries and there’re available online so they’re easily accessible. If you don’t understand a word or the way in which it is used, you can look it up. There’s no use blaming others for your own ignorance.

          • The easiest way is to highlight the word in question, right- click and then select ‘Search…’. Sometimes the word definition is at the top of the search page; worst case, click on one of the online dictionary links in the search results. There’s also a add-on for Firefox that displays the definition in a pop-up window when the word is highlighted.

        • If everyone lived in a “political context”

          Doesn’t matter if someone lives “in a political context” you are reading an article that clearly has a political dimension. As such political terminology can be expected to be part of it. Your ignorance of that terminology is no one’s fault but your own, you can choice to resolve that ignorance by learning the terminology (easily accomplished with a single internet search) or wallow in that ignorance. you, It seems, have chosen the later.

          • a single internet search should have been a simple internet search though, as we are talking about one single world, a single simple search would do the trick 🙂

        • John H,

          Not writing this to just pile on, but in this case it jumps out at me that I don’t know what “living in a political context” means, so I didn’t know if I should raise my hand, and I don’t understand what you are talking about, and it is your fault.:)

          • DonM,
            I was quoting John Endicott, so if you care ask him or do an internet search.
            I don’t care.

          • 1) You were the writer of the post he was replying to. if he doesn’t understand what you were writing by your own words it’s your fault (“When a reader doesn’t understand what is written, it is the writer’s fault”) so don’t try pinning the blame on me.

            2) clearly you didn’t know what you were talking about since you are blaming what *you* said on someone else (perhaps, in future, you should first try thinking about what the words you are typing means). “political context” isn’t a life style (perhaps if you had “done an internet search” you would have known that before writing your nonsense) . It’s the context in which the word is being used – during political discussions IE politically. One does not “live in a political context” one *uses* a political context for their word choices.

      • John, dictionaries have long ago stopped being the arbiters of correct use of language and currently exist merely to document all words and how they are commonly used, correctly or not. This was proved beyond all doubt when the word ‘literally’ was declared by Websters that it could be used figuratively to add emphasis. “My head literally exploded!” is considered proper usage by Websters.
        A pet peeve of mine is that the recently coined word ‘factoid’ can either mean ‘a bit of knowledge widely considered to be true, while in fact not true’, (its original meaning) or it can mean a trivial fact. The problem with accepting both definitions is that it defies the latin roots of the word, fact=truth, and oid=simulation. It also means the word could stand for something that is true or something that is not true, such that nobody knows which you mean when you use it. The dictionary is not the last word in correct usage anymore.

      • John Endicott
        I don’t exactly live under a rock, but it seems to me that the use of the word “optics” is a recent manifestation, akin to the buzz words that come and go in business. It is unrelated to the traditional use of the word “optics,” and a perfectly good (better!) synonym is the word “appearance(s).” Would you say “One must avoid even the optics of a conflict of interest?” I’ll stick with “appearance” because it is unambiguous.

        • Depends on where you live and what you listen to/read, I suppose. It’s been in use politically since the 1970s here in North America (more so in Canada than the US apparently) whereas it seems to only have more recently been picked up in the UK. The earliest use that I’ve seen quoted is from the Boston Globe in 1973.

    • And, BTW, it’s not a “millennial word”. It’s been in use politically at least as far back as the 1970s.

    • Dictionaries evolve all too quickly to reflect usage. If an incorrect usage catches on, it soon becomes correct. Even pronunciation, for example 99.99% of people mispronounce “gigabyte” which should begin as “gigantic” does – “Jig’ a bite” (Doc in Back To The Future was right).

      • Giga derives directly from Greek, which has no ‘j’ sound. ‘Giant’ also derives from the same Greek word, but indirectly through Latin and French that altered its pronunciation. Just like ‘yah-shua’ in Hebrew became ‘ee-ay-sous’ (yay-sous) in Greek which became ‘Jesus’ in English.

      • Dictionaries evolve all too quickly to reflect usage. If an incorrect usage catches on, it soon becomes correct.

        welcome to the wonders of a living language.

        99.99% of people mispronounce “gigabyte” which should begin as “gigantic” does – “Jig’ a bite” (Doc in Back To The Future was right).

        Doc brown was in the US, thus he was pronouncing it wrong according to the US National Bureau of Standards of pronunciation guides for the metric prefixes. Though to be fair to the Doc, the standards weren’t formalized until a few years after 1955, so he at least has an excuse for pronouncing it wrong.

        • John, I stand corrected. But, do you imply outside the US a soft ‘g’ (“jig-e”) is considered standard?

          • No, I’m saying I don’t know what the standard is outside the US, just that the US has a standard and according to that standard Doc, who is in the US, was wrong.

          • Just asking: Is this a platform for philological debate? (I think not)

            Just saying: I doubt many people come here for exciting philological debate. (I don’t)

            Just suggesting: Stick with what you know, guys and gals…. (I come here for that bit)

          • The general phonics rule is that g *may* say it’s soft sound (j) when followed by an e, i, or y. Notice that the word “get” uses the hard g sound, where as “general” uses the soft g sound.

          • Andy, if there’s a sub-thread that you are not interested in, no one is stopping you from scrolling past it and moving on to sub-threads that do. just saying.

      • Using ‘gigabyte’ as an example of pronunciation is also an example of how the meaning of the word, no matter how is is pronounced, can have multiple meanings.
        From Wiki:
        The use of gigabyte (GB) to refer to 1000000000 bytes in some contexts and to 1073741824 bytes in others, sometimes in reference to the same device, has led to claims of confusion, controversies, and lawsuits.[4][5][6][7] The IEC created the binary prefixes (kibi, mebi, gibi, etc.) in an attempt to reduce such confusion.

        One has to keep an open mind when reading nowadays as words are changing rapidly, in spelling, pronunciation and meaning.

      • Jeff Mitchel;
        But, taken out of context, it could equally describe the initial Hubble Space Telescope mirror. It is best to avoid ambiguity.

        • But, taken out of context …

          The problem then wouldn’t be the use of the word, it would be in the taking it out of context. Taking words out of their context can be misleading for numerous of words. That’s just the way things are in a language in which words can and do have multiple meanings depending on the context they are used.

  4. The multi-billion dollar Tobacco settlement money has all but dried up. So the parasites are looking for new deep pockets. That’s what’s driving the lawyers, dreams of each of them getting a lottery-style payout.

    Michael Crichton had all this figured out by 2003 and published State of Fear in 2004. No wonder they wanted him dead.

    • So true Joel

      I only know of one state that managed to keep most of the tobacco money, and later the BP oil spill money, protected from the politicians. Louisiana. And he was the state treasurer for years and years until reaching the Senate now.

      Here in Florida, the pols went ballistic when they found out the lawyers were becoming multi-multi-millionaires, as in

      lawyers hired by Florida received $3.4 billion for reaching a $13 billion settlement last year

      but those wise country boys further west got hundreds of millions each

      five Texas lawyers will get $3.3 billion

      So now the gravy train could be climate change, as it already is for the academicians that gladly tke a $200,000 grant, or more, as the Shukla’s did.

      Go read “King of Torts” for a good education how the scam works.

      Gums sends…

      • A $200,000 grant is chump change. Not even one year’s expenses (salaries mainly) if it is your only grant by the time overhead is extracted by the institution. Many of the big names though have multiple grants overlapping from NSF or or another federal 3 letter agency (EPA, FWS, NFS, , DOE, etc).

      • Good hint, Gums


        the lawyers plaintiffs negotiate the share on the fines to be expected before the trial begins.

        That should spur the lawyers “to the fight”.


        a money printing machine for the “sue and settlers”.

        “the truth” is 2nd – money counts.

  5. ” … he deletes things over 1 MB in size.”

    Translation: “Either I am either stupid or I believe you are.”

    • I had to do a “deep dive” into out corporate file structure because I simply couldn’t find a thing when I changed to a different unit. Used an Excel macro to provide clickable links, etc., then sorted and whatnot.

      I found 14 copies of something called “Helen’s Note”, which was a PDF of a former colleague who had left, thanking us and providing her home email address.

      So, no, don’t believe anything is ever thrown away in a corporate setting. Keep looking. (Although, of course, there is looking, then there is “Admiral Nelson looking”…

  6. One great irony this exposes is that the fantastic wealth in the modern world often does not pay for better lives, but rather for self-indulgence. The very same individuals who yammer on and on about the need to reduce income inequality work like ferrets to: first, invent means to redistribute the wealth of others to themselves and their cronies; and second, interfere with the wealth creation process itself. The former is a conspicuous and intended goal. I am not sure if they are aware of the latter. Both undermine their stated goals.

  7. Just for context, let’s remember why we’re upset about the AGs’ involvement.

    For the Bolsheviks, the idea of neutral and dispassionate justice is all a bunch of sentimental liberal hogwash. As every good Communist knows, justice is a tool of the class and of the party. It is used to bolster the party and its political control over the state. link

    CAGW is political. Most Democrats believe it. Most Republicans are skeptical. That means the attempted persic prosecution of the oil companies is political. As such, it is anathema to freedom and democracy.

  8. I’m a Qantas captain and I’m telling you you cannot put physical heat through the surface of water The only thing that will penetrate the surface is radiated energy. Because of the existence of surface tension AGW is complete nonsense

    • physical heat …. what does unphysical heat look like???
      Can I also point out radiated energy can still be heat …. try standing in the sun for a bit 🙂

      Probably stick to flying planes because your physics is horrible.

    • I applaud you for achieving the status of nice career as captain in a major airline, but that doesn’t impress me (or anyone here at WUWT) with science bona fides. I have no idea what “physical heat” is.

      While I completely agree that claims of catastrophic AGW are nonsense, a simple global warming due to adding more GHG to the atmosphere is not. The relevant scientific question, the only question that matters is, “How much warming for a given amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere.”
      Which is also a separate question from “How much human CO2 emissions are reflected in the observed CO2 increase in the atmospheric gas measurements?” The latter question, we kinda know the answer from carbon isotope studies, and it is probably around 50%. That is, about half the human emissions from fossil fuel burnings are showing up in the CO2 record of air measurements.

      On the first question of “How much warming will 2x CO2 bring”, we really haven’t a clue. The IPCC for 30 years has been saying it is 1.5 deg C to 4.0 deg C of global warming, without any improvement on that uncertainty. That basically goes from “a no big deal (3 deg C)”. Pretty embarrassing really for the climate science community.

      To your statements:
      Long Wave IR (> 1.5 microns) is also radiated energy, but it only penetrates the first few microns of water before absorptive extinction (thermalized). Water is effectively opaque to IR energy (which is a very good thing for submerged military submarines to stay undetected from above the water).
      The oceans of course absorb to depth the bulk of the solar short wave (SW) radiation (that is 0.8-0.2 microns) that reaches the surface (down to ~100 meters before full absorptive extinction and complete blackness below that for deep water divers). And violet and UV light is the deepest penetrating and thus the most warming of the oceans (which is why water appears blue from a distance in broadband sunlight).

      Incidence angle also comes into play as higher incidence results in reflective loss of a small percentage of sw light absorption. This is a major factor in the high latitudes during summer months (summer being only time of course that the sun is high enough and days long enough to matter) that limits how much SW light penetrates Arctic open waters. It is these brief summers of open water + sunlight that allows plankton to bloom that feeds the krill and fish which sustains the entire Arctic and Antarctic food chains.
      The accepted mechanism of GHG effect though is to warm the surface air layer (the lower troposphere) which then will slow radiative cooling of the oceans, thus allowing them to also slowly warm (equilibrate upward to higher temp. This is much much slower warming than the warming of the air, both due to the thermal mass (deep oceans) and the much high specific heat capacity of water compared to air. When the IPCC talks about 1.5 deg C or 2 deg C of warming, they are implicitly describing air temps, not sea water temps which may only rise in the next century a few tenths of a degree, and that is only in the top 10 meters or so the oceans. It will take thousands of years for any GHG warming to be measurable (above noise and the accuracy of the measurement probes) in the deep oceans below 2000 meters.

      All of this hand-waving I’ve described above though completely ignores convection as a heat transport mechanism. While the physicists in the modelling community blather on about how wonderful their atmospheric radiative transport modelling is, it is convective energy transport that the modellers have to “parameterize” with subjective fudge factors. And convective transport just can’t be modeled by any current generation physical model using first principles (grid size is too granular, and the physical processes too poorly understood), especially convective transport of the massive amounts of latent heat in water vapor that is released at as sensible heat when the vapor condenses to clouds and precip. significant.

      As a professional pilot, you are no doubt familiar with the adiabatic lapse rate, and why its get colder the higher up you go until you reach the stratosphere, where vertical convection stops at the tropopause. The adiabatic lapse rate in the troposphere exists because of convection. To prove that it is convection, which is poorly modeled by the climate community, you might find this tutorial (see link below) quite informative and interesting.

  9. Transparency is not the forte of the Climate Change activist ‘scientists’ or lawyers. They’re quick to shout chicken little alarms but glacial in providing the underlying/unaltered data, analyses, collusion emails, and funding sources.

  10. I have an MS in Economic Geology from Oregon State University. While I was there I encountered professors of tremendous scientific capacity and who conducted themselves with professional standards. I’m especially thinking of Prof. Larry Schecter, Nuclear Physics, Prof. Bill Taubeneck, Petrology, and Prof. Cyrus Fields, Economic Geology. Phil Mote? These Profs I mention would have gone out of their way to tell Phil to knock it off, that the scientific standards of OSU don’t allow mixing Political Science with actual Science. We are not moving in a good direction.

  11. Dictionaries evolve all too quickly to reflect usage. If an incorrect usage catches on, it soon becomes correct. Even pronunciation, for example 99.99% of people mispronounce “gigabyte” which should begin as “gigantic” does – “Jig’ a bite” (Doc in Back To The Future was right).

    • Dictionaries evolve all too quickly to reflect usage. If an incorrect usage catches on, it soon becomes correct.

      welcome to the wonders of a living language.

      99.99% of people mispronounce “gigabyte” which should begin as “gigantic” does – “Jig’ a bite” (Doc in Back To The Future was right).

      Doc brown was in the US, thus he was pronouncing it wrong according to the US National Bureau of Standards of pronunciation guides for the metric prefixes. Though to be fair to the Doc, the standards weren’t formalized until a few years after 1955, so he at least has an excuse for pronouncing it wrong.

      Also, what icisil said in response to your same post further up the thread:
      Giga derives directly from Greek, which has no ‘j’ sound. ‘Giant’ also derives from the same Greek word, but indirectly through Latin and French that altered its pronunciation. Just like ‘yah-shua’ in Hebrew became ‘ee-ay-sous’ (yay-sous) in Greek which became ‘Jesus’ in English

  12. One would wonder how many individuals, businesses, or entities have been damaged, monetarily, mentally, physically or otherwise negatively impacted by these legal antics?

    Who would be the liable party to this group?

  13. The Earth’s climate has been changing for eons and most of that change was before mankind evolved. According to the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. The climate change we are experiencing is so small that it takes networks of very sophisticated sensors, decades to even detect it. We have to be careful not to mix up weather cycles that are part of the current climate with true climate change. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.

    AGW is a conjecture that depends upon the existence of radiant greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere provided for by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. AGW at first seems to be quite plausible but a more in depth analysis uncovers that AGW is bases on only partial science and is full of holes. For example, the radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence that AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. It is true that the so called greenhouse gases absorb LWIR absorption band radiation but that does not mean the they hence trap heat energy because what they absorb they very quickly radiate away. Good absorbers are also good radiators and the primary mode of heat energy transfer in the troposphere is by means other than LWIR absorption band radiation. It would be the non-greenhouse gases that are more apt to trap heat energy because they are such poor radiators to space compared to the so called greenhouse gases. The AGW conjecture has got things backwards.

    Since the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction, all papers and studies that use the AGW conjecture as a basic assumption are nothing but science fiction as well. The real responsible party for climate change is Mother Nature. Lots of luck collecting on a judgement against mother nature.

    If one believes that the use of fossil fuels is bad then they should stop making use of all goods and services that involve the use of fossil fuels but no one seems to be doing that. It is their money that is keeping the fossil fuel companies in business. So if you want to litigate against all those who are responsible for increasing amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere you have to include all those who make use of goods and services that involve the use of fossil fuels and that would include almost all of us in the modern world. In the community where I live if suddenly we were not allowed to make use of goods and services that make use of fossil fuels, most of us would quickly perish. The food we eat, the water we drink, the clothes we wear, the buildings we inhabit, and even most of the surfaces we walk on have involved transport of materials by trucks that make use of fossil fuels.

    • dmacleo
      Well, I suppose we could forget about trying to make fine distinctions in meaning and go back to grunting.

  14. Well isn’t this just peachy. I have two degrees from Oregon State and am entirely disgusted with that University. It used to be the farmer’s friend and a noted contributor to increased food production across the globe. Civil engineering (is that even legal now?) was also a hallmark of its noted successes. Now it appears to be the enemy of the people as it tries to overtake University of Oregon in liberalism.

    The Left Coast has left its mind.

Comments are closed.